Star Trek: Discovery

PST: discuss Star Trek without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2318
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Iroscato » 2018-02-15 01:00pm

Also - LOVE the updated look to the 1701. I was never a great fan of the OG though I understood the technical limitations of the time. Putting the actual TOS CGI model in would have been absurd in 2018 so I feel they struck a good balance.
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30759
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Thanas » 2018-02-15 05:38pm

This show picked up a lot of goodwill from me with the way they handled the mirror universe part. Then they destroyed a huge chunk of it with their solution to the klingon war. Oh yeah it is going to work because nobody would ever dare rebel against some empress holding federation tech and nobody has ever heard of scans before.

Am I excited about next season? Eh. Depends on the trailer I guess.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3648
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-02-16 04:22am

I remember an interview I heard with someone major in the production of Star Trek Beyond. He claimed that sci-fi movies don't do well if they don't show Earth, but he felt that they had built up enough of an audience from the first two nu-Trek movies that they could do so. "Must show Earth" is obviously bullshit. But the shots of the Klingon ships close to Earth (yet not doing anything during the events of the episode) makes me think that such thinking still infects STD's production team.

I'm going to assume that the Klingons have a detailed enough scan of the bomb and detonator to believe that it will be as devastating as claimed. Even then the solution is only temporary as there are far too many ways to prevent the bomb exploding. How annoyed I am about this depends on season 2. If we get a storyline that admits the bomb solution is temporary and T'Rell is trying to get a permanent solution in place, they might be able to redeem it. Might.

The NCC 1701 looks nice. But it showing up after giving a priority one distress call makes me very worried about one of two things happening:
- They ignore the cliffhanger they ended on.
- They give us their interpretation of Spock or Pike.

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1136
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Prometheus Unbound » 2018-02-16 08:55am

Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-02-06 10:02am
Prometheus Unbound wrote:
2018-02-06 09:50am
Batman wrote:
2018-02-05 07:07pm
I thought Discovery was supposed to predate TOS by a decade or so?
'On stardate 4789.6 klingon vessels launched hypothermic charges'
That's in between s2/3 to early s3. The starting stardate for 'Where no man has gone before' is 1312.4

Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-02-05 07:22pm
At this point, you expect them to care about continuity and consistency with prior incarnations?
Lol you guise.

http://startreklist.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... ed_05.html

TOS couldn't even keep track.
If nothing else though it shows that the newer generation of Trek shows tried to be reasonably consistent with their use of stardates. So either this new show is incapable of keeping up with the continuity, they're doing it as a deliberate nod to TOS' randomness, or they simply don't care. Pick one...
I don't care about it. And I know deep down none of you do either.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1136
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Prometheus Unbound » 2018-02-16 09:01am

houser2112 wrote:
2018-02-15 10:41am
Burnham getting reinstated all the way from Specialist (What is this rank, anyway? Is it like a Warrant Officer, an enlisted rank, or even sub-enlisted?) to Commander? Putting her back in the officer ranks (even though she pretty much enjoyed officer status de facto if not de jure) at Ensign or Lieutenant would have been plenty to show their appreciation. She's still a mutineer, and that should have consequences.

Starfleet and the Federation don't work like that.

If you break all the rules and then fix it after, you get promotions and/or your own Starship. That includes stealing starships, assaulting officers etc



The only thing Kirk got in trouble for was disobeying a direct order and that was just for show.


Mutiny (Spock in The Managerie) and leaving Bajor behind undefended and risking billions of lives (DS9: But if you pull a stunt like that again I'll court martial you or I'll promote you) are all perfectly ok in previous series. Hell Janeway got a Promotion past 2 levels for all her failures.

This is not in any way different from other treks re: mutiny and her getting her rank back.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Master
Posts: 1412
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Esquire » 2018-02-16 09:42am

bilateralrope wrote:
2018-02-16 04:22am
I remember an interview I heard with someone major in the production of Star Trek Beyond. He claimed that sci-fi movies don't do well if they don't show Earth, but he felt that they had built up enough of an audience from the first two nu-Trek movies that they could do so. "Must show Earth" is obviously bullshit. But the shots of the Klingon ships close to Earth (yet not doing anything during the events of the episode) makes me think that such thinking still infects STD's production team
Clearly, this person has never heard of a few obscure, but fairly successful sci-fi films. You know, Star Wars, Alien, Avatar...
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

amigocabal
Jedi Knight
Posts: 780
Joined: 2012-05-15 04:05pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by amigocabal » 2018-02-16 09:32pm

bilateralrope wrote:
2018-02-16 04:22am
I remember an interview I heard with someone major in the production of Star Trek Beyond. He claimed that sci-fi movies don't do well if they don't show Earth, but he felt that they had built up enough of an audience from the first two nu-Trek movies that they could do so. "Must show Earth" is obviously bullshit. But the shots of the Klingon ships close to Earth (yet not doing anything during the events of the episode) makes me think that such thinking still infects STD's production team.

