I can present you with three entire series of YouTube videos that show the Slender Man haunting the wilds of New Jersey, and another video showing him leading a cabal of similar creatures in Florida. Until recently, YouTube also served as the primary mouthpiece for Alex Jones and his weird-TRIBBLE conspiracy theories. Then there's a video conclusively proving that the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is made up by an evil cabal of Round-Earth conspirators...
Basically, don't use YouTube as a primary source. For anything. Not even things you think you know.
As for CBS shouting it from the rooftops? They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
If season 2 doesn't deliver in spades, might not get a season 3.
Judging by the ridiculously rushed, and overly happy ending of Season 1, it's fair to assume they weren't really expecting a second Season. They basically quickly wrapped it up towards the end (instead of leaving it with a hefty cliffhanger, as per usual). CBS and Netflix will no doubt have you believe "It was a great success, and the viewers love it!" But they already hired Patrick Stewart for the next Trek incarnation: that should at least give pause to even the most rabid ST:D fans.
I can present you with three entire series of YouTube videos that show the Slender Man haunting the wilds of New Jersey, and another video showing him leading a cabal of similar creatures in Florida. Until recently, YouTube also served as the primary mouthpiece for Alex Jones and his weird-**** conspiracy theories. Then there's a video conclusively proving that the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is made up by an evil cabal of Round-Earth conspirators...
Basically, don't use YouTube as a primary source. For anything. Not even things you think you know.
As for CBS shouting it from the rooftops? They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
Wow, now who's become an "Alex Jones" type mouth piece, spouting a conspiracy theory? Flat Earthers still have no real concrete evidence that the earth is flat and its all just a conspiracy cover up. Youtube seems to be a primary source of use for those shouting out alt theories. It's one thing to be a healthy skeptic and a critical thinker, its quite another to blame someone else for having weird-**** Conspiracy's, when your own doesn't hold up without real factual evidence.
I can present you with three entire series of YouTube videos that show the Slender Man haunting the wilds of New Jersey, and another video showing him leading a cabal of similar creatures in Florida. Until recently, YouTube also served as the primary mouthpiece for Alex Jones and his weird-**** conspiracy theories. Then there's a video conclusively proving that the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is made up by an evil cabal of Round-Earth conspirators...
Basically, don't use YouTube as a primary source. For anything. Not even things you think you know.
As for CBS shouting it from the rooftops? They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
Wow, now who's become an "Alex Jones" type mouth piece, spouting a conspiracy theory? Flat Earthers still have no real concrete evidence that the earth is flat and its all just a conspiracy cover up. Youtube seems to be a primary source of use for those shouting out alt theories. It's one thing to be a healthy skeptic and a critical thinker, its quite another to blame someone else for having weird-**** Conspiracy's, when your own doesn't hold up without real factual evidence.
I would point out that there is some factual evidence here:
They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
And what do you think arrangements like the Age of Discovery is for CBS? Keeping it quiet about Star Trek Discovery?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
If season 2 doesn't deliver in spades, might not get a season 3.
Judging by the ridiculously rushed, and overly happy ending of Season 1, it's fair to assume they weren't really expecting a second Season. They basically quickly wrapped it up towards the end (instead of leaving it with a hefty cliffhanger, as per usual). CBS and Netflix will no doubt have you believe "It was a great success, and the viewers love it!" But they already hired Patrick Stewart for the next Trek incarnation: that should at least give pause to even the most rabid ST:D fans.
Bad example, meimei. Hard to believe the ending feeling rushed is indicative of anything when the entire rest of the season was equally rushed.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I can present you with three entire series of YouTube videos that show the Slender Man haunting the wilds of New Jersey, and another video showing him leading a cabal of similar creatures in Florida. Until recently, YouTube also served as the primary mouthpiece for Alex Jones and his weird-**** conspiracy theories. Then there's a video conclusively proving that the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is made up by an evil cabal of Round-Earth conspirators...
Basically, don't use YouTube as a primary source. For anything. Not even things you think you know.
As for CBS shouting it from the rooftops? They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
Wow, now who's become an "Alex Jones" type mouth piece, spouting a conspiracy theory? Flat Earthers still have no real concrete evidence that the earth is flat and its all just a conspiracy cover up. Youtube seems to be a primary source of use for those shouting out alt theories. It's one thing to be a healthy skeptic and a critical thinker, its quite another to blame someone else for having weird-**** Conspiracy's, when your own doesn't hold up without real factual evidence.
Are... are you under the impression I was somehow defending the use of YouTube as a primary source? Look, I enjoy new EverymanHYBRID uploads as much as the next devotee of strange little long-form indie films, but that doesn't mean I believe that five kids from Centralia, PA, are locked into a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth in an effort to overcome the Observer.
My point was in fact quite the opposite - attempting to support a claim by saying that you saw it in a YouTube video bears about as much relevance (and argumentative weight) as following Flat Earthers on YouTube and claiming they've proved anything.
If season 2 doesn't deliver in spades, might not get a season 3.
