The spore drive is a correctly-formatted and notarized petition to Juffo-Wup.
The flash does not originate at Discovery and propagate outward as light, but begins before the ship appears, from a diffuse source, constructively interferes at Discovery's normal-spacetime discontinuity, and generates a holographic illusion between the observer and the nebula that just appears to be a flashbulb reflection.
Every Star Trek problem may be resolved by sufficient application of technobabble (a.k.a. [TECH] in the script). It's space opera. Apply the MST3K rule. (It's just a show; I should really just relax.)
The space-mushroom dimension is the same as the gate network from Stargate SG-1, or the wormhole-traversal tech and Leviathan starburst from Farscape. It's the plot conceit that allows the cast to instantly move from one set to another without any of the boring and unremarkable travel time. The exact nature of the instant-transport is dependent on the dramatic series plot arcs that the show-runners came up with in case they ever got past the pilot episode. The cool CGI visual effect used to signal to the viewer that sci-fi is happening now is flawed. Not everyone can pull off the Stargate-opening vortex.
Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia. In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets. Klingons can be more than just a racial stereotype to be used as a script proxy for 1960s Russia (and the language has already been constructed, so might as well use it).
> In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development.
This may be the core disagreement, I (and I'm guessing GP) don't like this decision. Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia. "An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets"[0], and done regularly, this makes the show just another run-of-the-mill sci-fi.
(I do like how Klingons were fleshed out as a species in DIS, though; it's my favorite aspect of the show.)
There's plenty of sci-fi shows and movies. Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism. I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore.
--
[0] - To the extent that Sisko once facilitated murder to keep a secret hidden, this infamous DS9 episode works precisely because it's a one-off situation that's in a stark contrast with the overall behavior of the character and setting of the show.
Bingo! Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? Like I mentioned in a sib comment, it turns out that this was a tension going right back to the original series. It's hard to write!
(You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.)
> I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore.
I've been thirsty as hell for some good (video) sci-fi for a while now and have been looking and (IMO) you're correct.
(And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. Superhero movies are not sci-fi. Sharks attacking are not sci-fi even if they have lasers on their heads, or six heads, or swim through ice. Fast & Furious isn't sci-fi. Harry Potter isn't sci-fi. (WTF Sy-fy channel!?) Zombies aren't sci-fi. Nor vampires, nor bigfoot, nor giant animals. Godzilla isn't sci-fi. I'm just ranting... ignore me. Swords and magic: not sci-fi. ...okay I think I'm done...)
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh?
There's a hell of a take! Whatever Roddenberry's virtues, I don't recall him ever having the gumption to write a story in which the heroes go to war against the gods because the gods aren't doing it right.
(It's a very Klingon thing to do, though, unless Worf was joking about that.)
Fair, and thank you! Fwiw, I'd have aimed the shot at the 2003 Battlestar Galactica instead, where it is very much deserved. Wild that Ronald Moore, who wrote so much of what's best in TNG, could also produce something that's so grim for the sake of grimness...
I personally loved the reimagined BSG in its own way (different from my feelings for Star Trek or B5). I only wish they'd explored the hybrid utterings angle further, there was a lot of space for some out-there (and possibly Lovecraftian) ideas.
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh?
I'd wish! I find B5 to be great in a different way than Star Trek. It has one of the deepest and most interesting stories I've ever seen explored in sci-fi on the screen. I wish there was another show like this. Alas, it seems that if you take away a vision for a better future, the shows you get today are cookie-cutter action flicks. They're sometimes fun to watch, but I don't feel enriched in a way I felt after Star Trek or B5.
> (You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.)
Not initially, and not from the looks - though the series did manage to (spoiler alert) turn them into what you'd expect to see in TNG in the latter seasons.
What I liked about the Klingons in DIS is that they didn't feel like space brutes who value violence and hate the Federation for no reasons. In DIS, they had a good reason, that resonates with people today - cultural imperialism. They went to war with the Federation because they felt it's the only way to protect their cultural identity, as they perceived UFP to be a civilization that conquers in times of peace, through slowly infusing everyone with their views and values. The DIS Klingons have seen that as a threat to the survival of their species' identity. And put that way, it's a very believable as a justification for conflict.
> And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. (...)
In complete agreement (though I liked Iron Man 1; it was more serious than other MCU movies, and also scratched my tech porn itch). My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.
