Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[Christopher]

Ha-ha. Yeah. True. It had potential, and I liked Hawk a lot, even if he was a bit underused at times. But they didn't explore it enough.

Hawk was a great character who never got a chance to flourish. Still, I believe he did have a bit of an afterlife. I'm convinced that Galaxy Quest was partly inspired by Buck Rogers season 2. The in-universe GQ series started in 1979, the same year BR premiered. And both GQ and Buck season 2 featured a macho action lead played by a spotlight-hogging actor (Buck/Taggart), his stoic alien warrior friend who was the last of his species (Hawk/Dr. Lazarus), and a female lead who had an ill-defined shipboard role and was mainly used as eye candy (Wilma/Tawny). And child genius Laredo was very reminiscent of Gary Coleman's season 1 guest character. If it wasn't a deliberate homage, it was an astonishing coincidence.

Season 1 was pretty campy, but in many ways that was part of the charm. I don't think it was meant to be taken too seriously, yet there were still some great stories in season 1 at the same time. It seemed to have a good balance of stories and campiness. Almost like this is a serious story, but we can have a little fun too. Season 2 lost a lot of the 'fun'. Unfortunately it seems Gil Gerard had a lot to do with the change in tone, something he regrets doing these days. Season 2 could have been better if they retained some of what made season 1 so good, not take itself too seriously, and expanded a bit more.

The problem with season 1 is that showrunner Bruce Lansbury didn't believe mainstream audiences could handle science fiction ideas, so he insisted on "basic" stories, conventional TV action plots with superficial sci-fi trappings. You had the casino/mob episode, the terrorist-plot episode, the prison break episode, the cruise ship episode, the Olympics episode, and so on. Nonetheless, season 1 did an effective job of subtle worldbuilding, creating an appealing future and telling fairly entertaining, if superficial, stories within it.

Season 2 tried to be more science-fictional and high-concept, but unfortunately, aside from a strong premiere and finale, its concepts were mostly quite dumb -- and yet it played them as ultra-serious most of the time, with none of season 1's sense of fun and self-deprecation.

 

[Greg Cox]

Come on Christopher, Greg Cox already explained all that. The Eugenics Wars happened, you just never knew it .

Sort of ironic in a way. Greg Cox seems pretty nonchalant about continuity, it doesn't seem to bug him too much, yet he writes whole books explaining away inconsistencies . Though as you noted earlier, it's probably the same reason, sort of a challenge, can you take a war that obviously never happened and explain how it 'could' have happened. Or explaining away the various inconsistencies between 'Space Seed' and TWOK, and even explain why Khan was so singularly focused in TWOK on getting Kirk (though that was less of an issue for me since mankind can become obsessed with vengeance under the right circumstances).

Exactly. It's fun, it's a game, and intended to amuse the 2% of hardcore fans who actually read the books. (Although I try to make my books accessible to the casual reader as well.) It's not like I stormed out of THE WRATH OF KHAN in an outrage because it was inconsistent with "canon" or whatever, or published angry screeds in fanzines "proving" that KHAN was not in the same timeline as the Original Series (or, as we called it back then "STAR TREK"). It's still my all-time favorite TREK movie, inconsistencies and coincidences and all.

I'll admit that when I was a teenager I tended to get more worked up about continuity errors in movies and comic books. "But . . . but that character lost their powers in MARVEL TEAM-UP #62! Did they forget all about that?" But as I got older, I realized that continuity was just a virtue, not the only virtue that mattered. Was John Ostrander's HAWKWORLD series 100% consistent with the old Silver Age HAWKMAN comics I grew up on? Not really, but it was still a great book. Does THE BRIDES OF DRACULA kinda contradict the previous movie, HORROR OF DRACULA? Yep, but it's still my favorite Hammer DRACULA movie.

Same applies to STAR TREK. Don't get me wrong. I'll go nuts trying to make sure I get the details right in one of my novels, but, like Christopher says, I don't see it as some sort of moral imperative. Nor do I think any given movie or episode or book fails just because it contradicts two lines from "Friday's Child" or whatever. Preserving the sacred "canon" is not the only thing that matters, although some folks seem to think so.

 

[Christopher]

Same applies to STAR TREK. Don't get me wrong. I'll go nuts trying to make sure I get the details right in one of my novels, but, like Christopher says, I don't see it as some sort of moral imperative. Nor do I think any given movie or episode or book fails just because it contradicts two lines from "Friday's Child" or whatever. Preserving the sacred "canon" is not the only thing that matters, although some folks seem to think so.

And again, how we approach our own creations as writers is different from how we approach other people's creations as members of the audience. I hold my own works to high standards of continuity and plausibility, but I'm still able to enjoy works of fiction that employ different standards. Because there's a difference between what you're responsible for and what you're just observing as an outsider.

