Cool with Q, but not the spore drive? Interesting...

[Rahul]

There once was a guy named Q who could traverse all of time and space at will. How? Did he have a ship? No. Did he have technology? No. The one & only answer we're given is that he's really good at snapping his fingers.

For all intents & purposes, Q (as a concept) is not a science-fiction character. He is a fantasy character. Even Harry Potter goes to the trouble of casting spells, but Q's finger-snapping is all we get.

Someone might say, "Well, the unexplained always looks like magic until it's understood." Awesome. So I can come up with the most far-fetched and outlandish ideas, and as long as I don't *explain* it, it's plausible and acceptable? Q made all kinds of appearances in THREE Star Trek series, and after all of that, we're still left with more finger-snapping. Is this the standard of good science-fiction?

So if "less is more" when it comes to explaining things, maybe DSC should've done all the same stuff, but without explaining any of the science behind it, just taking it on faith. It's ironic that when the Red Angel was first introduced, lots of people found any religious undertones to be offensive (before it was revealed to have mechanical/artificial properties by Saru). But Q amounts to a supernatural entity in pretty much every way, and he's been embraced by 3 series. People take him and his abilities "on faith."

For years, I wanted to see sci-fi do a simple task: 1) pick up a real science journal, 2) glean the latest theories/breakthroughs/technology, 3) develop & incorporate them into storylines that were realistic and challenged the imagination. DSC has done exactly that, incorporating the work of the real-life Paul Stamets. They are doing exactly what science-fiction is supposed to do, and it's to be applauded.

And let me say that it's always good science to dissect and challenge theories, even those of Stamets. But my point is that it's a double-standard to hate on a scientifically-based idea in favor of one that isn't science at all - namely Q. If you find Q's finger-snapping methods of traversing time & space to be more favorable, you might be in the wrong genre of fiction. May the force be with you if that's you.

1. The spore drive doesn't have the personality of John DeLancie
2. Q doesn't affect the power-balance of the show itself, he's an outside player.
3. Neither the writers nor the characters took Q serious in a grim-dark BSG-direction - note how he doesn't usually play a role in political drama or war stories - he's always used very playful in the more fantastical stories
4. The series main story-arc premise doesn't rest upon him (because TNG is not a serialized story) - don't like Q? Next week's story will not be influenced by him in any way (that's why people that don't like him usually just don't talk that much abou thim)

Overall, Q was just not one of the core concepts of TNG. For the episode-of-the-week stuff a television series has much more leeway:

We never got a follow-up to Mudd's magic time-reverse-balls from "Magic makes the sanest man go mad"! And people don't seem to really mind. But if a single plot device is one of the core pillars of your show - folks simply expect it to make a) a bit more logical sense and b) fit in-universe, both into canon, but also the fictional power-balance.

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed, but some folks are missing the point. As I said in a reply, I can live with Q in the ST universe, but the whole point here is how some people are bashing a scientific method of space-time travel in favor of a non-scientific one.

I can live with it too. My question was an extension of yours-where is the line and how do we draw it? If one accepts Q than the spore is an odd place to draw the line for unacceptable.

The converse though is if the Q are unacceptable then where is the line for magic in Star Trek? That is the part that I am truly curious about.

We never got a follow-up to Mudd's magic time-reverse-balls from "Magic makes the sanest man go mad"! And people don't seem to really mind. But if a single plot device is one of the core pillars of your show - folks simply expect it to make a) a bit more logical sense and b) fit in-universe, both into canon, but also the fictional power-balance.

Since we don't know the end of the story it is very difficult for me to expect either a or b since the story is not done yet. Anymore than I think Q needed to fit in. And before this argument gets dismissed Q was introduced, as well as the concept of a trial for humanity in the first two episodes. It dominated that story line. We have the benefit of hindsight of how Q would fit in to the larger narrative now. But, I recently watched "Encounter at Farpoint" and was struck by how heavily Q was focused upon.

Also, I don't care about John de Lancie's personality as a measure of acceptance in Star Trek. That made him more irritating than charming. Fortunately, his aloofness was balanced by Picard's smugness.

