On a plot design level it is quite possible to talk about it from the synopsis, analysis, and review articles and the other talk here and the other Trek forums easily enough...
This statement is true only if said synopses and reviews contain all pertinent information from the show. Your posts, however, demonstrate that this is not the case, as your "analyses" are flawed by failure to take into account things mentioned or shown in the episode concerned.
Really, Phoenix, I was expecting this sort of thing from fox, but I thought better of you.
On a plot design level it is quite possible to talk about it from the synopsis, analysis, and review articles and the other talk here and the other Trek forums easily enough...
This statement is true only if said synopses and reviews contain all pertinent information from the show. Your posts, however, demonstrate that this is not the case, as your "analyses" are flawed by failure to take into account things mentioned or shown in the episode concerned.
Really, Phoenix, I was expecting this sort of thing from fox, but I thought better of you.
I hadn't realized how far the articles and reviews had gradually degraded and how shallow they are getting until just a few comments ago.
The show has moved out of the contentious zone where the reviewers watch it like a hawk and mention/challenge all the details out of a love/hate viewpoint and onto the mild side where reviewers tend to just cut and paste from press releases and talk about a few highlights without touching on all the details, so I probably wont be making a lot of comments on it anymore except for the points where things are self-contained like the looks of ships and whatnot, or on points that are firmly anchored in the older shows rather than the new ones.
Why do you insist on discussing things you don't know anything about, in relation to a show you freely admit to not having watched yourself?
Because some people want to find any reason to hate the new Trek shows, even if they have to do so from a point of total ignorance, or through sheer lies.
The problem with "fandom", of any series, is that fandom is inherently irrational. Its putting undo importance on something that fundamentally isn't, and in the process people end up building their own "reality" of what the franchise is, even if the franchise was never actually that. This is why many long time fans of Star Trek will swear up and down that the Connie is 947 feet(289 meters), or that the Klingons and Romulans had a brief alliance during the TOS era, despite neither of those things actually being true in canon.
Anything new will fundamentally contradict their perception of the franchise, so they retaliate against it in an attempt to defend their perception. Its no different then the things we saw when TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, came out. Just on a wider scale since the internet has made communication easier.
Seriously? How do you jump to conclusions so far off the beam?
I have said numerous times that I actually like the parts of the show that I have seen, in its own way. It is not even the same subgenre as traditional Star Trek but that does not make it unwatchable as its own thing. And yes, I talk about the lazy writing, but that is far from unique for a TV show, especially now that Hollywood has found its pigeonhole and trope set for science fiction and it is not treated as something experimental anymore.
That said, your comment does apply to enough of the fanbase to keep the purist fringes in a boil, just like it equally applies to the most pro-DSC fringes as well. I suspect that most of the fans are closer to center than that however, since it is the loud fringes who are heard from the most in any fandom, or realworld issue for that matter.
Except in ST: Picard we see the Borg have a similar tech to Iconian gateways, helping the cast escape the Borg cube, and they didn't make it themselves. That tech is plausibly a precursor to the gateways.
Why didn't they address that in ST:D? Who knows.
If you watched the shows you would know, but its become clear you have never done that.
The technology the Borg Cube had in Picard was "Spatial trajector" tech taken from a race seen in Voyager, the Sikarians. While the Sikarian version of this technology could transport ships up to 40,000 LY away, it required using the entire mantle of their home planet, which had unique tetrahedral quartz, to focus the beam to do so. The Borg lacked such a power source, and thus, it was vastly more limited to just person sized transporting, and the power required to use it made it nonviable for anything but as an emergency escape route for the Borg Queen, should she be on the Cube. Even the Borg couldn't popularize the tech due to its unique limitations, and requirements to work properly.
Which, like all the other technologies you mentioned previously, makes it nonviable as a replacement for dilthium based ship travel.
Yeah and there's no way to miniaturize a power source, reduce the power need, or otherwise make it more efficient after 7-800 years. It's not like the Iconians developed something better or anything, thus it would be possible. How silly of me.
If Borg can deal with the gravimetric sheer in the 24th century, so can future Federation ships, as established and demonstrated by ST:D.
Why they can't clear out the space trash, or why it doesn't leave to normal space, or actually get destroyed itself by gravimetric sheer, is a whole other bunch of questions that lack a sensible answer.
And the USS Voyager could deal with the gravimetric sheer in the 24th century. If it didn't, it would have been instantly destroyed when it went into transwarp. That doesn't negate the fact it still takes damage in the process. You can't mass popularize a method of travel that requires your ship to constantly be repaired after using it. Not to mention, while military grade Starfleet ships could do it more, civilian ships wouldn't be able to use it much due to damage sustained during it. Meaning like 95% of all ship traffic would still be stuck using dilthium most of the time, unless they want to be constantly repairing their ship, or risk being destroyed.
As for your other questions
A. Its been previously mentioned in Trek that you can't tractor something while going at warp, unless both object's speeds are exactly matched, due to sheer forces against vessels.
B. It can't leave transwarp once in it unless someone opens a transwarp gate to let it out. And those don't open up along every point in the tunnel, so things between the two points would still be stuck there. Same reason why all the junk in Underspace is still there.
C. I don't know what sort of straw man you concocted for this comment, but being destroyed by gravimetric sheer doesn't mean your somehow reduced to atoms or w/e. it just means your ship's structural integrity fails, and gets crunched into pieces.
All the things you mention have sensible answers, if you actually spent any time thinking about it, or looking up the canon.
