Discovery - Timeline, continuity and other canonical issues [** SPOILERS **]

degrassinoel

Article 14, Section 31 of the original starfleet charter. Hence the name.

That's starfleet, not the federation. Massive difference.

hal9550

ezra_ wrote: »

Well I stand corrected!

Fall back is that he sets up S31, as a morally compromised (to borrow a phrase) admiral.

A section 31 connection is a definite in my mind for a number of reasons:

• Star Trek: Into Darkness had section 31 as a specific organization.. while i ABSOLUTELY detested that film, i think it established 31 as a force within starfleet/UFP among general/larger fandom as well as reinforcing its place with deeper trekkies. Before that film i would argue 31 was only known by serious fans of the franchise, as opposed to the casual sci fi fan
• I think there are many clues beyond simply saying that Lorca is morally compromised and doing questionable things.. USS Discovery NCC1031 (Yes i know we were told its a reference to Halloween but i dont buy it).. The guys with the Black Insignia (less covert but still).. The general tone of the crew including the late security chief seemed to be very much 'ends justify means'

Another interesting theory:

Since we know that the mirror universe is going to pop up, has anyone questioned whether 31 may be involved with that.. perhaps pilfering technology from (One would assume that having access to a Constitution class 100 years ahead of schedule, and being militaristic at this point, mirror starfleet might have 'sharper teeth')


Also the on the lorca/ash theory what if Lorca knows that Ash is a klingon (assume he is for a moment), and is merely toying with him?? a possibility>??

Spoiler tags included in case any of this is correct btw.. if mods agree il stop using them as this is all just speculation:D

FutureGuy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So I was watching the episode 6 review on Trek yards and one of the comments had an interesting link about the possible inspiration for a lot of this show...

https://anas-tronaut.blogspot.ie/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades.html?m=1

I'm on mobile so can't post extracts but an interesting read for sure. Far too many similarities to be pure coincidence?

Oh my goodness the comments on it. I have to go wash myself. There are some trek fans that are simply cringeworthy. I really feel sorry for them.

hal9550

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So I was watching the episode 6 review on Trek yards and one of the comments had an interesting link about the possible inspiration for a lot of this show...

https://anas-tronaut.blogspot.ie/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades.html?m=1

I'm on mobile so can't post extracts but an interesting read for sure. Far too many similarities to be pure coincidence?

FutureGuy wrote: »

Oh my goodness the comments on it. I have to go wash myself. There are some trek fans that are simply cringeworthy. I really feel sorry for them.

I dont know what to say!!!!...

Some of the comments are a bit ridiculous .. as in its a direct rip off.. i dont think for a second that it is

BUT

There are some SERIOUS similarities.. between the guys game/idea.. and the spore drive in Discovery.. wouldnt at all be surprised if this is flagged and a deal reached - perhaps the guy in question gets a few quid or at least a mention

Its bizarre to be honest.. im gonna read around and see if anyone else has anything to say..

EDIT:

Straight away i found this

https://www.pcgamesn.com/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades-adventure-game

server down

If they had seen that obscure blog they would have changed the story, probably. As the post above says: "tardigrades have a history of being tied to space travel. The little creatures were taken up to the ISS space station and released into the vacuum of space (where they survived for more than a week)"

Thats it. Oh and his game has a black woman and a gay couple.

Evade

It's almost certainly a Deep Impact/Armageddon type scenario but they'll probably end up paying him some amount of money.

kerplun k

corkie wrote: »

Does continuity matter for Star Trek: Discovery?
Or, how I learned to stop worrying and just enjoy the show that’s airing

These days It seems that no one hates star trek more than star trek fans themselves.

pixelburp

If the show itself is good, and steadily improves from its "decent but flawed" state at the moment, then the fans will come on board over time. TNG itself had a core of haters from the hardcore 60s crowd when it first aired back in 87, the only change now is that said hardcore has a wider platform to rage and spit against every slight against their religion of choice. Things like the spamming of metacritic rankings et al is the sad lashing out of a minority who can't handle even a modicum of change .

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

If the show itself is good, and steadily improves from its "decent but flawed" state at the moment, then the fans will come on board over time.

This is pretty much what I'm hoping for the series. If I was on places like Boards when any other Trek series was new I'd have ripped into their first few seasons of that for being awful too.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

This is pretty much what I'm hoping for the series. If I was on places like Boards when any other Trek series was new I'd have ripped into their first few seasons of that for being awful too.

I think the Dr Who revival is an apt analogue in all this; the first season was fairly ropey at best, while the hardcore fandom who kept the franchise alive after the show last aired in 1989 were positively LIVID about the sundry changes - both in canon and the overall tone with the increase in domestic / character drama.

