Discovery and Star Trek
CapnZapp
Legend
A suggestion (that perhaps should go into Meta), to add "plus" and "minus" threads.
It's obvious you are frustrated with people that are... frustrated by the show, and I did start this as a thread of my own instead of posting in the "discovery trailer" thread that has become a main ST
ISCO thread (which I can only access using the EN World app).How about letting people start threads with names like "ST
ISCO [+]" where any post chiefly detailing percieved shortcomings and flaws with the show will be considered off-topic and moderated as such? Of course, the mods aren't supposed to strike down on every little criticism - nobody is every 110% happy with a show. But the plus sign signifies that if you don't agree with the basic premise of a thread as established in the first thread, you're supposed to move on, rather than dump your dissent in the thread.
And conversely, letting me suffix a "[-]" to this thread, signaling to Hussar and others that discussing why he is fed up with people nitpicking the show is not the intended topic and indeed not a welcome one?
I should add that I plan to start many more plus threads than minus threads. In my opinion, the frustration you express here - over Discovery - is shared by me in regards D&D issues such as magic item pricing in the general 5th edition forum, and to be honest, I hesitate posting my thoughts simply because very hostile and very derailing commentary has been allowed to remain unmoderated, in at least one case leading to the closure of the thread when any constructive response is drowned in negativism to the point where I got suckered into throwing pies rather than staying on topic.
Having plus and minus threads would do wonders to make this place, your home, an even friendlier place
Best regards,
Zapp
PS. Let me add a link to the existing (old) Meta suggestion thread on this subject when I have time.
CapnZapp
Legend
No I did not.
You might have missed* that I indicated exactly what question I considered the article author to fail at answering, and then I posted commentary quotes that does address the question and provide possible answers for us to discuss.
*) somehow.
A suggestion (that perhaps should go into Meta), to add "plus" and "minus" threads.
It's obvious you are frustrated with people that are... frustrated by the show, and I did start this as a thread of my own instead of posting in the "discovery trailer" thread that has become a main ST
How about letting people start threads with names like "ST
Of course, the mods aren't supposed to strike down on every little criticism - nobody is every 110% happy with a show. But the plus sign signifies that if you don't agree with the basic premise of a thread as established in the first thread, you're supposed to move on, rather than dump your dissent in the thread.
And conversely, letting me suffix a "[-]" to this thread, signaling to Hussar and others that discussing why he is fed up with people nitpicking the show is not the intended topic and indeed not a welcome one?
I should add that I plan to start many more plus threads than minus threads. In my opinion, the frustration you express here - over Discovery - is shared by me in regards D&D issues such as magic item pricing in the general 5th edition forum, and to be honest, I hesitate posting my thoughts simply because very hostile and very derailing commentary has been allowed to remain unmoderated, in at least one case leading to the closure of the thread when any constructive response is drowned in negativism to the point where I got suckered into throwing pies rather than staying on topic.
Having plus and minus threads would do wonders to make this place, your home, an even friendlier place
Best regards,
Zapp
PS. Let me add a link to the existing (old) Meta suggestion thread on this subject when I have time.
I know what they are. We have talked about them before. I've even used it a couple of times on these boards. I might try starting one, though it might be too late in the day now.
Hussar
Legend
But, it was answered. That you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. The reason to use a known IP is to give it immediate recognition. The reason not to be tied down by (often contradictory) canon is because it makes for a poorer show.
I mean, good grief, Star Trek continuity is about as solid as Doctor Who continuity. There are so many holes and contradictions that it isn't even funny. I mean, seriously, there are any number of godlike beings wandering around in the Trekverse. Any contradictions can easily be pinned on one of them.
Why are klingons different? Q did it. A Q did it. Why did he/she do it? Who knows? Maybe it was Tremaine. Maybe someone wandered through the Guardian of Forever and changed history. Maybe someone took a spin around a sun and changed history.
Let me ask it a different way. How would the show be improved by slavish attention to canon? Should we be using card reader computers? In many ways the technology on TOS is lower tech than what we have right now. Makes sense in a FIFTY year old SF show. So, we should ignore that and make sure that all the tech and materials adheres to something made before many viewer's GRANDPARENTS were born?
Oh, and let's not forget some of the ... ummm... less than culturally aware elements of the time as well. Original Klingons were white actors in what amounts to blackface made up to look vaguely Asian:
This doesn't ring any alarm bells for you? The script for "Errand of Mercy specifically calls them out as "Orientals". Maybe we should be keeping that in no? It's canon after all.
Last edited:
I know my answer: it wouldn't be.
Yeah, I understand the allure & desire for canon, but sometimes a thing has to be what it is (note my use of the Buckaroo Banzai School of Rhetoric...). Star Trek *is* a television and film franchise that's gone on for 50 years. It is *not* a set of accurate documents from a real independent future history (whatever the hell that is). So obviously there will be jarring elements w/r/t both technology and cultural attitudes as the franchise ages. How could there not be? A Trek for 2017 is made for an audience that carries talking computers in their pockets and can watch animated children's shows at least as, if not far more progressive than TOS's most daring episodes.
Unless we make Trek into a period piece... about the future. Which is cool in small doses, like the Voyager pulp SF serial pastiche on the holodeck whose name escapes me.
Definitely Mongolface. No question.
Issues with Discovery's adherence to the "spirit" of Trek are totally fair and open for debate. But nitpicks about the tech? I think they're interesting only when asking the broader question: what role does technology play in quintessentially Star Trek-style storytelling?
Last edited:
DemoMonkey
Hero
"what role does technology play in quintessentially Star Trek-style storytelling?"
It breaks down in order to allow plots to occur.
It breaks down in order to allow plots to occur.
Good answer!
edit: plus the popular variations...
Tech works - with unforeseen consequence so the plot occurs, ex. something Wesley built for school, holodeck.
Tech doesn't work - for episode-specific reasons so the plot isn't resolved before the opening credits roll, ex. replicator, transporter.
Last edited:
Kaodi
Hero
I also thing that the strangest thing about Star Trek in general is that any new stories are based on a timeline for humanity that is now 50 years out of date. Yes, they can easily clean up the technology implications of that with handwaving. But any time you want to refer to human history there is a very large chunk that is just not going to ring true anymore.
Similar Threads