Judging by the ridiculously rushed, and overly happy ending of Season 1, it's fair to assume they weren't really expecting a second Season. They basically quickly wrapped it up towards the end (instead of leaving it with a hefty cliffhanger, as per usual). CBS and Netflix will no doubt have you believe "It was a great success, and the viewers love it!" But they already hired Patrick Stewart for the next Trek incarnation: that should at least give pause to even the most rabid ST:D fans.
Bad example, meimei. Hard to believe the ending feeling rushed is indicative of anything when the entire rest of the season was equally rushed.
LOL. And I kinda disagree. Toward the end, I really felt the show was picking up, and I found myself actually excited to watch the next Ep. Then, suddenly, it was all over: we didn't destroy the Klingon homeworld when we could (in a war the Federation had all but totally lost); the Klink made a sudden about-face, when they ere about to attack the Earth; and Burnham, yawn, was everyone's new hero now, and all was forgotten and forgiven. They couldn't have ended it in a sappier way, even if they tried.
But my main point remains: it ended in an abrupt manner, leaving no loose ends. The ending was clearly indicative of them not expecting a continuation (or, at least, to have sufficiently 'concluded' the series, had there not have been a 2nd Season).
Well heres how I believe they can explain the discovery Klingon appearance. We know the augment virus really hit the klingons hard, maybe it hit them hard to be horrific enough they would do anything to try and undo and thus took dangerous paths to try and restore their normal appearance but they could not do so and thus their latest attempt at a cure ended up backfiring explaining appearance the klingons have in discovery.
So best way to describe it as I said above is. 1. It was failed attempt to restore original Klingon biology. 2. The side effects so extreme Klingon outside of Kronos might have choose to remain human looking. This is the only logical explanation for it and it should be what the sto devs use to explain it. As well as Cbs should also use this reason in the new Star Trek Show, that way people can understand and also know its not an attempt to rewrite their canon and at the same time make Discovery more popular to the fan base.
for the sake of continuing the discussion and clarifying your position, Som, could you elaborate on the useful 'loose ends' (please no deleted scenes, scenes get cut for a reason).
I'm asking because I want to see what you come up with.
You mean the biggest loose end of the entire Klingon Empire being held hostage by someone from a disgraced house, that no one really liked to begin with, attempting to bring about mass reform, something the Klingons generally don't like?
Almost everything about that last Episode was implausible. That's not a loose end, but just bad writing.
for the sake of continuing the discussion and clarifying your position, Som, could you elaborate on the useful 'loose ends' (please no deleted scenes, scenes get cut for a reason).
I'm asking because I want to see what you come up with.
You mean the biggest loose end of the entire Klingon Empire being held hostage by someone from a disgraced house, that no one really liked to begin with, attempting to bring about mass reform, something the Klingons generally don't like?
Almost everything about that last Episode was implausible. That's not a loose end, but just bad writing.
You're conflating there. Not everything about the end of Discovery is "bad writing" by dint of association. Someone from a disgraced house ascending to power by threatening the core of the Klingon Empire (in one stroke bringing the hammer of unity down through firepower and forced perspective) is a strong arc by itself that (rightly) lacks a neat and tidy point of resolution. More can be said about how Klingon politics and culture evolve. For example: how augmented-affected Klingons came to prominence in the military (disgraced people lending support to a controversial chancellor...there'd be worse ways to carry on in season 2, which would be an implausible move if season 1 ended neatly and satisfactorily to conventional ideals of imperial governance.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Almost everything about that last Episode was implausible. That's not a loose end, but just bad writing.
You're conflating there. Not everything about the end of Discovery is "bad writing" by dint of association. Someone from a disgraced house ascending to power by threatening the core of the Klingon Empire (in one stroke bringing the hammer of unity down through firepower and forced perspective) is a strong arc by itself that (rightly) lacks a neat and tidy point of resolution.
It lacks 'a neat and tidy point of resolution' because it's implausible to begin with: you cannot conclude something properly when you started it off so improperly. The idea of Klingons peacefully yielding to a nutcase holding a bomb, is too ridiculous for words even. And what is that T'Kuvma did afterwards? Sleep with that bomb in his hands all the time? Cuz, if not, they'd had slit his throat the moment his eyes closed. Or, more Klingon-y, challenged him to a dual, to the death, for leadership, right there on the spot! But no way in hell they would have looked down bashfully, going 'Ok, guess you're our leader now.' This is yet another area where ST:D spits on what a Klingon really is.
And let's talk war. The Federation was losing. Badly. Almost all areas on that map were 'red' already. If we had a way to take out their home planet, we would have taken it; no qualms; and no lost sleep over it, either. And the Klingons, having already killed tens of thousands (sic!) of humans on Star bases they conquered, they had even less reason to stop. They already had Earth in their visors, and they suddenly call the whole thing off because a of terrorist back home holding a pipe-bomb?! I don't think so.
And then there's Burnham. Now she's suddenly the hero? She committed outright mutiny. And even if you can bring yourself to overlook the latter, she personally STARTED the whole war to begin with, cuz she was thinking... why, she wasn't really thinking, was she?!
