Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

It's not Warp Drive. The Discovery is outfitted with a regular warp drive and this spore drive.

 

When presented with a plate of gems in "Catspaw", Kirk says:
"We could manufacture a ton of these on our ship. They mean nothing to us."

For some reason, as a kid, I always took that to mean they could make them with the transporter. Also, DeSalle says this about the force field: "but I'll bet you credits to navy beans we can put a dent in it."

Throw in a complete lack of any real technological change, as well as not showing any differences in how that society interacts with that technology and you've got the reason I'm not interested in seeing a 25th century Trek show. It would just be the same old thing with a few superficial changes.

 

Would replicator technology really create a post-scarcity situation? How are replicators fueled? The raw matter has to come from somewhere.

Kor

 

if you had a system to convert energy to matter and an extremely efficient way to genrerate that efficiency, you wouldnt even need a replicator. that's just icing on the post-scarcity cake. If we develop fusion and start tapping the asteroids and jovian moons, for instance, we'd most likely be post-scarcity within a century or less.

 

I don't think replicators are really what make the Federation post scarcity.

I imagine its more their energy production capability, which is what really matters.

Fusion would already possibly solve all want, and they have antimatter, a step up still.

Basically Kardashev 2 level.



I imagine its trivially easy for them to create space habitats so land is a none issue.



Honestly space habitats are trivial once you can get into space easily.

But the Kelvin Timeline explicitly showed arcologies too.



So Earth could probably support 100 billion people like that...

(Never mind the hundred trillion that would fit in a solar system swarming with habitats).

Energy is basically all that limits a civilization - energy is work - with infinite energy you can do infinite things - matter and energy are one, so the ability to generate infinite energy would make you able to generate any structure or resource you could think of - either by mining it (energy for people, machines, robots), or with a replicator by directly generating it - in Star Trek they run up against energy limits all the time (a fusion reactor might be able to power a country, but the shields and phasers output/deflect as much as the total US power grid in a single shot) - and warp FTL is so energy intensive it needs an anti-matter reactor.

 

Which is how we know replicators do not work that way. If they really could convert "energy to matter" then starships wouldn't need to use antimatter as a fuel, nor would dilithium be neccesary for warp drive, you could literally dump a mass of anything you want into the warp core and convert it into energy. Replicators really just use transporter-like gadgetry to reorganize matter from one form to another, and some energy is always lost in the process, which makes replicators a net LOSS of energy no matter what you use them for.

They wouldn't by themselves give you a post-scarcity, but they would definitely give you the ability to cheaply mass produce essential goods needed for survival.

 

Well I never expect Trek tries to stay within the laws of thermodynamics or anything, but yes there should always loss of energy.

 

There were certainly some basic points Roddenberry made about what he thought Star Trek should be, and it'd be very hard to say many of these are on display in this show.

Of course you're not allowed to say that now, as legions of sneery "move with the times" or "Roddenberry's vision was cash" types will descend on you.

Quite why a successful and popular formula had to be binned, I don't know. But there it is

 

Interesting post. What precisely are the basic things Roddenberry said Star Trek should always be about, and how specifically do you judge the majority of those to be absent in Star Trek Discovery?

Last time I checked, humanity has learned to survive into the future and explore the galaxy together, despite our differences.

Not sure what other "basic" things Roddenberry felt Star Trek should be about...so I'd like to understands that better.

 

Oh, just little things, like exploring the issues of our time through allegorical stories set in other societies. Maybe also having a crew who are likeable and get on well with each other? That works a tonic with viewers dont cha know, when they have a collective group they can root for.

 

Exploration of issues or making commentaries on humanity was always supposed to take a back seat to entertaining storytelling. The 1967 Star Trek writers' guide said so.

Kor

 

Yes, if only they'd shown how a crew thrown together for a nearly impossible mission finally came together in the last episode and with risk, self-sacrifice and comforting of those who were in pain and stress, managed to save a planet full of peaceful beings and stop the invading threat. I must have been watching something else.

 

While it's a positive for viewers, it is not necessary to comply with "Gene's vision."

 

Gene's Vision was making a lot of money and running a show that provided him with creepy access to hit on female employees by convincing Lucy Ball that his idea of basing a show off of Forbidden Planet would pay out. Eventually it did, and the other thing worked out for him too.

 

@XCV330, You must have been. Aside from the Burnham/Tyler dynamic, which understandably will be close, the majority of other interactions have come across as cold, indifferent or outright hostile. No chance of any good natured verbal sparring like Spock and Bones or Odo and Quark either. Oh no, this all FAR too intense and intellectual for that... well, or it likes to think it is.

 

I think Discovery is a dull slog, and still believe "Roddenberry's Vision" was about cash, women and drugs.

 

That good-natured racist ripping of Spock every time Bones and Kirk ganged up on him more or less forcing him to respond in kind to defend half his lineage? Doesn't really play well as well now as it used to. It's good in reruns, but its like Yeoman Rand's wig, best kept in a sealed container.

and it took a long time to get Odo and Quark's frenemy dynamic figured out. This show has had 9 episodes, all of them in a war-arc.

Discovery gets held to a double standard by people who set outright not to like it. There is gentle banter, but you have to see it. hell they dedicated 5 minutes to a loving conversation over toothbrushing. There was nothing cold in watching Burnham learn how to react to people in a way she never learned on Shenzou (probably due to being teacher's pet to Georgiou, different thread material). She's cold because she was raised that way, but when she talked to Tyler after his experiences relieving whatever happened to him, that was by no means cold.

If Discovery has to be tight and ship-shape for war scenes, people blast it. When it lets its hair down for a party, the same people blast it. There's no pleasing them, so I hope the showrunners don't bother trying and just continue to make an outstanding series.


If I may interperet, you seem to want some cuddly alternate version of a show that was not designed to be that way in the first place. maybe you might make an edit like this other SMG show:

 

Well, yeah to that point - one of the reasons I gave up on it was that I didn't give a damn about what happened to anybody.

Well...after Georgiou got eaten, anyway.

 

You are way over analysing if you have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship down as "racist". The last time I checked that banter was one of the lychpins that got the franchise going in the first place. Even the now sometimes pilloried TNG made plenty of humourous pops at the quirks of Data and Worf.

I hope you don't have me down as hater. I'm not out to cruxify the Discovery no matter what. For me lots more parties, chats over brushing teeth, Tilly's jokes and such would be ideal. We're now in a situation though where season runs are going to be about 35% less than in the old days. With the bulk of screen time going into servicing this drab Klingon war idea, getting the majority of viewers to feel any real warmth for the show is going to be an uphill struggle.

Star Trek should not leave you feeling cold.

 

I wouldn't deny he was a sexist pig. I never said he was a great guy. He was a man though who advanced a few ideas concerning his main creation that all the evidence would seem to show do hold some water.