The problem is..if you make a prequel to something..it has to somewhat match up to what your trying to preceed, regardless of the show, for example the uniforms, you can't see how they would move from the DISCO ones to origional trek ones (or at least something resembling it ) no skirts on the female DISCO uniforms for one is an example.
It is a problem if you insist on visual continuity. If you think that in the end, what matters are the stories told or the characters, ten it's not a problem.
In the Kelvin Timeline, I have no idea if there will be a Captain Picard with a crew containing Data and Riker and Troi and who else. Because the entire circumstances have changed, Pike was only in command of the Enterprise for a few hours or so, Robert April was nowhere to be seen, Vulcan is gone, so Spock can't even go back to Vulcan to deal with his wife wanting to marry someone else. Anything is possible from here.
In Discovery, the only thing that actually changed compared to what I knew were some visuals. And visual changes I am accustomed to since the movies. Enterprise, Klingons, Saavik... They don't change the story.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
let's not be invoking any pinocchios here by calling discovery's writers 'good'
But they are! Maybe you can't see it because you don't like the story they told overall, but they did a lot of things really well. They also made a few things not so great, of course. But I'd say the entire plotline behind Voq/Tyler and Lorca's secret was well devised. They put in hints for the twists so that smart viewers could figure them out, or at least suspect that something is up, just from watching the show and being familiar with the franchise.
So...thing so bloody obvious that people with a brain could figure it out the moment they meet the character is good writing. Okay now. And people wonder why I have such a disdain for fans of essteedee.
I don't believe that it's so bloody obvious at all, and I think most viewers were surprised and didn't see that twist coming. Because everyone of my co-workers that watched it didn't suspect that. I am fairly certain they have a brain. Most of them of course hadn't followed the reddit discussions I followed, or heard about Frakes mentioning a "Mirror Universe" episode, and also didn't catch the amusing social media background stuff with the real "Javid Iqba"
Seriously?!? This is what the level of mental acuity I can expect from people today. The moment I saw Lorca in his office and he opened his mouth it was oh evil terran...maybe section 31. Tyler was oh Klingon spy. Yeah not exactly figuring a jump to Voq...maybe if I saw a few more episode I would have figured on Voq specifically...but it was bloody obvious he was a Klingon spy the instant they showed him on screen. Like seriously, this is terrible writing. And this is why I hate essteedee. It's full of bad writing like this. Easy to see plot twists. Plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. Characters acting in manners completely unfitted to what hey should be able to do...or even SHOULD do in many cases. I literally yelled at the screen for at least 30 min of each episode at something so stupidly done by the writers that it was painful to watch. No...actually painful. It gave me a headache at the level of stupid.
You would be surprised what kind of stuff even people that call themselves Star Trek fans don't know or don't think off. A friend of mine doesn't even remember the Enterprise's registry number! That many viewers wouldn't think of Mirror Universe or Section 31 is not surprising. Besides, plenty of people wouldn't even know these options exist. But they can still feel something is off. And even for people that know about both, it takes a long time to figure out which one is more likely - and the third option. "He really suffers from PTSD" is not exactly something that we can consider impossible, either. If you know Section 31 and Mirror Universe, you probably also know that Nog and Picard also experienced forms of PTSD, so it's not a "solved" problem in Star Trek.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
LOL! That episode also graced us with the "Shatner Chop"... which is more powerful than the laser gun.
Well, compared to real world lasers at the time of TOS, it might actually be justified.
It's really a common trope in fantasy and sci-fi that somehow, good old fisticuffs and the occasional sword are better than advanced firearms or energy weapons in engaging superior foes.
Like in Pacific Rim and probably a ton of "mecha" in general. And in space, slow-speed ramming often works better than advanced weapons like anti-matter torpedoes as well.
actually, there's a half-TRIBBLE explanation for that, if your force fields are based on models of the magnetic fields that protect planets from things like Highly charged particles. Every time the sun flares, Earth's magnetosphere protects us all from a LOT of concentrated radiation, even at ninetysomething million miles away.
iow it may be necessary to 'get close' with something very, very dense and massive to break through a shield (which also could explain the 'dogfighting' scenes...not that it's real science, but it's probably close enough for Hollywood work.)
