Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x04 - "An Obol for Charon"

[Greg Cox]

at least you don't wave them in front of the camera right now

I would never be so shameless.

By the way, did I mention that I have a new BATMAN novel coming out this week?

 

[CorporalClegg]

 

[oberth]

I would never be so shameless.

By the way, did I mention that I have a new BATMAN novel coming out this week?

will there be a new warehouse 13 novel any time soon?

 

[lawman]

Essentially, the Eugenic Wars were the near future to the people watching Star Trek in 1966 and the distant past to the crew of the Enterprise. What exactly does it matter if the Eugenic Wars are still in our near future if they are still in the distant past to those in Star Fleet? Does a few decades here or there really make an important difference to what you are watching if they are still ancient history to the characters in the show?

Stories aren't told by being boiled down to broad-strokes "essentials"; it's the details that make them come alive. And calendars don't work according to vague subjective notions of past and future; they work according to specific dates. The Eugenics Wars happened between 1992 and 1996.

And yes, these things absolutely do make a difference to my enjoyment of what I'm watching. I'm a timeliner, for heaven's sake! (And I don't mean just for Trek: I keep track of the timelines for pretty much any fictional property I enjoy enough to call myself a fan. I've compiled a detailed timeline for Sherlock Holmes, for instance. I'm also a huge comics fan, and the "sliding" timelines of the big comic-book universes have always annoyed me to no end.)

And obviously they make a difference to a lot of other people as well, judging by the consistent popularity over the years of secondary publications about such stuff, the in-depth fan efforts online, and the fact that Trek's approach to dating things has grown more and more precise over the years as the franchise has expanded.

 

[Greg Cox]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply made the point that TOS is my favorite by far. If I have to choose between it and another Trek property for some reason (and DSC seems to force that kind of choice annoyingly often), I'll pretty much always choose the original..

See, that's the thing. I don't think we're being forced to choose between shows. TOS looks like TOS, a show that was made in the late sixties. DISCO looks like DISCO, a show being made being made today. We can watch and enjoy both on their own terms without worrying about which is one is "right" or "accurate" or "canon" or whatever, and chalk up any differences to the fact that, well, they're different shows made by different people fifty-plus years apart.

They don't need to match up perfectly.

 

[oberth]

Stories aren't told by being boiled down to broad-strokes "essentials"; it's the details that make them come alive. And calendars don't work according to vague subjective notions of past and future; they work according to specific dates. The Eugenics Wars happened between 1992 and 1996.

And yes, these things absolutely do make a difference to my enjoyment of what I'm watching. I'm a timeliner, for heaven's sake! (And I don't mean just for Trek: I keep track of the timelines for pretty much any fictional property I enjoy enough to call myself a fan. I've compiled a detailed timeline for Sherlock Holmes, for instance. I'm also a huge comics fan, and the "sliding" timelines of the big comic-book universes have always annoyed me to no end.)

And obviously they make a difference to a lot of other people as well, judging by the consistent popularity over the years of secondary publications about such stuff, the in-depth fan efforts online, and the fact that Trek's approach to dating things has grown more and more precise over the years as the franchise has expanded.

whereas that may all be true it apparently plays little to no role for those people who need to come up with the dosh necessary to have new trek comissioned

 

[Lord Garth]

See, that's the thing. I don't think we're being forced to choose between shows. TOS looks like TOS, a show that was made in the late sixties. DISCO looks like DISCO, a show being made being made today. We can watch and enjoy both on their own terms without worrying about which is one is "right" or "accurate" or "canon" or whatever, and chalk up any differences to the fact that, well, they're different shows made by different people fifty-plus years apart.

They don't need to match up perfectly.

I have TOS on my DVD shelf. The un-remastered sets from 2005, for what it's worth, not TOS-R. I never bothered to buy TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. I also have DSC on my DVD shelf.

So, where it counts (my wallet), that's the type of "choice" I made.

 

[Greg Cox]

will there be a new warehouse 13 novel any time soon?

Not that I'm aware of, I'm afraid. That was a one-book deal.

 

[lawman]

See, that's the thing. I don't think we're being forced to choose between shows. TOS looks like TOS, a show that was made in the late sixties. DISCO looks like DISCO, a show being made being made today. We can watch and enjoy both on their own terms without worrying about which is one is "right" or "accurate" or "canon" or whatever, and chalk up any differences to the fact that, well, they're different shows made by different people fifty-plus years apart.

They don't need to match up perfectly.

I do watch and (mostly) enjoy both. In the part of my brain that acknowledges and appreciates non-diegetic facts, of course I completely understand the real-world reasons they look (and feel) different. Most of my major complaints about DSC have involved the writing, which thankfully seems to be markedly improved this season; the aesthetics have been more of an annoyance than a serious problem.