EDIT BUG HITTING ME TWICE: GETTING TRIBBLE TIRED OF THIS.
And then there's Burnham. Now she's suddenly the hero? She committed outright mutiny. And even if you can bring yourself to overlook the latter, she personally STARTED the whole war to begin with, cuz she was thinking... why, she wasn't really thinking, was she?!
Uuum. T'Kuvma started the war not Burnham. You think he showed up in his battleship after whipping his minions into a frenzy and if Burnham didn't try fire first he'd say 'fair enough' and bugger off back to Kronos?
Burnham thought a show of strength would make them back down the reason it didn't was because T'Kuvma was going to get his war one way or another.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
And then there's Burnham. Now she's suddenly the hero? She committed outright mutiny. And even if you can bring yourself to overlook the latter, she personally STARTED the whole war to begin with, cuz she was thinking... why, she wasn't really thinking, was she?!
Uuum. T'Kuvma started the war not Burnham. You think he showed up in his battleship after whipping his minions into a frenzy and if Burnham didn't try fire first he'd say 'fair enough' and bugger off back to Kronos?
Burnham thought a show of strength would make them back down the reason it didn't was because T'Kuvma was going to get his war one way or another.
Why, T'Kuvma was definitely bellicosus, looking for a fight, but Burnham lit the fire, giving him the perfect excuse.
And let's talk war. The Federation was losing. Badly. Almost all areas on that map were 'red' already. If we had a way to take out their home planet, we would have taken it; no qualms; and no lost sleep over it, either.
I'm quite astonished by this. Seriously, your argument makes no sense in the context of what the Federation is and how it's protagonists have been portrayed throughout the run of the IP. The ultimate question of "it's us or them" has been explored numerous times and the heroes have constantly fallen in one particular direction (of rejecting that binary in favor of coexistence.) When people talk about a Star Trek ethos, this is pretty much what they're referring to. It's the villains (ex. antagonistic Admirals, Gul Dukat, the Female Changeling) who consistently accept and perpetuate the negative. If there is a compromise (ex. destroying the Crystalline Entity), it's one tainted by regret and re-affirmation of the ideal; NOT a glib, "well, onto the next thing! I couldn't care less what we did."
Destroying the villain? Okay, tough choices are necessary in thrilling space dramas and depending on the plot this may or may not be touched on as a deeply moral issue. Resorting to genocide? No, just ask Hue (whether or not you think that plan would have actually worked, the characters made a choice there which is emblematic of the Federation ideal.)
And the Klingons, having already killed tens of thousands (sic!) of humans on Star bases they conquered, they had even less reason to stop. They already had Earth in their visors, and they suddenly call the whole thing off because a of terrorist back home holding a pipe-bomb?! I don't think so.
And this is just silly. Sorry, but I think you're resorting to more extreme generalizations to prevent a cogent discussion from dealing with problems which are basic to your premise. Namely, that the "lack of resolution" has nothing to do with exactly how the war was ended (only the basics, the questionable presentation and exact story mechanics are a product of how the season left relatively little time for a more continuous arc and natural resolution) and the fact that there are ongoing issues for the empire in a series with a season 2 is by no means a problem in itself. It is good that Discovery is allowing Klingons to have more of an arc in transitioning to what they will become in TOS because this allows the show to deal with issues of greater substance than if the show's creators simply affirmed fanboy expectations at the very start.
For example (again): how a Chancellor in a precarious position (and antagonistic relationship with the status quo) chooses to address the ongoing topic of Klingon unity and where exactly do the augment-infected Klingons come in? There have been explicit teases about upcoming changes to DSC Klingons. Odds are [I think], we're getting TOS Klingons to parallel TOS ships, uniforms, and characters on the FED side [just as Discovery and spore drive were paralleled by the Sarcophagus and cloaking. This show is about reflections.]
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
And let's talk war. The Federation was losing. Badly. Almost all areas on that map were 'red' already. If we had a way to take out their home planet, we would have taken it; no qualms; and no lost sleep over it, either.
I'm quite astonished by this. Seriously, your argument makes no sense in the context of what the Federation is and how it's been portrayed throughout Star Trek. The ultimate question of "it's us or them" has been explored numerous times and the heroes have constantly fallen in one particular direction (of rejecting that binary in favor of coexistence. It's the villains who consistently accept and perpetuate it. If there is a compromise (ex. destroying the Crystalline Entity), it's one tainted by regret and re-affirmation of the ideal; NOT glib "well, onto the next thing!")
I'm quite astonished by your astonishment. The Federation we normally see throughout Trek (at least on Earth) is a luxury colony. Everyone has food, is wealthy, no longer needs money and/or is in pursuit of material wealth, etc. And we grow new kidneys just swallowing a pill. Having high and mighty morals, under those conditions, is easy. But the ST:D Federation was all but totally defeated. The Klingons were at the gates of Earth itself, and the we simply faced an even worse death-toll than those thousands of service men and women already slaughtered at those Starbases. At that point, it really is 'either them or us.' The peaceful co-existence ship had already sailed, a long time ago.