So you make stronger ships, integrity fields, better geometry or whatever to deal with the extra stress, and reduce or eliminate the need for maintenance. It isn't like it can't be done, why are you even arguing this point? And its hilarious to suggest that civilian ships can't be strengthened for no apparent reason. That's utterly nonsensical on the face of it, to say nothing of the fact that there's no reason a civilian can't have a "military grade" ship to begin with.
A. So don't use a tractor beam, or I don't know, use it on an expendable ship like an unmanned/AI piloted shuttle. Maybe short pulses are manageable. Or just don't use a tractor beam. Full torpedo spread, fire phasers constantly to drill a way through, strengthen the shields, use the Pegasus phase cloak, anything. ST:D apparently had that giant Orion ship make it through, along with Book's little ship without anything but good piloting, as I understand, so its not remotely impossible to get through the tunnels in a big or small ship. Therefore they can find a way to clean them somehow.
B. So open a gate to let it out. Build new ones that bypass the old ones. Your attitude of giving up at every sign of difficulty is not how things advance. Finding solutions to overcome problems is what Star Trek was good at.
C. First, stop using the word strawman, you clearly have no understanding of what it means.
Now, I've seen various screen shots of what the debris is. They are whole sections of starships that should have broken up further a long time ago, because losing the nacelle doesn't mean you suddenly have no more stress. The stress on them continuing to travel through the network is not going to stop because one part broke off, they will continue to break until they are at a size where the stress doesn't overcome the strength of the material. How small is that? I'm quite sure its smaller than a nacelle, or a huge chunk of a starship hull, both of which are larger than a shuttle or Book's ship.
Just because its dangerous doesn't mean it can't be done, which again, ST:D demonstrated. It is a curious thing to not do something which can be done just because it is dangerous. People IRL do stuff like that all the time, so why would they not in the 32nd century? Try to fly a shuttle through the transwarp network to deliver medicine to a planet that needs it, to repair the subspace relays, to do incredibly valuable things, or don't try because they might not make it. Strange concept to me. Obviously the couriers do it to some degree, but if they can, it should be more widespread.
I hadn't realized how far the articles and reviews had gradually degraded and how shallow they are getting until just a few comments ago.
If you want fair episode reviews that touch on most of the story elements, then I would suggest TrekYards on YouTube. They're mostly just two trekkies talking about Trek, and when they do reviews they have no problem pointing out both the positive and the negative of each episode.
Seriously? How do you jump to conclusions so far off the beam?
There is nothing far off about what I said. Almost every single one of your posts thus far has been built upon compiling ignorance of what you are talking about, on top of lies about what old Star Trek actually was, and a unhealthy dose of headcanon in place of actual canon, that you seem shocked, or confused, to find out isn't the actual canon.
You are just fooling yourself. What I said about the older shows was accurate, with an occasional mistake admittedly, but not fabrications. You are the one making weird stuff up to try and reconcile DSC with the various traditional Trek series.
Yeah and there's no way to miniaturize a power source, reduce the power need, or otherwise make it more efficient after 7-800 years. It's not like the Iconians developed something better or anything, thus it would be possible. How silly of me.
A. The Iconians didn't develop something better. They developed a means of person sized doorway travel, which isn't useful for larger scale materials transport.
B. You seem to forget that Moore's law reaches an end at some point. It used to be that making smaller computer components used to not only became easier, but also cheaper, and more efficient, as technology increased. However, once we reached a certain point(I think it was around the 20nm scale) it started to become increasingly less efficient, and increasingly costly, to make semicoductors at that scale because, even with the increase in technology, the precision needed to make something that small kept going up beyond what technology could keep up with to maintain the curve. At some point, making things smaller, or more efficient, reaches an end where it simply isn't worth doing anymore. The fact that even millennia old empires in Trek use the same tech in warp cores, and whatnot, suggests that end has been reached.
A. The Iconians developed a "doorway" that stays open for a while, essentially a stargate, instead of something like a transporter that only transfers in small batches. Sure, you could not send starships or even large ground vehicles through the ones shown in the shows but you could send a lot of supplies, components, and tools through only limited by how long they can keep those gateways open in one cycle and how fast they can recharge or whatever to establish it again. The only caveat is that getting Iconian tech might be rather difficult.
B. Moore's law is limited by the silicon transistor circuitry that makes up the chips, heat, and a number of other factors. While the miniaturization of current chip technology does have an end, in theory it could very well apply to the next kind of chip technology, such as optical computing or some quantum process. Either way, Moore's law is simply a description of the current trend, it does not control the advancements.
So you make stronger ships, integrity fields, better geometry or whatever to deal with the extra stress, and reduce or eliminate the need for maintenance. It isn't like it can't be done, why are you even arguing this point? And its hilarious to suggest that civilian ships can't be strengthened for no apparent reason. That's utterly nonsensical on the face of it, to say nothing of the fact that there's no reason a civilian can't have a "military grade" ship to begin with.
See the above. There isn't a limitless scale of "just make it better!"
Not to mention, even by the TOS era ships were being made with some of the strongest known materials in the galaxy. Both Rodinium, and Tritainum, were 21.4 times as hard as diamond, and served as the primary components for Starship construction. The only stronger known material was Neutronium, which was stupidly rare, unable to be replicated, and not even the Borg learned how to make it, or use it. So no one could use it in their ships wide spread. Same reason why Quantum Slipstream drives aren't used. The Benamite crystals needed to power it are impossibly rare, and take years to artificially synthesize.
