It would've been a mistake for the series to present it as an actual angel. Just doesn't fit the series. And, then you're always waiting for the angels to come in and save the day. I don't know, just having an angel come and help out really isn't satisfying. There's not much you can do with that. No storyline really.
Spoilers Do you think the original main arc was scrapped once Berg/Harberts left?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
Not sure anyone was expecting it to be an actual "angel", I know I wasn't. But, at the same time, I wanted to be more than a human mucking about in the timeline... yet again.
And why shouldn't we be waiting for the time travel angel to come in and save the day?
I was really hoping it would be Zora. She wouldn't be human, but human-made. Burnham's mother should be interesting -- for me, anyway -- but it's definitely different from what I was imagining.
I didn't want an actual Angel, the weird alien-ness to it's wings and red light implied a winged humanoid from another plane of existance. It would have been interesting if it concidentally looked like one when backlit then turned out to be much more alien when seen correctly.
But it just being her mum was fucking lame.
But it just being her mum was fucking lame.
Right. I was expecting the Preservers, mysterious and powerful, but biological aliens nevertheless.
I've been thinking some more about those two examples in my first post, and it's not the case that they break our reality, but that they break the rules of Star Trek's reality. Deliberately I think. First was the asteroid that couldn't be teleported by the Magic Save The Day device – you know, the transporter – a development presented as so shocking that it was used as the act break. Of course it didn't turn out to be magic, just a new scientific development that had to be understood, but it was something the Star Trek reality hadn't seen before. It took work to understand.
Then there was New Eden, where the inhabitants became more, not less, religious as a result of encountering advanced extraterrestrial intelligence. Trek has generally held to the idea that as humans expand into the Galaxy, we'll become more secular, and has implied that secularism is required for peace (see: Who Watches the Watchers, where the Minitakans are willing to commit human sacrifice as soon as they get religion). But in New Eden, the colonists are peaceful because they've blended their faiths.
Both of those challenge certain conventions that Trek relies on, and I don't think it was unintentional. IMO, it was a statement about where the season was headed, and I think it's probably poorer for choosing Space CIA vs. Skynet instead.
If you see a Red Angel above the mantelpiece in the first act, expect it to be
1. Human Sacrifice doesn't come out of nowhere, as history tells us.
2. Blending faiths isn't the recipe for peace as faith isn't the root cause of strife and faith never stays blended for long, as again history tell us.
I didn't see it as lame as all. Hoping for some 'otherworldly force' divine or otherwise to pull our fat out of the fire is again... faith based problem solving, IE, the aliens will sort this out. Burnham's mum being the Red Angel reminds us that the solutions to the big problems have to come from us because the problems come from us.
Its all rather grown-up really.
Only, not all problems arise from Humans. Many alien species behave on their own and pose threats that need intervention from other sources. The "Angel" being nothing more than a being that was more advanced maybe, but helping in a limited fashion to a threat that expanded to other planes no species from this galaxy could manage alone is a long way off calling for divine intervention.
Irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the show would have come down on that side of the question, just that it was noticing that Trek has often acted as though those things are true.
I wouldn't particularly want a Star Trek series to come down on the side of "religious faith = good," but I would like it to dig down into the issue further than taking it as self-evident that secularism is the best.
Maybe the show would have disappointed me on that front, we'll never know. But I do think that's the conflict the season was trying to present, whatever the outcome would have been.
At this point, it looks like Frakes was writing his episodes on that basis, hoping that's how the story would play out. All his subtle storypoints have largely been wasted now.
Do we know how much the writers even coordinate on the overall plot? what reveals they're aware of?
Do we know how much the writers even coordinate on the overall plot? what reveals they're aware of?
I honestly don't care if religion figures prominently in DSC--I'm just happy that atheists aren't loathed and persecuted in the Star Trek universe. There's room in principle and practice for both faith and lack thereof in the Federation.
Faith does not necessarily mean religious faith - the term is also commonly a poetic and secular one similar to the ancient Greek word 'pistos', denoting concept in which you have comforting trust (in, say, a philosophical idea like the redeeming quality of love, or a civic idea) - it may be used in an irreligious context.
But when has pop TV ever risen to the level of making that distinction? (Actually probably only in Picard's nuanced speeches in TNG, or in something like Babylon 5 with it's Carl Sagan/Lord Tennyson-quoting). TV's overt depiction of philosophy has largely regressed since those days. The faith vs. science thing thus sent alarm bells ringing for me. What passes for discussion of metaphysics on TV is usually just scientifically illiterate mysticism and 'woo woo isn't it spooky' self-deception worthy of a 'ghosts-caught-on-camera' show. Quantum mechanics for example, commonly abused in pop culture as 'quantum mysticism', is a theory which actually says nothing any more spiritual than old mechanistic Newtonian physics - it's implications are neutral on value judgements - but is used to justify wild pseudo-religious assumptions, simply because it is complex enough to bamboozle. The first 1.2 seasons of this show felt like that; the spore drive honestly came off as quantum mysticism, but thankfully the show seems to be getting more grounded in reality lately; I thought this might be the influence of Michelle Paradise, but have no idea.
I agree with Longinus completely, that the concept of "science vs. faith" would have likely been an utter disaster. Star Trek may not be above metaphysical speculation, but is a staunchly secular franchise, that finds it's answers inside nature; tender observations about human nature, and the natural world. There is no contest between science and faith - if your faith requires a rejection of objective fact, it is unhealthy. If it helps you with unanswerable nuanced questions like "how can I make peace with an uncertain future", fair enough, I'm all for that kind of belief. Our highest loyalty is to the truth; how can one ever be content with a belief that they know deep down contradicts impartial research on a natural phenomenon, or builds an edifice out of too many shaky assumptions? We all want to know where the universe came from, and where it is going; religious and none religious alike - but we certainly don't need to return to a time when dogma required us to actively misinterpret events or censor our conscious; how could we and also live with ourselves? You can't bury the truth; and who would want to put the wonder of science back in the box now?