 

[Damian]

I'll go nuts trying to make sure I get the details right in one of my novels, but, like Christopher says, I don't see it as some sort of moral imperative.

Ha-ha, yeah. Despite my moaning and groaning, I don't believe the Discovery showrunners are going to be struck by lightning because of the spore drive.

And despite my complaining, I still find it all entertainment. While I may wish Discovery was more consistent with prior series, it's a different type and level of wish then say wishing my daughter to get a good education and good career when she grows up. If I was able to only win one wish, the 2nd would win without a 2nd thought.

Now, if I had Jeannie from "I Dream of Jeannie", maybe I could fit Discovery in there somewhere

Season 2 tried to be more science-fictional and high-concept, but unfortunately, aside from a strong premiere and finale, its concepts were mostly quite dumb -- and yet it played them as ultra-serious most of the time, with none of season 1's sense of fun and self-deprecation.

That's it probably in a nutshell. Season 1 could have maybe used a bit more of the science fiction and concepts of season 2, and season 2 could have used some of the fun of season 1.

 

[JD]

For me, the big change was that they were suddenly all honorable and noble. The chapter on villains in The Making of Star Trek had made it clear that the Klingons celebrated treachery and deceit and believed that "honor is a despicable trait." It was the Romulans who were the honorable ones. TNG completely inverted the cultural character of the Klingons and Romulans so that having the Klingons as allies could be justified. Now, that was a major continuity alteration.

I've always assumed that went back to the switch from Romulans to Klingons as the bad guys in The Search For Spock.

 

[Christopher]

I've always assumed that went back to the switch from Romulans to Klingons as the bad guys in The Search For Spock.

Yeah, Kruge's "You will be remembered with honor" line is what let them justify it, probably. But as I said, I think the reason for the change was that TNG's producers wanted Klingons to be allies now in order to show progress since the 23rd century, and just to avoid repeating the same story beats with the same villains. (IIRC, Roddenberry didn't want to reuse any TOS races at all and had to be talked into including Worf.) And the standard way to make warrior characters/cultures in fiction sympathetic or heroic is to make them "honorable" warriors. As in, they still go around killing people, but they do it according to a strict code, so that makes it okay somehow.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, Kruge's "You will be remembered with honor" line is what let them justify it, probably. But as I said, I think the reason for the change was that TNG's producers wanted Klingons to be allies now in order to show progress since the 23rd century, and just to avoid repeating the same story beats with the same villains. (IIRC, Roddenberry didn't want to reuse any TOS races at all and had to be talked into including Worf.) And the standard way to make warrior characters/cultures in fiction sympathetic or heroic is to make them "honorable" warriors. As in, they still go around killing people, but they do it according to a strict code, so that makes it okay somehow.

You can also point to "The Day of the Dove" to some degree. Michael Ansara's Kang veers more toward the noble warrior archetype than, say, schemers like Koloth or Kras or whomever. He kinda sets the tone for what the Klingons would become.

 

[Christopher]

You can also point to "The Day of the Dove" to some degree. Michael Ansara's Kang veers more toward the noble warrior archetype than, say, schemers like Koloth or Kras or whomever. He kinda sets the tone for what the Klingons would become.

Which kind of fits what I'm saying, because "Dove" was about Starfleet and the Klingons setting aside their differences against a common foe, and was the first/only TOS episode to portray the Klingons sympathetically.

Hmm, I never really thought about it, but "Errand of Mercy" and "Day of the Dove" are similar in that they both involve Starfleet and the Klingons having to set aside a conflict in response to incorporeal superbeings, but the difference is that in "Dove," they choose to do so despite the superbeing, rather than having it forced on them by the superbeings. Which is really a more meaningful resolution, and a step forward toward the Organians' prediction.

 

[Damian]

And the standard way to make warrior characters/cultures in fiction sympathetic or heroic is to make them "honorable" warriors. As in, they still go around killing people, but they do it according to a strict code, so that makes it okay somehow.

I don't think it makes it 'okay' per se. Just that they're not mindless killers. Honorable Klingons probably would frown on outright murder for instance. An honorable Klingon might kill you in battle, or even in passion. But an honorable Klingon would not kill you for your money, or because they were jealous of you. That would be, well, dishonorable.

As I noted before, I sort of liked the upgrade in Klingons in TNG. It gave them a new dimension. They weren't just the token bad guy. They were dangerous and not to be trifled with, and I probably would avoid making them angry. But they don't kill you just for being in the same room as them.

ou can also point to "The Day of the Dove" to some degree. Michael Ansara's Kang veers more toward the noble warrior archetype than

Yeah, I would say there's a certain honor to Kang. He was a bit different then some of the other Klingons in the original series. His code of honor wasn't as refined as later Klingons, but he seemed to have a certain code. Other Klingons of that era might not have cared as long as they got the chance to kill humans. But he was not going to be used. If he was going to kill humans it would be on his terms, not something other. It's a more primitive honor code, but it's there. Maybe Kor to a lesser extent. There was a bit more complexity there. He had a certain warrior's respect for Kirk for example. Gorkon of course is a case I would say of that more refined honor code.