Tritanium had been used in starship hulls since launch of the NX-01, and even 250 years later Intrepid class starships used it in their hulls. Borg Cubes were made of the same material.
Technically, the Intrepid class was touted as the first full-sized starship class to use an all duranium hull. Getting rid of the heavy but molecularly very stable tritanium reduces weight considerably allowing for better speed and handling performance according to the runup-to-premiere hype for Voyager.
A. So don't use a tractor beam, or I don't know, use it on an expendable ship like an unmanned/AI piloted shuttle. Maybe short pulses are manageable. Or just don't use a tractor beam. Full torpedo spread, fire phasers constantly to drill a way through, strengthen the shields, use the Pegasus phase cloak, anything. ST:D apparently had that giant Orion ship make it through, along with Book's little ship without anything but good piloting, as I understand, so its not remotely impossible to get through the tunnels in a big or small ship. Therefore they can find a way to clean them somehow.
That would require a massive amount of resources to build fleets worth of disposable unmanned ships that you didn't plan on surviving to clear out the tunnels. In the post Burn galaxy no one has that. Also, Book's ship passed through not only because of good piloting, but because of its ability to split apart, and morph around some of the larger debris.
B. So open a gate to let it out. Build new ones that bypass the old ones. Your attitude of giving up at every sign of difficulty is not how things advance. Finding solutions to overcome problems is what Star Trek was good at.
That isn't how transwarp works. And that also isn't giving up.
C. First, stop using the word strawman, you clearly have no understanding of what it means.
A straw man is where you build an argument other then what was actually presented, and attack that argument(since its easier to defeat) as if it was the person's argument in the first place, when it wasn't. That clearly describes your actions there, and elsewhere.
How small is that? I'm quite sure its smaller than a nacelle, or a huge chunk of a starship hull, both of which are larger than a shuttle or Book's ship.
Obviously not as seen in the show.
Just because its dangerous doesn't mean it can't be done, which again, ST:D demonstrated. It is a curious thing to not do something which can be done just because it is dangerous. People IRL do stuff like that all the time, so why would they not in the 32nd century? Try to fly a shuttle through the transwarp network to deliver medicine to a planet that needs it, to repair the subspace relays, to do incredibly valuable things, or don't try because they might not make it. Strange concept to me. Obviously the couriers do it to some degree, but if they can, it should be more widespread.
Its explicitly stated to be a 50/50 shot on surviving the courier network. In an era where ships are few, and travel is limited, you aren't going to risk your life on a 50/50 shot just to get there faster when the slower method doesn't have those issues.
Likewise, Book explicitly states "not even the couriers use the courier network" in the last episode of Discovery, so no, the couriers don't do it to any degree because even they know its beyond crazy with such a low chance of survival. They only did it that episode as a last resort to get back to Starfleet HQ.
Borg transwarp conduits are generated by hubs, logically that would mean that shutting down a hub would eliminate the corridor, which in turn makes it very probable that anything caught in that conduit would get dumped out into space, subspace, or whatever it traverses. In theory, waiting a bit and reestablishing a corridor should result in a new clear one, if not then the hub could be pointed elsewhere and a new hub built somewhere else to service the destination of the clogged one.
well, tiny rank insignia have been a thing in RL militaries for over a century now, for the same reason officers don't wear gaudy colors or ostentatious decoration anymore - snipers
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.
Not many snipers on starships. I like the colourful uniforms ideally with sleeve ranks best. The 31st century uniforms are certainly better than DSCs original ones, but not as stylish as the 29th ones (or 26th? The Wells one)
^ 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
Yeah and there's no way to miniaturize a power source, reduce the power need, or otherwise make it more efficient after 7-800 years. It's not like the Iconians developed something better or anything, thus it would be possible. How silly of me.
A. The Iconians didn't develop something better. They developed a means of person sized doorway travel, which isn't useful for larger scale materials transport.
B. You seem to forget that Moore's law reaches an end at some point. It used to be that making smaller computer components used to not only became easier, but also cheaper, and more efficient, as technology increased. However, once we reached a certain point(I think it was around the 20nm scale) it started to become increasingly less efficient, and increasingly costly, to make semicoductors at that scale because, even with the increase in technology, the precision needed to make something that small kept going up beyond what technology could keep up with to maintain the curve. At some point, making things smaller, or more efficient, reaches an end where it simply isn't worth doing anymore. The fact that even millennia old empires in Trek use the same tech in warp cores, and whatnot, suggests that end has been reached.
A. Strawman. Who cares about large scale material transport? Besides, the gateways are canonically able to be made bigger. The one on Vandros 4 was about 2-4 times the size of the one on Iconia. It is also a lack of imagination that suggests they can't be used in creative ways to facilitate materials transport.
B. Moore's law is not a scientific law. It describes an observed phenomena, one that can't reasonably be applied to Star Trek tech because its fiction. Besides you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the Iconian gateways just worked. However they did it is achievable in Star Trek.
So you make stronger ships, integrity fields, better geometry or whatever to deal with the extra stress, and reduce or eliminate the need for maintenance. It isn't like it can't be done, why are you even arguing this point? And its hilarious to suggest that civilian ships can't be strengthened for no apparent reason. That's utterly nonsensical on the face of it, to say nothing of the fact that there's no reason a civilian can't have a "military grade" ship to begin with.
See the above. There isn't a limitless scale of "just make it better!"
