Star Trek and Cannon... darned confusing!

[Vger23]

Spore drive? Where was that in TNG?

There's nothing primitive about any of the Starfleet or Klingon technology. Klingons have cloaking devices for a start but Enterprise already jumped that shark years ago so it's not just Discovery to blame.

The spore drive was incapable of being mass-produced. You need a tardigrade or another sentient being with tardigrade DNA to run it (like Stamets). And since the tardigrade in DSC teleported onto the Glenn because of the activity in the mycelial network their s-drive experiments were causing (the creature was drawn to this), and is potentially a sentient lifeform, it would not make that same error/decision again.

So the spore drive is a one-time freak thing that only works because the tardigrade was present, and because now one person has the DNA to make it work, although at potentially great risk to himself.

So, without needing to be handheld through TEH CANON reasons for why we never see it again, I actually think that the answer is pretty evident already.

And no one else in 100 years ever attempted it again? Not even the Klingons, who are well aware of its existence and would gleefully use it to their advantage?

Where are the Klingons going to get a tardigrade?

 

[Terok Nor]

Only that it's visually perfect.

Did you watch Balance Of Terror?

 

[Tuskin38]

And no one else in 100 years ever attempted it again? Not even the Klingons, who are well aware of its existence and would gleefully use it to their advantage?

The Klingons never tried to recreate the Genesis device after TSFS.

And no living Klingon, other then possibly Voq knows what the drive does or how it works.

The only Klingon witnesses are dead.

L’Rell was in the brig most of the time.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The spore drive was incapable of being mass-produced. You need a tardigrade or another sentient being with tardigrade DNA to run it (like Stamets). And since the tardigrade in DSC teleported onto the Glenn because of the activity in the mycelial network their s-drive experiments were causing (the creature was drawn to this), and is potentially a sentient lifeform, it would not make that same error/decision again.

They were making small, successful jumps with the Discovery and Glenn before the Tardigrade came along. It was only to compute longer jumps they needed it, and Stamets proved to work just fine as a substitute. Of course in the TNG era their holograms or Data could easily make the necessary computations.

 

[1001001]

Did you watch Balance Of Terror?

Just because the crew of the Enterprise were surprised, that doesn’t mean anything beyond that. They were surprised.

I think this is a big problem with canon arguments. Somehow a single person’s perception or understanding is meant to represent universal factual truth, rather than their opinion or belief.

An easy example is Worf. He says all kinds of shit about how Klingons are, but we frequently see he is wrong (laughing, drinking with your enemies).

Wesley says “we’re Starfleet. We don’t lie.” Then we see people lying all the time.

Picard’s version of life in the Federation is much different than Sloan’s.

TMP looks way different than TOS.

I could do this all day.

Spore drive deactivated and classified.

Uniforms evolve.

Etc.

 

[Vger23]

They were making small, successful jumps with the Discovery and Glenn before the Tardigrade came along. It was only to compute longer jumps they needed it, and Stamets proved to work just fine as a substitute. Of course in the TNG era their holograms or Data could easily make the necessary computations.

Stamets worked just fine as a substitute because he injected himself with the tardigrade DNA.

Stamets had said that there was basically no way to make the longer jumps without the tardigrade. There was a missing element they were never going to get past. That was pretty clear in "Context" and "Butcher's Knife."

It wasn't about computing power (like Mr. Data for example). It was about the tardigrade's unique symbiosis with the mycelium spores and network. It wasn't about computations or technology at all. That's where they were going wrong originally.

 

[fireproof78]

Did you watch Balance Of Terror?

Yes. They still felt they could hit it with phasers, and were able to track the Romulans movements somewhat. The cloak was a perfect invisibility screen to the naked eye. As @Tuskin38 points out the Klingon cloaks in DSC have visual imperfections to their screens.

 

[Greg Cox]

Classified. Just like the Genesis Device and every other tech we never saw again in the franchise..