They tried to force the peaceful coexistence mantra (because that's what it really was, at the time) onto the last Episode, after all -- against the actual state of the story. Which is why it was such an epic fail: it felt obligatory, shoe-horned in, and contrived. That was mainly because the writers let the Federation lose too badly. And that, in turn, was a plot device (to show that, without the Spore Drive, we'd lose). So, the writers had basically painted themselves into a corner, still wanting to end on a moral-highroad Trek note, but with a storyline which really couldn't support such ending.
IMHO, I think the bomb should have exploded. Like a partial success, with some Qu'nos islands being flooded with magma, maybe. Enough, at least, for the Klingons to call of their vicious drive for expansion, and pull back their Forces to defend the homeworld. After which we could have said to have entered some sort of Cold War era (after all, the Federation isn't really into seeking war themselves), with a neutral zone, maybe later on. Etc. I dunno, my ending sounds a bit too much like The Undiscovered Country theme, come to think of it. But the way it DID end was just ueber-silly, and totally unrealistic for where the story was at, at the time.
I'm quite astonished by your astonishment. The Federation we normally see throughout Trek (at least on Earth) is a luxury colony. Everyone has food, is wealthy, no longer needs money and/or is in pursuit of material wealth, etc. And we grow new kidneys just swallowing a pill. Having high and mighty morals, under those conditions, is easy. But the ST:D Federation was all but totally defeated. The Klingons were at the gates of Earth itself, and the we simply faced an even worse death-toll than those thousands of service men and women already slaughtered at those Starbases. At that point, it really is 'either them or us.' The peaceful co-existence ship had already sailed, a long time ago.
That's projection. When it comes to events depicted on screen where this topic and problem are directly addressed, we see time and again that the FED favors coexistence over extermination and they will not commit genocide without treating it as a moral issue. Take the Borg in First Contact. There is no question, the bad guys have to be stopped and the Queen isn't one to listen to compromise. However, treating the Borg threat as simple "them v. us" threat is portrayed as an increasing character failing on the part of Picard. It's where he's most off the rails and it's only he rejects binary conflict (to which you can only fight back for what's yours) that he arrives at the winning solution to that plot (which incidentally ends with a lot of dead Borg but that wasn't what Picard thought he was getting himself into. For a more direct statement on the us V. Borg issue, see. Hugh.)
The FED will do what's necessary, but principles are not things of convenience that can be disregarded as the situation warrants (ex. just letting Soran destroy an unaligned planet in his quest to reach the Nexus because it would be a personal risk to Federation officers to stop him.) See. Insurrection or Voyager for further lectures (figurative and literal). Hell, even TMP gets there, all life is about to be exterminated from Earth and the crew's focus was on challenging the preconceptions of the aging space probe with an easy access point.
Anyway, it's pretty darn basic to the FED that they will lose a lot of sleep over these issues. Even if forced to an ultimate conflict, principles are either going to drag them back (see. Dominion War) or haunt them once the dust has settled. That self reflection is part of the idealism of the series and its optimistic vision of the future, it doesn't follow modern pragmatism in conflict (which you'd be hard pressed to argue isn't important in the general appreciation of the series.)
They tried to force the peaceful coexistence mantra (because that's what it really was, at the time) onto the last Episode, after all -- against the actual state of the story. Which is why it was such an epic fail: it felt obligatory, shoe-horned in, and contrived. That was mainly because the writers let the Federation lose too badly. And that, in turn, was a plot device (to show that, without the Spore Drive, we'd lose). So, the writers had basically painted themselves into a corner, still wanting to end on a moral-highroad Trek note, but with a storyline which really couldn't support such ending.
This again I take as the ending being rushed. The elements had to be hurriedly assembled because the rest of the series had spent so long focusing on slow burning tangents rather than assembling a coherent arc that tied into the finale. This doesn't mean that the end point itself is problematic, only how the show arrived there. That's critical for appraising the quality of the show but this discussion (from my point of view) is about how the Klingons were left at the end (which you can take separately from the presentation.)
Enough, at least, for the Klingons to call of their vicious drive for expansion, and pull back their Forces to defend the homeworld. After which we could have said to have entered some sort of Cold War era (after all, the Federation isn't really into seeking war themselves), with a neutral zone, maybe later on. Etc. I dunno, my ending sounds a bit too much like The Undiscovered Country theme, come to think of it. But the way it DID end was just ueber-silly, and totally unrealistic for where the story was at, at the time.
I don't think that would have worked either, it's Klingons refusing to risk the planet at the center of their shared culture that shows that they can have more than token unity (never mind the specific dialog and its attendant compromises, it's the setup here which is okay.) If surrender was practical then any notion that it could have driven social change would have been lost except in playing to "just so" power games that conveniently sync with where the faction has to go (a point about the species.) As it is, the ending to Discovery at least sets up an interesting dynamic for the next seasons to (hopefully) take to its logical conclusion. Ie. the next generation of Klingon warrior which are capable of compromise, negotiation, and knowing when to cut their losses (even if they're not faced with an absolute defeat. See. Trouble with Tribbles.)