Not to mention, even by the TOS era ships were being made with some of the strongest known materials in the galaxy. Both Rodinium, and Tritainum, were 21.4 times as hard as diamond, and served as the primary components for Starship construction. The only stronger known material was Neutronium, which was stupidly rare, unable to be replicated, and not even the Borg learned how to make it, or use it. So no one could use it in their ships wide spread. Same reason why Quantum Slipstream drives aren't used. The Benamite crystals needed to power it are impossibly rare, and take years to artificially synthesize.
Tritanium had been used in starship hulls since launch of the NX-01, and even 250 years later Intrepid class starships used it in their hulls. Borg Cubes were made of the same material.
And yet the Borg managed it. That means the tech to do it is there, and probably can be improved upon since Borg aren't known for their ingenuity.
Now for various materials, that is seriously irrelevant. There are an absurd number of different materials in use today with different properties and strengths and so on, all of which can be called steel, to say nothing at all about those that aren't steel. Why don't they just use [insert alloy here] as standard in everything? Because its not right for every purpose. Materials science isn't as remotely limited as you seem to think it is. Whatever future materials Star Trek is using doesn't matter, because they would realistically have millions more variations, alloys, and alternative materials that may be just right for handling that stress.
And again, we know they developed them, because the TW networks were in use by future ships.
A. So don't use a tractor beam, or I don't know, use it on an expendable ship like an unmanned/AI piloted shuttle. Maybe short pulses are manageable. Or just don't use a tractor beam. Full torpedo spread, fire phasers constantly to drill a way through, strengthen the shields, use the Pegasus phase cloak, anything. ST:D apparently had that giant Orion ship make it through, along with Book's little ship without anything but good piloting, as I understand, so its not remotely impossible to get through the tunnels in a big or small ship. Therefore they can find a way to clean them somehow.
That would require a massive amount of resources to build fleets worth of disposable unmanned ships that you didn't plan on surviving to clear out the tunnels. In the post Burn galaxy no one has that. Also, Book's ship passed through not only because of good piloting, but because of its ability to split apart, and morph around some of the larger debris.
B. So open a gate to let it out. Build new ones that bypass the old ones. Your attitude of giving up at every sign of difficulty is not how things advance. Finding solutions to overcome problems is what Star Trek was good at.
That isn't how transwarp works. And that also isn't giving up.
You have to spend resources to make resources. Unmanned bombs don't take a lot of resources, though. And the resources are there to create a giant starbase in a bubble and completely refit Discovery, as well as have continued warp travel for reasons as frivolous as stealing space animals.
And please tell me how transwarp works, because as far as I can learn, ST:D did not go into enough detail about anything regarding their TW tunnels.
C. First, stop using the word strawman, you clearly have no understanding of what it means.
A straw man is where you build an argument other then what was actually presented, and attack that argument(since its easier to defeat) as if it was the person's argument in the first place, when it wasn't. That clearly describes your actions there, and elsewhere.
Yes you do it frequently. I haven't done it at all here.
How small is that? I'm quite sure its smaller than a nacelle, or a huge chunk of a starship hull, both of which are larger than a shuttle or Book's ship.
Obviously not as seen in the show.
Just because its dangerous doesn't mean it can't be done, which again, ST:D demonstrated. It is a curious thing to not do something which can be done just because it is dangerous. People IRL do stuff like that all the time, so why would they not in the 32nd century? Try to fly a shuttle through the transwarp network to deliver medicine to a planet that needs it, to repair the subspace relays, to do incredibly valuable things, or don't try because they might not make it. Strange concept to me. Obviously the couriers do it to some degree, but if they can, it should be more widespread.
Its explicitly stated to be a 50/50 shot on surviving the courier network. In an era where ships are few, and travel is limited, you aren't going to risk your life on a 50/50 shot just to get there faster when the slower method doesn't have those issues.
Likewise, Book explicitly states "not even the couriers use the courier network" in the last episode of Discovery, so no, the couriers don't do it to any degree because even they know its beyond crazy with such a low chance of survival. They only did it that episode as a last resort to get back to Starfleet HQ.
If you think the debris I've seen in various clips and screenshots was tiny I don't know what to say. It clearly isn't small.
There is also some hilariousness in saying there is a 50/50 chance to survive, yet the show, as far as I'm aware, demonstrates every ship that goes through does survive. Its likely little different than saying if you go into the woods at night, the witch will get you. While there is obvious danger, it is probably overstated and has become largely superstition that no one tests at this point.
And ships are few because of a failure of imagination. Nothing could be more productive than using the few warp capable ships to help produce small disposable ships to clean up the transwarp networks. Once you get the right nodes cleared, regular transports can resume between resource and production planets, which allows for a snowball effect to occur. So why don't they do that?
I'd agree with you Val', were it not for the fact that this season alone has seen three or four characters (including Burnham herself!) explain various reasons why she isn't suitable for command.
Captains have questioned their own command since Star Trek began. Riker turned down promotion for how long?
That's not the same thing and you know it. Riker admitted to Troi the main reason he stayed First Officer so long was because he was 'comfortable' on the Enterprise, not because he doubted his personal capability to command. In fact, aside from Spock in 'The Galileo Seven', I can't think of any First Officer other than Burnham who has had doubts in their command ability - and in Spock's case, it was doubt which set in as a consequence of his flawed-logic decision-making, and was dealt with the moment he recognised it.
On a plot design level it is quite possible to talk about it from the synopsis, analysis, and review articles and the other talk here and the other Trek forums easily enough...