I'm going to assume that the Klingons have a detailed enough scan of the bomb and detonator to believe that it will be as devastating as claimed. Even then the solution is only temporary as there are far too many ways to prevent the bomb exploding. How annoyed I am about this depends on season 2. If we get a storyline that admits the bomb solution is temporary and T'Rell is trying to get a permanent solution in place, they might be able to redeem it. Might.
I am guessing that the existence of the bomb was not publicized by either side. Even if the Federation and the Klingon Empire publicize Burnham's defiance in the wake of the Khitomer Accords three and a half decades later, they would still keep quiet about the bomb. Indeed, we know the bomb does not get detonated for at least 130 years.

(It is unclear if the bomb never gets detonated by the 26th century. While we know the Klingons join the Federation by then (ENT: "Azati Prime"), Daniels does not specifically mention QonoS as a member of the Federation.).
bilateralrope wrote: The NCC 1701 looks nice. But it showing up after giving a priority one distress call makes me very worried about one of two things happening:
- They ignore the cliffhanger they ended on.
- They give us their interpretation of Spock or Pike.
I would not put it past the producers to make the distress call result from a power surge.

streetad
Padawan Learner
Posts: 215
Joined: 2011-06-12 01:02pm
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by streetad » 2018-02-17 05:57am

It was heavily flawed, but has enough potential that I'm on board for another season at least.

Although I'm going to miss Jason Isaacs. I would agree that the character was infinitely more enjoyable as the more ruthless win-at-all-costs side of Starfleet in the Prime universe and if they'd left him like that it would have worked better thematically as a battle for the Federation's soul, but he's a fine actor that improves everything he is in.

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-02-19 08:22am

Thoughts on the last episode:

-The Klingon fleet at the Sol System didn't feel threatening. It was only a handful of ships and it was passive, like the Klingons were just hanging out and having a party instead of threatening all life on Earth. If they had shown more ships massing, fear in a Starfleet war room, evacuating starships, the wrecked saucers of Starfleet ships, etcetera it would have been much more effective.

-Having Burnham confront Georgiou's evil was a waste. Michelle Yeoh chews scenery wonderfully, but since Mirror Georgiou has been clearly irredeemable from the moment she decided to chomp down on a Kelpian its really an exercise in whether or not Burnham clues in to the latest clue to smack her upside the head and lacks dramatic weight.

-I did like how Georgiou's decision to try to beat information out of L'Rell ended up L'Rell laughing at her.

-The rushed and almost offhand settling of the Klingon war was a mistake and misplacement of dramatic focus. The basic idea of "the Klingons will back down if pushing ahead is disastrous" works, but the execution was rushed, lackluster and almost an afterthought.

-The evil plan was so fucking bad. Zap Brannigan level bad. What's going to happen when the militarily dominant Klingons, within striking distance of the Federation's core worlds, learn that the Federation has burned Qo'noS? "Then Kif, once the Klingons have used up all their ammunition and burned out half their disruptor cores turning the Federation home worlds to slag, we attack. It'll be a glorious victory. The body count will be tremendous. And then I'll have to mate with every available female to restore the Federation's population. It'll be my duty as the hero who won the war."

-Didn't like the hydrobomb. I don't see how that tiny bomb is going to trigger a giant water-magma vaporization reaction.

-The speeches segments were clumsy, but the theme of "we must remember our values and our higher selves" is a good choice for the Trump era.

-I liked that playing Klingon craps was a moment of joy for Ash/Voq and foreshadowed his choice to join L'Rell.