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
More no's than yes'...yet they keep spouting out everywhere how TRIBBLE is better than sliced bread...when it can't barely break above 50% here or on RT...it isn't as good as they claim it is.
I'm quite astonished by your astonishment. The Federation we normally see throughout Trek (at least on Earth) is a luxury colony. Everyone has food, is wealthy, no longer needs money and/or is in pursuit of material wealth, etc. And we grow new kidneys just swallowing a pill. Having high and mighty morals, under those conditions, is easy. But the ST:D Federation was all but totally defeated. The Klingons were at the gates of Earth itself, and the we simply faced an even worse death-toll than those thousands of service men and women already slaughtered at those Starbases. At that point, it really is 'either them or us.' The peaceful co-existence ship had already sailed, a long time ago.
That's projection. When it comes to events depicted on screen where this topic and problem are directly addressed, we see time and again that the FED favors coexistence over extermination and they will not commit genocide without treating it as a moral issue.
That's projection. It's generally not considered genocide when your own, continued existence depends on taking out a huge enemy target (like a planet); especially not when they're the clear aggressor. Even the Law recognizes that 'Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.' The Federation was if not at the brink of extinction, then facing to have genocide committed on themselves (already tens of thousands of Service men and women were ALL slaughtered at Fed Starbases). Taking out a massive Klingon target, to stop them, was justified at that point. Keep in mind, we're not talking about ALL Klingons, everywhere (the Husnak leap to mind).
If I recall correctly, even the bomb plan wasn't exactly on the up-and-up with all of Starfleet, but some high-ranking officers, 'under the table' (as we say in Dutch) decided it needed to be done, after all. What you can take away from that, is that Federation always seeks to walk the high road. Or... more veiled, that we keep telling ourselves, that 'officially' we shouldn't, but then we often do it anyway -- simply because it needs doing. When Oppenheimer made his atomic bomb, he was reported quoting the Bhagavad Gita, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Post-facto regret, yes. But the bomb was thrown, regardless. Like in that Episode with the Crystalline Entity, who had killed (her son, was it?). Yes, there was formal regret, but the Entity got destroyed, regardless.
Anyway, it's pretty darn basic to the FED that they will lose a lot of sleep over these issues. Even if forced to an ultimate conflict, principles are either going to drag them back (see. Dominion War) or haunt them once the dust has settled. That self reflection is part of the idealism of the series and its optimistic vision of the future, it doesn't follow modern pragmatism in conflict (which you'd be hard pressed to argue isn't important in the general appreciation of the series.)
And no one is disputing that 'self reflection is part of the idealism of the series and its optimistic vision of the future,' throughout all of Trek. But we've always seen the Federation (except in Enterprise, maybe) at the height of its civilization, was my point, where lofty morals are easy to maintain. Look at the Vidians, once a thriving race, to see what happens when you're facing extinction. And they stole lungs and such; the ST:D Federation only sought to not be wiped out by the Klingons.
This again I take as the ending being rushed. The elements had to be hurriedly assembled because the rest of the series had spent so long focusing on slow burning tangents rather than assembling a coherent arc that tied into the finale. This doesn't mean that the end point itself is problematic, only how the show arrived there. That's critical for appraising the quality of the show but this discussion (from my point of view) is about how the Klingons were left at the end (which you can take separately from the presentation.)
On things being rushed towards the end, we certainly agree. Even with its current ending, that could have been 2, or 3 Episodes easily, to do it justice.
As it is, the ending to Discovery at least sets up an interesting dynamic for the next seasons to (hopefully) take to its logical conclusion. Ie. the next generation of Klingon warrior which are capable of compromise, negotiation, and knowing when to cut their losses (even if they're not faced with an absolute defeat. See. Trouble with Tribbles.)
Oh, you mean where we learn the 'reasonable' Klingons had wiped out the entire Tribble homeworld?! That was probably not the best example.
@meimeitoo killing billions of innocent is justifiable because ten thousand servicepeople died? I don't want to delve in "numbers" but that's scary.
^ 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
That's projection. It's generally not considered genocide when your own, continued existence depends on taking out a huge enemy target (like a planet); especially not when they're the clear aggressor.
It's not genocide unless it's a systematic attempt to exterminate a people, even if they all die as a result. If you merely haphazardly kill all of them as collateral damage, it's still not genocide, and in this case, it was not really plausible that the Klingons were going to suddenly become an endangered species even if the plan had gone through. It is no more genocide than all those German and Japanese cities we firebombed was, because we weren't trying to exterminate them, merely bomb them flat.
I’m not excited for new TRIBBLE content. Haven’t watched the show and don’t plan to. But the show itself isn’t my issue.
