Does the computer seem more intelligent?

[Campe]

Yes. That's what I want. Star Trek isn't a documentary. If you decide to extend a 50 year old franchise I think you should just embrace the anachronisms. Most tech trends, if they were to continue for the next couple hundred years, would likely spell the end of humans we know it in favor of some Kubruck A.I. lifeform or some CRISPR-style genetically engineered immortal humans. It's unlikely we'd be tooling around starships with a captain barking orders like Horatio Hornblower.

Star Trek may not be a documentary, but its supposed to be an optimistic version of the future. OUR future. You're entitled to your opinion, but ther's always been changes between series. None of them are as significant as with Disco, I agree completely. But I also have no problem with the idea of extrapolating an optimistic version of our future. You disagree. That's fine.

But as @fireproof78 just responded and I concur, it is a suspension of disbelief.

 

[Tuskin38]

TOS:
"Correlate hypotheses. Compare with life forms register. Question. Could such an entity within discussed limits exist in this galaxy? ... Computer, extrapolate most likely composition of such entity."

Yep, and Kirk did something similar in Mirror, Mirror in regards to inter-dimensional beaming.

 

[Noname Given]

Again, this all comes down to: What do you want? A series based on 1966 technology ("Wor-king..." <clickclickclickclickclick>) or something based on 2017 forward technology which way outdoes that 1966 technology? We have watches now that can tell when you fall and alert the authorities. We have motion sensors and cameras in everyday places that can help with security issues in homes and offices. Honestly, with current drone technology and robots, I would be surprised if a late 2150s computer wouldn't just call for assistance but could actually provide emergency medical attention if needed. There just has to come a point where you say, "Okay, this is different than the show I watched from 50 years ago. The technology is more modern." You accept it. Or you don't. Call it a reboot if you want. Doesn't matter.

The voice can be considered a choice by the system/ship designers. There was a time In the TOS S1 episode "Tomorrow IS Yesterday" that the 1701 Ship's Computer system had a sultry female voice (that Kirk didn't care for):

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So yeah, it was never that "the 23rd century tech couldn't handle it"; for whatever reason in Universe - the system's designer chose a certain type of voice, and that's what it used.

 

[zar]

Tweaking the personality settings can have undesirable side effects.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Again, this all comes down to: What do you want? A series based on 1966 technology ("Wor-king..." <clickclickclickclickclick>) or something based on 2017 forward technology which way outdoes that 1966 technology?

In many ways it impresses me how TOS was able to get a few things right about tech, its evolution, and how humans interact with it in the future. Like Kirk thinking Cogley was eccentric because he preferred carrying around stacks of books instead of reading it with an electronic device. TOS even got it right about humans interacting with a computer voice, except the part where the voice is so robotic in a 1950s monotone style that modern audiences would just laugh at how "retro" it sounds, hurting the illusion of TOS being set in the future.

Yes. That's what I want. Star Trek isn't a documentary. If you decide to extend a 50 year old franchise I think you should just embrace the anachronisms.

The only way that would possibly play well to audiences is if they were strictly TOS fans that embrace those anachronisms, but that's not how people watched a new incarnation of Trek. Nobody in the 1960s was watching TOS and thinking how quaint and anachronistic it came off. Star Trek has always been played off as being set in our future. Having the computer sound less advanced and more robotic than Siri or Alexa would be off putting for general audiences.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

To me, any "current" Trek doesn't happen X years before something, it happens Y years AFTER today. I'm certain that even Discovery's writers take the same tack in their work, paying lip service to what has come before, and hopefully using it to service a good story.

I know we enjoy the mental pretzels it takes to shoehorn every new episode's tech and such into the prime timeline canon (which we've been doing for decades now - it's just easier to complain about it these days), but at the end of the day I'll forgive said anachronisms if the story is enjoyable to watch.

So I'm happy enough listening to people talk to a Discovery's computer with the same sort of mentality as they would a Siri / Alexa / Cortana today. If Trek computers in Discovery would talk like Majel Barrett imitating a sci-fi radio serial robot, or if they would consistently malfunction or not understand what people were asking as they frequently did in the TNG era (itself a symptom of evolving computer tech and humanity's difficulty getting with it at the time), I'd be more removed from the story than immersed in it.

Mark

 

[fireproof78]

The only way that would possibly play well to audiences is if they were strictly TOS fans that embrace those anachronisms, but that's not how people watched a new incarnation of Trek. Nobody in the 1960s was watching TOS and thinking how quaint and anachronistic it came off. Star Trek has always been played off as being set in our future. Having the computer sound less advanced and more robotic than Siri or Alexa would be off putting for general audiences.

Precisely so. Star Trek was created as part of "our future" (to some degree or another). It was looking ahead to what technology could do, not expecting people to hold it to the same technological limitations as the day it was created.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Which is probably why we never saw the Enterprise print out a sheet of paper after "The Cage", as Roddenberry thought we'd more likely be looking at computer monitors to read results as opposed to a print out paper.

 

[Ronald Held]

Personality aside, is the Dsc computer more advanced in capabilities than the 1701 one?

 

[Tuskin38]

Personality aside, is the Dsc computer more advanced in capabilities than the 1701 one?

It doesn't seem like it.

 

[Vger23]

Probably a little more intelligent than TOS, but that's to be expected.

I wouldn't say more intelligent than TNG-era computers.

 

[Rusty0918]

I don't see a problem with the computers looking more advanced than they were. I mean, let's face it: candy colored buttons aren't going to fly with today's audience (though they definitely do with some purists). I like what they're doing so far with DSC. Heck, they do a better job than the Kelvin-verse movies did.

 

[DaveyNY]

Perhaps it should be taken into account that the Discovery is meant to be a Scientific Starship, full of technological experiments both old and new.
One would think that all of the stuff we've seen in "Future" episodes (TNG/DS9/VOY) had to have their start somewhere, why not have rudimentary examples being shown now on this specific starship which was created specifically to be a test-bed and enable such experiments.

 

[fireproof78]

Perhaps it should be taken into account that the Discovery is meant to be a Scientific Starship, full of technological experiments both old and new.
One would think that all of the stuff we've seen in "Future" episodes (TNG/DS9/VOY) had to have their start somewhere, why not have rudimentary examples being shown now on this specific starship which was created specifically to be a test-bed and enable such experiments.

It's funny. It is like you can come up creative ideas to explains things.

I'm shocked...shocked I tell you!

 

[Campe]

It's funny. It is like you can come up creative ideas to explains things.

I'm shocked...shocked I tell you!

I remember when Star Trek fans used to do that...

 

[fireproof78]

I remember when Star Trek fans used to do that...

What was that like?

 

[Campe]

What was that like?

Fans who actually worked to make inconsitencies make sense? Not just get pissed off because it didn’t match their tiny little world view and call it “not Star Trek?”

It was glorious.

 

[DaveyNY]

What was that like?

It IS wonderfully satisfying.
Much more so than tearing something I've loved for over 50 years, apart.

 

[fireproof78]

It IS wonderfully satisfying.
Much more so than tearing something I've loved for over 50 years, apart.

Makes me wonder if we would have gotten something like the Star Trek Concordance if there was this much division during TOS's first run?

 

[DaveyNY]

Makes me wonder if we would have gotten something like the Star Trek Concordance if there was this much division during TOS's first run?

Fortunately, folks like Bjo Trimble (and Myself) were the rule not the exception back then.
Wasn't till the mid-80's with the dawn of TNG and then the internet that Trek Fandom started giving itself a black eye.