This statement is true only if said synopses and reviews contain all pertinent information from the show. Your posts, however, demonstrate that this is not the case, as your "analyses" are flawed by failure to take into account things mentioned or shown in the episode concerned.
Really, Phoenix, I was expecting this sort of thing from fox, but I thought better of you.
I hadn't realized how far the articles and reviews had gradually degraded and how shallow they are getting until just a few comments ago.
The show has moved out of the contentious zone where the reviewers watch it like a hawk and mention/challenge all the details out of a love/hate viewpoint and onto the mild side where reviewers tend to just cut and paste from press releases and talk about a few highlights without touching on all the details, so I probably wont be making a lot of comments on it anymore except for the points where things are self-contained like the looks of ships and whatnot, or on points that are firmly anchored in the older shows rather than the new ones.
I've actually noticed a surprising uptick in Reviews from Journalists with the end of Season 3 that are totally upset or disatisfied with it. Not the usual "WAH WE HATE DISCOVERY" that some people on these forums would lead you to believe any negative review is, but it seems to be they were upset at how incredibly shallow Discovery was when it came to some serious issues that they "tackled" in the show. One of the biggest things I saw across a few articles was the inclusion of the trans characters which the articles believed were only there as set dressing for other characters.
Personally I find it funny, I have MANY issues with Discovery and Picard, but I'm glad some of the reviews are starting to take notice of their usually shallow approach to things. The older shows tended to have a lot more nuance or intelligence when dealing with social issues and they LOVED to deal with social issues.
That's not the same thing and you know it. Riker admitted to Troi the main reason he stayed First Officer so long was because he was 'comfortable' on the Enterprise, not because he doubted his personal capability to command. In fact, aside from Spock in 'The Galileo Seven', I can't think of any First Officer other than Burnham who has had doubts in their command ability - and in Spock's case, it was doubt which set in as a consequence of his flawed-logic decision-making, and was dealt with the moment he recognised it.
It is the same in that there were officers who refused promotion, regardless of reason. Burnham needed to find herself and her place throughout this season.
Which she didn't really do. They just kind of "made her" find herself at the very end with basically no actual character development occuring
In my opinion, Burnham has no noticeable character of any kind. Throughout the whole show she is all over the place, vulcaning at one point, starfleeting at the other, then whisper-crying some emotional grief before goofing off with Tilly who calls Michael her bestest super friend - but when did that actually happen? The character of Michael Burnham seems to me like an amalgam of various characters which were reduced to one during the development process of the show. That is probably what bothers me the most.
^ 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
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.
In my opinion, they should have left the ship in command of her first officer, with Burnham filling the role of first officer/science officer until Capt. Saru returned. Tilly did surprisingly well in her first command - you can actually see some of the decisiveness that was one of the hallmarks of her MU counterpart (although very little of the ruthlessness, aside from her discussions with Osyraa and her treatment of their captors during their escape).
In my opinion, Burnham has no noticeable character of any kind. Throughout the whole show she is all over the place, vulcaning at one point, starfleeting at the other, then whisper-crying some emotional grief before goofing off with Tilly who calls Michael her bestest super friend - but when did that actually happen? The character of Michael Burnham seems to me like an amalgam of various characters which were reduced to one during the development process of the show. That is probably what bothers me the most.
That is definitely a possibility since the show itself was a crunched-together amalgam of several pitches Fuller did for his anthology idea, each of which had different crews in different time periods, it would be no surprise if Burnham was a mix of the lead protagonists from each.
I agree. Hey if Kirk can go from cadet to Captain in a couple of hours, why not Tilly?
The original Kirk didn't go from cadet to captain in a few hours, the only one who did was the Kelvin version, and apparently in Kelvin rank and promotions are arbitrary and don't mean much judging by the bridge brawls and the rest of the nonsense in the first movie (at least they seemed to tone that down a bit for the next two though).
well, she has PTSD trauma that went untreated for decades - and in fact STILL hasn't been treated - so her having MPD really wouldn't surprise me
True, though typically the shallowness of the action movie format like DSC uses means such things are glossed over at best, and totally ignored at worst. If it was written more like a TV series than a movie they would probably have it as one of the long term threads but the writers seem to do little more than connect the SFX gags and eye candy shots together, like a lot of the old '40s musicals often did with the musical and dance numbers consuming nearly all of the time and effort and plot was tacked on as an afterthought.
The original Kirk didn't go from cadet to captain in a few hours, the only one who did was the Kelvin version, and apparently in Kelvin rank and promotions are arbitrary and don't mean much judging by the bridge brawls and the rest of the nonsense in the first movie (at least they seemed to tone that down a bit for the next two though).
Thank you for stating the blatantly obvious lol. I think it fair to say everyone here knows the difference between prime Kirk and Kelvin Kirk.
The point was that despite being much more like Kelvin, CBS insists that DSC is in the prime universe instead, in which Kirk did not arbitrarily get command of Enterprise right out of the academy.
If you actually watched the show, Phoenix, you'd know that Starfleet Academy is now a park, as Earth had left the Federation some time before. They're so hard up for officers that the guy from the season premiere, who was watching over the Starfleet depot his father had run, and who couldn't hang the Federation flag up on the wall because it had to be done by a commissioned officer, was commissioned as a lieutenant in the season finale. Not because he'd gone to any Academy, but because they were finally able to get to him (thanks to mining DilWorld).
