Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

TheValeyard · 13-12-2020 12:17PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

If they have personal transporters why didn’t Mikey S and Georgeo just beam to the door instead of walking through Canada ?

Subspace distortion in the plot holes.

breezy1985 · 13-12-2020 01:35PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

If they have personal transporters why didn’t Mikey S and Georgeo just beam to the door instead of walking through Canada ?

I was thinking that at the time too

ilovesmybrick · 13-12-2020 01:37PM

breezy1985 wrote: »

I was thinking that at the time too

Georgiou's medical bracelet also doubles as a fitbit, and she needed to make up her steps for the day.

~Rebel~ · 13-12-2020 07:05PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

If they have personal transporters why didn’t Mikey S and Georgeo just beam to the door instead of walking through Canada ?

I have a lot of problems with this show, and plenty with this episode - but that didn’t bother me.

I can totally buy that if you’re heading down into some weird temporal/transuniversal situation recommended by a sentient computer, and where you‘ve no idea what you’re walking into, that you go down a bit away and walk the last bit so you can get the lay of the land. Doesn’t seem wise to beam directly into the middle of an unknown.

Banana Republic 1 · 13-12-2020 08:26PM

I was watching an episode of enterprise and noticed that a Vulcan ship was called the nivar same as the new name for Vulcan on std.

After the last episode of std and the prime and Kelvin universe discussion I wondered how the Vulcan planet is still there, wasn’t it destroyed in the jj film.

~Rebel~ · 13-12-2020 09:19PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I was watching an episode of enterprise and noticed that a Vulcan ship was called the nivar same as the new name for Vulcan on std.

After the last episode of std and the prime and Kelvin universe discussion I wondered how the Vulcan planet is still there, wasn’t it destroyed in the jj film.

Aren’t they in the prime universe, where Vulcan is fine, versus in the Kelvin universe where it’s kaput?

Also it felt weird that they specifically called the Mirror Universe by that name... that’s what we call it cause it’s wacky campy upside down land, but doesn’t make sense for them to call it that too, any more than any other of the theoretically infinite timelines/universes.

Banana Republic 1 · 13-12-2020 09:26PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Aren’t they in the prime universe, where Vulcan is fine, versus in the Kelvin universe where it’s kaput?

Also it felt weird that they specifically called the Mirror Universe by that name... that’s what we call it cause it’s wacky campy upside down land, but doesn’t make sense for them to call it that too, any more than any other of the theoretically infinite timelines/universes.

I don’t know but Romulus did explode wasn’t that which prompted the joining. There are so many plots holes in this it’s ridiculous.

corkie · 13-12-2020 09:34PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I was watching an episode of enterprise and noticed that a Vulcan ship was called the nivar same as the new name for Vulcan on std.

After the last episode of std and the prime and Kelvin universe discussion I wondered how the Vulcan planet is still there, wasn’t it destroyed in the jj film.

Ni'Var (starship)

Ni'Var <<< Planet previously Vulcan

As others have said Vulcan destroyed in 'Kelvin Universe' and not in Prime which confirms which universe the show is in.

~Rebel~ · 13-12-2020 11:01PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I don’t know but Romulus did explode wasn’t that which prompted the joining. There are so many plots holes in this it’s ridiculous.

Romulus being destroyed was in Picard waaay after the time of Kirk, TOS etc, so was unrelated to all that Kelvin nonsense.

Banana Republic 1 · 13-12-2020 11:20PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Romulus being destroyed was in Picard waaay after the time of Kirk, TOS etc, so was unrelated to all that Kelvin nonsense.

The Kelvin line came from that

corkie · 13-12-2020 11:28PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Romulus being destroyed was in Picard waaay after the time of Kirk, TOS etc, so was unrelated to all that Kelvin nonsense.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The Kelvin line came from that

"Romulus was destroyed in 2387 when its sun exploded in a supernova, splitting the planet in half."
^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Romulus

Picard referenced the same event as in the 2009 film.