-They continue to be good at handling trauma. Michael's account of how Klingons killed her family was both moving and effective, but if would have been much better to do it earlier in the series.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3648
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-02-19 10:52pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-19 08:22am
-Having Burnham confront Georgiou's evil was a waste. Michelle Yeoh chews scenery wonderfully, but since Mirror Georgiou has been clearly irredeemable from the moment she decided to chomp down on a Kelpian its really an exercise in whether or not Burnham clues in to the latest clue to smack her upside the head and lacks dramatic weight.
What I took from that scene that the only argument that worked at all was "you will have to watch me die again". Everything else failed.

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3648
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-02-19 11:43pm

Random thought: The mirror universes method of drawing energy from spores was something that was in danger of wiping out all life in all universes*. Given the size of a single universe, let alone two or more, life seems doomed. Someone is going to discover the spores, draw energy from them, then not have anyone stop them.

*Why wasn't wiping out all spores, leaving Discovery stranded, high enough stakes for the STD writers ?

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1136
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Prometheus Unbound » 2018-02-21 01:16pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-19 08:22am
I don't see how that tiny bomb is going to trigger a giant water-magma vaporization reaction.
Genesis did a lot more with roughly the same amount of stuff - and that's only 20 odd years in the future. Then you have that (urgh) 'cold fusion bomb' they had in Into Darkness which exploded and... froze magma (idk). Soren's weapon - that was tiny and can stop a star... the Tox Uthat was the same size and that also can stop a star... it's not unheard of. And anyway, if they'd made it the size of a house, the story wouldn't have been altered in any way, other than having a really giant bomb that looks stupid.

The point wasn't the bomb - the point was the crew standing up for Federation ideals in the face of defeat.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-02-21 03:37pm

Prometheus Unbound wrote:
2018-02-21 01:16pm
Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-19 08:22am
I don't see how that tiny bomb is going to trigger a giant water-magma vaporization reaction.
Genesis did a lot more with roughly the same amount of stuff - and that's only 20 odd years in the future. Then you have that (urgh) 'cold fusion bomb' they had in Into Darkness which exploded and... froze magma (idk). Soren's weapon - that was tiny and can stop a star... the Tox Uthat was the same size and that also can stop a star... it's not unheard of. And anyway, if they'd made it the size of a house, the story wouldn't have been altered in any way, other than having a really giant bomb that looks stupid.

The point wasn't the bomb - the point was the crew standing up for Federation ideals in the face of defeat.
Sure, but none of those devices was supposed to instantly create a huge steam explosion from nothing. Genesis was chain reaction matter transmutation, not instant spontaneous matter generation. Soren's weapon relied on magic exotic elements. The hydrobomb introduces instantaneous matter generation/transmutation from a tiny device which opens all sorts of questions about tech and power sources. You may be fine with handwaving it away, but I'm not.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

User avatar
Quadlok
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 1188
Joined: 2003-12-16 03:09pm
Location: Washington, the state, not the city

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Quadlok » 2018-02-21 06:41pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-21 03:37pm
Prometheus Unbound wrote:
2018-02-21 01:16pm
Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-19 08:22am
I don't see how that tiny bomb is going to trigger a giant water-magma vaporization reaction.
Genesis did a lot more with roughly the same amount of stuff - and that's only 20 odd years in the future. Then you have that (urgh) 'cold fusion bomb' they had in Into Darkness which exploded and... froze magma (idk). Soren's weapon - that was tiny and can stop a star... the Tox Uthat was the same size and that also can stop a star... it's not unheard of. And anyway, if they'd made it the size of a house, the story wouldn't have been altered in any way, other than having a really giant bomb that looks stupid.

The point wasn't the bomb - the point was the crew standing up for Federation ideals in the face of defeat.
Sure, but none of those devices was supposed to instantly create a huge steam explosion from nothing. Genesis was chain reaction matter transmutation, not instant spontaneous matter generation. Soren's weapon relied on magic exotic elements. The hydrobomb introduces instantaneous matter generation/transmutation from a tiny device which opens all sorts of questions about tech and power sources. You may be fine with handwaving it away, but I'm not.
I haven't posted here in years and I am logging back in just to say that the opinion expressed in the above post is dumb as hell. All you're saying is that you were fine with the half dozen Maguffins mentioned above but this one somehow crosses a line.

I mean, Jesus. Look, the season finale was a letdown compared to the second half of the season, it felt like they had to jam way to much into a single episode. But Voyager and DS9 both had that problem in their series finales.