But are phasers "charged" particles?
And have you tried fisticuffs against Earth's atmosphere lately?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I'm actually with @coldnapalm on this one. The writing was really obvious and the only reason "Mirror Universe" - which is the first or second theory every Trek fan should have on evil doing Captains - maybe wasn't immideatly obvious is that they made the "hint" with the light sensitivity up. Of course you can "keep" things from the audience like this. By completely changing the established rules in your 'prequel' just to pretend it's clever. Sorry but no, this is not how one does a prequel. And Voq/Tyler was obvious from the "you have to sacrifice everything" line. They literally spelled it out right there and not only in hind sight.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
LOL! That episode also graced us with the "Shatner Chop"... which is more powerful than the laser gun.
Well, compared to real world lasers at the time of TOS, it might actually be justified.
It's really a common trope in fantasy and sci-fi that somehow, good old fisticuffs and the occasional sword are better than advanced firearms or energy weapons in engaging superior foes.
Like in Pacific Rim and probably a ton of "mecha" in general. And in space, slow-speed ramming often works better than advanced weapons like anti-matter torpedoes as well.
actually, there's a half-TRIBBLE explanation for that, if your force fields are based on models of the magnetic fields that protect planets from things like Highly charged particles. Every time the sun flares, Earth's magnetosphere protects us all from a LOT of concentrated radiation, even at ninetysomething million miles away.
iow it may be necessary to 'get close' with something very, very dense and massive to break through a shield (which also could explain the 'dogfighting' scenes...not that it's real science, but it's probably close enough for Hollywood work.)
But are phasers "charged" particles?
Word of God is yes, they are. Roddenberry justified the "phaser" name (which, of course, was made up because it just sounded cooler than "laser") by saying that it was a phased laser beam/particle beam combination, with the laser giving the particle beam a charged path to follow. That's what inspired the creator of the phaser device in California; his uses the laser to ionize a channel for an electrical charge to follow, and is far too big for useful deployment (so far), but Roddenberry's attempt at technobabble gave him a new way to look at the problem.
Of course, Word of God isn't always canon for Trek...
that's star trek's explanation, not STO's - nadion particles were mentioned in several star trek episodes...one of which being endgame, with that klingon that had the temporal rift emitter having modified a cardassian disruptor to fire nadion pulses
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
let's not be invoking any pinocchios here by calling discovery's writers 'good'
But they are! Maybe you can't see it because you don't like the story they told overall, but they did a lot of things really well. They also made a few things not so great, of course. But I'd say the entire plotline behind Voq/Tyler and Lorca's secret was well devised. They put in hints for the twists so that smart viewers could figure them out, or at least suspect that something is up, just from watching the show and being familiar with the franchise.
So...thing so bloody obvious that people with a brain could figure it out the moment they meet the character is good writing. Okay now. And people wonder why I have such a disdain for fans of essteedee.
I don't believe that it's so bloody obvious at all, and I think most viewers were surprised and didn't see that twist coming. Because everyone of my co-workers that watched it didn't suspect that. I am fairly certain they have a brain. Most of them of course hadn't followed the reddit discussions I followed, or heard about Frakes mentioning a "Mirror Universe" episode, and also didn't catch the amusing social media background stuff with the real "Javid Iqba"
Seriously?!? This is what the level of mental acuity I can expect from people today. The moment I saw Lorca in his office and he opened his mouth it was oh evil terran...maybe section 31. Tyler was oh Klingon spy. Yeah not exactly figuring a jump to Voq...maybe if I saw a few more episode I would have figured on Voq specifically...but it was bloody obvious he was a Klingon spy the instant they showed him on screen. Like seriously, this is terrible writing. And this is why I hate essteedee. It's full of bad writing like this. Easy to see plot twists. Plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. Characters acting in manners completely unfitted to what hey should be able to do...or even SHOULD do in many cases. I literally yelled at the screen for at least 30 min of each episode at something so stupidly done by the writers that it was painful to watch. No...actually painful. It gave me a headache at the level of stupid.
Lorca being part of Section 31 was the more likely scenario. We have a Starfleet ship with advanced technology, a guard with a black Starfleet insignia, and a Captain that is willing to bend the rules like make Burnham useful instead of keeping her locked up in the Brig. Sounds like something that Section 31 would do instead of a Terran.