Like the telekinesis pills in "Plato's Stepchildren," or the super-speed formula in "Wink of an Eye," or the body-swapping device in "Turnabout Intruder," or the Antosian shape-changing techniques in "Who Gods Destroy," or the neural neutralizer in "Dagger of the MInd," or that super-explosive Garth kept raving about, or . . . .

Point being, Trek is full of revolutionary, game-changing new discoveries that are never mentioned again. Why single out the spore drive as being beyond the pale?

Heck, everybody in TNG acts like Data is some unique new thing, despite Kirk running into humanoid androids at least three times. Are we going to declare TNG "non-canon" because of that?


The real reason nobody mentions the spore drive in the earlier shows is simply because DISCO was written later. Same reason TOS never mentioned that whole katra business from the third movie, or that Kirk has a son, or that Spock had a half-brother . ....

Retcons are a thing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think this is a bit of a bogus argument. We're talking about a character that was in two movies (and about a minute of a third) versus a look and feel that had been established as "the way things were" for fifty years.

2 movies ,100 episodes or 5 decades. Why should it matter? Star Trek should be about the future and looking forward. Extrapolating what the future should be based on the present, not the middle of the 20th Century. Star Trek shouldn't be "transistor punk". If something is outdated, outmoded or just plain old fashioned it should be discarded or revamped.

 

[Nerys Myk]

ust because the crew of the Enterprise were surprised, that doesn’t mean anything beyond that. They were surprised.

I think surprised is overstating it. They treat it rather calmly. They're more concerned about the plasma weapon.

 

[Greg Cox]

2 movies ,100 episodes or 5 decades. Why should it matter? Star Trek should be about the future and looking forward. Extrapolating what the future should be based on the present, not the middle of the 20th Century. Star Trek shouldn't be "transistor punk". If something is outdated, outmoded or just plain old fashioned it should be discarded or revamped.

Exactly. Take the holographic displays on DISCO. Did we see those in "The Cage" or TOS? Of course not. But here's the thing: people talking to each other via two-way TV screens looked cool and futuristic in the 1960s but much less so nowadays when we routinely Skype and Facetime on our phones. So you need to dial up the "wow factor" to get the same effect the two-way TV screens got back in the day.

STAR TREK is not supposed to be a nostalgic period piece set in in a 1960s vision of tomorrow. I'll grant that some fans would love that--for old time's sake--but ultimately you want DISCO to look as cool and futuristic as TOS did back in the sixties.

 

[Lance]

I think this is a big problem with canon arguments. Somehow a single person’s perception or understanding is meant to represent universal factual truth, rather than their opinion or belief.

One of the biggest problems we all used to encounter before ENT and DSC and the Kevin time line, possibly still do, is people taking the back ground character stuff from the Okuda's chronology as literal truth, and using it as "evidence" why these current versions of Trek aren't canon because they violate "facts" about Trek past... when the Okuda's themselves admited in the forward that the chronology filling in details was only meant to be a bit of hypothetical fun, that it was *never* definitive, and that supposedly solid "facts" such as the date of TOS characters births or the establishment of the Federation or the invention of warp drive or the length of April and Pike's missions as Enterprise skipper etc, all had that little word, conjecture, next to them... so when later shows contradicted and ignored them, it was never like they were contradictory to actual canon, only to the fanon that we'd all kind of accepted as a universal framework until something in-show came along to tell us otherwise...

Heck, the definitive period point of the end of Kirk's five-year mission was never made canon until the 2000s, when Voyager stated it outright, until then such a "fact" was still only hypothetical wonderings from the Chronology...

That's the slippery slope with people saying that Discovery or Kelvin-Trek or Enterprise "isn't canon" because they "contradict" future Trek... sometimes, the so-called future Trek these people think it is contradicting, never actually established the things we think it did. It was all fanon masquerading as canon, fanon written by people working on the show themselves yes, but fanon nonetheless.

