My own imagination has the Klingons responsible for the destruction of Romulus. Generations and ST3 showed them interested in system-destroying weapons. ENT established that there were different classes than warrior-classes. Imagine where the scientists and the warriors ally to make massive technological progress for military ends (a la America during world wars). If you start with a supernova inducing weapon, it's not that hard to imagine taking it to the next level with a sector-killing supernova. I'd love to see a story with that as a backdrop (Klingons turning genocidal after too many incursions from the Romulans, the Federation conflicted over its values telling it to betray a friend to help an enemy and later how to handle an empire that is more advanced scientifically/militarily.
Star Trek Series - After Spock Creates Blackhole
- Thread starter Into Darkness
- Start date
My own imagination has the Klingons responsible for the destruction of Romulus. Generations and ST3 showed them interested in system-destroying weapons. ENT established that there were different classes than warrior-classes. Imagine where the scientists and the warriors ally to make massive technological progress for military ends (a la America during world wars). If you start with a supernova inducing weapon, it's not that hard to imagine taking it to the next level with a sector-killing supernova. I'd love to see a story with that as a backdrop (Klingons turning genocidal after too many incursions from the Romulans, the Federation conflicted over its values telling it to betray a friend to help an enemy and later how to handle an empire that is more advanced scientifically/militarily.
It's pretty good chance and it would be great btw, but the films are what my friends know and don't care for TNG stuff. I mentioned a new series is coming and they automatically believed its JJTrek. I did failed to mentioned its from the new showrunner, but this started a love for Abrams tv and the upcoming Westworld on HBO. Fandom will get the series started but I'm not sure if fandom can keep the series going unless the show can draw onto a fresh audience.
The Klingons could just basically use Trilithium to destroy a star and make it go nova.
Yes. But I guess your friends wouldn't necesserely care if it was set in the prime universe or somewhere else - as long as it feels fresh and entertaining. Hell, most of my non-trek-y friends didn't even knew there were different timelines, they straight up assumed the JJmovies were regular prequels to the original series! (Up until I gave them my copy of "Wrath of Khan").
My guess (and hope) would be that the creators of Trek17 try to distance themselves as much as possible from either timeline, either opening a third one or going beyond the point where Spock vanished which could be a continuiation of both universes, and focus on creating on something pretty much independent that doesn't rely on previous knowledge of Trek (knowing what klingons and transporters are should totally suffice, everything else should be handled in the series itself), and only has vague hints of which continuity it is set in the background.
Except the torture used on Picard was working, Picard admitted this to Troi at the end of the episode.
Essentually the warships from the Honor Harrington series of novels, yes?
Mine is it was done by the Bajoran Prophets, a little payback.
No, I've never even heard of those novels or that person, this is my design from my own mind.
Edit: After a Google search it's clear to see this Harrington guy simply designed Submarines for space. My ship is nothing like a submarine.
It wasn't working AT ALL. Did it broke Picard? Hell yes it did! That's what torture does. Did the Cardassians obtain ANY information out of Picard? Nope, they didn't.
It's actually amating how much research and care went into this episode, you can read up on it, it actually served as an example at the UN about how torture works, what it accomplishes (unusal punishment) and what it doesn't (obtaining any kind of useful information).
TROI: You didn't say it?
PICARD: No, no, but I was going to. I would have told him anything. Anything at all.
The Cardassian's methods were working, Picard was being broken.
Broken? Hell yes. That's what torture does. Giving information? No. None at all. He was talking about the four lights. That's the problem with torture: People will say anything. But there's absolutely no value to the information, because, again, the suspect will say anyting to make it stop.
During the torture itself, the suspect is simply not capable of giving nuanced information out. He will say he will tell the truth, but he won't. But afterwards, he will lie his ass off, because he is fully aware that even if he complies, they won't stop.
Picard was even so mentally stable, he only got on the verge of breaking. After that, he would have told him anything. There are four lights. The Federation plans to attack the Cardassians. The federation is evil. He would have said anything the Gul wanted to hear, but nothing usefull.
Torture works only as punishment. It has never worked in real life to obtain information. It only works in fiction, never in reality. Even the CIA had to lie their asses off to make a movie show torture had worked in Guantanamo Bay (Zero Dark Thirty, to capture Bin Laden), when in reality (as was confirmed by independent investigations of Congress) it hasn't, and all of the usefull information was obtained before the torture, by professional interrogators who, you guessed it, simply talked to the prisoners (and you will never find a professional investigator who will even consider torture to gain information, even the CIA had to fall back to some third-grade psychologist who never before or after had anything to do with real life interrogation).
So yeah, broken Picard? Yes. The Cardassians method working? Hell no.
In this regard, the episode was great, and way ahead of it's time, especially compared to later itterations of torture in fiction like on '24' or even Trek09.
I could read the line both ways: "I would have told him anything. Anything at all." i.e. I would have said anything he wants to hear, true or not. OR... "I would have told him anything. Anything at all." I would have given him any classified top secret Federation secrets he asked for.
Unless I am misremembering the episode, the point is Picard doesn't have that specific information that he wants - which is the information about Minos Korva - not generic Star Fleet secrets.
