Spoilers Star Trek: Prodigy General Discussion Thread

[The Overlord]

I never suggested the 23rd century. Time travel can be forward too.

Sure, but she would need a reason to be in the future as well. If its set in the 24th century, she doesn't need a special reason to be in that time period, to seemingly with deal with runaways.

Instead of getting worked up over hypothetical show premises, maybe we should reserve our judgment for when we find out what the premise of the show actually is.[/crazytalk]

Except there is no harm in speculation or conjecture. It can be fun. People just need to treat such things in a light-hearted manner.

 

[captainkirk]

Hear, hear. Lots of children's shows feature time travel. It's not that hard a thing to imagine. Indeed, the concept of moving non-linearly through time meshes perfectly with how our brains naturally work -- we can effortlessly recall the past or imagine the future. That's why time travel is such a perennial theme in fiction, because it feels so natural to us. If anything, it might be harder for a child to learn that we can't actually go to those times we can imagine so easily.

I remember my introduction to the idea of alternate universes as a kid was the Narnia books. The way it was explained that there are worlds other than Earth that it's possible to reach using technology, and then there are worlds that can only be reached using magic clicked with my young brain and I understood it just fine. Come to think of it, Narnia wasn't just an alternate universe, it was a universe where time moved at a different rate, introducing me to another sci-fi concept.

I'd love it if Prodigy did something similar. It doesn't have to come up with revolutionary ideas, but if it introduced kids to a lot of sci-fi concepts that are typically limited to more mature stories due to this false notion that they won't understand them, I think that would be brilliant.

 

[Danja]

I never suggested the 23rd century. Time travel can be forward too.

Spoiler

***Cough*** Disco S3 ***Cough***

 

[Christopher]

Sure, but she would need a reason to be in the future as well. If its set in the 24th century, she doesn't need a special reason to be in that time period, to seemingly with deal with runaways.

Yes, that goes without saying. But we don't know what time frame the show is set in, so we can't rule anything out. You said it best:

Except there is no harm in speculation or conjecture. It can be fun.

Spoiler

***Cough*** Disco S3 ***Cough***

Yes, exactly. The Trek timeline now extends all the way to the 32nd century, so there's plenty of uncharted territory before then that a new series could venture into.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Given that the show's set on an abandoned Federation starship, my money's on post-Burn but pre-DSC S3.

(It does help answer the question of why the ship was abandoned... )

 

[Danja]

I remember my introduction to the idea of alternate universes as a kid was the Narnia books. The way it was explained that there are worlds other than Earth that it's possible to reach using technology, and then there are worlds that can only be reached using magic clicked with my young brain and I understood it just fine. Come to think of it, Narnia wasn't just an alternate universe, it was a universe where time moved at a different rate, introducing me to another sci-fi concept.

I'd love it if Prodigy did something similar. It doesn't have to come up with revolutionary ideas, but if it introduced kids to a lot of sci-fi concepts that are typically limited to more mature stories due to this false notion that they won't understand them, I think that would be brilliant.

"If I have something I want to say that is too difficult for adults to swallow, then I will write it in a book for children."

-- Madeleine L'Engle --

 

[Christopher]

"If I have something I want to say that is too difficult for adults to swallow, then I will write it in a book for children."

-- Madeleine L'Engle --

As adults, we get set in our beliefs and habits of thought, and it becomes hard for us to open our minds to new ideas. Too often, we mistakenly assume that children have the same limitation. But a child's mind is open and eager for input. The wisest adults are those who don't forget how to think like children.

 

[Danja]

As adults, we get set in our beliefs and habits of thought, and it becomes hard for us to open our minds to new ideas. Too often, we mistakenly assume that children have the same limitation. But a child's mind is open and eager for input. The wisest adults are those who don't forget how to think like children.

Children enjoy stories. They don't think about the physical mechanics of Jeannie turning someone into a dog, an alternate universe existing behind a wardrobe, or of Harry Potter waving his wand and chanting a spell (they most certainly don't expend bandwidth ARGUING about it ).

Adults tend to be too engrossed in materialism at times. We tend to be trapped in our heads.

I read that quote from L'Engle in an interview years ago. What she says is true.

 

[fireproof78]

Instead of getting worked up over hypothetical show premises, maybe we should reserve our judgment for when we find out what the premise of the show actually is.[/crazytalk]

Since when!?

 

[dupersuper]

As adults, we get set in our beliefs and habits of thought, and it becomes hard for us to open our minds to new ideas. Too often, we mistakenly assume that children have the same limitation. But a child's mind is open and eager for input. The wisest adults are those who don't forget how to think like children.

“Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
― Grant Morrison

 

[ananta]

“Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
― Grant Morrison

This explains why I find Trek fans, and perhaps fans in general, quite anally retentive. Enjoyment comes secondary to fretting over small continuity details, perceived plot holes or technical inconsistencies and the whole murky area of “cannon” (a word that makes me want to shoot myself when I see Trekkies brandishing it like a loaded weapon). I think inside I’m still more child than adult because, assuming the material is of sufficient quality to be entertaining, I’m still swept away by the wonder of it all.

 

[Christopher]

Enjoyment comes secondary to fretting over small continuity details, perceived plot holes or technical inconsistencies and the whole murky area of “cannon” (a word that makes me want to shoot myself when I see Trekkies brandishing it like a loaded weapon).

Yep. It's not like we're studying for a final exam and have to get the right answers. It's recreation. It's telling stories around the campfire. Discussing continuity details can be fun if it's done in the right spirit -- part of the recreation, like sports fans geeking out over stats on baseball cards -- but not if it's treated as a grim, oppressive dogma, or if it's mistaken for the sole purpose of the exercise.

 

[fireproof78]

“Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
― Grant Morrison

Yup.

It's amazing how much focus is put on the details rather than enjoyment of the story.

 

[Danja]

This explains why I find Trek fans, and perhaps fans in general, quite anally retentive. Enjoyment comes secondary to fretting over small continuity details, perceived plot holes or technical inconsistencies and the whole murky area of “cannon” (a word that makes me want to shoot myself when I see Trekkies brandishing it like a loaded weapon).

Ship fanatics: "No! No! No! That CAN'T be a Galaxy-class ship! The placement of the nacelles are ALL wrong! The placement of the exterior access panels are all wrong!"

If the last time a ship design appeared onscreen was 25-30 years ago, there ARE going to be changes made since then.

I'd like to see Kurtzman and his crew COMPLETELY rework the Enterprise, just to watch the ship fanatics' heads explode.

Certain fans need the occasional reminder that THEY are not in charge.

“Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
― Grant Morrison

Spoiler: Disco

The ship fanatics are already going bananas over the detached nacelles.

The entire detachable nacelles controversy has just proved Morrison's point. While we adults are fuming online over "How can it POSSIBLY work?", a child would ask, "Why not? Why CAN'T we have detachable nacelles?"

If a wish-granting flute can repair a ship on Picard, surely a ship with detachable nacelles can exist on Discovery.

 

[Tuskin38]

The actor who played Okona in TNG has said he'll be in Prodigy in an interview.

https://www.dailystartreknews.com/r...-the-outrageous-okona-in-nickelodeons-prodigy

Although the description of a scene he gives sounds like something out of Lower Decks. So I wonder if someone got confused.

I haven't listened to the interview so I don't know if he mentions Prodigy by name.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The actor who played Okona in TNG has said he'll be in Prodigy in an interview.

https://www.dailystartreknews.com/r...-the-outrageous-okona-in-nickelodeons-prodigy

Although the description of a scene he gives sounds like something out of Lower Decks. So I wonder if someone got confused.

I haven't listened to the interview so I don't know if he mentions Prodigy by name.

Outrageous!

 

[Lord Garth]

It'll be funny to see what he's like in middle-age.

 

[Danja]

LD is so OTT and rapid-fire, Okona would just disappear on there.

On Prodigy, his presence would make more of an impact (someone along the lines of Harry Mudd in TOS).

Someone as substantial as Q can easily hold their own on LD. Okona? No.

Even TNG had comedy eps.

ETA: Campbell mentioned the show's female lead going "over the moon" for Okona, "much to the chagrin of the male lead".

Mariner and Boimler aren't/weren't lovers on LD -- so the quote wouldn't apply to them (Besides, Captain Freeman would have Boimler's a$# in a sling if she caught him making eyes at her DAUGHTER! )

 

[Tuskin38]

Mariner and Boimler aren't/weren't lovers on LD -- so the quote wouldn't apply to them.

I mean that could change

 

[Danja]

I mean that could change

Forgive me for bringing up race, but the idea of a black woman falling head-over-heels with a white man would strike a lot of people as racist ("Couldn't she get it on with Rutherford?")

I don't know if LD is ready to go there. The show is supposed to be a comedy (Disco gets enough grief for ITS "woke" moments).

The only reason the Worf/Dax 'ship worked was because they were both ALIENS!