Why the hate for Disco?

[Amaris]

They tried having it both ways and ended up disappointing me greatly.
100 years for a post-industrial technologically advanced civilization (just 1 such as ours in real life) is mind-boggling amount of time.
930 years for a COMBINATION of technologically advanced civilizations that cooperate and exchange resources/knowledge freely without monetary obstructions would translate to even more absurdly ridiculous advancements (on a scale that we simply speaking couldn't even imagine).

What Discovery portrayed was more akin to several decades (perhaps 50 years) of technological/scientific advancement.... but nowhere near 930 years.

'Familiar as Trek' doesn't really ring here as the writers WANTED to try something 'new' with Trek.

On the other hand, they set up the future as a post cataclysm scenario (which to be fair was a bit weak in its overall cause), so its 'possible' we hadn't seen anything yet of Federation real technical abilities... although, it makes 0 sense that SF (even with only 38 planets) wouldn't continue to advance and would still ridiculously outpace the Emerald Chain in size and overall scope. Perhaps it wouldn't be the same as when it had 150 member or even at its peak of 300 members... but it would still be formidable.

What I'm actually disappointed with is the fact that they have a 'team' of writers who still couldn't extrapolate decent advancement for hypothetical 930 years of development amid all the scientific hypotheses that we came up with for Type III/IV civilizations, etc. and mix it in with Trek and previously discovered technologies.

There comes a point, though, where it stops being relatable. The storytelling can be similar, but the technology changes things. For example, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy about two teenagers committing suicide because their families couldn't get their collective sticks out of their rears, but look how Romeo and Juliet changes with the advent of cell phones. Suddenly, most of the reasons for miscommunication clear up in an instant. Now you have to retell the story, but in such a way that technology doesn't solve it before you can even draw it out.

930 years in the future? They had to think of something that would kill the technology to keep it from ending the story before it began. Were there better ways? Certainly, but I can understand why they came at it from the direction they did. Even with TNG we'd hit a wall where Beverly could wave a device, or Geordi could tap a few buttons and a problem that would be a tragedy in our time just simply isn't a concern in theirs.

One of the appeals of DSC, for me, was that it was set in a time where amazing technology existed, but humanity was still working a lot of the bugs out. Despite its sometimes questionable writing, ENT managed to do the same, too, where technology was clearly helping things move along, but it wasn't the be-all end-all... sometimes.

Anyway, back to my point: I think they did fairly well in moving themselves around the corner they'd painted themselves into, and along the way we got to meet some new characters that made me feel the journey was worth taking.

Just my two bits, of course.

 

[Deks]

Maybe the Federation had gotten lazy, had taken dilithium for granted?

It might be a theme going forwards. It had never occurred to anyone that the Federation would have to function without dilithium someday. Their entire society had been built around it.

Honestly, that makes little sense to me.
The Federation was anything but complacent when it came to ecological impact of its operations (and it was diligent in its pursuit of more efficient and advanced power sources) and would have sounded alarms at potential dilithium shortages if it continued to grow at the rate it did in the 24th century (it wasn't difficult for us in real life to come up with a computer algorithm back in 1974 which accurately predicted current global state of affairs if we hadn't changed our ways - that was accomplished with nascent computer technology and software, whereas the Federation had ridiculously more advanced technology and software at its disposal and would have run long term projection scenarios since the 23rd century - which could explain why it was running research into alternative methods of Warp, faster than Warp and energy sources in TNG - we only saw early stages of these developments which showed promise, even if they did have some problems... but that IS how you learn... through mistakes and refining your data and run experiments in a more controlled and secure fashion which can lead to more problems yes, but you end up working through them).

By the late 24th century (Picard series time frame) and early 25th century, dilithium and M/AM would have been akin to fossil fuels and the Federation would have been in a transition onto much more advanced power sources and FTL capbility (we've seen plenty were discovered or encountered through TOS, TNG and VOY which the crew had either detailed scans of, or mere knowledge of its existence which would have sparked an interest in R&D that would have inevitably led to a successful development and practical implementation of not just that, but also other technologies).

