Spoilers The Science Behind Discovery's Burn

[valkyrie013]

Well, They must just give the writers a bunch of scientific words and just shove them in willy nilly..
Like when that seed vault was struck by a solar flare or somehting.. yet when they find its in a Ion Storm.. ..

Something like my normal complaint of, somebody with a good well rounded knowledge of Trek should proof read the scripts to make sure the writers aren't high on helium or something.

EDIT.
Just thought, Subspace isn't "instant" across whole galaxy's, and certainly not 1 billionth of a second delay across thousands of light years. Takes time for subspace transmissions to get from A to B sometimes Days, weeks etc. Su'Kals cry should have taken some time to cross the galaxy, maybe years. Just a thought.

 

[StarMan]

I don't hate Wink of An Eye or Plato's Stepchildren. Not a fan of Sub-Rosa, though. Threshold wasn't as bad as it's rep. I reserve my ire for Alternative Factor, Masks and Move Along Home.

I didn't mind Threshold either. Well, didn't hate it..

As for Plato's Stepchildren.. perish the thought! It was a masterclass in the Shatnerian acting method.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I didn't mind Threshold either. Well, didn't hate it..

As for Plato's Stepchildren.. perish the thought! It was a masterclass in the Shatnerian acting method.

I think the hate the horse scene gets is misplaced. It’s all about Kirk and Alexander being manipulated and humiliated. You should feel uncomfortable watching it.

 

[Ronald Held]

Science is almost always subordinate to the plots.

 

[Mudd]

The Science Behind Discovery's Burn:

 

[David cgc]

I don't watch Star Trek for lessons in science. But treating scientific accuracy on Discovery as an unique flaw while dismissing it in the other Treks is just special pleading.

I see it the other way around. Week in, week out, holding up criticism of DSC as invalid because they managed to not produce the worst or silliest episode in Star Trek history feels like damning with faint praise. Would anyone stick with Star Trek after a season that was made up entirely of episodes like "Spock's Brain," "Plato's Stepchildren," "The Alternative Factor," "The Final Frontier," "Shades of Gray," "Sub Rosa," "Masks," "Move Along Home," "Nemesis," "Threshold," "A Night In Sickbay," et cetera?

DSC can still consistently fail to meet expectations without being bad to an unprecedented degree. That's a bar so low it's hard to see how anything couldn't clear it.

 

[ITDUDE]

I feel like citing the worst episodes that everyone hates out of the past half-century of Star Trek as precedent isn’t the rousing endorsement of Discovery it’s being presented as.

I came to roast Discovery, I stayed for this

 

[NX_01]

I get people saying: „I don‘t care it isn‘t scientific, it‘s fun“.
I am am getting people who complain about that big boring technobabble.

What I am though not get are people who are defending this as scientific because someone used words from science 101.

I am also not sure if this „creative“ writing is helpful in a world more and more people got trapped in there own „creative scientific bubble“. Maybe I do overreact here, but I had hoped for more when Disco was announced.
I know Treks past was not so different from what we are seeing today in the Disco show, but I feel Disco someway jumped out of the franchises railways.

 

[Mudd]

I see it the other way around. Week in, week out, holding up criticism of DSC as invalid because they managed to not produce the worst or silliest episode in Star Trek history feels like damning with faint praise. Would anyone stick with Star Trek after a season that was made up entirely of episodes like "Spock's Brain," "Plato's Stepchildren," "The Alternative Factor," "The Final Frontier," "Shades of Gray," "Sub Rosa," "Masks," "Move Along Home," "Nemesis," "Threshold," "A Night In Sickbay," et cetera?

DSC can still consistently fail to meet expectations without being bad to an unprecedented degree. That's a bar so low it's hard to see how anything couldn't clear it.

Absolutely Right.™

 

[Mudd]

I get people saying: „I don‘t care it isn‘t scientific, it‘s fun“.
I am am getting people who complain about that big boring technobabble.

What I am though not get are people who are defending this as scientific because someone used words from science 101.

