Spoilers The Science Behind Discovery's Burn

[The Wormhole]

Why is it terrible though?

Shatner's impersonation of a horse left much to be desired. Or was that intentional and forced on Kirk by Parmen as well?

 

[NX_01]

They're using real science to try and create fictional science.

Understood. My use of „people“ did not refer to the authors of that article, more to a sub group of the fandom.

My further critic is directly targeted at the decision of the show runners to go for stories that require this huge amount of pseudo science.
The shows handling of biology, DNA and so on was criticized throughout the run of the series.
I did not say Trek didn‘t do this before, but I wished they would do it less.

I personally don‘t like that way of modern Trek handling science, because modern society is facing real issues with people that deny scientific evidence, and creating their pseudo sciences.

I know drawing this connection is a stretch.

 

[StarMan]

So much this. I wish we were willing to hold Discovery, or indeed new Trek in general, to the standard of other contemporary shows, or to the standards of the best written sci-fi TV, rather than sifting through the archives for a sillier thing that Trek did. A key argument for Discovery's look was that it had to move with the times, not recreate the 1960s, and that was absolutely right. The same should be true of the writing.

Indeed. Defence against criticism of the show will often veer in the direction of "you just want your <insert Trek series> back". Do I have a fondness for what came before? Of course. Do I want to see 60's or 80's / 90's / early 00's Trek replicated in 2021? Sweet Jesus, no. Not being a Discovery fan has little to do with how the tech looks, continuity / canon or because it's lacking the distinctly grey, inoffensive "we are all very pleased" Berman palette.

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed. Defence against criticism of the show will often veer in the direction of "you just want your <insert Trek series> back". Do I have a fondness for what came before? Of course. Do I want to see 60's or 80's / 90's / early 00's Trek replicated in 2021? Sweet Jesus, no. Not being a Discovery fan has little to do with how the tech looks, continuity / canon or because it's lacking the distinctly grey, inoffensive "we are all very pleased" Berman palette.

So, I am curious what is it that people who are criticizing Discovery regularly looking for in Discovery? What would you change?

I'm honestly curious because I don't see Discovery as much different than the few other shows that I watch. There's big emotions, people making poor decisions, and writing for the sake of dramatic events, rather than necessarily what makes sense. I know my exposure to various modern shows is limited, so I'll admit that what is considered "good" TV hasn't really made it across my screen because it doesn't interest me. So, what am I missing?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Shatner's impersonation of a horse left much to be desired. Or was that intentional and forced on Kirk by Parmen as well?

Seemed like a guy who didn’t want to be forced into acting like horse.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Understood. My use of „people“ did not refer to the authors of that article, more to a sub group of the fandom.

My further critic is directly targeted at the decision of the show runners to go for stories that require this huge amount of pseudo science.
The shows handling of biology, DNA and so on was criticized throughout the run of the series.
I did not say Trek didn‘t do this before, but I wished they would do it less.

I personally don‘t like that way of modern Trek handling science, because modern society is facing real issues with people that deny scientific evidence, and creating their pseudo sciences.

I know drawing this connection is a stretch.

It's science fiction. It's under no obligation to teach the audience science. It's under no obligation to limit it's self real science. It's job is to entertain and maybe through that someone gets interested in science and they become scientists.
You don't get your legal advice from Better Call Saul. You don't get medical advice from Grey's Anatomy. And you don't get science advice from Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

It's science fiction. It's under no obligation to teach the audience science. It's under no obligation to limit it's self real science. It's job is to entertain and maybe through that someone gets interested in science and they become scientists.
You don't get your legal advice from Better Call Saul. You don't get medical advice from Grey's Anatomy. And you don't get science advice from Star Trek.

However, I have learned how to hide from the police due to CIS

 

[Mudd]

So much this. I wish we were willing to hold Discovery, or indeed new Trek in general, to the standard of other contemporary shows, or to the standards of the best written sci-fi TV,

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Mudd]

As you interacting with a non native speaker, maybe you could elaborate.

Not sure if I am not getting your humor, or if you are implying here, I am thinking climate change is a hoax.
Please feel free to reach out via PM.

It's a joke about people who are impressed by jargon and the simple existence of a credential attached to a claim, and therefore willing to accept nonsense. A lot of climate denialists are in that group.

 

[dupersuper]

I'm honestly curious because I don't see Discovery as much different than the few other shows that I watch. There's big emotions, people making poor decisions, and writing for the sake of dramatic events, rather than necessarily what makes sense.

Um...what else are you watching?

However, I have learned how to hide from the police due to CIS

Be careful: every one thinks they've learned that from TV until they actually have to hide from the police.

 

[fireproof78]

Um...what else are you watching?

Cobra Kai, and Mandalorian.

Be careful: every one thinks they've learned that from TV until they actually have to hide from the police.

 

[Deks]

So much this. I wish we were willing to hold Discovery, or indeed new Trek in general, to the standard of other contemporary shows, or to the standards of the best written sci-fi TV, rather than sifting through the archives for a sillier thing that Trek did. A key argument for Discovery's look was that it had to move with the times, not recreate the 1960s, and that was absolutely right. The same should be true of the writing.

Agreed... the visuals did move on... but the writing either stayed the same or regressed.

 

[dupersuper]

Cobra Kai, and Mandalorian.

"big emotions, people making poor decisions, and writing for the sake of dramatic events"

I'll give you the last one, but the main character is a stoic, efficient bounty hunter...

 

[fireproof78]

"big emotions, people making poor decisions, and writing for the sake of dramatic events"

I'll give you the last one, but the main character is a stoic, efficient bounty hunter...

He is a cipher, which means other people make the big emotional moments. And he's only efficient if the plot calls for it. The Mandalorian as a show has the main emotion of being warm fuzzies for the audience. Big dramatic moments.

 

[Tuskin38]

 

[Unicron]

Just for my own curiosity, because I don't recall enough details atm about the earlier seasons. Did those seasons actually mention the role dilithium plays as a regulator, or was it not a huge factor until Discovery jumped into the future and learned about the Burn? I ask because to a newer fan who hasn't watched other series, that detail might seem confusing since the current season doesn't explain it either. It just assumes the viewer would understand why the loss of dilithium would cause ships to explode and such.

 

[Tuskin38]

Hm, no I don't think the Discovery ever explained what dilithium did.

 

[Deks]

Hm, no I don't think the Discovery ever explained what dilithium did.

Didn't need to because previous Trek's already did that.
They described Dilithium as means of focusing and regulating M/AM reactions to get large amounts of usable energy to run the Warp drive (but we've seen that alternate FTL methods that are FASTER than Warp and actually work, don't need Warp cores (aka, Dilithium and M/AM) to run.

 

[Tuskin38]

Didn't need to because previous Trek's already did that.

Not everyone has watched the previous series, it should have been explained for the new fans because it was important to the plot.

(but we've seen that alternate FTL methods that are FASTER than Warp and actually work, don't need Warp cores (aka, Dilithium and M/AM) to run.

We also saw and had some mentioned in this season.

 

[Deks]

Not everyone has watched the previous series, it should have been explained for the new fans because it was important to the plot.


We also saw and had some mentioned in this season.

Yes, but the stupid thing the writers did was that NONE of them apparently proved 'viable'... even after 800 years of advancement (the 32nd century looked more like 80 years worth of advancements).