PICARD: Evasive maneuver Delta Epsilon 9!
RO: You mean continue traveling in a straight line?
PICARD: Evasive maneuver Theta 1
RO: Still a straight line.
PICARD: Why is the word 'evasive" even in there!!!!!????
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x13 - "What's Past Is Prologue"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
RO: You mean continue traveling in a straight line?
PICARD: Evasive maneuver Theta 1
RO: Still a straight line.
PICARD: Why is the word 'evasive" even in there!!!!!????
Except Encounter at Farpoint?
She was waiting for the movie.
Is he at warp during that? They can do slight turns and strafes but that’s it. It’s stated in Voyager that doing abrupt turns could lead to a increase in hull stresses which could lead to hull breaches.
We've seen ships change course while at warp countless times.
Nope.
Yes the quality dipped exactly when you say, and yes there was plenty of filler. But no, it never left it's brains behind. In fact Enterprise improved on Voyager in this regard with episodes like Dear Doctor and Cogeniter. My point however is that even when past Treks were bad, you could find episodes within a season that tried to deal with Trek like issues and not one season out of the entire back catalogue dispensed with the positive future and moral quandaries.
Actually Enterprise showed steady improvement during it's third and fourth seasons, and even season three contained some of the kinds of episodes I am talking about .
Better tell that to someone who claimed it has "destroyed" Star Trek then.I simply said it's Trek in name only. Making the case that it has destroyed the franchise is to say there is no scope for recovery. I have said the opposite.
First of all, don't lump me in with "others". That is intellectually offensive as my opinions are my own.
Secondly, I have been a fan since the early eighties. I was there when TNG debuted, and while there were certainly criticisms of it, the ones I am making of this show did not apply, nor was I making them of TNG when it debuted. You talk about rose tinted glasses, but you don't mind not only revising history but putting words into my mouth as if to pretend I was doing them same in 1987 as now. "People complained back then too" is not the be all and end all of an argument and doesn't render criticism mute.
Your argument is that the point of a show carrying a franchise name is not to reflect the franchise? If the first season isn't representative of the show then the show is deceiving its audience.
Trek has done wars before but still found time for intelligence, philosophical debate and moral quandaries. As for values they hold dear - what values? There has been almost no discussion about them aside from a few lines from Stamets. You only know what values the Federation holds dear because you know them from other shows. A new viewer doesn't because they have been brushed aside and given little more than occasional, casual lip service.
So now your argument against my post with what you think may happen in the show??
If that is what it is then good. But that risks alienating viewers who tune into the franchise for the first time and think the show is Game of Thrones lite in space with darkness, cheesy plot twists and the like.
Also, let's face it, banging on about the War is bollocks anyway. We've hardly seen any of the war. We saw more war on DS9 and still that show retained it's intelligence and positivity. The botched Klingons were brushed aside after episode 9 in favour of this panto villain four episode mirror universe jaunt, that is essentially four episodes wasted of the supposed war arc. The war has always felt more like a background afterthought in the show for me. Plus, where was the promise that the Klingons and their culture would be much more developed than previous series? They've been the exact opposite and brushing them aside in favour of panto antics from Isaacs and Yeoh as space Nazis has taken away valuable time from fulfilling the much talked up promise from the writers about the Klingons.
Well, with respect, yes you are making them to be critical of me, hence your comment "you and others" above. To be blunt, I don't need your perspective, I am intelligent enough to have my own views and to be honest your post reads like a line of excuse making rather than an analysis of where the show has shortcomings. If you are able to overlook it's shortcomings and they aren't deal breakers then I am genuinely pleased for you that the show is delivering enough to keep you happy.
I have stuck through Trek for nearly forty years. I suffered through all seven years of Voyager. But I am at a stage now where I am more discerning on what I invest my money in and this show is not delivering enough for me, especially given you have to subscribe to get it, unlike previous series. I will give it to early season two and if I see no signs of improvement I am out. I am not a "hater" and never have been. But I do know when something is frustrating me and the reasons why that frustration exists. It's not because I am simply not adjusting, which is the thrust of your argument (and a bit unintentionally patronising).
Cool your jets. I was just trying to have a conversation not an argument. This is a discussion board after all. I honestly didn't mean for my post to be an attack or an argument. It wasn't my intention but I can see how it would have come across that way.
I would disagree that star trek didn't leave it's brains behind once Braga became showrunner on Voyager and later Enterprise. However I would agree that Enterprise S4 was some fine trek and is probably want Enterprise should have been from the beginning. The point I was trying to make was that 90's trek is far from perfect, there are a lot of turds burying the gemstones, but people seem to be forgetting that these days.
I wasn't trying to lump you in with anyone, It was an observation that you were making criticisms that i have seen others make. I placed no emotional value on it. Of course your criticisms are your own, but that doesn't mean that others do not have the same criticisms as you. I'm not revising history either, it's a fact that TNG received a heap of criticism from fans of TOS and it was very similar to what we are seeing with discovery. I never said that you personally took part in that as you're suggesting or trying to imply that you did, that is putting words in my mouth.
All I was trying to say with my post is what i personally have gotten out of the series thus far, what i think may happen and what direction it may be going in. That's all. I wasn't trying to provide a rebuttal
To insinuate that I am not aware of Discovery's shortcomings or making excuses for it isn't fair. I know very well what is wrong with show, i just don't feel the need to add to the chorus about what is wrong with it, plenty of people are doing that. Instead i choose to talk about what I do like about it and what i get out of it. I'm the same with Voyager, there is a lot i do not like about that show, but there is quite a bit of stuff i do like. On the rare event i go to the Voyager forum, i tend to talk about what i do like instead of what i don't
Also, at no point did I suggest or insinuate that you were not 'adjusting'. To say that i was is again, putting words in my mouth and unfair.
Again, apologies for the miscommunication.
But... but.... there was that one line.
The sling shot effect is a very unique situation though that uses the gravity pull of a sun.
Yeah but I just assume to they come out of warp, change their course and go back into it. Takes a few seconds.
for acceleration.
That doesn't make much sense.
They can also break the time barrier doing it.
How? They drop out of warp while keeping the momentum, change course and go back into it.
Yeah, that's the point of the increased acceleration.
So slow down to change course? Drop from warp 9 to sublight every time? Sorry, not buying it.
That's quite a drop in speed.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