 

[saladdays]

Indeed, but some folks are missing the point. As I said in a reply, I can live with Q in the ST universe, but the whole point here is how some people are bashing a scientific method of space-time travel in favor of a non-scientific one.

How is the spore drive an actual "scientific method"? Just because it's generally been explained on the show?

I have no problems with the spore drive really, but this method of travel seems to be just as magical as almost anything (lending credence to Clarke's Third Law, actually).

 

[Mudd]

DSC has done exactly that, incorporating the work of the real-life Paul Stamets. They are doing exactly what science-fiction is supposed to do, and it's to be applauded.

What exactly is his work that's being incorporated?

Well, here's a starting place.

Stamets is a mycologist. If you can find actual science that Stamets, or anyone else has done, supporting the use of a fungal network to travel across long distances or between dimensions, please link it here. STD's "mycelial network" is based on anecdotes that Stamets tells because he likes to take psychedelics and is persuaded that his drug experiences demonstrate possible travel between realities, all on exactly the same evidence that people believe in ghosts and UFOs. It's not science, it's a completely subjective interpretation of a drug experience with no supporting evidence.

 

[Farscape One]

The various godlike beings mentioned, for the most part, had some kind of explanation.

With Apollo, he had that temple that amplified his powers. It was destroyed and he left.

With Q, Quinn mentioned to Tuvok that they simply have technology well above anything else.

I think the Thasians are a level a little below Q, but the same explanation likely works for them.

With the Prophets, they never really exerted power outside their realm, the wormhole. They might be the most literal interpretation of existing on another plane of existence, since they exist outside time itself. The wormhole is basically an open crack from their realm where it intersects this universe.

I really believe Clarke's Law is accurate. More godlike races have some explanation than not.

 

[Lord Garth]

Dr. Ethan Siegel, a theoretical physicist, speculates that a fifth dimension might make it possible to use the Spore Drive to bypass what we think of as three-dimensional space, even though he questions the presentation in Discovery. His article is here: A Fifth Dimension Could Make Star Trek Discovery's Spore Drive Physically Possible.

I'll cut and paste what he says below. Don't argue the details about it with me because I don't have a PhD, and definitely not in Physics, but this is what he says...

.
.
.

Jan 15, 2019, 10:00am
A Fifth Dimension Could Make Star Trek Discovery's Spore Drive Physically Possible

Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor
Starts With A Bang, Contributor Group

There are a few rules in the Universe that seem likely to never be broken. Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum; the entropy of a closed system can never decrease; energy and momentum must be conserved. But if the rules that the Universe plays by are different than we understand them today, many things that appear to be forbidden today may be possible after all.

In Star Trek: Discovery, a new type of technology takes us even faster than warp drive: the spore drive. Instead of traveling slower-than-light (via impulse engines) or even faster-than-light through space (via warp drive), the spore drive enables an instantaneous "jump" from one location in space to another, disconnected place a great distance away. The idea has been dismissed as a massive science blunder, but the right circumstances could take it from the realm of science fiction to real-life science.

The three ways that the Star Trek franchise envisions space travel are as follows:

• Impulse engines, which is similar to conventional travel: a fuel is used to create energy, which creates thrust by a backward-facing exhaust, propelling the spacecraft forward.
• Warp drive, where space itself is compressed in front of a spacecraft (and expanded behind it), enabling it to travel through that compressed space in a fashion that's effectively faster-than-light. In the mid-1990s, theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre created a spacetime where this is possible within General Relativity. If negative mass and/or negative energy exist, this could shift from a mathematical possibility to a physical one.
• Spore drive, where a network of mycelium spores spread across the Universe allow a spacecraft to instantaneously travel from one disconnected point to another, as though they miraculously teleported.

The way Star Trek: Discovery implements the spore drive may be a bit suspect, but the basic idea isn't as crazy it sounds.

According to the show, there's a network of fungal spores from a special type of mushroom known as a mycelium. These spores are spread all throughout the galaxy, and permeate not only space, but sub-space as well.