Light sensitivity being an indication of Lorca being Terran is just lousy writing. It is a retcon of Terrans since no other Star Trek series had light sensitivity. If Terrans had light sensitivity, then the moment that Mirror Kirk stepped on the Enterprise, he would have been screaming in agony.
If Terrans had light sensitivity, then the moment that Mirror Kirk stepped on the Enterprise, he would have been screaming in agony.
As I recall, the only scene in which we saw Mirror Kirk he was indeed screaming! (Although I admit I had no idea that illumination was an issue.)
Why is the MU darker than the Prime? Does Sol emit less light? If so, why is Earth in the MU not a ball of ice? I admit that the whole 'light sensitivity' thing is a case of writers just not thinking a thing through. And we supposedly had Trek Fans writing and directing the show. You'd think they'd know.
For the record, most of the Trek actors turned directors have admitted to not being Trek fans, so just having worked in the series doesn't make them Trexperts.
I am not really sure there is much point talking about the light sensitivity, but:
- I think the writers might have been trying to look for an underlying reason why the two universes are both similar and different the way they are. Of course, it's one of the things were there really can't be one, because the Mirror Universe idea is just a tool for the story, not something based on scientific considerations.
- The more important role is to give a stronger piece of evidence to the characters in-universe that Lorca is from the Mirror Universe. Everything else about is behavior can be explained away, but him getting an odd light sensitivity that only Mirror Terrans seem to have is extremely suspicious. And it also allows a bit more foreshadowing - Burnham mentions that the Mirror Universe stars seem darker, and so a viewer might think "so almost a perfect home for Lorca?"
- It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the world is actually darker in any way. But it might be that Earth's atmosphere contains more dust or something like that that reduces overall brightness. And of course, the Mirror Terrans being used to it being a bit darker, make their glasses and force fields so to usually keep a bit more light out than Prime Universe humans - and of course, generally the artificial lights are dimmer.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I am not really sure there is much point talking about the light sensitivity, but:
- I think the writers might have been trying to look for an underlying reason why the two universes are both similar and different the way they are. Of course, it's one of the things were there really can't be one, because the Mirror Universe idea is just a tool for the story, not something based on scientific considerations.
- The more important role is to give a stronger piece of evidence to the characters in-universe that Lorca is from the Mirror Universe. Everything else about is behavior can be explained away, but him getting an odd light sensitivity that only Mirror Terrans seem to have is extremely suspicious. And it also allows a bit more foreshadowing - Burnham mentions that the Mirror Universe stars seem darker, and so a viewer might think "so almost a perfect home for Lorca?"
- It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the world is actually darker in any way. But it might be that Earth's atmosphere contains more dust or something like that that reduces overall brightness. And of course, the Mirror Terrans being used to it being a bit darker, make their glasses and force fields so to usually keep a bit more light out than Prime Universe humans - and of course, generally the artificial lights are dimmer.
There is absolutely no need to make the two universes different. Just have Colonel Greene win World War III in the Mirror Universe. He ordered the death hundreds of thousands of humans suffering radiation sickness so they won't pass their mutated genes to future generations. The scary thing about the Terrans is that we could become the Terrans. By having a different history and different universe, the Terrans lose their terror. They go from being a future possibility of humanity to just another Star Trek villain.
If other Star Trek series had Terran light sensitivity, then it would have made sense. However since there is no evidence of Terran light sensitivity in other Star Trek series, then agonizer scars would have been a far better reason without retconning the Terrans. Burnham would see Lorca's agonizer scars with Lorca blaming them on Klingon torture. Which would give the audience and Burnham a reason for Lorca's ruthlessness. Burnham in the Mirror Universe would see someone with agonizer scars and realize that Lorca's scars are agonizer scars and not Klingon torture scars.
I am not really sure there is much point talking about the light sensitivity, but:
- I think the writers might have been trying to look for an underlying reason why the two universes are both similar and different the way they are. Of course, it's one of the things were there really can't be one, because the Mirror Universe idea is just a tool for the story, not something based on scientific considerations.