At the same time, there's also the part of my brain that wants to be immersed in a fictional reality, to be lost in the diegetic experience of the world I'm entering. For that part, the ways (often needless, IMHO) in which DSC presents an obvious conflict with the version of Trek's reality presented by TOS, and thus forces the viewer to choose a preferred version, draws me out of the story and diminishes the overall experience.

It's that second sense in which an in-story explanation is very much appreciated. Choosing to "rip out those holo-comm systems," for instance, helps to elide the difference between the two productions, rather than putting it in my face. For another example, I literally cheered when I watched the season 2 trailer and glimpsed the outline of an actual recognizable Klingon ship.

 

[lawman]

whereas that may all be true it apparently plays little to no role for those people who need to come up with the dosh necessary to have new trek comissioned

Well, I don't give a tinker's damn about the behind-the-scenes business factors driving the decisions about the fictional properties I enjoy, and never have. After all, insofar as I've been able to determine, those factors have worked far more over the years to diminish things I enjoy rather than to enhance them.

 

[oberth]

Well, I don't give a tinker's damn about the behind-the-scenes business factors driving the decisions about the fictional properties I enjoy, and never have. After all, insofar as I've been able to determine, those factors have worked far more over the years to diminish things I enjoy rather than to enhance them.

i know reality is a strange concept

 

[Nerys Myk]

But the other thing is (and I won't dwell on this, as I know it's been argued to death before, but still), Trek is not about a future extrapolated from "right now." It's about a future extrapolated from the 1960s.

Disagree. It should always be about a future extrapolated from "right now." If TOS survived into the 21st Century it would have been doing that for the past 50 years.

 

[DEWLine]

We had another map showing up at about the 7-minute mark in this episode. I've seen screen-shots of the one from the 39-minute mark...?

(Yes, I'm counting commercials as part of airtime. Space Channel airs them during the broadcast, so the PVR includes them. *shrugs* )

 

[DEWLine]

Disagree. It should always be about a future extrapolated from "right now." If TOS survived into the 21st Century it would have been doing that for the past 50 years.

I'm okay as a viewer with the divergence from, say, 1965 or so being locked into the series' shared timeline.

 

[Greg Cox]

Fiction is strange. In general, we can immerse ourselves in a work of fiction ("No, don't go in the basement!") and appreciate it as a work of art ("Wow, the writing is really good in this scene!") simultaneously.

That being said, I do have a pet theory that, even though we all do this to some degree, there's a spectrum here, where some people are more about the immersion--and react negatively to any reminder that they're actually watching a theatrical production--while others lean more toward the aesthetic and don't really need to believe that what's happening is "real" to enjoy it. So some fans find such discrepancies jarring, while some of us just shrug it off as a change in art direction that makes no real difference when it comes to watching a televised entertainment.

 

[Tuskin38]

We had another map showing up at about the 7-minute mark in this episode. I've seen screen-shots of the one from the 39-minute mark...?

(Yes, I'm counting commercials as part of airtime. Space Channel airs them during the broadcast, so the PVR includes them. *shrugs* )

What is the map on? What kind of screen?

 

[DEWLine]

Pike's ready room, the discussion with Burnham after getting the data from "Number One"? He ports the file into his table-screen.

 

[Nyotarules]

Remember "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and the chicken soup that instantly appears from a food slot in the transporter room? Or the time Kirk tried to order a chicken sandwich in "The Trouble with Tribbles"?

They had automatic food slots on TOS. How exactly they worked was never explained.

The wizard behind the curtain?

 

[Alan Roi]

Fiction is strange. In general, we can immerse ourselves in a work of fiction ("No, don't go in the basement!") and appreciate it as a work of art ("Wow, the writing is really good in this scene!") simultaneously.

That being said, I do have a pet theory that, even though we all do this to some degree, there's a spectrum here, where some people are more about the immersion--and react negatively to any reminder that they're actually watching a theatrical production--while others lean more toward the aesthetic and don't really need to believe that what's happening is "real" to enjoy it. So some fans find such discrepancies jarring, while some of us just shrug it off as a change in art direction that makes no real difference when it comes to watching a televised entertainment.

The ultimate goal I sear here is to be able to set both your immersion and aesthetic meters to ten as well as unchecking the pre-conceived notions box. I try to watch something being what it is and leave any prior preconceived notions at the door. I have therefore found I've enjoyed a lot of things that many people have disliked because I can watch something as what it is and not as I pre-decided it should be. I came upon this idea after watching Trek 2009. First time I hated it. Second time I got over myself and enjoyed it quite a bit. And since then I've approached many movies and TV the same way when they didn't match what general consensus stated they were or I wanted to find a reason to continue watching something I was having trouble with, and found that attitude has enriched my experience and enjoyment in many cases.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The wizard behind the curtain?

I'd prefer a chef, but that works.