By interfacing with this spore network from a special room present on the ship, a Displacement Activated Spore Hub (DASH) drive enables the ship to travel from space, into subspace, and back into space at a completely disconnected location. It's a clever idea, for sure, that envisions a mechanism for traveling to distant locations more quickly and precisely than even a warp drive could enable.

But, as Star Trek presented it, it's fundamentally flawed.

Here are some reasons why.

1. Star Trek: Discovery relies on the ability of a certain animal — a space tardigrade — to do horizontal gene transfer and incorporate foreign DNA into its own genome. But animals cannot do horizontal gene transfer; only bacteria can. The original paper that contended this was debunked here and here.
2. Mycelium does form an enormous network here on Earth, but this is due to its connected root structure. The problem is that mycelium is an advanced form of life that required billions of years of evolution on Earth before existing; it could not have arisen in other solar systems, galaxies, or universes.
3. Even if these spores were quantum mechanically entangled, they could not be used to teleport matter, or even to communicate faster-than-light.

Although it might be a fun sci-fi idea, the science behind it is untenable.

Unless, that is, you were willing to make one small alteration to the known laws of physics: add in a fourth spatial dimension, to bring us up five dimensions (including time) total. If the Universe had an additional dimension of space, and — most importantly — the capability of allowing objects existing in our three spatial dimensions to utilize the fourth dimension for travel, then everything that the spore drive imagines becomes possible.

To understand how, imagine a Universe with two spatial dimensions, like the surface of a piece of paper. Imagine the creatures that live on that sheet of paper, and — in true Flatland style — what an encounter with someone who could manipulate the third dimension would be like.

A two-dimensional creature has an outside that's exposed to the world: the outline of its body. It also has an interior that isn't: everything on the inside. Armed with your three-dimensional arms (and, if you prefer, a pencil and an eraser), you could easily do the following:

• rearrange its internal organs,
• reach in and remove or add anything into its interior,
• lift it off of the page and place it down anyplace else back on the page,
• or even fold the page so that two disconnected locations overlapped, and almost-instantly transfer that creature from one location to the other.

In short, we would appear like Gods to a creature living in one fewer dimension than our own.

So now let's come to our Universe as we know it: with three spatial dimensions. People have long been exploring the idea of extra dimensions, including how they could solve many of cosmology's greatest problems, and even explain why we have three spatial dimensions and the Universe we do today.

What an extra dimension could do for us — if we were willing to add a fourth one — is very similar to what a third dimension would enable an outside party to do to a two-dimensional creature. In particular, someone who accessed the fourth dimension could:

• perform surgery on us without cutting us open,
• insert, remove, or rearrange something inside of us,
• remove us from our three-dimensional space and place us down anyplace else,
• and by folding our space as appropriate, connect two previously-disconnected locations, enabling what would appear as near-instantaneous teleportation without violating the laws of relativity.

That last part sure does sound an awful lot like what Star Trek: Discovery's spore drive is attempting to accomplish! A spaceship, through some connection with some entity that at least partially resides outside of our three spatial dimensions, is able to transport itself from one location to another faster than via any known means. The spore drive enables transportation to occur faster than normal engines; faster than light; even faster than warp drive would allow.

The way it can do this, realistically, is by leaving our three-dimensional Universe, entering an additional spatial dimension, and then re-entering our three-dimensional Universe. This leads to one fantastic and sweeping conclusion: subspace is actually an additional spatial dimension.

A whole slew of other problems and possibilities with Star Trektechnology — which I myself wrote the book on — are immediately resolved with the identification of subspace as another dimension.

Subspace communication can occur faster-than-light because the signals don't travel through space, but rather through an additional dimension that short-cuts through space.

Because there are additional dimensions, some particles that cannot exist in our Universe — tetryon particles — can exist in subspace.

And, most relevantly, it's possible that some physical entities (or even some biological ones) can not only exist in our Universe, but maintain a component of themselves that exists, and even forms a network, in subspace. This would be entirely consistent with why Geordi La Forge referred to subspace as "...a huge honeycomb with an infinite number of cells."

Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

 

[fireproof78]

Dr. Ethan Siegel, a theoretical physicist, speculates that a fifth dimension might make it possible to use the Spore Drive to bypass what we think of as three-dimensional space, even though he questions the presentation in Discovery. His article is here: A Fifth Dimension Could Make Star Trek Discovery's Spore Drive Physically Possible.

I'll cut and paste what he says below. Don't argue the details about it with me because I don't have a PhD, and definitely not in Physics, but this is what he says...

.
.
.

Jan 15, 2019, 10:00am
A Fifth Dimension Could Make Star Trek Discovery's Spore Drive Physically Possible

Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor
Starts With A Bang, Contributor Group

There are a few rules in the Universe that seem likely to never be broken. Particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum; the entropy of a closed system can never decrease; energy and momentum must be conserved. But if the rules that the Universe plays by are different than we understand them today, many things that appear to be forbidden today may be possible after all.

In Star Trek: Discovery, a new type of technology takes us even faster than warp drive: the spore drive. Instead of traveling slower-than-light (via impulse engines) or even faster-than-light through space (via warp drive), the spore drive enables an instantaneous "jump" from one location in space to another, disconnected place a great distance away. The idea has been dismissed as a massive science blunder, but the right circumstances could take it from the realm of science fiction to real-life science.

The three ways that the Star Trek franchise envisions space travel are as follows:

• Impulse engines, which is similar to conventional travel: a fuel is used to create energy, which creates thrust by a backward-facing exhaust, propelling the spacecraft forward.
• Warp drive, where space itself is compressed in front of a spacecraft (and expanded behind it), enabling it to travel through that compressed space in a fashion that's effectively faster-than-light. In the mid-1990s, theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre created a spacetime where this is possible within General Relativity. If negative mass and/or negative energy exist, this could shift from a mathematical possibility to a physical one.
• Spore drive, where a network of mycelium spores spread across the Universe allow a spacecraft to instantaneously travel from one disconnected point to another, as though they miraculously teleported.

The way Star Trek: Discovery implements the spore drive may be a bit suspect, but the basic idea isn't as crazy it sounds.

According to the show, there's a network of fungal spores from a special type of mushroom known as a mycelium. These spores are spread all throughout the galaxy, and permeate not only space, but sub-space as well.

By interfacing with this spore network from a special room present on the ship, a Displacement Activated Spore Hub (DASH) drive enables the ship to travel from space, into subspace, and back into space at a completely disconnected location. It's a clever idea, for sure, that envisions a mechanism for traveling to distant locations more quickly and precisely than even a warp drive could enable.

But, as Star Trek presented it, it's fundamentally flawed.

Here are some reasons why.

1. Star Trek: Discovery relies on the ability of a certain animal — a space tardigrade — to do horizontal gene transfer and incorporate foreign DNA into its own genome. But animals cannot do horizontal gene transfer; only bacteria can. The original paper that contended this was debunked here and here.
2. Mycelium does form an enormous network here on Earth, but this is due to its connected root structure. The problem is that mycelium is an advanced form of life that required billions of years of evolution on Earth before existing; it could not have arisen in other solar systems, galaxies, or universes.
3. Even if these spores were quantum mechanically entangled, they could not be used to teleport matter, or even to communicate faster-than-light.

Although it might be a fun sci-fi idea, the science behind it is untenable.

Unless, that is, you were willing to make one small alteration to the known laws of physics: add in a fourth spatial dimension, to bring us up five dimensions (including time) total. If the Universe had an additional dimension of space, and — most importantly — the capability of allowing objects existing in our three spatial dimensions to utilize the fourth dimension for travel, then everything that the spore drive imagines becomes possible.

To understand how, imagine a Universe with two spatial dimensions, like the surface of a piece of paper. Imagine the creatures that live on that sheet of paper, and — in true Flatland style — what an encounter with someone who could manipulate the third dimension would be like.