- The more important role is to give a stronger piece of evidence to the characters in-universe that Lorca is from the Mirror Universe. Everything else about is behavior can be explained away, but him getting an odd light sensitivity that only Mirror Terrans seem to have is extremely suspicious. And it also allows a bit more foreshadowing - Burnham mentions that the Mirror Universe stars seem darker, and so a viewer might think "so almost a perfect home for Lorca?"
- It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the world is actually darker in any way. But it might be that Earth's atmosphere contains more dust or something like that that reduces overall brightness. And of course, the Mirror Terrans being used to it being a bit darker, make their glasses and force fields so to usually keep a bit more light out than Prime Universe humans - and of course, generally the artificial lights are dimmer.
There is absolutely no need to make the two universes different. Just have Colonel Greene win World War III in the Mirror Universe. He ordered the death hundreds of thousands of humans suffering radiation sickness so they won't pass their mutated genes to future generations. The scary thing about the Terrans is that we could become the Terrans. By having a different history and different universe, the Terrans lose their terror. They go from being a future possibility of humanity to just another Star Trek villain.
If other Star Trek series had Terran light sensitivity, then it would have made sense.
I don't really believe that the issue of light sensitivity would be immediately apparent and that we haven' heard of it yet isn't that surprising. Visitors from the Mirror Universe were rare, and didn't stay long. But Lorca suffered prolonged exposure to - for him - unusually bright lighting conditions. Most of the Mirror Universe episodes also happened in DS9, a station that wasn't built for or by Terrans - And also had always lighting conditions different from Starfleet's standards. The ENT episode played entirely in the Mirror Universe, so the NX-01 was operating under usual terran lighting conditions. Not sure about the Defiant, but it wouldn't be surprising if the ship was found with only emergency light on, and the Terran coming aboard adjusted settings to their needs quickly.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It is possible to like DSC but still acknowledge bad or cheap writing. It's not an all or nothing situation that would justify going through these lengths, essentially pulling a "Superman could have done it. We never saw evidence that he didn't exist in Trek after all".
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It is possible to like DSC but still acknowledge bad or cheap writing. It's not an all or nothing situation that would justify going through these lengths, essentially pulling a "Superman could have done it. We never saw evidence that he didn't exist in Trek after all".
Dilithium is in fact kryptonite. Ever notice how many tons of the stuff must have fallen on Earth alone, so that so many villains could use it against Superman? One day we'll happen across a red dwarf star with a debris ring that used to be a planet, one rich in dilithium deposits, and an ancient recording telling us that the native species had named the star "Rao"...
I like Discovery and can still acknowledge its faults. The light sensitivity thing was out there (but maybe the Kelvin Timeline is super bright and that’s what’s up with all the lens flares).
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Didn't I tell you guys not to get me started on the photosensitivity thing? Do you want yo to give you a fourth (fifth) rant on why it's stupid? (Possibly the stupidest thing in the entire show!)
In order for Terrans to have even gained photosensitivity naturally (a process which would have taken at least hundreds of years, mind) the Earth would have had to have a low light level itself. Now, given we can safely assume Sol is the same in both universes, that means Earth's atmosphere would have had to have been subject to some kind of environmental hazard (such as a dust cloud) that would reduce the amount of light reaching the planet. A serious meteorological shift, such as one caused by a nuclear winter, could do it. Problem? Prime Earth had a nuclear apocalypse (characters make reference to the 'Post-Atomic Horror', which we can assume to mean the result of a general global nuclear exchange). The environmental results of said nuclear apocalypse (including, presumably, some kind of nuclear winter) had been dealt with by 2063 (at least in Montana, and the shots of Earth itself show no sign of atmospheric alteration), and they had definitely been dealt with by 2151. Note, also, that we see Terran Earth in 'In a Mirror, Darkly...' and, again, no nuclear winter - in fact, nothing that would cause any kind of reduction in Earth's light levels. Even an excess of smog to that extent would be visible from space. Note also, that even if such an environmental factor had existed long enough to cause biological changes from one generation to another, why would the Terrans then repair such damage, if it would end up hurting them?