Plus, with the technology to expand internal volume to the size we saw in ENT (with 31st century technology), the Federation could have simply bypassed the need for dilithium and M/AM by using more contemporary fusion (or something beyond it), thermionic generators and even tetryon generators (both of which were seen in VOY) when dilithium supplies started running dry (about 700 years after Discovery left for the future - just before the Temporal Wars and well before the Burn).

 

[Deks]

930 years in the future? They had to think of something that would kill the technology to keep it from ending the story before it began. Were there better ways? Certainly, but I can understand why they came at it from the direction they did. Even with TNG we'd hit a wall where Beverly could wave a device, or Geordi could tap a few buttons and a problem that would be a tragedy in our time just simply isn't a concern in theirs.

One of the appeals of DSC, for me, was that it was set in a time where amazing technology existed, but humanity was still working a lot of the bugs out. Despite its sometimes questionable writing, ENT managed to do the same, too, where technology was clearly helping things move along, but it wasn't the be-all end-all... sometimes.

Anyway, back to my point: I think they did fairly well in moving themselves around the corner they'd painted themselves into, and along the way we got to meet some new characters that made me feel the journey was worth taking.

Just my two bits, of course.

But here's the thing.
The Burn didn't 'kill' technology. Neither did the Temporal Wars.
SF had retained data from long ago in its past (even as far back to the 23rd century). That much we realized when admiral Vance told them what official SF records they had of Discovery.

You don't 'lose' technology in a setting with an organization like the Federation because short of WIPING OUT the ENTIRE UFP and all its TRACES (like the SF HQ and its ships - because each and every Federation database practically contains EVERYTHING in regards to science and technology advancement and research), THEN you'd end up killing technology in a realistic manner (but at that point, you also have no more UFP or stories to tell in that fashion - and it becomes yet another dystopian show).

Why?
The redundancy UFP would have surpasses 'ridiculous' by being a multi-species organization spread through 8000 Ly's of space in 24th century alone... nevermind how far it may have spread and more redundancies it would have integrated to just before the Burn.

We didn't hit walls... the writers hit the limits of what they can conceive... and that says more about their lack of imagination (and possibly lack of not reading more science based articles on highly advanced technological concepts).
Plus, they had a major issue writing a story fit for the setting to begin with.
More often than not, the writers would severely dumb down technology for the drama as opposed to writing a drama that WORKS with the established setting.

I realize that there are some 'limitations' in place from network executives and what might be deemed 'appropriate' for TV etc... but if you're going to push Trek that far into the future... you basically need to REINVENT the wheel and make it look more advanced while making some passing notes on what came before and how far they came.

All of that potential that was alluded to in TNG etc. seems to have been 'squandered' by the writers.

Also, I'm not a big fan of 'relatable'. If something is NOT relatable, you EXPLAIN how thing work, etc. so the people watching CAN understand it... or at the very least, to MAKE THEM THINK.
Trek isn't all about making things 'relatable' after all.

 

[Amaris]

But here's the thing.
The Burn didn't 'kill' technology. Neither did the Temporal Wars.
SF had retained data from long ago in its past (even as far back to the 23rd century). That much we realized when admiral Vance told them what official SF records they had of Discovery.

You don't 'lose' technology in a setting with an organization like the Federation because short of WIPING OUT the ENTIRE UFP and all its TRACES (like the SF HQ and its ships - because each and every Federation database practically contains EVERYTHING in regards to science and technology advancement and research), THEN you'd end up killing technology in a realistic manner (but at that point, you also have no more UFP or stories to tell in that fashion - and it becomes yet another dystopian show).

Why?
The redundancy UFP would have surpasses 'ridiculous' by being a multi-species organization spread through 8000 Ly's of space in 24th century alone... nevermind how far it may have spread and more redundancies it would have integrated to just before the Burn.

We didn't hit walls... the writers hit the limits of what they can conceive... and that says more about their lack of imagination (and possibly lack of not reading more science based articles on highly advanced technological concepts).
Plus, they had a major issue writing a story fit for the setting to begin with.
More often than not, the writers would severely dumb down technology for the drama as opposed to writing a drama that WORKS with the established setting.

I realize that there are some 'limitations' in place from network executives and what might be deemed 'appropriate' for TV etc... but if you're going to push Trek that far into the future... you basically need to REINVENT the wheel and make it look more advanced while making some passing notes on what came before and how far they came.