I am actually looking forward to season 2 of Discovery. It may not be the best thing on TV, but at least it's trying to be something new, and not just the regurgitated tropes of The Orville or the "hard" sci-fi of The Expanse. Admittedly I like both of those shows on their own merits but Discovery is as Star Treky as any Star Trek since the original.
Watch out, here comes a Spiderpig!

HAB, BOTM

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15204
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Batman » 2018-02-21 08:11pm

The Orville was massively more Star Trek than anything that came out of Trek after VOY (VOY was awful but it was undeniably 'Trek' awful).
Discovery would be okay as a standalone series or a divergent timeline (like the reboot movies) but there's no fucking way this is Prime Timeline Trek.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-02-22 02:35am

Quadlok wrote:
2018-02-21 06:41pm


I haven't posted here in years and I am logging back in just to say that the opinion expressed in the above post is dumb as hell. All you're saying is that you were fine with the half dozen Maguffins mentioned above but this one somehow crosses a line.
Yeah, it does cross the line and it's entirely a matter of taste. This is pre Genesis tech. This tiny bomb somehow creates a continent wide water-magma vaporization explosion. How does such a tiny device, far smaller than a transporter, create such a large scale event? It's not simply a pure energy release like an anti-matter bomb. Instant wide scale matter transmutation? Teleportation of millions of tons of water? That kind of tech has implications. It doesn't ruin the episode, but it does fuck with my suspension of disbelief and I don't like it.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 308
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by houser2112 » 2018-02-22 08:12am

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-22 02:35am
Yeah, it does cross the line and it's entirely a matter of taste. This is pre Genesis tech. This tiny bomb somehow creates a continent wide water-magma vaporization explosion. How does such a tiny device, far smaller than a transporter, create such a large scale event? It's not simply a pure energy release like an anti-matter bomb. Instant wide scale matter transmutation? Teleportation of millions of tons of water? That kind of tech has implications. It doesn't ruin the episode, but it does fuck with my suspension of disbelief and I don't like it.
I'll join the chorus and say that this is an odd hill to make your stand on. Of all the technobabble ass-pulls Star Trek has employed (that I'm familiar with, anyway), this is hardly the worst.

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-02-22 08:46am

houser2112 wrote:
2018-02-22 08:12am
Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-22 02:35am
Yeah, it does cross the line and it's entirely a matter of taste. This is pre Genesis tech. This tiny bomb somehow creates a continent wide water-magma vaporization explosion. How does such a tiny device, far smaller than a transporter, create such a large scale event? It's not simply a pure energy release like an anti-matter bomb. Instant wide scale matter transmutation? Teleportation of millions of tons of water? That kind of tech has implications. It doesn't ruin the episode, but it does fuck with my suspension of disbelief and I don't like it.
I'll join the chorus and say that this is an odd hill to make your stand on. Of all the technobabble ass-pulls Star Trek has employed (that I'm familiar with, anyway), this is hardly the worst.
It isn't the worst. Its not turning into newts in fucking Voyager. I simply don't like it.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

User avatar
Quadlok
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 1188
Joined: 2003-12-16 03:09pm
Location: Washington, the state, not the city

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Quadlok » 2018-02-26 08:16pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-22 02:35am
Quadlok wrote:
2018-02-21 06:41pm


I haven't posted here in years and I am logging back in just to say that the opinion expressed in the above post is dumb as hell. All you're saying is that you were fine with the half dozen Maguffins mentioned above but this one somehow crosses a line.
Yeah, it does cross the line and it's entirely a matter of taste. This is pre Genesis tech. This tiny bomb somehow creates a continent wide water-magma vaporization explosion. How does such a tiny device, far smaller than a transporter, create such a large scale event? It's not simply a pure energy release like an anti-matter bomb. Instant wide scale matter transmutation? Teleportation of millions of tons of water? That kind of tech has implications. It doesn't ruin the episode, but it does fuck with my suspension of disbelief and I don't like it.
An orb barely big enough to fit one person vaporized a decent chunk of Florida a century before Discovery. There's an episode of TOS where they consider blasting the atmosphere of a planet for some reason. Tech levels in Trek have never been consistent and it's worth remembering that the other major species in Trek were spacefaring for centuries before humans. There's also a significant market for archeotech from dead civizations, That's what Vash does for a living.
Watch out, here comes a Spiderpig!