Then we come to the idea of 'oh, they used genetic augmentation, and that's why'. This argument was debateably logical with the Klingons - they at least got an advantage from it. Here's the thing: the only biological difference, straight from the horse's mouth, is that the Terrans have photosensitive eyes. Why would they give themselves a disadvantage? Even if it was the unintended result of previous augmentation, they clearly reversed every aspect of that but the eyes. ISS Enterprise NCC 1701 had normal lighting; the cave the Terran rebellion used in DS9 had normal lighting; the ISS Defiant had normal lighting. As a matter of fact, the only two Star Trek shows which show Terran ships as being darker than their Prime counterparts are ENT and DSC. In ENT, the ISS Enterprise NX-01 was at Tactical Alert for most of its time onscreen, and cloaked for the remainder - both circumstances where Prime ships also went dark. DSC doesn't get that excuse. It doesn't just contradict canon for TOS, but for the entire franchise, for the sake of a plot revelation which was Shamylan-levels of contrived: yes, of course we weren't expecting it - you invented the key factor leading into the twist!
This would have been a good pivot for the twist if photosensitivity had ever been a characteristic of Terrans, because Lorca's cover story was utterly believable and explained his renegade disposition: bright light, including from sudden explosions (say, from a warp core breach), do cause serious eye damage in real life, and render the victim vulnerable to exposure to light in the future. But, without that pre-association between photosensitivity and the Terran Empire, it's completely contrived that that's how we, the viewer, are supposed to make the connection.
Then we come to the idea of 'oh, they used genetic augmentation, and that's why'. This argument was debateably logical with the Klingons - they at least got an advantage from it. Here's the thing: the only biological difference, straight from the horse's mouth, is that the Terrans have photosensitive eyes. Why would they give themselves a disadvantage? Even if it was the unintended result of previous augmentation, they clearly reversed every aspect of that but the eyes. ISS Enterprise NCC 1701 had normal lighting; the cave the Terran rebellion used in DS9 had normal lighting; the ISS Defiant had normal lighting. As a matter of fact, the only two Star Trek shows which show Terran ships as being darker than their Prime counterparts are ENT and DSC. In ENT, the ISS Enterprise NX-01 was at Tactical Alert for most of its time onscreen, and cloaked for the remainder - both circumstances where Prime ships also went dark. DSC doesn't get that excuse. It doesn't just contradict canon for TOS, but for the entire franchise, for the sake of a plot revelation which was Shamylan-levels of contrived: yes, of course we weren't expecting it - you invented the key factor leading into the twist!
Photosensitive eyes could be the result of genetic augmentation gone wrong since being able to process photons more efficiently would allow people to see better, but it requires being able to handle more information. So photosensitive eyes would let Terrans be able to see better than Humans in low-light conditions, but they would get too much information in normal light situations.
However, my understanding of the Terran Empire is that they are human supremacists that believes in genetic purity. Which would result in the Terran Empire being as adverse to genetic engineering as the Federation.
'genetic purity' is the ideal of maintaining superior genes by not allowing 'inferior' genes to intermix with yours - genetic engineering takes your genes and makes them better, thus making them more pure, not less
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
'genetic purity' is the ideal of maintaining superior genes by not allowing 'inferior' genes to intermix with yours - genetic engineering takes your genes and makes them better, thus making them more pure, not less
The case for genetic engineering in genetic purity could be made for genetic engineering in Gattaca where babies are created with the most superior version of the parents' genetics currently available, but genetic purity is keeping the 'superior' genes pure not making the genes more pure. It doesn't matter if the genes are 'inferior' or 'superior'. Any significant changes to the genetics is not genetic purity. After all, people that believe in genetic purity, don't believe that there needs to be any genetic improvements. In their twisted mind, they are the best genetic specimen and any mention of genetic changes is blasphemy.
I'm actually with @coldnapalm on this one. The writing was really obvious and the only reason "Mirror Universe" - which is the first or second theory every Trek fan should have on evil doing Captains - maybe wasn't immideatly obvious is that they made the "hint" with the light sensitivity up. Of course you can "keep" things from the audience like this. By completely changing the established rules in your 'prequel' just to pretend it's clever. Sorry but no, this is not how one does a prequel. And Voq/Tyler was obvious from the "you have to sacrifice everything" line. They literally spelled it out right there and not only in hind sight.
There can be several purposes for hints. Ranging from "hey look this is weird" to " I'm not saying this guy is a spy, but..."