All of that potential that was alluded to in TNG etc. seems to have been 'squandered' by the writers.

Also, I'm not a big fan of 'relatable'. If something is NOT relatable, you EXPLAIN how thing work, etc. so the people watching CAN understand it... or at the very least, to MAKE THEM THINK.
Trek isn't all about making things 'relatable' after all.

Being relatable is crucial. If you have to explain everything just to get the idea of how these people feel across to the viewer, you're just creating technobabble, and if I'm not connecting with the characters and the situations in which they find themselves, on some level, then the show is just a 52 minute tech demo.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

They tried having it both ways and ended up disappointing me greatly.
100 years for a post-industrial technologically advanced civilization (just 1 such as ours in real life) is mind-boggling amount of time.
930 years for a COMBINATION of technologically advanced civilizations that cooperate and exchange resources/knowledge freely without monetary obstructions would translate to even more absurdly ridiculous advancements (on a scale that we simply speaking couldn't even imagine).

What Discovery portrayed was more akin to several decades (perhaps 50 years) of technological/scientific advancement.... but nowhere near 930 years.

'Familiar as Trek' doesn't really ring here as the writers WANTED to try something 'new' with Trek.

On the other hand, they set up the future as a post cataclysm scenario (which to be fair was a bit weak in its overall cause), so its 'possible' we hadn't seen anything yet of Federation real technical abilities... although, it makes 0 sense that SF (even with only 38 planets) wouldn't continue to advance and would still ridiculously outpace the Emerald Chain in size and overall scope. Perhaps it wouldn't be the same as when it had 150 member or even at its peak of 300 members... but it would still be formidable.

What I'm actually disappointed with is the fact that they have a 'team' of writers who still couldn't extrapolate decent advancement for hypothetical 930 years of development amid all the scientific hypotheses that we came up with for Type III/IV civilizations, etc. and mix it in with Trek and previously discovered technologies.

I remember reading an interview with brannon braga around the time Enterprise was on the air, where the question was raised as to why he and berman had not set the series post-voyager. Braga's answer was along the lines of treknology is basically already magic and makes it difficult to write high-stakes situations for the characters. Going further into the future would make that worse. The irony is that Enterprise started to show more advanced treknology to get our heroes out of scrapes.

In Discovery they have stated that the Federation was far more advanced but the brutality of the temporal war seemed to put an end to it. Perhaps someone did something so damaging to the timeline it forced every culture into a technological slump where advanced tech was either banned or forgotten.

Ultimately the point of going to the far future was to give Discovery a clean slate and free reign, not to show how advanced treknology had become.

 

[Mitch1022]

The original series was before my time, so it's difficult for me to separate the reality of its diversity claims from the legend. I tend to take it as progressive in that respect, but not as ahead of the curve as its reputation would suggest.

TNG was largely on the conservative end of the diversity spectrum. The women not fainting into men's arms and generally being allowed to be more professional was just a reflection of the times, rather than anything special Star Trek did. The black guy is still a lieutenant, and the only 'outsider' they were brave enough to include was a Klingon - I get the point, old enemies are new friends - but metaphorically progressive is never quite as impressive as actually progressive. The women were still in caring roles with the exception of the abortive attempt with Tasha, and both remaining women had relationships with the leading men as core parts of their character from day one. DS9 and VOY placed women and minorities in more prominent and leadership positions, and presented a positive relationship between a black father and son which Brooks was proud of, but again failed to really do anything that wasn't being done elsewhere and retained an unfortunate obsession with catsuits. And they fell significantly behind the curve on many issues like LGBTQ+ representation. Watching Voyager or Enterprise alongside contemporary shows, they seem decidedly old fashioned, not pushing boundaries.

The area where I think TNG did set out a progressive stall compared to similar shows of its time, and since, was the approach to problem solving that emphasised ethics, diplomacy, justice, communication and finding common ground. Doing the right thing even when it's detrimental to yourself, and tempering power with morality. TNG ramped this up in a way that few dramas would do for risk of losing the pew pew fans. It was something I always admired about TNG and although it gained the label preachy as a result (not exactly unfairly) it was the show's main claim to progressiveness. VOY tried to do the same thing, less well. DS9 toyed with it when it suited, and by ENT it was largely abandoned.