Tilly was chosen by Saru as his first officer after Burnham screwed up, partly because she showed great promise and partly because none of the other bridge officers had had as much screen time, and weren't really developed characters yet. In her first crisis, she showed great presence of mind - the only thing she could have done better might have been to follow General Order 12 ("When approached by another vessel with which communications have not been established, all emergency precautions are to be observed, no matter the apparent origin of the vessel"). Of course, that reg might have been added sometime after Discovery left for the future...
The point was that despite being much more like Kelvin, CBS insists that DSC is in the prime universe instead, in which Kirk did not arbitrarily get command of Enterprise right out of the academy.
Prime or Kelvin is irrelevant as both are part of Star Trek canon.
I think it could be argued that due to the events of the KT, Starfleet could have had more of a policy of fast tracking the right people to command, whereas the prime never had that problem, and working up the ranks is standard procedure.
I have to say, though, what Jon said about the bridge crew getting no development is something I've heard repeatedly in various reviews, and it seems like a missed opportunity to actually develop them by promoting one of them, as they are probably way more qualified for command than Tilly, and should probably be a bit agitated that they were passed over.
The point was that despite being much more like Kelvin, CBS insists that DSC is in the prime universe instead, in which Kirk did not arbitrarily get command of Enterprise right out of the academy.
Prime or Kelvin is irrelevant as both are part of Star Trek canon.
I think it could be argued that due to the events of the KT, Starfleet could have had more of a policy of fast tracking the right people to command, whereas the prime never had that problem, and working up the ranks is standard procedure.
I have to say, though, what Jon said about the bridge crew getting no development is something I've heard repeatedly in various reviews, and it seems like a missed opportunity to actually develop them by promoting one of them, as they are probably way more qualified for command than Tilly, and should probably be a bit agitated that they were passed over.
In the first season only a few of the bridge crew even had names (and not just that they never used them, there was an interview were one of the producers was talking about having to come up with the rest of the names for season two since the focus shifted). The buzz during the runup to DSC said that it was mainly centered on the science department instead of the bridge, which it pretty much was, and the shallow action format the show used just did not have room to develop the bridge crew or anyone else outside of the small inner circle of protagonists and antagonists very much.
As for canon, it was not one canon but rather two separate canons, one belonging to Desilu (and therefore CBS who by then wholly owned the studio and renamed it) and the other to the Paramount movie division. The whole point of doing the Kelvin split-off was to separate the canons in the first place so Paramount could do things without having to involve CBS in every step.
In theory the two canons could be merged like how STO (and really, most of the fanbase) treats it now that both halves of what used to be Paramount before the Viacom split are both under the same umbrella again, but so far there has been little or nothing actually linking the canons yet (some crosstime stuff would be interesting though, if they did it right).
I think it could be argued that due to the events of the KT, Starfleet could have had more of a policy of fast tracking the right people to command, whereas the prime never had that problem, and working up the ranks is standard procedure.
Going from cadet to Captain in a few hours is certainly a fast track that at least to me is absurd.
Of course it is absurd, but in an alternate universe they can do things alternatively, and can be consistent on that at least. Of course ST:D is supposed to be in the prime universe so they need different excuses.
But that would require effort, and an attempt to view things from a non biased standpoint. And we can't have that.
No, that would require enough interest in where they are going with DSC to take the financial risk of signing up for a streaming service which has absolutely nothing going for it but a few OK but nothing special generic sci-fi shows.
I see by your smug and almost obsessive pointing out of a fact that I never made a secret of at every possible opportunity, that you probably don't have to make a choice between real world concerns like paying utilities or getting a subscription to an overpriced TV streaming service that only has a few shows that are even mildly interesting (most of the rest are nothing but reruns of free open-channel network TV).
Besides, your trolling aside, I have seen enough of the first two seasons of DSC for my comments about the shallowness and dodgy quality of the writing to be valid for them, and nothing I have read about s3 here or anywhere else leads me to believe they had some kind of huge improvement in the third season (in fact the triteness of the plot points discussed right here in this thread makes me suspect the opposite).
Comments
Really, Phoenix, I was expecting this sort of thing from fox, but I thought better of you.
I hadn't realized how far the articles and reviews had gradually degraded and how shallow they are getting until just a few comments ago.
The show has moved out of the contentious zone where the reviewers watch it like a hawk and mention/challenge all the details out of a love/hate viewpoint and onto the mild side where reviewers tend to just cut and paste from press releases and talk about a few highlights without touching on all the details, so I probably wont be making a lot of comments on it anymore except for the points where things are self-contained like the looks of ships and whatnot, or on points that are firmly anchored in the older shows rather than the new ones.
Seriously? How do you jump to conclusions so far off the beam?
I have said numerous times that I actually like the parts of the show that I have seen, in its own way. It is not even the same subgenre as traditional Star Trek but that does not make it unwatchable as its own thing. And yes, I talk about the lazy writing, but that is far from unique for a TV show, especially now that Hollywood has found its pigeonhole and trope set for science fiction and it is not treated as something experimental anymore.
That said, your comment does apply to enough of the fanbase to keep the purist fringes in a boil, just like it equally applies to the most pro-DSC fringes as well. I suspect that most of the fans are closer to center than that however, since it is the loud fringes who are heard from the most in any fandom, or realworld issue for that matter.
Yeah and there's no way to miniaturize a power source, reduce the power need, or otherwise make it more efficient after 7-800 years. It's not like the Iconians developed something better or anything, thus it would be possible. How silly of me.