And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly).
Eh... I thought I covered other social media in my response. I even sympathized.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly).
Eh... I thought I covered other social media in my response. I even sympathized.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
Just went through the entire spam queue, restored ALL the eaten posts, and verified all those users. Hopefully, those individuals no longer have posting issues.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
What I like about Discovery: the overall story and the visuals(which includes a lot of different things).
What I don't like: some(not all) really cringeworthy writing/dialogue. (mostly from Burnham)
So all in all, I like about 90% of Discovery. But that 10% I don't like is extremely annoying when it happens, and makes me want to fast forward or just stop watching until I forget that feeling and go back later.
After watching S2E1 I feel essentially the same as I did when I made this post a few months ago. I find certain characters extremely annoying, and don't recall having that feeling in previous Trek shows. But I watch it for the parts I enjoy, and try to zone out when the extremely annoying people are on screen.
Comments
In the Kelvin Timeline, I have no idea if there will be a Captain Picard with a crew containing Data and Riker and Troi and who else. Because the entire circumstances have changed, Pike was only in command of the Enterprise for a few hours or so, Robert April was nowhere to be seen, Vulcan is gone, so Spock can't even go back to Vulcan to deal with his wife wanting to marry someone else. Anything is possible from here.
In Discovery, the only thing that actually changed compared to what I knew were some visuals. And visual changes I am accustomed to since the movies. Enterprise, Klingons, Saavik... They don't change the story.
But are phasers "charged" particles?
And have you tried fisticuffs against Earth's atmosphere lately?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Of course, Word of God isn't always canon for Trek...
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Lorca being part of Section 31 was the more likely scenario. We have a Starfleet ship with advanced technology, a guard with a black Starfleet insignia, and a Captain that is willing to bend the rules like make Burnham useful instead of keeping her locked up in the Brig. Sounds like something that Section 31 would do instead of a Terran.
Light sensitivity being an indication of Lorca being Terran is just lousy writing. It is a retcon of Terrans since no other Star Trek series had light sensitivity. If Terrans had light sensitivity, then the moment that Mirror Kirk stepped on the Enterprise, he would have been screaming in agony.
As I recall, the only scene in which we saw Mirror Kirk he was indeed screaming! (Although I admit I had no idea that illumination was an issue.)
Why is the MU darker than the Prime? Does Sol emit less light? If so, why is Earth in the MU not a ball of ice? I admit that the whole 'light sensitivity' thing is a case of writers just not thinking a thing through. And we supposedly had Trek Fans writing and directing the show. You'd think they'd know.
For the record, most of the Trek actors turned directors have admitted to not being Trek fans, so just having worked in the series doesn't make them Trexperts.
- I think the writers might have been trying to look for an underlying reason why the two universes are both similar and different the way they are. Of course, it's one of the things were there really can't be one, because the Mirror Universe idea is just a tool for the story, not something based on scientific considerations.
- The more important role is to give a stronger piece of evidence to the characters in-universe that Lorca is from the Mirror Universe. Everything else about is behavior can be explained away, but him getting an odd light sensitivity that only Mirror Terrans seem to have is extremely suspicious. And it also allows a bit more foreshadowing - Burnham mentions that the Mirror Universe stars seem darker, and so a viewer might think "so almost a perfect home for Lorca?"
- It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the world is actually darker in any way. But it might be that Earth's atmosphere contains more dust or something like that that reduces overall brightness. And of course, the Mirror Terrans being used to it being a bit darker, make their glasses and force fields so to usually keep a bit more light out than Prime Universe humans - and of course, generally the artificial lights are dimmer.
There is absolutely no need to make the two universes different. Just have Colonel Greene win World War III in the Mirror Universe. He ordered the death hundreds of thousands of humans suffering radiation sickness so they won't pass their mutated genes to future generations. The scary thing about the Terrans is that we could become the Terrans. By having a different history and different universe, the Terrans lose their terror. They go from being a future possibility of humanity to just another Star Trek villain.