In short, I think Star Trek's most solid claim to progressiveness is not one of pushing diversity boundaries, but one of pushing back on the narrative of violence as a solution to problems. To that extent, it did something special.

You are talking about 1968, look at some of the history sites and you will see star trek there. This is the year that civil rights are still being fought for, and MLK Jr, was assassinated. They were the first not the second to show an interracial kiss on a major network. You couldn't be more ahead of the curve, it did not go over well. 1968 had George Wallace running for president, when he was a Democratic Gov he was saying segregation now segregation forever in front of kids years earlier. It goes down as gutzy in my book, but to not recognize it, is rather sad testament to the vision of trek and its endurance.

 

[Deks]

Being relatable is crucial. If you have to explain everything just to get the idea of how these people feel across to the viewer, you're just creating technobabble, and if I'm not connecting with the characters and the situations in which they find themselves, on some level, then the show is just a 52 minute tech demo.

Who says you cannot relate to the characters in a hyper-advanced setting?
People can form emotional bods with inanimate objects very easily in real life... heck, you have people who like certain robots in scifi better than their organic counterparts.... and one of the reasons behind that is because they are NOT organic.

A good writer needs to do proper research/study if they are going to write for a specific (pre-established) genre.
And with a 'team of writers', it shouldn't be THAT difficult (in fact, its easy to find all the facts about prior Trek or given subject in 5 to 10 mins - the rest is basic extrapolation).

Atm though, its 'same old'... and same mistakes repeated by the writers (aka, doesn't seem like much effort was put into it).

 

[Amaris]

I remember reading an interview with brannon braga around the time Enterprise was on the air, where the question was raised as to why he and berman had not set the series post-voyager. Braga's answer was along the lines of treknology is basically already magic and makes it difficult to write high-stakes situations for the characters. Going further into the future would make that worse. The irony is that Enterprise started to show more advanced treknology to get our heroes out of scrapes.

In Discovery they have stated that the Federation was far more advanced but the brutality of the temporal war seemed to put an end to it. Perhaps someone did something so damaging to the timeline it forced every culture into a technological slump where advanced tech was either banned or forgotten.

Ultimately the point of going to the far future was to give Discovery a clean slate and free reign, not to show how advanced treknology had become.

Along the same lines, it's a good example of how history tends to echo. 2,000 years ago, humanity engaged in wars over land, resources, and ideologies. Fast forward to 2021, and we're still mired in it. Sail out 900 years, and you're still going to have some form of strife, in this case over resources because a heavily relied upon method of conveyance became an albatross around everyone's necks. To me that seems like a message for people about what happens when we put most of our eggs in one basket, so still relatable, as long as they don't solve it all right away like it never happened.

Who says you cannot have a highly advanced technological setting and not relate to the characters?
People can form emotional bods with inanimate objects very easily in real life... heck, you have people who like certain robots in scifi better than their organic counterparts.... and one of the reasons behind that is because they are NOT organic.

A good writer needs to do proper research/study if they are going to write for a specific (pre-established) genre.
And with a 'team of writers', it shouldn't be THAT difficult.

Atm though, its 'same old'... and same mistakes repeated by the writers.

I didn't say you couldn't, I'm saying if you get to the point where people can't relate, and you have to explain the problem, you're losing ground with the audience.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't say you couldn't, I'm saying if you get to the point where people can't relate, and you have to explain the problem, you're losing ground with the audience.

Indeed, yes. And they would rather not take a risk of losing that ground with the audience in a hypercompetitive market.

 

[eschaton]

I said before Season 3 came out my preferred solution would basically be Star Trek: Left Behind.

I will freely admit that in a "normal" situation, Discovery should have no agency 930 years in the future. Just too much time has passed, and their technology is too far out of date. So you have to take the Federation down in order to actually give the ship and its crew any meaning in the setting whatsoever.

There's also a big mystery within the Trek setting - how few advanced civilizations actually exist. The universe is 13.8 billion years old (IRL, and presumably in the Trekverse as well). Yet probably 9/10ths of the alien races we bump into are either of basically equivalent technology or more primitive, with the other tenth being various isolated "energy beings." Where are the true elder races? Why haven't we run into races which have been traveling the stars for thousands, or even millions of years? Some had to have made it, and one would expect their headstart would mean they'd have control of a goodly portion of the galaxy. Yet for the most part we don't meet major players who have been out and about for more than a few centuries.

