OoooOO...You do realize that Kirk was referring to himself, right?
That then answers the question ... Why Does GOD Need a Starship?
To go around beating up other Gods.
Spoilers Do you think the original main arc was scrapped once Berg/Harberts left?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
That then answers the question ... Why Does GOD Need a Starship?
To go around beating up other Gods.
The best part was finding a new type of dilithium that could allow them to do so. The technobabble was strong in that episode.
I tried to make a connection between the salamanders and the Q. (I was bored.) It didn’t get very far. https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-q-as-future-humanity-artificial-ascension.298548/
1) This is the first time Trek has done this, to my recollection, at least over the long term.
2) I'm interested to see how the story ties in, the trailer didn't give the impression there was much crossover between seasons 1 and 2.
While looking for something else I came across this from July last year. Although I'm sure we'll see L'Rell again (we haven't had the episode where they filmed that dancing video yet) this parallel story thing just got unceremoniously ditched after Point of Light. Tyler was handwaved back onto Discovery and L'Rell vanished off screen to throw more heads into gorges or whatever she does to pass the time.
I think this is likely a shakeup of the original plan (probably a good one)
I also swear I remember reading that Mary Chieffo was upgraded to main cast for this season. But where she was seen 11 times in the first season, she's only been seen once to date (cannot be in more than five episodes this season - probably a lot less).
I don't mind the time traveling suit so much. But YMMV.
But, given that, as you say, no one is expecting it to be a real angel, it's a good thing they didn't make faith vs science, is it an angel, a bigger part of the arc.
If you want a time traveling angel, probably need to watch a non-ST series!
I do remember wondering how all these threads that seemed to be mentioned early on (Enterprise and Number One, Tig Notaro's character, section 31, the Klingon aftermath, Tyler and Burnham, baby spock, maybe prime Lorca, Resusi-Culber, faith Vs science) were going to fit in a short season of TV.
Seems most were either not in it all or were way more minor than the fans interpreted. Instead the focus has largely been on stuff we didn't talk about beforehand. No bad thing, but worth remembering for the season 3 rumor mill
Seems most were either not in it all or were way more minor than the fans interpreted. Instead the focus has largely been on stuff we didn't talk about beforehand. No bad thing, but worth remembering for the season 3 rumor mill
I'd agree it's a good shake up. I'm extremely glad we don't have to watch that parallel story.
Sometimes, you can leave things unexplained. What would've been an "angel" to Pike, could've played as pure science to someone like Burnham and made other crewmembers question their beliefs on either side.
You can do science vs. faith without coming out as "angels are real".
There's no clear answer, which will leave make an arc based on it wishy-washy.
Allowing characters to occasionally reflect upon it personally is fine because it's part of the character.
However, the mistake would be to make it a major thrust of the arc because it can have no concrete conclusion--unless it's just to ultimately reveal it as science based time travel suit (which it was).
That was that my point. It's good that it's not a major part of the arc. Having characters ponder it a bit on their own is fine--but not what I was referring to.
No. 'Maybe it was real magic, who knows' is not something that ever needs to happen in Star Trek.
Last edited:
It surprises me when a Star Trek fan says this. Star Trek is a work of imagination and should challenge how we think from time to time.
IMO that would be weak sauce. How did the arc conclude? Don't know. It depends on which character you ask!
However, if it's a minor theme that a few characters ponder briefly, but not really a main thrust of the arc, it's probably OK. It could illuminate those characters without detracting from the larger story.
In short, I wouldn't mind it as a minor theme, but as a major theme it would be problematic.
I'd rather have a spectacular failure vs. a safe success.
No wonder you like Into Darkness!
I don't think it would qualify as a spectacular failure. Just wishy washy. A wishy-washy failure sounds bad. Really bad.
If TPTB are to be believed, it sounds like it's not the safe ending we're expecting anyway. They might being going for spectacular, just not involving faith (thank goodness).
Similar threads