I am also not sure if this „creative“ writing is helpful in a world more and more people got trapped in there own „creative scientific bubble“. Maybe I do overreact here, but I had hoped for more when Disco was announced.
I know Treks past was not so different from what we are seeing today in the Disco show, but I feel Disco someway jumped out of the franchises railways.

"Those words sound authoritative to me, and he says he's a scientist. Clearly, climate change is a hoax and vaccines cause autism. Also, mycelial network!"

 

[fireproof78]

I see it the other way around. Week in, week out, holding up criticism of DSC as invalid because they managed to not produce the worst or silliest episode in Star Trek history feels like damning with faint praise. Would anyone stick with Star Trek after a season that was made up entirely of episodes like "Spock's Brain," "Plato's Stepchildren," "The Alternative Factor," "The Final Frontier," "Shades of Gray," "Sub Rosa," "Masks," "Move Along Home," "Nemesis," "Threshold," "A Night In Sickbay," et cetera?

DSC can still consistently fail to meet expectations without being bad to an unprecedented degree. That's a bar so low it's hard to see how anything couldn't clear it.

Criticism isn't invalid because of that. I find it invalid when people claim that Trek never did *blank*. Or that Discovery is the worst, that Discovery isn't worthy of the Star Trek name, etc. Not saying you are making that argument; more that when criticism comes packaged with those types of arguments it makes finding valid criticisms that much more difficult.

And, honestly, I think there is more to like in Discovery than it is given credit for. Largely because I didn't come to Star Trek for the science nor to receive a scientific education. Star Trek is not my reason for loving space; I loved space and Star Trek came along with that. I love the characters and want to engage with them. If the science is messed up then call me calloused or what not but Star Trek has already set the bar for silly science, so I'm not going to rate an episode poorly because of silly science. I'll rate it poorly if I don't track with the characters and stories.

Mileage will vary.

I know Treks past was not so different from what we are seeing today in the Disco show, but I feel Disco someway jumped out of the franchises railways.

I just wish people could articulate how. There's a reason why I look at past episodes-it gives me a sense of where Star Trek has been before and how that can come up in current productions, even if in silly ways.

 

[XCV330]

The epigenetics part is real, but vocal cords affecting subspace is silly

subspace is silly

 

[NX_01]

"Those words sound authoritative to me, and he says he's a scientist. Clearly, climate change is a hoax and vaccines cause autism. Also, mycelial network!"

As you interacting with a non native speaker, maybe you could elaborate.

Not sure if I am not getting your humor, or if you are implying here, I am thinking climate change is a hoax.
Please feel free to reach out via PM.

 

[Tuskin38]

What I am though not get are people who are defending this as scientific because someone used words from science 101.

This was written by the show's scientific advisors, one has a PhD in Astrophysics the other is a Biologist.

They're using real science to try and create fictional science.

The Science Behind Discovery's Burn:

View attachment 20190

Did you even read the article, or are you doing your usual shtick of being annoying?

 

[cultcross]

I feel like citing the worst episodes that everyone hates out of the past half-century of Star Trek as precedent isn’t the rousing endorsement of Discovery it’s being presented as.

So much this. I wish we were willing to hold Discovery, or indeed new Trek in general, to the standard of other contemporary shows, or to the standards of the best written sci-fi TV, rather than sifting through the archives for a sillier thing that Trek did. A key argument for Discovery's look was that it had to move with the times, not recreate the 1960s, and that was absolutely right. The same should be true of the writing.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't watch many other contemporary shows.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think the hate the horse scene gets is misplaced. It’s all about Kirk and Alexander being manipulated and humiliated. You should feel uncomfortable watching it.

It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. It just makes me ask "what the actual fuck?"

 

[Nerys Myk]

It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. It just makes me ask "what the actual fuck?"

Is it really hard to follow? Parmen makes Kirk act like horse to humiliate him.

 

[The Wormhole]

That's nice. It was still a terrible moment in a terrible episode.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's nice. It was still a terrible moment in a terrible episode.

Why is it terrible though? Parmen’s a jerk with psychic powers who likes to denigrate and abuse people.