In re: B5, I've a confession to make. I never watched it. I've seen a few episodes, of course, but I was homeless at the time it ran and I've just never gotten around to it since. I should probably go order the DVD set right now, eh? I know a teeny bit about the story and characters, and I've heard that it was written as a single super-arc, which sounds awesome.
Those Klingons sound more interesting than what I was afraid they were like.
> My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.
I couldn't have put it better myself. So much this. And I find it doubly exasperating because there's so much written science-fiction to draw on, going back decades! Where is the movie/mini-series of "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? ...oh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#F...
> In 2015, it was announced that Bryan Singer was attached to direct a film adaptation, entitled Uprising, in development at 20th Century Fox.
I wonder if that's still happening?
I think "The Legacy of Heorot" would work really well as a movie.
I know it's kind of a cliche (and more work than it seems) but I kind really want to start a sci-fi production house... just a little one. Y'know? Specializing in hard sci-fi mostly, but not neglecting the other, uh, dimensions worth exploring.
...and it lead me down a rabbit-hole. It seems all the good sci-fi these days is being done as shorts by mostly independent filmmakers and posted to youtube. Here are some I found last night:
ENT was pretty dark, too, you know. If we're not going to talk about "In the Pale Moonlight"'s argument that violating an ideal in a small way might be justifiable, if not respectable, to preserve it in the large, then can we talk about how Archer, in "Dear Doctor", refused to hand over the cure Phlox had developed for the Valakian plague, thus consigning an entire species to extinction, because the then-inchoate Prime Directive ideal meant more to him than saving the lives of millions of fellow sentients? Sure, the show portrays this as an uncomplicatedly virtuous choice, without the nuance that Michael Taylor brought to "In the Pale Moonlight". But I don't see why I need to take that portrayal at face value, when the supposed virtue in question is that of refusing to save millions of lives.
I think the core disagreement here may instead be that, where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't. I agree that in the B&B era it claims to be so, and that the claim is also often made on its behalf, but that's not the same thing at all. I think it's less interesting and less worthwhile to take those claims at face value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality.
Granted that this is a difference of interpretation. But, then again, we're talking about how we choose to appreciate works of art. In that context, what isn't?
I give ENT a pass because it my mind it works as "humanity halfway from now to TNG-era UFP". Taking baby steps both outwards and inwards. It was dark, particularly across the Xindi angle, but not that dark relative to everything else.
I mean, it's like TNG was #EEE, ENT went down to #AAA, but everyone else (including post-ENT Trek) seems to be made at #555 or below. There's a gap, and I'd love if someone was making more idealistic shows these days.
> where you see the Federation portrayed as a true utopia, I don't.
I used to, then I rewatched the whole series as an adult and it changed my mind a bit. But then, I probably used the wrong word. I don't see the Federation as a perfect, flawless utopia. Just a vision of a world as close to utopian as you can get without breaking your suspension of disbelief. A world that works much better than the real one, and not just because of matter replicators and near-infinite energy availability. A word where the baseline for humans is much higher than it is now. And maybe it's unrealistic, it's too out-there, but every time I watch it I feel inspired to do better, be better. It's not something I usually get from other shows; they're all too focused on.
> than to take them as a stepping-off point for a discussion of how utopian ideals are no less susceptible to failure in practice than any other sort of absolutism, and how, while idealism is certainly not lacking in value, it cannot alone serve as the foundation for a mature sense of morality
That's fair, but again - while I love talking about this, I think our media culture spends too much time talking about all the ways ideals fail and high standards don't work, and too little time about what good ideals or values could be and how to make them work.
There's a certain positivity about TNG-era Star Trek that I feel, that I try to refer to, but continuously fail to express in words.
EDIT:
And I forgot one thing: the curiosity of space, the exploration angle. I know that a lot of astronomy in Star Trek is bunk, and a lot of what was accurate at the time of filming didn't age well, but there was a way in which TOS and TNG made people curious about space. I got similar vibes from a few StarGate: SG-1 episodes as well. I don't see any of that in modern shows - just as if familiarity with real and sci-fi astronomy was table stakes these days. It works for me, but I wonder how the young audience, not exposed to TOS/TNG, responds to modern shows.
> Star Trek was an unique word in sci-fi (at least on-screen sci-fi) because of that bright idealism, that utopia.
