Nope. Just the same place we've always been.
Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
Nope. Just the same place we've always been.
Unfortunate if we ever want to truly mature as a species.
We are who we are.
As early as "The Corbomite Maneuver", Balok knew that people on the Enterprise prayed to a deity or deities.
Well then I suppose I loathe who we are.
Why not?
Atheists use them today. I can't see 'damn' or 'my god' going out of style.
Unless everyone in the English speaking world suddenly decides to stop using them at the same time.
The casual expression "oh my god" does not literally express religious belief any more than having twenty "bucks" in your pocket literally means you have twenty male deer stuffed into your pants (the origin of that term lies in the use of deerskin as a medium of trade a couple centuries ago).
In fact, the most devout believers eschew phrases like "oh my god" as taboo because they consider it disrespectful.
Kor
In fact, the most devout believers eschew phrases like "oh my god" as taboo because they consider it disrespectful.
Kor
In "TOS: Bread and Circuses", nobody seemed to bring up the Atheist angle when Uhura explained to Kirk, Spock, and the gang that the slaves were not sun-worshipers, but rather they were worshipers of "the Son of God".
UHURA: "You've got it wrong, all of you. It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God."
I mean, it was almost as if they could not understand why the slaves were peace-loving when they thought the slaves were sun-worshiping pagans, but all seemed pretty OK with it once they realized the slaves were some sort of alien Christian analog.
EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, it's a convenient coincidence (convenient for the "sake of plot") that in whatever language the alien slaves were speaking, "sun" and "son" are homonyms...
...Then again, maybe they AREN'T homonyms, and the only reason for Our Heroes' confusion is because of the universal translator.
UHURA: "You've got it wrong, all of you. It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God."
I mean, it was almost as if they could not understand why the slaves were peace-loving when they thought the slaves were sun-worshiping pagans, but all seemed pretty OK with it once they realized the slaves were some sort of alien Christian analog.
EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, it's a convenient coincidence (convenient for the "sake of plot") that in whatever language the alien slaves were speaking, "sun" and "son" are homonyms...
...Then again, maybe they AREN'T homonyms, and the only reason for Our Heroes' confusion is because of the universal translator.
Last edited:
In "TOS: Bread and Circuses", nobody seemed to bring up the Atheist angle when Uhura explained to Kirk, Spock, and the gang that the slaves were not sun-worshipers, but rather they were worshipers of "the Son of God".
UHURA: "You've got it wrong, all of you. It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God."
I mean, it was almost as if they could not understand why the slaves were peace-loving when they thought the slaves were sun-worshiping pagans, but all seemed pretty OK with it once they realized the slaves were some sort of alien Christian analog.
EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, it's a convenient coincidence (convenient for the "sake of plot") that in whatever language the alien slaves were speaking, "sun" and "son" are homonyms...
...Then again, maybe they AREN'T homonyms, and the only reason for Our Hero's confusion is because of the universal translator.
I'm at a point in my life where I treat the original Star Trek as its own distinct entity, separate from the rest. It is just so different in tone and style it feels totally different from the rest.
That's fine, but it should be pointed out that fans don't have any issues still putting TOS in the same "prime universe as TNG, DS9, VOY, and even ENT despite it being "just so different in tone and style it feels totally different from the rest."
That leads me to believe that those fans should not have any issues putting DSC in the same prime universe (if the makers intend it ti be), even if it is "just so different in tone and style it feels totally different from the rest."
Based on what I've seen of DSC so far, the differences between DSC and "BermanTrek" might not be any greater than the differences between BermanTrek and TOS.
And no -- I don't think the 80 +/- year in-universe time frame difference can account for those differences from TNG to TOS. The main reason TNG is so different from TOS is NOT because "in-universe" it takes place 80 years later, but rather because it was (for the most part) a different artistic team and/or people applying a more modern late-1980s TV aesthetic as opposed to a 1960s TV aesthetic.
And now we have a new show with a 2017 TV aesthetic. But there's no reason a 2017 TV aesthetic cannot still be the year 2255 in the prime universe.
Anybody that has a problem with Kirsten Beyer, really, really needs to read her post-Endgame Voyager books. All of the books are easily better than the majority of the show's episodes, and over in the Trek Literature forum there are quite a few people who hated the show, but love the books. They are some of the absolutely best Trek books of the last decade, and her most recent book was even named the #6 all time best Trek book in a poll that StarTrek.com just did.
I'm a huge fan of her books, and the announcement of her joining the writing staff was one of the first things to really get me excited for Discovery.
I'm a huge fan of her books, and the announcement of her joining the writing staff was one of the first things to really get me excited for Discovery.
I originally voted "Somewhat positive but hesitant," but now that we're much closer to launch I would have to vote "Negative." TV-MA rating and an anti-Trump political allegory just does not inspire me with confidence.
I don't know? When Isaacs challenged her on it, she said he could say "fuck" before he could say "God". According to the article.
Well it's not like praise and reverence of "Apollo" is part of the common language in 2257, when he was a real person, and still alive in 2257 even.
How long have we been using religious terms in current history? More than 300 years?
Because the 21st century is still very religious.