Since I’ve been playing STO, the biggest issue I’ve seen is that the “grind isn’t matching the player base”. Has anyone seen how dead the queues are? Battle zones are wasted space. And since VIL, the amount of time wasted on not being able to slot Reputation projects (still broken/buggy) is absurd. And I won’t start on the fact that I still have a Rom/Delta and now a Jem/Gamma collecting dust? So now you want to add a new level to the Reputation System that no one plays through for a “quick jolt” that won’t last. Will the sponsorship tokens I slotted for the boosts work for the new T6 level? If so will I encounter the same VIL bugs? Will there be a revamp of PvE Queues so that they’ll requires less players to participate in or am I still gonna waste time hoping I’m in at the perfect time to find others to join? There’s content issues that I feel are being overlooked that are going to have just as much of a impact on STO’s future as any of the TRIBBLE hate that I’ve been seeing. Maybe even more.
I don’t have any TRIBBLE complaining because I haven’t seen it. My problem is that the rush to get it out is going to come at the expense of the overall experience and the issues that will continuously get ignored that affect the game as a whole.
Comments
I can present you with three entire series of YouTube videos that show the Slender Man haunting the wilds of New Jersey, and another video showing him leading a cabal of similar creatures in Florida. Until recently, YouTube also served as the primary mouthpiece for Alex Jones and his weird-TRIBBLE conspiracy theories. Then there's a video conclusively proving that the Earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary is made up by an evil cabal of Round-Earth conspirators...
Basically, don't use YouTube as a primary source. For anything. Not even things you think you know.
As for CBS shouting it from the rooftops? They signed Alex Kurtzman, whose company is one of those producing Disco, to make five more series, at least two of which have been confirmed to be Trek-related. If their new Trek series weren't doing well, this would not have happened - TV executives are extremely risk-averse.
Damage control.
Wow, now who's become an "Alex Jones" type mouth piece, spouting a conspiracy theory? Flat Earthers still have no real concrete evidence that the earth is flat and its all just a conspiracy cover up. Youtube seems to be a primary source of use for those shouting out alt theories. It's one thing to be a healthy skeptic and a critical thinker, its quite another to blame someone else for having weird-**** Conspiracy's, when your own doesn't hold up without real factual evidence.
I would point out that there is some factual evidence here:
And what do you think arrangements like the Age of Discovery is for CBS? Keeping it quiet about Star Trek Discovery?
Bad example, meimei. Hard to believe the ending feeling rushed is indicative of anything when the entire rest of the season was equally rushed.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
My point was in fact quite the opposite - attempting to support a claim by saying that you saw it in a YouTube video bears about as much relevance (and argumentative weight) as following Flat Earthers on YouTube and claiming they've proved anything.
LOL. And I kinda disagree. Toward the end, I really felt the show was picking up, and I found myself actually excited to watch the next Ep. Then, suddenly, it was all over: we didn't destroy the Klingon homeworld when we could (in a war the Federation had all but totally lost); the Klink made a sudden about-face, when they ere about to attack the Earth; and Burnham, yawn, was everyone's new hero now, and all was forgotten and forgiven. They couldn't have ended it in a sappier way, even if they tried.
But my main point remains: it ended in an abrupt manner, leaving no loose ends. The ending was clearly indicative of them not expecting a continuation (or, at least, to have sufficiently 'concluded' the series, had there not have been a 2nd Season).
So best way to describe it as I said above is. 1. It was failed attempt to restore original Klingon biology. 2. The side effects so extreme Klingon outside of Kronos might have choose to remain human looking. This is the only logical explanation for it and it should be what the sto devs use to explain it. As well as Cbs should also use this reason in the new Star Trek Show, that way people can understand and also know its not an attempt to rewrite their canon and at the same time make Discovery more popular to the fan base.
Almost everything about that last Episode was implausible. That's not a loose end, but just bad writing.
You're conflating there. Not everything about the end of Discovery is "bad writing" by dint of association. Someone from a disgraced house ascending to power by threatening the core of the Klingon Empire (in one stroke bringing the hammer of unity down through firepower and forced perspective) is a strong arc by itself that (rightly) lacks a neat and tidy point of resolution. More can be said about how Klingon politics and culture evolve. For example: how augmented-affected Klingons came to prominence in the military (disgraced people lending support to a controversial chancellor...there'd be worse ways to carry on in season 2, which would be an implausible move if season 1 ended neatly and satisfactorily to conventional ideals of imperial governance.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
It lacks 'a neat and tidy point of resolution' because it's implausible to begin with: you cannot conclude something properly when you started it off so improperly. The idea of Klingons peacefully yielding to a nutcase holding a bomb, is too ridiculous for words even. And what is that T'Kuvma did afterwards? Sleep with that bomb in his hands all the time? Cuz, if not, they'd had slit his throat the moment his eyes closed. Or, more Klingon-y, challenged him to a dual, to the death, for leadership, right there on the spot! But no way in hell they would have looked down bashfully, going 'Ok, guess you're our leader now.' This is yet another area where ST:D spits on what a Klingon really is.