What utopia? Outside of the crew of the Enterprise itself in TOS and TNG (most of the time, when not under malevolent outside influence, abd even then there are some exceptions), neither Starfleet, the Federation outside of Starfleet, nor the galaxy outside of the Federation (in roughly descending order of proximity to utopia) were portrayed as without flaws in any version of Trek.
> Star Trek, in its TNG to ENT era, was unique in terms of positivity and optimism.
Usually, this claim is made for the TOS to TNG era (or, more specifically, the era when Gene Roddenberry was directly involved). While, as noted above, it's flawed even then, it really doesn't work for DS9, VOY, or ENT.
Maybe instead of "utopia" I should've said "as close to utopia as you can get without shattering your suspension of disbelief". The world was designed as a reachable utopia, and in my eyes, the vision didn't decay fast enough when Roddenbery left the scene to be lost by the time of ENT.
> While, as noted above, it's flawed even then, it really doesn't work for DS9, VOY, or ENT.
Compared to what? Relative to pretty much every other show, I think it worked really well. The baseline is still visibly much more idealistic than everything else (including post-ENT Star Trek).
> The baseline is still visibly much more idealistic than everything else (including post-ENT Star Trek).
Picard, specifically, seems to differ from late TNG or DS9 not so much in the degree to which the Federation is or is not a utopia, but in that the focal characters are (at least initially, the arc if season one seems to have most of them evolving in the direction of more conventional ST focal characters) in places that would only have been occupied by non-focal characters.
(“Starfleet is doing bad things because it's upper echelons have been infiltrated by outsiders with an agenda that is, at least in chosen methods if not goals, anthithetical the the ideals towards which the Federation strives” is not inconsistent with the degree of idealism in TNG.)
Well, they were working on it innit? The Federation was young (I'm talking about TOS here strictly) and working hard to prove itself to the galaxy. And they met people who were further along than themselves (like the Organians.)
> Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia.
Every Star Trek series does that. TOS and TNG tend to portray the focal crew as perfectly ethical taken together (though not always individually), but often as being in antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation for precisely that reason.
It's true that many of those struggles reflect bureaucratic indifference, incompetence, and narrow-mindedness more than active malevolence (excluding when it is due to outside influence/infiltration), but that's pretty much true of Picard (the series) as well.
I think what I liked about the TNG-era Star Trek was that, as often that there was an "antagonistic relationship with their superiors in Starfleet and/or the civilian leadership of the Federation", they also as often get along. The Federation was a government that worked. That was the baseline assumption. The show demonstrated it, the characters believed it. They were proud of being a part of it, and not just because of some ill-conceived patriotism.
Related to that is the baseline assumption of competence. Characters in Star Trek, especially ones from the Federation, were always assumed to be extremely competent and good at working together; everyone valued excellence. Sure, they were exceptions, but they were that - exceptions, around which a story or a joke could be built. I miss that world of excellence in other shows.
The flash does not originate at Discovery and propagate outward as light, but begins before the ship appears, from a diffuse source, constructively interferes at Discovery's normal-spacetime discontinuity, and generates a holographic illusion between the observer and the nebula that just appears to be a flashbulb reflection.
Every Star Trek problem may be resolved by sufficient application of technobabble (a.k.a. [TECH] in the script). It's space opera. Apply the MST3K rule. (It's just a show; I should really just relax.)
The space-mushroom dimension is the same as the gate network from Stargate SG-1, or the wormhole-traversal tech and Leviathan starburst from Farscape. It's the plot conceit that allows the cast to instantly move from one set to another without any of the boring and unremarkable travel time. The exact nature of the instant-transport is dependent on the dramatic series plot arcs that the show-runners came up with in case they ever got past the pilot episode. The cool CGI visual effect used to signal to the viewer that sci-fi is happening now is flawed. Not everyone can pull off the Stargate-opening vortex.
Discovery and Picard are very much darker than pure Roddenberry, in that they portray The Federation as something far short of a perfectly ethical Utopia. In my opinion, this is a decision that allows for a far wider range of character development. An imperfect Starfleet can employ a monstrous starship captain that murders to keep its secrets. Klingons can be more than just a racial stereotype to be used as a script proxy for 1960s Russia (and the language has already been constructed, so might as well use it).