Spoilers Hopes for the Third Season??

[CorporalClegg]

Uh. You do realize his use of spandex was a metaphor, right? His argument was that you can't future-tech future tech. Something that became rather evident early on in TNG's run and was abundantly clear by the end of Voyager. In other words, the spandex had become increasingly tighter to the point - in the most extreme case - was literally suffocating. Yet, relatively speaking, the future was functionally and practically identical. The spandex was his metaphor for the pretense of it all.

After the mistakes of Disco, it seems Kurtzman has learned that same lesson, as the wearer of said spandex now appears in something akin to what I might wear to a market run. And Burnham is wearing something akin to what I might wear to a market run in December.

 

[eschaton]

Uh. You do realize his use of spandex was a metaphor, right? His argument was that you can't future-tech future tech. Something that became rather evident early on in TNG's run and was abundantly clear by the end of Voyager. In other words, the spandex had become increasingly tighter to the point - in the most extreme case - was literally suffocating. Yet, relatively speaking, the future was functionally and practically identical. The spandex was his metaphor for the pretense of it all.

Or alternatively, if they "doubled down" for a 25th century show, by showing even more advanced tech, the story might be even harder to write. I mean, Berman Trek writers already had the damnedest time dealing with replicators, as it meant that any conflict involving resource scarcity basically went straight out the window unless they developed some handwavy reason why a given substance couldn't be replicated. Developing true future tech, with awesome new capabilities, means you have to put problems in front of the crew which would stymie even 25th century minds - which is damn hard for a 21st century mind to do.

This was part of the rationale of doing Enterprise when it came down to it. By putting it before TOS, it meant that technological levels were lower, information was spottier, and our heroes could be far more imperfect. In actuality it didn't really work - indeed, they basically invented different terms for the same tech (like hull plating for shields) - but that's on the writing, not the premise.

A true future Trek timeline - if it wants to go somewhere actually interesting - needs to embrace transhumanism/posthumanism. But I don't think Discovery's writers are going to go there in the third season

 

[F. King Daniel]

A true future Trek timeline - if it wants to go somewhere actually interesting - needs to embrace transhumanism/posthumanism. But I don't think Discovery's writers are going to go there in the third season

This is the Trek I want. Humans using every transporter glitch/ability in 55 years of shows in a commbadge sized device to be ageless and immortal. Duplication, transwarp beaming, de-ageing, healing, universe-hopping... it's like being a technologically-assisted proto-Q.

 

[eschaton]

This is the Trek I want. Humans using every transporter glitch/ability in 55 years of shows in a commbadge sized device to be ageless and immortal. Duplication, transwarp beaming, de-ageing, healing, universe-hopping... it's like being a technologically-assisted proto-Q.

Indeed. Or there's mind-uploading into future - perfected - positronic brains. Or developing entire "holo-universes" and retreating inside of them to live full-time as photonic entities. All of the different Federation species blending together into one (something already hinted at). Basically have all of the boundaries - between Human, Vulcan, Android, Borg, Hologram, etc - become fuzzy to the point it's impossible to even define what makes someone a human being any longer.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But how about no hopes at all, letting Season 3 plop into whatever means of content delivery one prefers when the time comes? Why not maximize the surprise by trying not to think about this, especially since DSC hasn’t had the greatest track record of being unpredictable (Tyler, Lorca…)?

 

[Mudd]

Trek doesn't handle the few old-fashioned skiffy notions that it utilizes now with any flair or imagination.

 

[pulpfictioninspace]

I personally want the whole thing to transmute into a Pike show, but with the experimental exploratory tech of Discovery.

 

[ScottJ85]

Or alternatively, if they "doubled down" for a 25th century show, by showing even more advanced tech, the story might be even harder to write.

I've always believed that one of the greatest strengths of Star Trek is being able to imagine it as a plausible potential future. The further into the future the franchise gets, the further removed from the present day it is, and the harder it is to imagine as a plausible future. At least for me, part of the appeal would be lost.

Of course, I'm fully prepared to eat my words when Picard and Discovery s3 come out.

 

[Mudd]

It was never aired, just a curiosity. They used the bits that still worked and abandoned the bits that didn’t. We don’t consider bloopers canon, why should we do the same for material never meant to be seen?

You're mistaken.

It was first aired in TNG's place in 1988 after having been distributed by Paramount on Laserdisc and VHS in different form several years before. It's been included as an episode in its entirety in every official distribution of TOS since that time.

It's part of Star Trek as far as the people who own Trek are concerned, which is the only definition of canon that's worth a spit.

The assertion that "The Menagerie" consists of "the bits that worked" is also in error, but not worth going into.

Sure, "some things are best left forgotten" - certainly most of STD fits that category.

 

[ScottJ85]

Sure, "some things are best left forgotten" - certainly most of STD fits that category.

I don't know, I thought pretty much all of DSC was at least as good as any other series.

 

[Uhura's Song]

I don't know, I thought pretty much all of DSC was at least as good as any other series.