And let's talk war. The Federation was losing. Badly. Almost all areas on that map were 'red' already. If we had a way to take out their home planet, we would have taken it; no qualms; and no lost sleep over it, either. And the Klingons, having already killed tens of thousands (sic!) of humans on Star bases they conquered, they had even less reason to stop. They already had Earth in their visors, and they suddenly call the whole thing off because a of terrorist back home holding a pipe-bomb?! I don't think so.
And then there's Burnham. Now she's suddenly the hero? She committed outright mutiny. And even if you can bring yourself to overlook the latter, she personally STARTED the whole war to begin with, cuz she was thinking... why, she wasn't really thinking, was she?!
EDIT BUG HITTING ME TWICE: GETTING TRIBBLE TIRED OF THIS.
Uuum. T'Kuvma started the war not Burnham. You think he showed up in his battleship after whipping his minions into a frenzy and if Burnham didn't try fire first he'd say 'fair enough' and bugger off back to Kronos?
Burnham thought a show of strength would make them back down the reason it didn't was because T'Kuvma was going to get his war one way or another.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Why, T'Kuvma was definitely bellicosus, looking for a fight, but Burnham lit the fire, giving him the perfect excuse.
I'm quite astonished by this. Seriously, your argument makes no sense in the context of what the Federation is and how it's protagonists have been portrayed throughout the run of the IP. The ultimate question of "it's us or them" has been explored numerous times and the heroes have constantly fallen in one particular direction (of rejecting that binary in favor of coexistence.) When people talk about a Star Trek ethos, this is pretty much what they're referring to. It's the villains (ex. antagonistic Admirals, Gul Dukat, the Female Changeling) who consistently accept and perpetuate the negative. If there is a compromise (ex. destroying the Crystalline Entity), it's one tainted by regret and re-affirmation of the ideal; NOT a glib, "well, onto the next thing! I couldn't care less what we did."
Destroying the villain? Okay, tough choices are necessary in thrilling space dramas and depending on the plot this may or may not be touched on as a deeply moral issue. Resorting to genocide? No, just ask Hue (whether or not you think that plan would have actually worked, the characters made a choice there which is emblematic of the Federation ideal.)
And this is just silly. Sorry, but I think you're resorting to more extreme generalizations to prevent a cogent discussion from dealing with problems which are basic to your premise. Namely, that the "lack of resolution" has nothing to do with exactly how the war was ended (only the basics, the questionable presentation and exact story mechanics are a product of how the season left relatively little time for a more continuous arc and natural resolution) and the fact that there are ongoing issues for the empire in a series with a season 2 is by no means a problem in itself. It is good that Discovery is allowing Klingons to have more of an arc in transitioning to what they will become in TOS because this allows the show to deal with issues of greater substance than if the show's creators simply affirmed fanboy expectations at the very start.
For example (again): how a Chancellor in a precarious position (and antagonistic relationship with the status quo) chooses to address the ongoing topic of Klingon unity and where exactly do the augment-infected Klingons come in? There have been explicit teases about upcoming changes to DSC Klingons. Odds are [I think], we're getting TOS Klingons to parallel TOS ships, uniforms, and characters on the FED side [just as Discovery and spore drive were paralleled by the Sarcophagus and cloaking. This show is about reflections.]
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I'm quite astonished by your astonishment. The Federation we normally see throughout Trek (at least on Earth) is a luxury colony. Everyone has food, is wealthy, no longer needs money and/or is in pursuit of material wealth, etc. And we grow new kidneys just swallowing a pill. Having high and mighty morals, under those conditions, is easy. But the ST:D Federation was all but totally defeated. The Klingons were at the gates of Earth itself, and the we simply faced an even worse death-toll than those thousands of service men and women already slaughtered at those Starbases. At that point, it really is 'either them or us.' The peaceful co-existence ship had already sailed, a long time ago.
They tried to force the peaceful coexistence mantra (because that's what it really was, at the time) onto the last Episode, after all -- against the actual state of the story. Which is why it was such an epic fail: it felt obligatory, shoe-horned in, and contrived. That was mainly because the writers let the Federation lose too badly. And that, in turn, was a plot device (to show that, without the Spore Drive, we'd lose). So, the writers had basically painted themselves into a corner, still wanting to end on a moral-highroad Trek note, but with a storyline which really couldn't support such ending.
IMHO, I think the bomb should have exploded. Like a partial success, with some Qu'nos islands being flooded with magma, maybe. Enough, at least, for the Klingons to call of their vicious drive for expansion, and pull back their Forces to defend the homeworld. After which we could have said to have entered some sort of Cold War era (after all, the Federation isn't really into seeking war themselves), with a neutral zone, maybe later on. Etc. I dunno, my ending sounds a bit too much like The Undiscovered Country theme, come to think of it. But the way it DID end was just ueber-silly, and totally unrealistic for where the story was at, at the time.
