Spoilers Things that grind my gears about S3

[fireproof78]

*shrug* from a practical design perspective none of it makes any sense at all to me. Making something that handles that much power and that is so critical to the entire ship more complicated than it has to be? Really, the whole 'detachable nacelle' thing is like something they stole from Star Wars and just seems silly regardless of the other aspects of it.

Where in Star Wars has that happened? There is nothing Star Wars about this.

Star Trek has done a variety of different technologies that seem rather outlandish. Disconnected nacelles don't strike me as too far out there since power transfer from ship to ship would operate on the same principle.

 

[CultOfByron]

Below is a list of things that "grind my gears" about S3.

1. Detached Warp Nacelles
Dumbest idea in history.

2. Earth becoming isolationist.
The most unTrek idea in the history of Trek, made worse by the fact that it wasn't rectified by the end of the year.

3. Blinking breaking holograms
A flaw from the 23rd century still exists nearly a millennium later? Why didn't Pulaski blink at Moriarty??

4. "It's made of our shit"
No it's not, it's energy converted into matter.

5. The new Turbolift "shafts"
They make literally no sense, what they had before was fine and actually made sense, why change it?

6. The reason for the Burn.
So anticlimatic.

---------------------------------------
Not a bad season otherwise, season 2 is still the best one though.

Thoughts?

1 - Not the dumbest but makes starships seem unnecessarily fragile.

2 - Yup, the whole point of Star Trek is that it highlights a better future for the citizens of Earth, surely...

3 - Facepalm. Same as the fairy-wings in *vomits* "Stardust City Rag"

4 - He's talking to the LCD people who this is aimed at...? At least this is what I assume...

5 - I can only explain this away as a mistake, they used the wrong footage.

6 - Anticlimactic but at least interesting. This was by far the most interesting part of the series.

 

[fireproof78]

Yup, the whole point of Star Trek is that it highlights a better future for the citizens of Earth, surely...

And that can never change?

 

[CultOfByron]

And that can never change?

Yes, it can get even better

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, it can get even better

I'll have to remember that watching DS9

 

[CultOfByron]

Apparently I'm not allowed to edit my posts yet but I would have loved it if humans were basically

I'll have to remember that watching DS9

 

[jackoverfull]

*shrug* from a practical design perspective none of it makes any sense at all to me. Making something that handles that much power and that is so critical to the entire ship more complicated than it has to be? Really, the whole 'detachable nacelle' thing is like something they stole from Star Wars and just seems silly regardless of the other aspects of it.

but it’s not more complicated at that point: once the technology is mature enough it’s much simpler. Why build and maintain conduits when you can just beam over energy and matter as needed?

In a real world example, and one spanning two decades, not a millennia...

In the early 00s I had cabled our three story home with Ethernet cables so you could connect from any point in the house to the internet. Wireless technology existed but was slow and unreliable.

By 2010 we connected in the same house using a couple of wireless stations. They are much easier to maintain than cables that can get disconnected and much more convenient.

Where I live now I got rid even of the DSL and local wireless network: I connect straight to the cell tower with 4g, connecting the computer to the phone via Bluetooth.

All this was SF in say 1995.

The fact that the transporters have advanced to the point they are more convenient than physical means in certain situations is one of the few things I liked of how the 32th century is depicted (too bad for the useless turbolift cavern-city). If anything, especially considering the dilithium scarcity, I wonder why they don’t have transporters that’s can beam you across star systems: similar technologies have been shown several times in Star Trek, so they can obviously exist.

 

[CultOfByron]

I like your analogy, I can imagine a time when the engines of a spacecraft are physically independent, it seems more efficient somehow doesn't it.

 

[CultOfByron]

Also the transporters do pretty much render starships irrelevant by that point, coupled with the concept of interstellar beaming.

 

[fireproof78]

I prefer ships to transporters. You need some place to store your horse when you visit a new planet.

 

[jackoverfull]

Also the transporters do pretty much render starships irrelevant by that point, coupled with the concept of interstellar beaming.

Yes. And this is probably the reason the writers chose to ignore this technology exists. Can’t blame them, as I still love having ships around.

I prefer ships to transporters. You need some place to store your horse when you visit a new planet.

home at the stable?

 

[fireproof78]

home at the stable?

You explore your way and I'll explore mine.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Star Trek passed silly a while back. We are now at ludicrous speeds.

I believe I'm referring to one of the new Star Wars movies, where there was 'pod racing'? The various components of the 'pod racer' weren't physically attached, they were attached with some sort of lines of force. Kind of like with these nacelles. That's where I'm getting it from.

I mean, the two engines were but they still had physical cables attaching them to the main pod.

And, with due respect, the pod racing movie came out in 1999. Not exactly new.

 

[dupersuper]

I'll have to remember that watching DS9

With 2 exceptions (evil Starfleet admiral de jour and Breen attack at the end of the war), conditions on Earth weren't directly affected by DS9.

I prefer ships to transporters. You need some place to store your horse when you visit a new planet.

Also your saddle. Every experienced rider has their own saddle.

 

[fireproof78]

With 2 exceptions (evil Starfleet admiral de jour and Breen attack at the end of the war), conditions on Earth weren't directly affected by DS9.

Not physically.

 

[jackoverfull]

I'd also like to state that I roll my eyes a bit at the 'personal transporters' being so ubiquitos as well.
With regards to the rest: *shrug* it's fantasy technology on a science fantasy television show. I've pretty much said what I wanted to say on the subject, which boils down to "I think it's silly".

i’m sure a man from 1920 would roll his eyes seeing how ubiquitous phones are now. Not to mention a man from the year 820.

 

[fireproof78]

I roll my eyes at how ubiquitous it is now.

 

[eschaton]

I remember seeing this great quote online on how to blow someone's mind from the 1950s.

It went something like...

I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man.

I use it to look at pictures of cats and argue with strangers.

 

[eschaton]

Except you're talking about actual technology and we're talking about fantasy technology.
I'd go so far as to strongly consider using the phrase 'jumping the shark'.
I'd also strongly consider the phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'; why did someone think this was a good idea for the show? What does it do for the show?
I'd also like to point out that the title of this discussion thread is 'things that grind my gears about S3 (of Discovery)'.
..and before anyone potentially accuses me of being suspension-of-disbelief deficient: I watch, and enjoy, Doctor Who, which is wildly silly; I can appreciate silliness. But like most everything in our (real, actual) Universe: there are limits.

Indeed. Usually technologies are added in Star Trek for story reasons. They either create the crisis of the week, or solve the crisis of the week. Or sometimes for budgetary purposes (transporters were created in TOS so they didn't have to show a shuttle landing in every episode).

While some of the tech involved in figuring out the Burn was for story purposes, for the most part Discovery's Season 3's future-tech was basically just there to look cool, and had no story purpose whatsoever.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd also strongly consider the phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'; why did someone think this was a good idea for the show? What does it do for the show?

Because they were told repeatedly that it was broken.