I kind of agree with you. But also not. Not first.

The first season of TOS is the best season in Trek history in my view, and I do not think it is even close. Still, with 30 episodes, there were some clunkers. But they are easier to forgive when you have 30 episodes (or 26) instead of 14/15.

Still, setting aside TOS1, I tend to agree in the main. TNG is my favorite Trek (longer run of goodness than TOS), but S1 was one of the two weakest (if not the weakest). Ditto with DS9, which is easily Bronze medal Trek for me, but did not start out especially strong. VOY faded late, but I liked S1 a lot. ENT was also OK early on (Andorian Incident).

So in one sense, our first 29 of Disco have been comparable to any other Trek save TOS1. YMMV.

But on the other hand, when you do a serial based show and don't stick the ending (and DISCO did not stick either ending in my view), it takes the wind out of things a bit. While individual episodes are fine, the whole thing does not hang together well when one looks back. The total is LESS than the sum of the parts. For me it has been thus with DISCO so far.

I hope that changes in S3.

 

[ScottJ85]

But on the other hand, when you do a serial based show and don't stick the ending (and DISCO did not stick either ending in my view)

Yeah, I'll give you that one. The ending of S1 felt kind of abrupt, and the ending of S2 felt a bit too much like they were trying to placate the toxic end of the fandom.

 

[Qonundrum]

New and creative ideas, nix the juvenile swearing (it's not mature, it's not cool, it's not necessary for good storytelling, and it only makes it easier for audiences to use juvenile swearing to describe it with and in an ironically more accurate manner), more formal terminology ala Trek's rich history of it and not this hackneyed dumbed down slang that's ubiquitous among all current, currently running franchises. Anyone who sees an engineer saying "tech" just loses credibility on the spot. It's laughable. Contemporary dialogue is impossible to avoid but if they could be aware of such mundane issues in 1966 then there's no way, unless devolution is real, they have no concept of it 53+ years later...

 

[Qonundrum]

Yeah, I'll give you that one. The ending of S1 felt kind of abrupt, and the ending of S2 felt a bit too much like they were trying to placate the toxic end of the fandom.

Trying to appeal to mass audiences aside since we both know casual and long-term die-hard fans are usually the preferred goal to have, please define "toxic fandom". Though I think I am cognizant of two such examples on YouTube that I refuse to subscribe to. And one that I still am subscribed to due to current overall accuracy rating, noting some of those channels must have an awful lot of "independent" anonymous sources that they apparently don't share...

Their ditching trying to be shoehorned prequel is pretty much their best decision so far, by far. Prequels are hard to do, are usually aimed at established audiences (of which many still tune out because they don't care, which alone does not make them "toxic" and with fans any toxicity is only reactive as they can only respond to something they have not actually made - there are differences here), often break canon and continuity without realizing it and I am not referring to the shiny pretty sets (which are inevitable for any new show, even ENT half-bunged it despite trying to wedge itself into canon styles and it's nigh on impossible to do) but the actual content of the characters and situations, etc...

 

[CaptVader]

Not sure if it's too late in the series, but I'd like to see an episode that explores Burnham and Detmer's relationship. Aside from Burnham and Saru, Detmer is the only other member of the Discovery's crew that's from the Shenzhou, as far as we know. Is there any unresolved tension between them due to Burnham's actions at the Battle of the Binary Stars? Does Detmer hold any malice towards Burnham considering she mutinied against their captain, their ship was destroyed, thousands of their comrades were lost, and Detmer was almost one of them obviously by her cranial and optical implants. Depending on how it's developed it could be an opportunity to have Detmer be more 3-dimensional and for Burnham to grow more from the person we met at the beginning of the series. Might be nice for the last scene to be in the mess hall mirroring when they first met aboard the Discovery in Context Is for Kings. Also, since the story would be around former crewmembers of the Shenzhou, perhaps the B-plot could be Saru centric in some way. BTW, don't like that name for a battle because how many binary stars are there in the galaxy?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Not sure if it's too late in the series, but I'd like to see an episode that explores Burnham and Detmer's relationship. Aside from Burnham and Saru, Detmer is the only other member of the Discovery's crew that's from the Shenzhou, as far as we know. Is there any unresolved tension between them due to Burnham's actions at the Battle of the Binary Stars? Does Detmer hold any malice towards Burnham considering she mutinied against their captain, their ship was destroyed, thousands of their comrades were lost, and Detmer was almost one of them obviously by her cranial and optical implants. Depending on how it's developed it could be an opportunity to have Detmer be more 3-dimensional and for Burnham to grow more from the person we met at the beginning of the series. Might be nice for the last scene to be in the mess hall mirroring when they first met aboard the Discovery in Context Is for Kings. Also, since the story would be around former crewmembers of the Shenzhou, perhaps the B-plot could be Saru centric in some way. BTW, don't like that name for a battle because how many binary stars are there in the galaxy?

I don't think it's too late for some Detmer/Burnham stuff. She was part of the friend group in the Airiam episode.