Which can be science fiction's greatest asset-let the audience decide for themselves rather than spoon feeding the moral.
The other side of that is when writers who ultimately fail at completing a proper story (Damon Lindelof) use that very excuse. It's like sex where your partner stops and while leaving tells you to be creative and finish on your own - even when you paid for it.
Last edited:
Well, that got personal quickly...
Writers can use any number of excuses to justify a story's short comings, and Lindelof is neither the newest or most egregious of examples. However, my larger point was that science fiction can use such a tool to great effect that than just preaching to the audience.
I was pointing out that whether an open ending is good or not depends on talent, intent, and expectations often provided by the writer and story itself. And I think "spoon feeding" is hyperbole used to denigrate the desire for a satisfying ending far too often, as if satisfaction is an inherently bad thing. It's not.
The open ending mindset often just gives me a feeling of "Emperor's Clothes." As if to say, "Look how brilliant I am and you're not" when it can simply be disguising a lack of creativity and a certain courage to put something in concrete, decisive terms and face the consequences.
In terms of Picard's torture, he gets away looking like a hero despite his knowing his imminent failure in his own mind. What if he had actually given in, and we and the Federation knew that? Consequences aplenty. But the weekly nature of the show would not have accommodated the consequences. To their credit, they did have consequences for being Locutus.
The open ending mindset often just gives me a feeling of "Emperor's Clothes." As if to say, "Look how brilliant I am and you're not" when it can simply be disguising a lack of creativity and a certain courage to put something in concrete, decisive terms and face the consequences.
In terms of Picard's torture, he gets away looking like a hero despite his knowing his imminent failure in his own mind. What if he had actually given in, and we and the Federation knew that? Consequences aplenty. But the weekly nature of the show would not have accommodated the consequences. To their credit, they did have consequences for being Locutus.
Last edited:
A good story depends on the craft of the author. It is not my intent or goal to state that "I'm smarter because of my interpretation of a story" or that authors can't use it as a lazy device. "Spoon-feeding" may be hyperbole, to one degree, but on another, it has been my observation that regardless of what a story says, a lot is left up to personal interpretation, unless it is very on-the-nose in terms of the message. In that case, the story could fail because I don't agree with the message, no matter how artfully done. If I don't agree or miss a point that the author was trying to communicate then the satisfaction of a well told story is diminished.
Conversely, I can enjoy a poorly told story if there are elements or characters that I can identify with. As I said, a good story is a very subjective experience on some levels. On others, I can appreciate the craft of the story and plot and how the world is built. For me, these are two different factors in enjoying a story and don't always line up in terms of satisfaction.
Conversely, I can enjoy a poorly told story if there are elements or characters that I can identify with. As I said, a good story is a very subjective experience on some levels. On others, I can appreciate the craft of the story and plot and how the world is built. For me, these are two different factors in enjoying a story and don't always line up in terms of satisfaction.
I'd like to add one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post: The denial of satisfaction (of a strong, tangible ending) seems to me to be puritanical, like denial of pleasure as a healthy thing. I was going to humorously link that in some manner with my sexual analogy.
I will say, however, that if dialogue redundantly restates what has already been seen visually on the screen, it does at that point become annoying and insulting to the intelligence of the audience. That would be too "on the nose" in your parlance for my tastes.
Finally, I don't mean you are saying you are "smarter because of [your] interpretation of a story," but rather it is the artist taking either that superior attitude, or the easy way out. Your subjective interpretation is not part of my discussion. I hope that helps.
"On the nose" is another epithet I've noticed gaining popularity in the lexicon of criticism. I don't see anything wrong with saying out loud something in which one, such as an artist, believes. They do it all the time; sometimes for intentional offense. Why mask what you want to say behind abstraction or a polite smile? Taking an unequivocal position is part of what I say about the "courage to put something in concrete, decisive terms and face the consequences."
I will say, however, that if dialogue redundantly restates what has already been seen visually on the screen, it does at that point become annoying and insulting to the intelligence of the audience. That would be too "on the nose" in your parlance for my tastes.
Finally, I don't mean you are saying you are "smarter because of [your] interpretation of a story," but rather it is the artist taking either that superior attitude, or the easy way out. Your subjective interpretation is not part of my discussion. I hope that helps.
Last edited:
First of all, thank you for the clarification. I think we were talking past each other and that did help, some what.
I'll add my own definition to what you stated, but "on the nose" is exactly how you described it when the film is redundant, states what has already been shown to the audience. Stating what one believes is not on the nose, to me, because there is still nuance and personal inflection that informs that belief. But, telling the audience what to think, without any shade of nuance or room for personal engagement with the work.
So, it's not about being abstract or political nicety. A film can state its message, so long as it doesn't treat the audience as dumb and talk down to them in the process.
I'll add my own definition to what you stated, but "on the nose" is exactly how you described it when the film is redundant, states what has already been shown to the audience. Stating what one believes is not on the nose, to me, because there is still nuance and personal inflection that informs that belief. But, telling the audience what to think, without any shade of nuance or room for personal engagement with the work.
So, it's not about being abstract or political nicety. A film can state its message, so long as it doesn't treat the audience as dumb and talk down to them in the process.