On another note, I understand why people were not too entertained by the Red Angel's reveal. It's disappointing that in sci-fi, totally incredible concepts like "it's a 10,000,000 year old survivor from a previous civilization, it's silent cities orbiting a dead star, come out of compassion to prevent the downfall of a younger one" have given way to "it's the character's mom/dad/sibling/self". In an attempt to humanise the genre, modern sci-fi often just wastes the inherent potential of a vast cosmos, full of deep time, and countless eons of possibility. But, at the same time, I still think the show has improved over this season - it could have been handled worse - the last few have felt a lot more rational.
But when has pop TV ever risen to the level of making that distinction? (Actually probably only in Picard's nuanced speeches in TNG, or in something like Babylon 5 with it's Carl Sagan/Lord Tennyson-quoting). TV's overt depiction of philosophy has largely regressed since those days. The faith vs. science thing thus sent alarm bells ringing for me. What passes for discussion of metaphysics on TV is usually just scientifically illiterate mysticism and 'woo woo isn't it spooky' self-deception worthy of a 'ghosts-caught-on-camera' show. Quantum mechanics for example, commonly abused in pop culture as 'quantum mysticism', is a theory which actually says nothing any more spiritual than old mechanistic Newtonian physics - it's implications are neutral on value judgements - but is used to justify wild pseudo-religious assumptions, simply because it is complex enough to bamboozle. The first 1.2 seasons of this show felt like that; the spore drive honestly came off as quantum mysticism, but thankfully the show seems to be getting more grounded in reality lately; I thought this might be the influence of Michelle Paradise, but have no idea.
I agree with Longinus completely, that the concept of "science vs. faith" would have likely been an utter disaster. Star Trek may not be above metaphysical speculation, but is a staunchly secular franchise, that finds it's answers inside nature; tender observations about human nature, and the natural world. There is no contest between science and faith - if your faith requires a rejection of objective fact, it is unhealthy. If it helps you with unanswerable nuanced questions like "how can I make peace with an uncertain future", fair enough, I'm all for that kind of belief. Our highest loyalty is to the truth; how can one ever be content with a belief that they know deep down contradicts impartial research on a natural phenomenon, or builds an edifice out of too many shaky assumptions? We all want to know where the universe came from, and where it is going; religious and none religious alike - but we certainly don't need to return to a time when dogma required us to actively misinterpret events or censor our conscious; how could we and also live with ourselves? You can't bury the truth; and who would want to put the wonder of science back in the box now?
On another note, I understand why people were not too entertained by the Red Angel's reveal. It's disappointing that in sci-fi, totally incredible concepts like "it's a 10,000,000 year old survivor from a previous civilization, it's silent cities orbiting a dead star, come out of compassion to prevent the downfall of a younger one" have given way to "it's the character's mom/dad/sibling/self". In an attempt to humanise the genre, modern sci-fi often just wastes the inherent potential of a vast cosmos, full of deep time, and countless eons of possibility. But, at the same time, I still think the show has improved over this season - it could have been handled worse - the last few have felt a lot more rational.
Throwing some flowery Tennyson and Shakespeare does not the addition of nuanced philosophy make for television. In the past it was used mostly crudely to elevate archtypal storytelling. I also fail to see how the mycenial network has been used for mystic purposes in any way more than any other 'new life' and 'new civilizations' or even 'new technology' has had on previous Star Treks. You will really need to offer more than just a judgment call to justify that assessment.
There's plenty of amazing narrative philosophy in work in modern television, and really its a long list compared to the old days of the 3 networks. I think this series and this season has handled philosophy well enough, even if it hasn't resorted to the old masters to help prop it up.
Last edited:
I think BillJ is probably exactly on point:
I think the major plot points are still the same - they are just put in wildly different contexts and probably in different order than originally envisioned.
Like, if I had to present a personal theory, I would guess that Burnham being the red Angel was probably the plan from the beginning. And I think the time-travel aspect as well: Burnham from the future. I just think the original plan would have shown us that wildly different - with lots of talk about faith, religion, but mostly a whole lot of destiny, and the red angel as truly a "godly" figure. Only to have that "time-travel" aspect as the big twist - like, oh, it wasn't "destiny", it was just "time-travel".
I do believe however that "Control" being the evil A.I., and Section 31 as the inventors of the time-travel suit were complete asspulls. Like, there were some ideas floating around (probably even some alien-like beings giving Burnham the suit, and here travelling through the timeline in one swoop, righting history at all points), and since they scrapped that, they now have to make the backstory up along the while.
But yeah, you don't hire the writers of shitty envangelical Christian movies for your series if you're not going to heavily lean into that. And the first two episodes had commenst about faith and religion dropped left and right, even at moments where it came completely out of the blue - and now, that we actually HAVE pre-destiny paradoxons, NO ONE is actually talking about "destiny" or other philosophical questions anymore.
Yeah, that list could be a lot longer:
Good god. You know, I will defend "Spock's brain" and "Threshold" unto my grave. Yes, both are stupidly silly, break continuity, logic sense and the last bit of suspension of disbelief. But let's be honest: They were also totally amazingly bonkers and creative, and Star Trek as a whole would be so much poorer without them.
These episodes here though? Yeah. They're absolute garbage.
"Spock's Brain" is fun to watch. It's one of my favorite episodes. Yes, I said it.
"Threshold"? Ummm... you lost me there. You're on your own.
"Threshold"? Ummm... you lost me there. You're on your own.
"Threshold" is okay until we get to the warp 10 lizards and the can of worms it opens.
Similar threads