These days, in 2019, fanon isn't even ordained from a book. This concept of "head canon" means discussions like this are even more infuriating than ever, because everyone seems to have their own unique interpretation of Trek lore and sticks to it doggedly, rather than accepting that screen evidence has always been our single solid foundation for canon, and screen evidence includes ENT, KEL and DSC, so the things those shows and movies bring to the table *are* immutable and not a matter of interpretation.

 

[BillJ]

...but ultimately you want DISCO to look as cool and futuristic as TOS did back in the sixties.

Which is the rub for me. It simply doesn't. If it had some kind of unique vision of the future, that would at least be something. It feels so generic.

 

[Vger23]

I think the design and look of DSC is the most inspiring and interesting since TMP. They had an immensely difficult task of making it look futuristic enough to be acceptable for 2018 television, but also fit within the general look of Star Trek, particularly TOS. When I look at the props, the design of the ships, the prime interiors like the Bridge and Engineering....I feel like this is definitely the look I want for Star Trek.

In fact, I like the look significantly more than I like that of ENT, TNG movie era or even the Kelvinverse. It reminds me of the interesting, colorful, yet moody look of TWOK and TUC, which was always my favorite look for Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Which is the rub for me. It simply doesn't. If it had some kind of unique vision of the future, that would at least be something. It feels so generic.

But can you see where two-way TV screens look more retro than futuristic these days? Let's be honest: a modern ATM has a more sophisticated interface than all those knobs and buttons (and paper printers) in "The Cage."

Sometimes you just have to fudge things when adapting vintage shows to the modern era. It's not an continuity issue; it's an aesthetic one.

It's the same as them giving the Klingons a makeover back in '79 just to make them look cooler and more "alien" to movie audiences that expected more than greasepaint and Fu Manchu mustaches by then. It's not a narrative thing that requires an explanation (although we eventually got one twenty-five years later). The "cool factor" trumps strict visual continuity.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Which is the rub for me. It simply doesn't. If it had some kind of unique vision of the future, that would at least be something. It feels so generic.

No,they haven't strayed too far from the Star Trek aesthetic.
I think Orville wrote the book if you want generic. At least inside the ship. The actual ship design is a different and unique.

 

[BillJ]

Sometimes you just have to fudge things when adapting vintage shows to the modern era. It's not an continuity issue; it's an aesthetic one.

They aren't attempting to "fudge things", they are doing a complete rewrite of the visual universe. Which, to me, makes it a reboot.

They could do electronic paper, paper that has a sci-fi spin and still respects what came before.

And two way screens would likely be far less power intensive than holographic projectors, which is something that should be important when working in deep space.

 

[BillJ]

No,they haven't strayed too far from the Star Trek aesthetic.
I think Orville wrote the book if you want generic. At least inside the ship.

I think on the idea of interiors they are both fairly generic, though The Orville doesn't have the identity problem Discovery does. We aren't told that The Orville is a prequel of a 1960's TV show.

For all the visual issues, they stick out so badly for me because Discovery is so dull. So instead of being involved in a story, I find myself looking at the sets.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They aren't attempting to "fudge things", they are doing a complete rewrite of the visual universe. Which, to me, makes it a reboot.

A rewrite visually was inevitable because, as has been said a thousand times, it's not the 1960's.

They could do electronic paper, paper that has a sci-fi spin and still respects what came before.

God no.

And two way screens would likely be far less power intensive, which is something that should be important when working in deep space.

Do we even know what the "power" cost of anything is in the "future".

 

[Nerys Myk]

think on the idea of interiors they are both fairly generic, though The Orville doesn't have the identity problem Discovery does. We aren't told that The Orville is a prequel of a 1960's TV show.

Does it? I mean it all depends on the individual. A "you" problem, not really a show problem.

For all the visual issues, they stick out so badly for me because Discovery is so dull. So instead of being involved in a story, I find myself looking at the sets.

OTOH, that could be a show problem.