I hope their taste in music is as good.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x06 - "Lethe"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Hey! First post!
How soon do I need to start responding to an episode before I'm 54 pages in? :-)
I liked this episode a lot - rated it an 8. It was the first episode that felt solidly TREK to me, while not sacrificing what it's trying to be. Earlier in the thread folks were saying this felt like "TNG-season 3 territory" - That made me laugh. Just before watching the show I told my son that it took 3 seasons for Star Trek to get going... and that I wasn't sure I wanted to pay to watch Discovery take those three years. And then this epiosde happened and made a liar of me.
Why 8 and not 9 or 10? So - Stamets was off, and I'm not clear why. It will probably become clear, but in this episode it just felt jarring. As did Lorcas's betrayal, at least to me. I'm agreeing that James Frain isn't really working for me as an actor - the role seemed perfect for him, but now it doesn't. And I still don't feel like the crew is a crew. Another reviewer elsewhere said that DIscovery seems too small. Like - seriously, war ships don't have crew ready to take up slack security officers leave when felled in the line of duty? So Tyler's elevation to prominence should be causing morale problems outside of trust issues. These things are... just outside of reasonable, and take me out of the moment while watching.
Still - plot holes aside, this episode gives me hope for the future of Discovery.
QT
How soon do I need to start responding to an episode before I'm 54 pages in? :-)
I liked this episode a lot - rated it an 8. It was the first episode that felt solidly TREK to me, while not sacrificing what it's trying to be. Earlier in the thread folks were saying this felt like "TNG-season 3 territory" - That made me laugh. Just before watching the show I told my son that it took 3 seasons for Star Trek to get going... and that I wasn't sure I wanted to pay to watch Discovery take those three years. And then this epiosde happened and made a liar of me.
Why 8 and not 9 or 10? So - Stamets was off, and I'm not clear why. It will probably become clear, but in this episode it just felt jarring. As did Lorcas's betrayal, at least to me. I'm agreeing that James Frain isn't really working for me as an actor - the role seemed perfect for him, but now it doesn't. And I still don't feel like the crew is a crew. Another reviewer elsewhere said that DIscovery seems too small. Like - seriously, war ships don't have crew ready to take up slack security officers leave when felled in the line of duty? So Tyler's elevation to prominence should be causing morale problems outside of trust issues. These things are... just outside of reasonable, and take me out of the moment while watching.
Still - plot holes aside, this episode gives me hope for the future of Discovery.
QT
I think the prevailing feeling is that Stamet's personality inconsistencies are actually intentional to the story arc...and that it's a result of his being exposed to the spore drive.
Where did you think Lorca committed betrayal?
Welcome to the board...!!!
That's not what "likeable" means.
Vulcans remind me of scientists. The ones that have made the world a safer place.. oh hang on they haven't.
Great episode, I really like the captain.
The intro theme reminds me a little of Fringe ☺
The intro theme reminds me a little of Fringe ☺
Last edited:
Yes the example of a Model T is probably not the best one to prove something is not valued!
Last edited:
the world is a much safer place than before science.
You actually have no clue as to the role science plays in your life. You can't, or else you wouldn't post such obviously ignorant stuff.
That strongly depends on your perspective.
Medical science has cured a lot, but science has been used as reason to torture and murder many in history, also, thanks to science there is a reasonable fear of nuclear war in many points of human history,
Im sure people living in certain Japanese cities wouldn't agree arbitrarily that science made them safer.
Simply saying the world is safer than "before science" ignores a lot of context.
I'll take clean drinking water and sanitary living conditions with the remote threat of nuclear war over pissing in a trench and dying young from Polio or Measles or any other number of illnesses any day of the week.
Science and advancements thereof have contaminated drinking water all over the world and has actually put the world at risk of annihilation, without advancement in science the natural order of things would mostly fix this sort of thing.
the human RACE would survive polio, or pox absent of a cure. But many things from polymer to chemicals to swift ways at eliminating trees are literally choking the world,
My overall point isn't that science = bad,
Science is a process not a thing, nor a savior. From monster study to eugenics, science can be as maniacal as anything else dangerous in the world.
Context is for deranged captains. Luddism doesn't favor the bold.
Since Japan came up, consider how many people who DIED in the nuclear attacks versus how many people worldwide have had their lives made better through clean electrical power. How many infants have NOT died due to modern medical breakthroughs, and lived to adulthood due to better producing farms with the transportation systems to get food to far flung areas kept fresh, vs the number of people who have died due to modern weaponry.
I don't think it's even close. Proof alone is in the rise in populations. People live to adulthood more often and they stay alive to breed. And though many are hungry, and its a travesty that has not been fixed (not a fault of science, just good old human stupidity, greed, ideology and regionalism), but the world is producing more food than it was once thought capable of, and we could do much more if we started building O'neill type colonies.
I will go so far to say that the threat of nuclear annihilation prevented, so far, World War 3, along with good intel from satellites. If we had only had conventional weapons, WW3 would have happened at some point by now, most likely and it probably would have been far worse than before. So again, science wins, even if in a scary way.
Whether people FEEL safe or not, they are safer.
Without medical science, we'd still be treating diseases with leeches, herbs and religious nonsense.
Without engineering science we would be living in caves instead of structures with electricity and Heating. Without technical science we would be having this conversation through tin cans connected by a string. Hell, even the tin cans and string are science.
Without science we would never know when killer storms are coming, or what causes earthquakes or to expect rain.
Every significant discovery our species has made in its entire history can be attributed to one field of science or another.
Without engineering science we would be living in caves instead of structures with electricity and Heating. Without technical science we would be having this conversation through tin cans connected by a string. Hell, even the tin cans and string are science.
Without science we would never know when killer storms are coming, or what causes earthquakes or to expect rain.
Every significant discovery our species has made in its entire history can be attributed to one field of science or another.
Over population is a major danger to the earth and the human race as a whole. If one's argument about the state of the world that science creates is the population of the earth then that argument can be very easily argued. What do you think is going to happen when the population of this planet reaches a breaking point? Science is going to find some interesting ways to thin the herd.
Science isn't a thing that wins or loses, science is a PROCESS. No one here is being a luddite, but context is not for deranged captains. Context is what defines and frames a conversation. The idea that science makes the world safer is largely perspective based and requires a lot of context.
Again, the human race would survive all of those things without science.
My point isn't that science is bad, my point is that science isn't good either, it's not an entity, it's not good or bad.
Science has also threatened the earth, poisoned waters, tortured people believed to be inferior etc..etc..etc..etc..
But, inarguably, mankind absent of science, has never put the entire planet at risk of destruction, nor the entire human race.
As populations develop and become more affluent, generally the birthrate declines.
In fact if anything the real threat to a post-scarcity economy might now be overpopulation but underpopulation. If it were not for immigration several developed countries would already be in negative growth. Japan is about to run into that crisis, and China might soon as well. So yes overpopulation is a problem, though more on a regional level, but it appears to be one that self corrects as populations become more educated and able to use contraception (another product of science).
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