A two-dimensional creature has an outside that's exposed to the world: the outline of its body. It also has an interior that isn't: everything on the inside. Armed with your three-dimensional arms (and, if you prefer, a pencil and an eraser), you could easily do the following:

• rearrange its internal organs,
• reach in and remove or add anything into its interior,
• lift it off of the page and place it down anyplace else back on the page,
• or even fold the page so that two disconnected locations overlapped, and almost-instantly transfer that creature from one location to the other.

In short, we would appear like Gods to a creature living in one fewer dimension than our own.

So now let's come to our Universe as we know it: with three spatial dimensions. People have long been exploring the idea of extra dimensions, including how they could solve many of cosmology's greatest problems, and even explain why we have three spatial dimensions and the Universe we do today.

What an extra dimension could do for us — if we were willing to add a fourth one — is very similar to what a third dimension would enable an outside party to do to a two-dimensional creature. In particular, someone who accessed the fourth dimension could:

• perform surgery on us without cutting us open,
• insert, remove, or rearrange something inside of us,
• remove us from our three-dimensional space and place us down anyplace else,
• and by folding our space as appropriate, connect two previously-disconnected locations, enabling what would appear as near-instantaneous teleportation without violating the laws of relativity.

That last part sure does sound an awful lot like what Star Trek: Discovery's spore drive is attempting to accomplish! A spaceship, through some connection with some entity that at least partially resides outside of our three spatial dimensions, is able to transport itself from one location to another faster than via any known means. The spore drive enables transportation to occur faster than normal engines; faster than light; even faster than warp drive would allow.

The way it can do this, realistically, is by leaving our three-dimensional Universe, entering an additional spatial dimension, and then re-entering our three-dimensional Universe. This leads to one fantastic and sweeping conclusion: subspace is actually an additional spatial dimension.

A whole slew of other problems and possibilities with Star Trektechnology — which I myself wrote the book on — are immediately resolved with the identification of subspace as another dimension.

Subspace communication can occur faster-than-light because the signals don't travel through space, but rather through an additional dimension that short-cuts through space.

Because there are additional dimensions, some particles that cannot exist in our Universe — tetryon particles — can exist in subspace.

And, most relevantly, it's possible that some physical entities (or even some biological ones) can not only exist in our Universe, but maintain a component of themselves that exists, and even forms a network, in subspace. This would be entirely consistent with why Geordi La Forge referred to subspace as "...a huge honeycomb with an infinite number of cells."

Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

Fantastic resource. Thank you!

 

[Teelie]

Remember when the Enterprise-D slingshot around the sun to change the past?

What about when Sisko modified the genesis technology to defeat the founders?

Or when a team when through the Guardian of Forever to stop voyager being lost.

Or when Riker passed through the barrier around the Universe and got super powers.

So quoting some of the most ridiculous things in Trek's past justifies never hearing of it before? I guess that makes sense.

 

[Mudd]

What doesn't make sense is the suggestion that the mycelial network constitutes exploring "real science." In fact, in scientific terms it's up there with tardigrade navigators.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Star Trek toilets

Let's not forget:

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

At the core of this is an attempt to get a balance between science and fiction. In this realm, the writing is done by folks who most likely aren't physicists, but they are attempting to weave together characters and technology in an immersive & engaging way. As such, I won't hold them to the standards of physicists, but the attempt to incorporate the latest theories/breakthroughs/technology is a noble one, and it's part of what sets it apart from fantasy.

Would we hold Gene Roddenberry to the same standards as physicists? In the end, the vast majority of ST sci-fi does involve taking things on faith to some degree or another. After all, who can really give a thorough explanation that would be accepted by physicists as to why blue lights on the side of a ship allow it to travel faster than light? We understand it in general terms, and a person can find some detailed diagrams with some Google searching, but it's still just a theory, just fiction based in elements of science. All the same, the attempt at a scientific link is what makes it science-fiction. They have to go hand-in-hand.