So, have Discovery jump 930 years into the future and find the former Federation...basically empty. Earth is returned to a largely pristine state, complete with extinct megafauna like mammoths. They chance upon incomprehensible megastructures. They have issues dealing with empty self-aware ships. Eventually they meet others - holograms stuck in matrixes, people left in suspended animation, isolated colonies of luddites, etc - and piece together the truth of what happened.

 

[eschaton]

Being relatable is crucial. If you have to explain everything just to get the idea of how these people feel across to the viewer, you're just creating technobabble, and if I'm not connecting with the characters and the situations in which they find themselves, on some level, then the show is just a 52 minute tech demo.

The Discovery crew themselves can be the relatable "fish out of water" types though. There is no reason why the up-timers have to be so grounded themselves.

I mean, as an example here, let's look at the Expanse. The showrunners spent a lot of effort making the Belters culturally alien, developing a creole language they slip into, an accent, fashion, hairstyles, etc. None of it is immediately relatable. It's not meant to be, because we're supposed to "code" the Belters as being an oppressed minority - a colonized group - and just having them played as bland Canadians would completely ruin this.

 

[fireproof78]

But, that's not what people appear to want from Star Trek.

 

[Amaris]

The Discovery crew themselves can be the relatable "fish out of water" types though. There is no reason why the up-timers have to be so grounded themselves.

I mean, as an example here, let's look at the Expanse. The showrunners spent a lot of effort making the Belters culturally alien, developing a creole language they slip into, an accent, fashion, hairstyles, etc. None of it is immediately relatable. It's not meant to be, because we're supposed to "code" the Belters as being an oppressed minority - a colonized group - and just having them played as bland Canadians would completely ruin this.

Sure they can, but this example was specifically how we can just advance advance advance technology well past the "already magic" stage, and keep people relatable enough when so much has changed outside of the scope of human perception as we see it now.

The thing is, what you did bolsters my example to keep the narrative and context manageable. Yes, we're in the future, but because of some mass stage of regression, things look much like they did in the past, with a few *hints* of advanced technology, a la the traveler's experiences in Wells' Time Machine, because even when he was 800,000 years in the future, everything was still familiar, and so it still worked.

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't mind Trek emulating the best in other popular franchises or series but it shouldn't do so simply because another franchise or series is popular and has a following.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't mind Trek emulating the best in other popular franchises or series but it shouldn't do so simply because another franchise or series is popular and has a following.

Agreed. Star Trek has it's own flavor in terms of viewing future humanity while still looking at current humanity.

 

[eschaton]

I don't mind Trek emulating the best in other popular franchises or series but it shouldn't do so simply because another franchise or series is popular and has a following.

I'm not saying that it should do this just because the Expanse did. But one of the aspects I liked the least about Berman Trek is the aliens were typically presented as bland Californians except for whatever one weird trick had to move the plot of the week forward. Real human cultures here on Earth have more natural variation than what was typically displayed on Star Trek. DS9 did the best job breaking out of this straightjacket - while Voyager was probably the absolute low point.

I think when it comes to "uptime" folks, you basically have to approach them as if they are aliens, even if they are human. First, it makes logical sense (consider what people were like in say Anglo-Saxon England 930 years ago). More importantly, it drives home the point that Discovery can't "go home" and to a certain extent will never really belong, even if they are accepted.

But really, my main issue remains why bother going to the future if you're not going to use the story hooks that a future setting involves? The two most obvious of them are the "man out of time" aspect of alienation, and technological advance which has not been seen in Trek. It really seems like all they wanted was a tabula rasa to tell generic Trek stories, but they could have had by going to an alternate universe or something.

 

[fireproof78]

They wanted a blank slate and less canon berating. They got the message loud and clear-do not with the Trek recipe.

 

[Lord Garth]

They wanted a blank slate and less canon berating. They got the message loud and clear-do not with the Trek recipe.

Thanks to people like this, I'll never know what New Coke tasted like.

 

[Worf factor9]

I'll never know what New Coke tasted like.

Consider yourself lucky.

 

[cooleddie74]

^
What they said.