And as Christopher noted, TNG was the proof of the Organian's prophecy, or prediction.

But it's another instance where the novels provided some more details about how the Klingons found (or refound) their honor based on Kahless by the 24th century.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I always assumed there were multiple similar but different mirror universes. If you can have one, then why not more. That way there are the two lit verse versions and the Discovery version.

I mean, we already have novels with multiple takes on the Mirror Universe that aren’t wholly compatible with one another - Diane Duane’s Dark Mirror isn’t compatible with canon, Dark Passions was ignored by later versions, the entry in Seven Deadly Sins has Mirror!Kassidy Yates being killed prior to Crossover when (I believe) Saturn’s Choldren features her alive after the Terran Rebellion captures Regent Worf, the Shatnerverse had Mirror!Kirk become Emperor Tiberius and survive to the 24th century... There are as many “similar but different” takes on the Mirror Universe as there are for the Prime Universe when it comes to novel interpretations.

 

[JD]

IDW also has their TNG: Mirror Universe series, which presents of a different version of the MU TNG cast from the Novelverse MU TNG cast.

 

[Damian]

I mean, we already have novels with multiple takes on the Mirror Universe that aren’t wholly compatible with one another - Diane Duane’s Dark Mirror isn’t compatible with canon,

Yeah. Obviously when Dark Mirror first came out I thought it was one mirror universe, but then DS9 had their episodes. "Parallels" showed us their are multiple dimensions, so I figure there could be variations of the Mirror Universe as well, some where the Terran Empire survived into the 24th century. Not a big deal.

 

[diankra]

Well for me continuity can be an issue. I dwell on it a lot, and I'll admit I'm not always consistent about it. Some things get on my nerves, others don't. Like the computer lie detector test in "Wolf In the Fold" disappearing by TNG. That doesn't bother me. Nu-Klingons drive me up a wall. Some of the changes in Data's personality that you brought up, nope, not a big deal for me. Intra-ship beaming drives me crazy. I know, it's probably frustrating for people to debate me on consistency. Some of what I consider macro inconsistencies others would think not a problem, and others I poo-poo others may think are a pretty big deal.



Yeah, I agree with you there. I mean, there was apparently some revision in WWIII's time frame and what it involved, but nothing that I thought that was too reconcilable. In "Space Seed" it seemed to be noted that the Eugenics Wars and WWIII were one in the same. In "Breads and Circuses" only WWIII was mentioned, but some may have thought it was still the Eugenics Wars at the time. It seemed later they were split up.

And yeah, 37 million dead would seem to indicate an extremely deadly war. Commander Riker, in a nod to "Bread and Circuses" made mention of the same 37 million in First Contact. And I agree, using nuclear weapons made sense, it would cause that death toll, but as there are different types of nuclear weapons, they obviously didn't use the big mama bombs that would wipe out all life on Earth (a la the omega bomb from Beneath the Planet of the Apes say).

And in a way it actually makes sense to me. Sometimes something has to get really bad, sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you start to recover. That's how I felt about humanity. We got worse and worse as the 21st century wore on, and finally it took a World War for us to finally turn a corner and start climbing out of the pit. To become the paradise Earth would be by the 23rd century (maybe even 22nd century) we needed to hit rock bottom first.

To be horribly brutal, 37 million dead is about eight major cities. Rest of the world could be relatively unaffected.

 

[Sci]

To be horribly brutal, 37 million dead is about eight major cities. Rest of the world could be relatively unaffected.

I mean, that kind of death toll is inherently economically and socially devastating, so I wouldn't say they'd be unaffected. You need only look at the havoc wrought by the Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War to see how much damage a war that kills even a few million people can cause to multiple societies. But yeah, it's also not an existential threat to the entirety of human civilization the way World War III is supposed to be.

 

[Markonian]

The novelverse has established that there are different permutations of the mirror universe.

Sisko meets alternate Emissaries, including a Terran Empire officer.


In TNG Q & A, we get to see the ISS Enterprise NCC-1701-E in 2380, without it contradicting the Galactic Commonwealth continuum.

 

[GaryH]

I am perfectly fine with new technology and new uniforms as this is a tv show made in 2019 instead of 1960s so they are being as impressive as they can with the budget they have. I also have no problem with Spock having a sister he did not mention as very few characters ever talked about their siblings as it was not relevant to the story of the week, and we do not know if there is a story reason why she would not still be around ten years later. Hell, Sulu has a daughter which would have been much more likely to be mentioned than a sister (even if it gave us a great Peter David novel).