HAB, BOTM

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-02-27 12:51am

Yes, Trek has had magic McGuffins before. Yes, some of them work on space magic. Yes, civilizations capable of creating artifical black holes and large quantities of antimatter can come up with world wrecking firepower. You will notice I didn't object to the fact that they can wreck a planet.

These hydro bombs aren't one off devices. Discovery has a whole bunch of them. They aren't planet crackers by brute force energy release, it causes a particular interaction which requires a tiny bomb to create or transport a small sea's worth of water or some other large scale wierdness. That technology has implications and it is inconsistent with the rest of Federation technology of this era. I notice no one has argued that the bombs aren't 100% bullshit, just that they don't let it bother them. It is something I care about in my entertainment.

Does it ruin the episode? No. I don't like it and my enjoyment is diminished, but we're not talking about the crack in the event horizon here. Will the technological implications of the tiny mass transmutation/teleport/whatever device be completely ignored and the long term implications totally discarded? Probably.

So yes, it ends up on my list of one of the things I dislike about this episode and it deserves to be there. It's fine if you don't give a fuck about the characteristics of magic McGuffins and the implications of tech. Do I give too much of a fuck about world building and internal consistency? Maybe, but I do.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 29995
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-03-06 11:51am

Imperial Overlord wrote:
2018-02-22 02:35am
Yeah, it does cross the line and it's entirely a matter of taste. This is pre Genesis tech. This tiny bomb somehow creates a continent wide water-magma vaporization explosion. How does such a tiny device, far smaller than a transporter, create such a large scale event? It's not simply a pure energy release like an anti-matter bomb. Instant wide scale matter transmutation? Teleportation of millions of tons of water? That kind of tech has implications. It doesn't ruin the episode, but it does fuck with my suspension of disbelief and I don't like it.
In mitigation, this is only thirty years before Genesis.

If you told me that it would take thirty years to get from the weapon described, to the Genesis Device, I would believe you. Honestly, I'd be kind of surprised if at least SOME of the pivotal technology that went into Genesis didn't exist in the TOS era or slightly earlier, just because it isn't normal for technology in XX85 to have literally no hints that it's coming when you look at the literature and state of the art in XX65 or XX55.

Look at the technologies that were cutting-edge in 1985, and while many of them would have been utterly, utterly impossible to duplicate in 1955, the precursors were usually there in at least vaguely recognizable forms. An Apple Macintosh or an F-16 fighter jet would have seemed ridiculously capable and impressive by 1955 standards, but most of the individual parts would be identifiable even if a tremendous amount of refinement and advancement was needed to make the overall piece of technology possible.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
SpottedKitty
Jedi Knight
Posts: 864
Joined: 2014-08-22 08:24pm
Location: UK

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by SpottedKitty » 2018-03-06 03:01pm

Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-03-06 11:51am
If you told me that it would take thirty years to get from the weapon described, to the Genesis Device, I would believe you. Honestly, I'd be kind of surprised if at least SOME of the pivotal technology that went into Genesis didn't exist in the TOS era or slightly earlier, just because it isn't normal for technology in XX85 to have literally no hints that it's coming when you look at the literature and state of the art in XX65 or XX55.
Agreed — in ST:WOK we're repeatedly told how dangerous the protomatter used in the Genesis device was. How did they know it was so dangeous? Someone used similar tech years before and Bad Things™ happened.
“Despite rumor, Death isn't cruel — merely terribly, terribly good at his job.”
Terry Pratchett, Sourcery

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 29995
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-03-06 03:08pm

Of course, if this interpretation is correct, then the "make a bazillion tons of water very fast" bomb should cause something ghastly to happen at some later date. I mean, aside from things like "cause an extinction level event when done inside a magma chamber."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11859
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Imperial Overlord » 2018-03-07 06:08am

I'm not sold. I still don't like it. This is 30 years before Genesis with a device slightly bigger than a baseball with its own flight system that moves/creates a sea's worth of water and doubles as a planet breaker.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.

Librium Arcana

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 29995
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-03-07 11:13am

I can acknowledge that stance, but I'm trying to think this over from a devil's advocacy position if nothing else.

To be clear, having not actually seen the episode in question, does it reduce planets to rubble, or does it simply render them uninhabitable due to the sheer size of the ensuing volcanic eruption?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

Post Reply