So you make stronger ships, integrity fields, better geometry or whatever to deal with the extra stress, and reduce or eliminate the need for maintenance. It isn't like it can't be done, why are you even arguing this point? And its hilarious to suggest that civilian ships can't be strengthened for no apparent reason. That's utterly nonsensical on the face of it, to say nothing of the fact that there's no reason a civilian can't have a "military grade" ship to begin with.
A. So don't use a tractor beam, or I don't know, use it on an expendable ship like an unmanned/AI piloted shuttle. Maybe short pulses are manageable. Or just don't use a tractor beam. Full torpedo spread, fire phasers constantly to drill a way through, strengthen the shields, use the Pegasus phase cloak, anything. ST:D apparently had that giant Orion ship make it through, along with Book's little ship without anything but good piloting, as I understand, so its not remotely impossible to get through the tunnels in a big or small ship. Therefore they can find a way to clean them somehow.
B. So open a gate to let it out. Build new ones that bypass the old ones. Your attitude of giving up at every sign of difficulty is not how things advance. Finding solutions to overcome problems is what Star Trek was good at.
C. First, stop using the word strawman, you clearly have no understanding of what it means.
Now, I've seen various screen shots of what the debris is. They are whole sections of starships that should have broken up further a long time ago, because losing the nacelle doesn't mean you suddenly have no more stress. The stress on them continuing to travel through the network is not going to stop because one part broke off, they will continue to break until they are at a size where the stress doesn't overcome the strength of the material. How small is that? I'm quite sure its smaller than a nacelle, or a huge chunk of a starship hull, both of which are larger than a shuttle or Book's ship.
Just because its dangerous doesn't mean it can't be done, which again, ST:D demonstrated. It is a curious thing to not do something which can be done just because it is dangerous. People IRL do stuff like that all the time, so why would they not in the 32nd century? Try to fly a shuttle through the transwarp network to deliver medicine to a planet that needs it, to repair the subspace relays, to do incredibly valuable things, or don't try because they might not make it. Strange concept to me. Obviously the couriers do it to some degree, but if they can, it should be more widespread.
If you want fair episode reviews that touch on most of the story elements, then I would suggest TrekYards on YouTube. They're mostly just two trekkies talking about Trek, and when they do reviews they have no problem pointing out both the positive and the negative of each episode.
You are just fooling yourself. What I said about the older shows was accurate, with an occasional mistake admittedly, but not fabrications. You are the one making weird stuff up to try and reconcile DSC with the various traditional Trek series.
A. The Iconians developed a "doorway" that stays open for a while, essentially a stargate, instead of something like a transporter that only transfers in small batches. Sure, you could not send starships or even large ground vehicles through the ones shown in the shows but you could send a lot of supplies, components, and tools through only limited by how long they can keep those gateways open in one cycle and how fast they can recharge or whatever to establish it again. The only caveat is that getting Iconian tech might be rather difficult.
B. Moore's law is limited by the silicon transistor circuitry that makes up the chips, heat, and a number of other factors. While the miniaturization of current chip technology does have an end, in theory it could very well apply to the next kind of chip technology, such as optical computing or some quantum process. Either way, Moore's law is simply a description of the current trend, it does not control the advancements.
Technically, the Intrepid class was touted as the first full-sized starship class to use an all duranium hull. Getting rid of the heavy but molecularly very stable tritanium reduces weight considerably allowing for better speed and handling performance according to the runup-to-premiere hype for Voyager.
Borg transwarp conduits are generated by hubs, logically that would mean that shutting down a hub would eliminate the corridor, which in turn makes it very probable that anything caught in that conduit would get dumped out into space, subspace, or whatever it traverses. In theory, waiting a bit and reestablishing a corridor should result in a new clear one, if not then the hub could be pointed elsewhere and a new hub built somewhere else to service the destination of the clogged one.
star trek takes it a bit too far, though
#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!"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
A. Strawman. Who cares about large scale material transport? Besides, the gateways are canonically able to be made bigger. The one on Vandros 4 was about 2-4 times the size of the one on Iconia. It is also a lack of imagination that suggests they can't be used in creative ways to facilitate materials transport.
B. Moore's law is not a scientific law. It describes an observed phenomena, one that can't reasonably be applied to Star Trek tech because its fiction. Besides you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the Iconian gateways just worked. However they did it is achievable in Star Trek.
And yet the Borg managed it. That means the tech to do it is there, and probably can be improved upon since Borg aren't known for their ingenuity.
Now for various materials, that is seriously irrelevant. There are an absurd number of different materials in use today with different properties and strengths and so on, all of which can be called steel, to say nothing at all about those that aren't steel. Why don't they just use [insert alloy here] as standard in everything? Because its not right for every purpose. Materials science isn't as remotely limited as you seem to think it is. Whatever future materials Star Trek is using doesn't matter, because they would realistically have millions more variations, alloys, and alternative materials that may be just right for handling that stress.
And again, we know they developed them, because the TW networks were in use by future ships.
You have to spend resources to make resources. Unmanned bombs don't take a lot of resources, though. And the resources are there to create a giant starbase in a bubble and completely refit Discovery, as well as have continued warp travel for reasons as frivolous as stealing space animals.
And please tell me how transwarp works, because as far as I can learn, ST:D did not go into enough detail about anything regarding their TW tunnels.
Yes you do it frequently. I haven't done it at all here.
If you think the debris I've seen in various clips and screenshots was tiny I don't know what to say. It clearly isn't small.
There is also some hilariousness in saying there is a 50/50 chance to survive, yet the show, as far as I'm aware, demonstrates every ship that goes through does survive. Its likely little different than saying if you go into the woods at night, the witch will get you. While there is obvious danger, it is probably overstated and has become largely superstition that no one tests at this point.