If other Star Trek series had Terran light sensitivity, then it would have made sense. However since there is no evidence of Terran light sensitivity in other Star Trek series, then agonizer scars would have been a far better reason without retconning the Terrans. Burnham would see Lorca's agonizer scars with Lorca blaming them on Klingon torture. Which would give the audience and Burnham a reason for Lorca's ruthlessness. Burnham in the Mirror Universe would see someone with agonizer scars and realize that Lorca's scars are agonizer scars and not Klingon torture scars.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
In order for Terrans to have even gained photosensitivity naturally (a process which would have taken at least hundreds of years, mind) the Earth would have had to have a low light level itself. Now, given we can safely assume Sol is the same in both universes, that means Earth's atmosphere would have had to have been subject to some kind of environmental hazard (such as a dust cloud) that would reduce the amount of light reaching the planet. A serious meteorological shift, such as one caused by a nuclear winter, could do it. Problem? Prime Earth had a nuclear apocalypse (characters make reference to the 'Post-Atomic Horror', which we can assume to mean the result of a general global nuclear exchange). The environmental results of said nuclear apocalypse (including, presumably, some kind of nuclear winter) had been dealt with by 2063 (at least in Montana, and the shots of Earth itself show no sign of atmospheric alteration), and they had definitely been dealt with by 2151. Note, also, that we see Terran Earth in 'In a Mirror, Darkly...' and, again, no nuclear winter - in fact, nothing that would cause any kind of reduction in Earth's light levels. Even an excess of smog to that extent would be visible from space. Note also, that even if such an environmental factor had existed long enough to cause biological changes from one generation to another, why would the Terrans then repair such damage, if it would end up hurting them?
Then we come to the idea of 'oh, they used genetic augmentation, and that's why'. This argument was debateably logical with the Klingons - they at least got an advantage from it. Here's the thing: the only biological difference, straight from the horse's mouth, is that the Terrans have photosensitive eyes. Why would they give themselves a disadvantage? Even if it was the unintended result of previous augmentation, they clearly reversed every aspect of that but the eyes. ISS Enterprise NCC 1701 had normal lighting; the cave the Terran rebellion used in DS9 had normal lighting; the ISS Defiant had normal lighting. As a matter of fact, the only two Star Trek shows which show Terran ships as being darker than their Prime counterparts are ENT and DSC. In ENT, the ISS Enterprise NX-01 was at Tactical Alert for most of its time onscreen, and cloaked for the remainder - both circumstances where Prime ships also went dark. DSC doesn't get that excuse. It doesn't just contradict canon for TOS, but for the entire franchise, for the sake of a plot revelation which was Shamylan-levels of contrived: yes, of course we weren't expecting it - you invented the key factor leading into the twist!
This would have been a good pivot for the twist if photosensitivity had ever been a characteristic of Terrans, because Lorca's cover story was utterly believable and explained his renegade disposition: bright light, including from sudden explosions (say, from a warp core breach), do cause serious eye damage in real life, and render the victim vulnerable to exposure to light in the future. But, without that pre-association between photosensitivity and the Terran Empire, it's completely contrived that that's how we, the viewer, are supposed to make the connection.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Photosensitive eyes could be the result of genetic augmentation gone wrong since being able to process photons more efficiently would allow people to see better, but it requires being able to handle more information. So photosensitive eyes would let Terrans be able to see better than Humans in low-light conditions, but they would get too much information in normal light situations.
However, my understanding of the Terran Empire is that they are human supremacists that believes in genetic purity. Which would result in the Terran Empire being as adverse to genetic engineering as the Federation.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
The case for genetic engineering in genetic purity could be made for genetic engineering in Gattaca where babies are created with the most superior version of the parents' genetics currently available, but genetic purity is keeping the 'superior' genes pure not making the genes more pure. It doesn't matter if the genes are 'inferior' or 'superior'. Any significant changes to the genetics is not genetic purity. After all, people that believe in genetic purity, don't believe that there needs to be any genetic improvements. In their twisted mind, they are the best genetic specimen and any mention of genetic changes is blasphemy.
My character Tsin'xing
Still not great, but a decent watch
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
Sorry for spam. I do not know what is going on. I have not looked at this thread in weeks!
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
After watching S2E1 I feel essentially the same as I did when I made this post a few months ago. I find certain characters extremely annoying, and don't recall having that feeling in previous Trek shows. But I watch it for the parts I enjoy, and try to zone out when the extremely annoying people are on screen.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008