In regards to the battle: It doesn't matter how many binary stars there are in the galaxy. Lots of place names are totally un-unique, but people can figure stuff out from context, anyway. Imagine, for instance, a Battle of Paris - Paris, France? Paris, Texas? Paris, Kentucky? It doesn't matter because people who use the name 'Battle of Paris' are already familiar with the circumstances of the battle. It's just a short-hand. Like the Battle of the Bulge or the Blitz (neither being even remotely unique circumstances in the history of warfare).

 

[Lord Garth]

Trying to appeal to mass audiences aside since we both know casual and long-term die-hard fans are usually the preferred goal to have, please define "toxic fandom". Though I think I am cognizant of two such examples on YouTube that I refuse to subscribe to.

About 15 years ago, before "toxic fandom" came to be called as such, I said there was a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism.

In constructive criticism, someone critiques a show looking for areas where they think it can improve or want to improve.

Destructive criticism is something else. Someone tears into a show for the sole sake of knocking it down and keeping it down. You can have a discussion with someone who offers constructive criticism that can be very informative and interesting to read. You can't have a discussion with someone who offers nothing but destructive criticism. They'll put down the show and they'll put down you for defending it. No blow is too low. No reach is too far. No thing the show can do is right. I called that Destructive Criticism. And I call it Toxic Fandom. People who claim to be fans except they act like anything but. These people are truly hateful.

@Awesome Possum looked up Toxic Fandom. I skimmed over it. But I'll cut and paste what she said to see if it's similar to what I said above. Here it is: from June. She quoted passages from this website.

Possessiveness, entitlement, and a feeling of superiority are the three main ingredients in the toxic fandom stew. Possessiveness means that the toxic fans feel like they own the content they're fans of, that it belongs to them, and only to them. They see the thing they're fans of as a territory or property they own. The non-toxic or respectful fan instead recognizes that the fact that they appreciate something doesn't entitle them to ownership of it.

Entitlement goes right along with possessiveness. Since in their mind, they have a sense of ownership of the thing they are fans of, the creators of that thing must do whatever they the fans demand. For example, they may demand a particular romantic pairing or 'ship' to happen in a show, and be furious enough to send death threats to the authors if this doesn't happen. A good fan, on the other hand, may request something or think 'it would be nice if they went in this direction', but accepts that sometimes creators won't do what they want. A good fan accepts not only that they don't own the content they're fans of, but also respects the rights of creators to decide the creative direction of their own work.

Fandom is simply when a community forms around shared liking of something. Toxic fandom is when this becomes a bad thing, which can happen in a myriad of ways. Usually, toxic fandom involves not just obsessiveness, but becoming a danger to others in some way, or just really mean and intolerant toward people the toxic fans disagree with.

Everything that has fans, has toxic fans. But some things seem to have more toxic fans, or more cases where toxic fans acted out, than others. This has to do with the kinds of people the fictional work in question attracts. Harry Potter attracts misfits who want to feel special, different from society. Rick & Morty attracts people who think they're smarter than everyone else. These aren't bad fictional works, and the fiction's creator isn't to blame for how fans act. But certain works of fiction can have characteristics that ignite toxic fandom flames. Having a likeable asshole character, for example, makes certain fans identify with that character as an excuse for their own asshole behavior.

Sometimes, it takes realizing that jerks are everywhere, and you might as well try to get good at ignoring them.

If I look at the commonality between what I said and what that website Awesome Possum linked to, it's this: don't act like an asshole. Don't try to go out of your way to upset situations. Don't act like you're superior. And don't act like you can be a backseat driver to the creators.

A toxic fan thinks just because you like something they don't, that they can treat you like shit. As if your liking one thing they don't is a representation of your entire personhood.

A toxic fan has to make sure that just because they feel miserable, they have to make sure everyone else is too. And they'll do their "best" to try to make sure that happens. That's not right. It's not right. It drives away traffic. It stops people from wanting to participate who otherwise would. And it goes far beyond stating simple dislike of a show.

That, to me, is what Toxic Fandom is.

 

[Tuskin38]

I want to see more new, weird, ship designs.

 

[fireproof78]

Destructive criticism is something else. Someone tears into a show for the sole sake of knocking it down and keeping it down. You can have a discussion with someone who offers constructive criticism that can be very informative and interesting to read. You can't have a discussion with someone who offers nothing but destructive criticism. They'll put down the show and they'll put down you for defending it. No blow is too low. No reach is too far. No thing the show can do is right. I called that Destructive Criticism. And I call it Toxic Fandom. People who claim to be fans except they act like anything but. These people are truly hateful.

Which is, sadly, something I see more and more of as the Internet continues to grow. There is a reason why I tend to confine my Star Trek musings to this board. Past experience has not rewarded my exploration in to other online forums.

 

[antinoos]

Season 3 trailer coming at NYCC!

https://twitter.com/ScottGamzon/status/1179177882364477440

Scott Gamzon is an editor at DSC