And ships are few because of a failure of imagination. Nothing could be more productive than using the few warp capable ships to help produce small disposable ships to clean up the transwarp networks. Once you get the right nodes cleared, regular transports can resume between resource and production planets, which allows for a snowball effect to occur. So why don't they do that?
That's not the same thing and you know it. Riker admitted to Troi the main reason he stayed First Officer so long was because he was 'comfortable' on the Enterprise, not because he doubted his personal capability to command. In fact, aside from Spock in 'The Galileo Seven', I can't think of any First Officer other than Burnham who has had doubts in their command ability - and in Spock's case, it was doubt which set in as a consequence of his flawed-logic decision-making, and was dealt with the moment he recognised it.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I've actually noticed a surprising uptick in Reviews from Journalists with the end of Season 3 that are totally upset or disatisfied with it. Not the usual "WAH WE HATE DISCOVERY" that some people on these forums would lead you to believe any negative review is, but it seems to be they were upset at how incredibly shallow Discovery was when it came to some serious issues that they "tackled" in the show. One of the biggest things I saw across a few articles was the inclusion of the trans characters which the articles believed were only there as set dressing for other characters.
Personally I find it funny, I have MANY issues with Discovery and Picard, but I'm glad some of the reviews are starting to take notice of their usually shallow approach to things. The older shows tended to have a lot more nuance or intelligence when dealing with social issues and they LOVED to deal with social issues.
Which she didn't really do. They just kind of "made her" find herself at the very end with basically no actual character development occuring
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
#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!"
That is definitely a possibility since the show itself was a crunched-together amalgam of several pitches Fuller did for his anthology idea, each of which had different crews in different time periods, it would be no surprise if Burnham was a mix of the lead protagonists from each.
The original Kirk didn't go from cadet to captain in a few hours, the only one who did was the Kelvin version, and apparently in Kelvin rank and promotions are arbitrary and don't mean much judging by the bridge brawls and the rest of the nonsense in the first movie (at least they seemed to tone that down a bit for the next two though).
True, though typically the shallowness of the action movie format like DSC uses means such things are glossed over at best, and totally ignored at worst. If it was written more like a TV series than a movie they would probably have it as one of the long term threads but the writers seem to do little more than connect the SFX gags and eye candy shots together, like a lot of the old '40s musicals often did with the musical and dance numbers consuming nearly all of the time and effort and plot was tacked on as an afterthought.
The point was that despite being much more like Kelvin, CBS insists that DSC is in the prime universe instead, in which Kirk did not arbitrarily get command of Enterprise right out of the academy.
Tilly was chosen by Saru as his first officer after Burnham screwed up, partly because she showed great promise and partly because none of the other bridge officers had had as much screen time, and weren't really developed characters yet. In her first crisis, she showed great presence of mind - the only thing she could have done better might have been to follow General Order 12 ("When approached by another vessel with which communications have not been established, all emergency precautions are to be observed, no matter the apparent origin of the vessel"). Of course, that reg might have been added sometime after Discovery left for the future...
I think it could be argued that due to the events of the KT, Starfleet could have had more of a policy of fast tracking the right people to command, whereas the prime never had that problem, and working up the ranks is standard procedure.
I have to say, though, what Jon said about the bridge crew getting no development is something I've heard repeatedly in various reviews, and it seems like a missed opportunity to actually develop them by promoting one of them, as they are probably way more qualified for command than Tilly, and should probably be a bit agitated that they were passed over.
In the first season only a few of the bridge crew even had names (and not just that they never used them, there was an interview were one of the producers was talking about having to come up with the rest of the names for season two since the focus shifted). The buzz during the runup to DSC said that it was mainly centered on the science department instead of the bridge, which it pretty much was, and the shallow action format the show used just did not have room to develop the bridge crew or anyone else outside of the small inner circle of protagonists and antagonists very much.
As for canon, it was not one canon but rather two separate canons, one belonging to Desilu (and therefore CBS who by then wholly owned the studio and renamed it) and the other to the Paramount movie division. The whole point of doing the Kelvin split-off was to separate the canons in the first place so Paramount could do things without having to involve CBS in every step.
In theory the two canons could be merged like how STO (and really, most of the fanbase) treats it now that both halves of what used to be Paramount before the Viacom split are both under the same umbrella again, but so far there has been little or nothing actually linking the canons yet (some crosstime stuff would be interesting though, if they did it right).
Of course it is absurd, but in an alternate universe they can do things alternatively, and can be consistent on that at least. Of course ST:D is supposed to be in the prime universe so they need different excuses.
No, that would require enough interest in where they are going with DSC to take the financial risk of signing up for a streaming service which has absolutely nothing going for it but a few OK but nothing special generic sci-fi shows.
I see by your smug and almost obsessive pointing out of a fact that I never made a secret of at every possible opportunity, that you probably don't have to make a choice between real world concerns like paying utilities or getting a subscription to an overpriced TV streaming service that only has a few shows that are even mildly interesting (most of the rest are nothing but reruns of free open-channel network TV).
Besides, your trolling aside, I have seen enough of the first two seasons of DSC for my comments about the shallowness and dodgy quality of the writing to be valid for them, and nothing I have read about s3 here or anywhere else leads me to believe they had some kind of huge improvement in the third season (in fact the triteness of the plot points discussed right here in this thread makes me suspect the opposite).