"Lord Garth" contributed a valuable article that should be explored thoroughly. To be more specific again, I'm talking about scientific theory when it comes to the mycelial network, not established science fact. Many of today's inventors, though, say they were inspired by TOS' science-fiction which they turned into science-fact, so it has to start somewhere. Too much sci-fi plays a waiting game to either rehash what's gone before, or do a dressed-up version of something that's science fact, rather than taking a chance on exploring theory and truly visionary thinking. To me, science-fiction should take the lead rather than being a follower.

It's an imperfect pursuit, without a doubt. My main issue is not with Q, though. It's with the idea that silence is preferable to science, that giving no explanation is better than giving an explanation. It's fine for people to take issue with the DSC explanation for the spore drive, but I'm just trying to address the double standard. Maybe you don't have that double standard personally, but Q has gotten a free pass through 3 ST series without even the slightest attempt to explain anything in a concrete way. I can live with Q and Q-like characters, but there should always be an attempt to link the fiction part to the science part, or else go the fantasy route.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll cut and paste what he says below. Don't argue the details about it with me because I don't have a PhD, and definitely not in Physics, but this is what he says...

So quoting some of the most ridiculous things in Trek's past justifies never hearing of it before? I guess that makes sense.

More, where is the line of critique? We don't even know the end of the Spore Drive, but clearly, it must be assumed that it's an immediately a plot hole, continuity error and on and on.

I'm not willing to pass judgement on this facet of Star Trek until I see the end.

As per usual, I would like to see consistency is the critique of Star Trek. If past things are ridiculous, then they are ridiculous and need to be ridiculed just as much as current items.

 

[Teelie]

My main critique is as I said, about them making it a prequel which adds to continuity questions than the fact it exists in the first place.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Q can be explained by science....they just haven't gone into it because it would take away from the mileage they have been getting with him.

I think back to fan films in the 80s. For a production that I was involved with, our 'transporter' was quite simple. Two video cameras, an identical backdrop, and a fade from one camera to the other. Even at that time, people who had no familiarity at all with video equipment were astounded and wondered how we achieved such an "amazing" effect with such a tiny budget.

People are simply unfamiliar with the science behind what Q does. That unfamiliarity is at the heart of this.

 

[fireproof78]

My main critique is as I said, about them making it a prequel which adds to continuity questions than the fact it exists in the first place.

And my critique of that critique is the lack of information regarding how the spore drive ends up.

Mileage will vary, but I see no reason to worry about it when the ending isn't known.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

My main critique is as I said, about them making it a prequel which adds to continuity questions than the fact it exists in the first place.

So it sounds as if you'd be fine with the idea of the spore drive if sometime before the end of DIS the use of the spore drive somehow becomes impossible, such as maybe the mycelial network begins rejecting its use for travel (or some other reason its future use becomes impossible).

 

[Takeru]

My main critique is as I said, about them making it a prequel which adds to continuity questions than the fact it exists in the first place.

Star Trek is full of technologies that were used once and are then never mentioned again, so what's tne difference now? I don't see any continuity issues, starfleet experimented with a warp drive replacement and it failed, it's just not a one episode plot this time.

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

I don't have a problem with the sci-fi aspect of the DASH drive. However, I feel there is a problem that the writers are going to have to address. The lack of it the future needs to be handled properly.

The idea that it isn't in use because of the Federation decided it was too dangerous, or impossible to continue without genetic engineering is not going to cut it. The reason being that, even if the Federation stop, there's no way every group in the galaxy would. It needs to be something that makes it literally impossible to use anymore rather than just covered up. Someone else would come across it eventually

 

[Qonundrum]

Part of the charm of Q is that air of mystery....the very fact that how he does what he does is not explained.

For me, it's like the original Halloween compared to the remake. The newer version goes into back story and explanation and reasons and all that and takes away a lot of the mystery.

Sometimes things are best left unexplained and up to the imagination of the viewer....

Agreed, the mystery is a part of it and the need to explain everything ends up like a runner noticing the shoelaces having come undone at the second-worst possible time.