That's projection. When it comes to events depicted on screen where this topic and problem are directly addressed, we see time and again that the FED favors coexistence over extermination and they will not commit genocide without treating it as a moral issue. Take the Borg in First Contact. There is no question, the bad guys have to be stopped and the Queen isn't one to listen to compromise. However, treating the Borg threat as simple "them v. us" threat is portrayed as an increasing character failing on the part of Picard. It's where he's most off the rails and it's only he rejects binary conflict (to which you can only fight back for what's yours) that he arrives at the winning solution to that plot (which incidentally ends with a lot of dead Borg but that wasn't what Picard thought he was getting himself into. For a more direct statement on the us V. Borg issue, see. Hugh.)
The FED will do what's necessary, but principles are not things of convenience that can be disregarded as the situation warrants (ex. just letting Soran destroy an unaligned planet in his quest to reach the Nexus because it would be a personal risk to Federation officers to stop him.) See. Insurrection or Voyager for further lectures (figurative and literal). Hell, even TMP gets there, all life is about to be exterminated from Earth and the crew's focus was on challenging the preconceptions of the aging space probe with an easy access point.
Anyway, it's pretty darn basic to the FED that they will lose a lot of sleep over these issues. Even if forced to an ultimate conflict, principles are either going to drag them back (see. Dominion War) or haunt them once the dust has settled. That self reflection is part of the idealism of the series and its optimistic vision of the future, it doesn't follow modern pragmatism in conflict (which you'd be hard pressed to argue isn't important in the general appreciation of the series.)
This again I take as the ending being rushed. The elements had to be hurriedly assembled because the rest of the series had spent so long focusing on slow burning tangents rather than assembling a coherent arc that tied into the finale. This doesn't mean that the end point itself is problematic, only how the show arrived there. That's critical for appraising the quality of the show but this discussion (from my point of view) is about how the Klingons were left at the end (which you can take separately from the presentation.)
I don't think that would have worked either, it's Klingons refusing to risk the planet at the center of their shared culture that shows that they can have more than token unity (never mind the specific dialog and its attendant compromises, it's the setup here which is okay.) If surrender was practical then any notion that it could have driven social change would have been lost except in playing to "just so" power games that conveniently sync with where the faction has to go (a point about the species.) As it is, the ending to Discovery at least sets up an interesting dynamic for the next seasons to (hopefully) take to its logical conclusion. Ie. the next generation of Klingon warrior which are capable of compromise, negotiation, and knowing when to cut their losses (even if they're not faced with an absolute defeat. See. Trouble with Tribbles.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
That's projection. It's generally not considered genocide when your own, continued existence depends on taking out a huge enemy target (like a planet); especially not when they're the clear aggressor. Even the Law recognizes that 'Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.' The Federation was if not at the brink of extinction, then facing to have genocide committed on themselves (already tens of thousands of Service men and women were ALL slaughtered at Fed Starbases). Taking out a massive Klingon target, to stop them, was justified at that point. Keep in mind, we're not talking about ALL Klingons, everywhere (the Husnak leap to mind).
If I recall correctly, even the bomb plan wasn't exactly on the up-and-up with all of Starfleet, but some high-ranking officers, 'under the table' (as we say in Dutch) decided it needed to be done, after all. What you can take away from that, is that Federation always seeks to walk the high road. Or... more veiled, that we keep telling ourselves, that 'officially' we shouldn't, but then we often do it anyway -- simply because it needs doing. When Oppenheimer made his atomic bomb, he was reported quoting the Bhagavad Gita, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Post-facto regret, yes. But the bomb was thrown, regardless. Like in that Episode with the Crystalline Entity, who had killed (her son, was it?). Yes, there was formal regret, but the Entity got destroyed, regardless.
And no one is disputing that 'self reflection is part of the idealism of the series and its optimistic vision of the future,' throughout all of Trek. But we've always seen the Federation (except in Enterprise, maybe) at the height of its civilization, was my point, where lofty morals are easy to maintain. Look at the Vidians, once a thriving race, to see what happens when you're facing extinction. And they stole lungs and such; the ST:D Federation only sought to not be wiped out by the Klingons.
On things being rushed towards the end, we certainly agree.
Oh, you mean where we learn the 'reasonable' Klingons had wiped out the entire Tribble homeworld?!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Thank you!
Since I’ve been playing STO, the biggest issue I’ve seen is that the “grind isn’t matching the player base”. Has anyone seen how dead the queues are? Battle zones are wasted space. And since VIL, the amount of time wasted on not being able to slot Reputation projects (still broken/buggy) is absurd. And I won’t start on the fact that I still have a Rom/Delta and now a Jem/Gamma collecting dust? So now you want to add a new level to the Reputation System that no one plays through for a “quick jolt” that won’t last. Will the sponsorship tokens I slotted for the boosts work for the new T6 level? If so will I encounter the same VIL bugs? Will there be a revamp of PvE Queues so that they’ll requires less players to participate in or am I still gonna waste time hoping I’m in at the perfect time to find others to join? There’s content issues that I feel are being overlooked that are going to have just as much of a impact on STO’s future as any of the TRIBBLE hate that I’ve been seeing. Maybe even more.
I don’t have any TRIBBLE complaining because I haven’t seen it. My problem is that the rush to get it out is going to come at the expense of the overall experience and the issues that will continuously get ignored that affect the game as a whole.