Once the show found a groove and settled down, most fans had come along for the ride (holdouts notwithstanding ) while at the same time new generations of fandom were generated - I suspect the same could happen here. Star Trek won't survive unless it cultivates a new set of fans to champion the show.

hal9550

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the Dr Who revival is an apt analogue in all this; the first season was fairly ropey at best, while the hardcore fandom who kept the franchise alive after the show last aired in 1989 were positively LIVID about the sundry changes - both in canon and the overall tone with the increase in domestic / character drama.

Once the show found a groove and settled down, most fans had come along for the ride (holdouts notwithstanding ) while at the same time new generations of fandom were generated - I suspect the same could happen here. Star Trek won't survive unless it cultivates a new set of fans to champion the show.

I said it before, canon issues aside its the most exciting opening to a star trek series that i can remember..

TNG season 1 and some of 2 were terrible

DS9 s1 was stronger but had a fair amount of poor episodes too

Voyager season one was desperate

Enterprise.. well.. poor old enterprise

The canon issues, most of them, will probably be resolved and as i said before.. canon issues have been a part of star trek since the 60s

Evade

hal9550 wrote: »

I said it before, canon issues aside its the most exciting opening to a star trek series that i can remember..

That is true but I think that's more a reflection of modern TV than anything else and not necessarily a good thing.

One thing that I think is really missing from STD is the Data/Geordie, Bashir/O'Brien etc scenes. There's far too much focus on Burnham and Lorca without much crew interaction that doesn't involve them. Although I suppose this could be intentional as TOS rarely had any scenes without the big three.

Something I noticed while on Memory Alpha is that an actress named Isabel Lorca played a character called Gabrielle in TNG's We'll Always Have Paris. Is that intentional or a huge coincidence?

Goodshape

I'm just loving this new series to be honest.

I do love the old shows, more than anyone else I know, but by Voyager the formula was getting old – and that was 20 years ago! By Enterprise it was well and truly tired. I watched those shows because they were Star Trek, not because they were particularly good television. Or even particularly good Star Trek, most of the time.

Discovery is different, and that's an adjustment to get used to, but I don't feel like I'm 'waiting' for it to improve. There's a couple or a few things I'm hoping they don't mess up, and things I hope they include or don't include in future, but I'm not *waiting* for anything, I'm just really enjoying the ride so far.

Couldn't be happier.

flaneur

I just need to watch it on an actual television sometime instead of a laptop.

_Kaiser_

flaneur wrote: »

I just need to watch it on an actual television sometime instead of a laptop.

HDMI cable... chrome/miracast, Netflix/Plex app on the TV

I source most of my viewing online these days, but it all gets watched on my 48" Samsung Smart TV

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm just loving this new series to be honest.

I do love the old shows, more than anyone else I know, but by Voyager the formula was getting old – and that was 20 years ago! By Enterprise it was well and truly tired. I watched those shows because they were Star Trek, not because they were particularly good television. Or even particularly good Star Trek, most of the time.

Discovery is different, and that's an adjustment to get used to, but I don't feel like I'm 'waiting' for it to improve. There's a couple or a few things I'm hoping they don't mess up, and things I hope they include or don't include in future, but I'm not *waiting* for anything, I'm just really enjoying the ride so far.

Couldn't be happier.

Pretty much my thoughts on it too, imo it's hit the ground running and a LOT stronger than any of the previous franchises have. Moar!

corkie

Science Fantasy instead of Science Fiction --- "The DASH"


New 'Star Trek' Series Makes Massive Science Blunder

The new Star Trek: Discovery series is based on a massive scientific error. Can it survive?


The DASH ~ (Displacement Activated Spore Hub) drive ~ Spore Drive.

flaneur

Its science *fiction*.

The warp drive is a little lacking in the finer details of how it actually bends space and time ... something to do with dylithium crystals and so on ... might as well be space mushrooms.

The transporter isn’t really very clear either. I mean if it is disintegrating people at an sub atomic level and then turning their matter into energy and reassembling them at the other side is it not just killing them and creating a replicated clone at the other end?

What is sub space? It’s very vague and seems to just be a loose reference to modern physic and multiverse theories etc etc

Telepathy is just accepted as something that various species can do and humans seem to be able to do it too every so often.

I mean counselor Troi ... and her slightly vague and fuzzy mind reading abilities.

Why is alien computer hardware always instantly compatible with the ship’s computer ?

You have to just suspend reality and make a lot of assumptions all this stuff works in the Trek world much like I guess, many of us do in reality with real tech. It’s not like most of us really know how things work at anything beyond a high level. When you start asking people how a combustion engine works, yeah maybe but ask someone exactly how WiFi works or what the difference between CPU and GPU architecture is or exactly how a OLED display works and you’ll flummox most people, yet they’ll happily use them and integrate them into systems.