IMHO: They don't even try to explain Q until VOY and guess what happen when VOY tried? The allusion and metaphor didn't work and I'm not sure any way to do it would have worked. In other words, the OP is wrong - the bulk of the audience eventually did not accept Q. But had the allegory had what was needed to work, would the audience be more likely to accept it. People accept space ships. People accept big Borg cubes. People accepted Locutus despite the obvious being told early on in the story he'd be assimilated. People accepted the Borg Queen despite the obvious and flagrant continuity breaking, so what's different with Q that the sum of is less than the parts themselves?

So let's dig into this a little deeper: What the writers, photographers, editors, actors, et all, all do manage to do keeps the audience from thinking into those little details. That's the issue with plausibility and suspension of disbelief. Too much hurts and brings people out of the mindset of suspended disbelief, too little hurts and brings people out of the mindset, not doing any means something else has to make up for it so people don't start to think. And you never get that 100% in every series from any side. There's no conspiracy theory going on, there's no double standard, straw argument, or shoveled fertilizer, it's nothing more than a mere conflux of factors on both the writers' side and the audience members'. Not as collectives but as individuals. In other words: Art is subjective at all levels and nobody thinks a gray dish is appealing art even though everyone is unmoved by gray. Unless one is a Borg.

John DeLancie having nailed Q above and beyond what was on paper - which wasn't too bad in of itself - pretty much solidified Q as a staple to the show's own lore. And, yes, not 100% of TNG's audience likes Q - either from the get-go, or if at all. Many who liked or adored Q didn't like the background being explored and many reasons exist.

The other issue is far more glaringly simple: TNG wasn't a prequel. There has yet to be a rock solid prequel for any franchise. Even base ideas, noble enough to try to fill in a past that not everybody was clamoring for, which may be good, get worn down. It all goes back to suspension of disbelief, fleshing out the ideas in the writing, and so on. With the added obvious problem that prequels also have a universe of information one already knows. People who've been fans longer are going to be more likely to point out big flaws, sometimes prematurely (e.g. Futuristic ballerina dancing sharship with magic mushroom drive is experimental and an episode finally shows why it's disused in later franchises... or Spock the psycho killer has yet to have his revelation of alien body takeover or whatever since there's not many ways such a person could end up being the pristine officer on the flagship a decade later. Apart from really poor quality scripting, which reminds me of why they ditched the hologram generators for "old tech" or whatever the childish slang colloquialism is.) TNG, until the big screen movies, didn't upend continuity too much. The movies (starting with Kirk but at least "Generations" was rushed) did. The Queen worked because there was enough in dialogue and acting that overcame (for some, not 100%) the canon alterations/retconning/violations/whatever. Even VOY showing different queens (are there many? Or one who vanishes in the nick of time before legions of cubes all go supersplodey?) The acting and dialogue made them work, only on later viewings do questions get asked but even then it's rare for something to become 100% disliked as a result.

 

[Lord Garth]

The Prequel Paradox, common among all prequels, not just Discovery: "Show us something new!" "Why didn't we hear about this new thing before?!"

I'll smack my forehead if there are people who don't like DSC now but will once they know how it fits into TOS. Then these same episodes/seasons they don't like now, they'll say "That wasn't so bad!" All because they know how it fits in and also because of the Unwritten Rule that once it's over and no longer the latest Star Trek, it'll be "okay" to like. If it's for other reasons, then fine, but if turns out to be those reasons and only those reasons, I'll be like, "Come on! Really?!"

I have faith that by the time DSC ends, there will be an explanation for why it's not seen or referred to in TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY (how much that explanation is liked will be a different thing). The reasons they already have that I posted upthread work for me, but I'm sure there will be more to it. That's what the rest of the series is for. As far as referring to the Spore Drive later on, just watch them work a reference to it into the Picard Series or one of its spin-offs. Of course, it's "after-the-fact" but they'll probably do it anyway.

On a tangent, for "rock solid prequels": Better Call Saul is about as good as it gets, being a prequel to Breaking Bad. So such a thing is possible. Rogue One also seems to me to blend pretty seamlessly into A New Hope, but I'm not a Star Wars fan. When it comes to that franchise, I'm just part of the average movie-going audience. So maybe someone who's as big of a Wars fan as I am a Trek fan might say otherwise.