What really personally bothers me is that they keep mentioning that damn spore drive technology every damn episode that has never been used in future series. Lol. I hoped the visit to the sporeverse was going to show spore drive usage was destroying them so Starfleet would be it. It’s really freaking annoying me. Just use Warp drives.

End of rant

 

[Christopher]

I also have no problem with Spock having a sister he did not mention as very few characters ever talked about their siblings as it was not relevant to the story of the week, and we do not know if there is a story reason why she would not still be around ten years later. Hell, Sulu has a daughter which would have been much more likely to be mentioned than a sister (even if it gave us a great Peter David novel).

TWOK (the extended cut) gave Scotty a nephew even though he'd never mentioned a sister; indeed, The Making of Star Trek had declared him an only child. We still don't know if McCoy had any siblings; there's nothing to rule it out. And we know nothing about Uhura's family.

What really personally bothers me is that they keep mentioning that damn spore drive technology every damn episode that has never been used in future series. Lol. I hoped the visit to the sporeverse was going to show spore drive usage was destroying them so Starfleet would be it. It’s really freaking annoying me.

I don't understand this reaction. From the start, they've been seeding the spore drive narrative with all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't be viable in the long term. Its use requires either torturing a sentient species or conducting illegal genetic engineering. It screws up the mind of a genetically engineered operator. It risks damaging the mycelial network and endangering the existence of the multiverse. That alone should've required it to be banned forever. And season 2 has established that the drive was going to be dismantled but Pike had that postponed for the sake of his mission. It's always been clear to me that the drive's days are numbered.

 

[Damian]

I also have no problem with Spock having a sister he did not mention as very few characters ever talked about their siblings as it was not relevant to the story of the week, and we do not know if there is a story reason why she would not still be around ten years later.

Yeah, I'll admit when it first came out that Burnham was his long lost foster sister I was a bit surprised. I was like, where did she come from? But I quickly got over it. I mean, he has an actual half-blood sibling he never mentioned to Kirk, his closest friend, until TFF. And as Christopher noted other of the bridge crew may have family members we never heard of, in fact, I'd expect they would. I don't imagine they were all single children.

Well except Chekov, he was a bit confused in 'Day of the Dove' but we know he has no brother

I don't understand this reaction. From the start, they've been seeding the spore drive narrative with all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't be viable in the long term. Its use requires either torturing a sentient species or conducting illegal genetic engineering. It screws up the mind of a genetically engineered operator.

Yeah. My main thing with the spore drive is that it is an incredible peace of engineering. You can instantly transport to anywhere in the universe. Now granted, it causes a great deal of damage on many levels. But I would think Starfleet would make an effort since it's so fantastical to find a safe way to use it that doesn't cause all that damage. You think by the time of TNG they'd have that done.

Personally it'd probably be nice if they establish that it's a dead technology for all time. That once it's dismantled (which I assume it will be) that they make it clear that it can never be used again, that there is no way it can ever be safe (maybe that's already been done--I won't see season 2 until it comes out on Blu-Ray). But to clear that up I'd personally just like to see it established that no amount of perfecting will make it safe. That there is nothing that can be done with it no matter how hard they try.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah. My main thing with the spore drive is that it is an incredible peace of engineering. You can instantly transport to anywhere in the universe. Now granted, it causes a great deal of damage on many levels. But I would think Starfleet would make an effort since it's so fantastical to find a safe way to use it that doesn't cause all that damage. You think by the time of TNG they'd have that done.

Implausible, yes, but Trek is littered with such implausibilities. Why did the Federation never expand on the android technology encountered in multiple TOS episodes, or the interstellar transporters used by Triskelion and the Kalandans, or the use of kironide injections to induce telekinesis? Why was the wide-field stun setting never used in the 24th century except in one Voyager episode? People keep complaining about plot holes in the newest Trek show and forgetting that previous Trek shows had the exact same plot holes. We've just had more time to handwave or forget the old ones.

Bottom line, Star Trek is not a consistent universe. It never has been. We just pretend it is.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah. My main thing with the spore drive is that it is an incredible peace of engineering. You can instantly transport to anywhere in the universe. Now granted, it causes a great deal of damage on many levels. But I would think Starfleet would make an effort since it's so fantastical to find a safe way to use it that doesn't cause all that damage. You think by the time of TNG they'd have that done..

As noted in another thread, the Genesis Device could create a planet (with vegetation) out of nothing and bring dead people back to life, yet it was never mentioned again after the movies. True, the "protomatter" thing was an issue, but no worse than the issues with the spore drive. You'd think that they'd have worked the bugs out by the 24th century, but . . . .