Even a lot of biological stuff is still very much understood by what it does rather than precisely how. We still don’t really know the finer details of how neurological systems function. We know some of it but we are far, far from being able to explain the exact detail of how a brain processes and stored data. We are getting there but we are still far away from precisely understanding what it is doing.

That’s why Trek works - some things are “black boxes” that we just accept as technology that works.

server down

My feeling is transporters are in fact killing people and creating a clone. Can’t see any other way around that.

flaneur

server down wrote: »

My feeling is transporters are in fact killing people and creating a clone. Can’t see any other way around that.

Wasn't that basically the argument that was made by Dr Pulaski. The fans all hated her as she was far more like a real doctor - completely with grumpy bedside manner - but she did make a point of always gong by shuttle.

Evade

server down wrote: »

My feeling is transporters are in fact killing people and creating a clone. Can’t see any other way around that.

If every subatomic particle that makes you has the same arrangement, position and velocity* it doesn't really matter.


*thanks to Heisenberg compensators

seamus

flaneur wrote: »

Wasn't that basically the argument that was made by Dr Pulaski. The fans all hated her as she was far more like a real doctor - completely with grumpy bedside manner - but she did make a point of always gong by shuttle.

Transporters are a bit of a deus ex machina of the Star Trek world. They solve the problem of moving stuff around without shuttles, but at the same time how they work changes conveniently as needed by the plot.

In one episode we see Barclay "experiencing" the beam and even being able to interact with objects in it. Which indicates that it's not a kill-clone machine, since Barclay is conscious throughout.
But then we also get the Riker duplication episode, which clearly indicates that it is a kill-clone machine.
And if it can create two Rikers, then there's no reason why it can't be used to replicate virtually anything at the atomic level. Rare weapons? Endangered species? Picard has died? Just recreate them using the transporter!

But they don't. They're a useful tool for moving stuff around, and making fun stories happen when you have a mishap. But they're fantastical machines that don't stand up to scrutiny. And don't need to. It's fiction.

Evade

seamus wrote: »

that it is a kill-clone machine.
And if it can create two Rikers, then there's no reason why it can't be used to replicate virtually anything at the atomic level. Rare weapons? Endangered species? Picard has died? Just recreate them using the transporter

The limitation is memory. It took an entire space stations worth of memory to store five people on DS9.

AMKC

flaneur wrote: »

I just need to watch it on an actual television sometime instead of a laptop.

Same here. Still watching it on a laptop is still better than on a phone.

Goodshape

AMKC wrote: »

Same here. Still watching it on a laptop is still better than on a phone.

If you have a television with a HDMI port you should consider getting a Chromecast. You'll be able to 'cast' Netflix from your laptop (or phone) to the television then.

seamus

Evade wrote: »

The limitation is memory. It took an entire space stations worth of memory to store five people on DS9.

But again, it's flexible. The Barclay storyline had four crew members trapped in the transporter buffer of their ship. Scotty stored his own pattern in the transporter of a small damaged vessel for decades.
So the limitations of the transporter go as far as is necessary to suit the storyline. And we kind of have to look past precedent and accept what's being said by the characters.

Goodshape wrote: »

If you have a television with a HDMI port you should consider getting a Chromecast. You'll be able to 'cast' Netflix from your laptop (or phone) to the television then.

Virgin Media added a Netflix "app" to their Horizon box. As much as the box is a pile of poo, I've found myself using that more than my PS3 for Netflix because it's just easier.

Evade

seamus wrote: »

But again, it's flexible. The Barclay storyline had four crew members trapped in the transporter buffer of their ship. Scotty stored his own pattern in the transporter of a small damaged vessel for decades.
So the limitations of the transporter go as far as is necessary to suit the storyline. And we kind of have to look past precedent and accept what's being said by the characters.

Weird things happen, it's Star Trek, but in general the transporters are limited by memory capacity unless they're affected by some phenomena or worked on by the man you call if you absolutely must find a way to break the laws of physics in the next five minutes, Montgomery Scott, and to be fair Franklin still died. A far more egregious breaking of the transporter's rules is beaming through shields. It's constantly said to be impossible and is often a plot point but sometimes it still happens like in Relics.

I wouldn't be surprised if replicator patters cut corners to save memory and that's why the food tastes a bit different than grown food.

flaneur

Evade wrote: »

If every subatomic particle that makes you has the same arrangement, position and velocity* it doesn't really matter.


*thanks to Heisenberg compensators

I could see a bit of a philosophical discussion emerging about the ethics of transporter technology, should anything like this ever arise!

Evade

flaneur wrote: »

I could see a bit of a philosophical discussion emerging about the ethics of transporter technology, should anything like this ever arise!

Philosophers will philosophise but in the case of Star Trek transporters ethical question is moot.

hal9550