"The FNN interview begins with a capsule biography of Picard. The interviewer, Richter, asks him about the supernova that destroyed Romulus in 2387."
^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Remembrance_(episode)

Banana Republic 1 · 14-12-2020 12:09AM

corkie wrote: »

"Romulus was destroyed in 2387 when its sun exploded in a supernova, splitting the planet in half."
^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Romulus

Picard referenced the same event as in the 2009 film.

"The FNN interview begins with a capsule biography of Picard. The interviewer, Richter, asks him about the supernova that destroyed Romulus in 2387."
^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Remembrance_(episode)

Picard on Amazon is muck, I’m talking about the first jj Star Trek movie that’s were the Kelvin timeline was introduced.

~Rebel~ · 14-12-2020 01:03AM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Picard on Amazon is muck, I’m talking about the first jj Star Trek movie that’s were the Kelvin timeline was introduced.

Ah of course, I forgot about the Romulus event happening in that movie’s future, leading to yer man going back in time to Kirk’s era.

TheValeyard · 14-12-2020 01:46AM

What's the confusion?

Romulus exploded thanks to a supernova.

Nero goes back in time to seek revenge and fcuk **** up, so the Kelvin timeline is born.

Prime universe continues with Spock presumed dead during the supernova blast.

Kelvin universe develops taste for lens flare.

GreeBo · 14-12-2020 09:30AM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

If they have personal transporters why didn’t Mikey S and Georgeo just beam to the door instead of walking through Canada ?

Same issue when Book was looking for Saru I think, we have gone from fish head teleporting everywhere to back to people walking everywhere.

pixelburp · 14-12-2020 12:20PM

Shades of the 'aul "why don't they call the Avengers?" argument used in the various MCU once-off films; the obvious answer is "well then you don't have much of a story", but my headcanon simply rationalises that prolonged or constant use of the personal transporters can cause <insert medical issues here>. That and just pinging from one end of your ship to the other, rather than walking, would probably be a massive social faux-pax. And it'd just increase the possibility of horrible accidents with matter trying to occupy the same space.

One thing I've never quite got used to with Discovery as a series - and is something the future setting has only increased - is the ship designs. Or lack thereof. I've actually always liked Discovery's own design, eccentric as it is. The spinning is a bit dumb but the overall design works as something different, but still Trek. Nicer to look at than the Oberth class etc.

The future ships though ... eh, I dunno. I kinda get what they're going for with the idea of reactive modules changing shape; that the ships themselves are programmable matter too. But the execution means my eyes are constantly trying to work out what I'm even looking at. Book's ship has a weird shape that changes so much; ít's like Michael Bay's Transformers, where the robots are big chaotic jumbles of metal.

Stark · 14-12-2020 12:27PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Shades of the 'aul "why don't they call the Avengers?" argument used in the various MCU once-off films; the obvious answer is "well then you don't have much of a story", but my headcanon simply rationalises that prolonged or constant use of the personal transporters can cause <insert medical issues here>. That and just pinging from one end of your ship to the other, rather than walking, would probably be a massive social faux-pax. And it'd just increase the possibility of horrible accidents with matter trying to occupy the same space.

I'm sure those things must have failsafe checks to prevent accidents like two people materialising in the same place. Otherwise Linus would have materialised in the space outside the hull by now.

Banana Republic 1 · 14-12-2020 12:32PM

Stark wrote: »

I'm sure those things must have failsafe checks to prevent accidents like two people materialising in the same place. Otherwise Linus would have materialised in the space outside the hull by now.

Not much point trying to make sense of these things as the writers don’t Star Trek is no longer sci fi it’s just fantasy.

Banana Republic 1 · 14-12-2020 12:35PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Shades of the 'aul "why don't they call the Avengers?" argument used in the various MCU once-off films; the obvious answer is "well then you don't have much of a story", but my headcanon simply rationalises that prolonged or constant use of the personal transporters can cause <insert medical issues here>. That and just pinging from one end of your ship to the other, rather than walking, would probably be a massive social faux-pax. And it'd just increase the possibility of horrible accidents with matter trying to occupy the same space.

One thing I've never quite got used to with Discovery as a series - and is something the future setting has only increased - is the ship designs. Or lack thereof. I've actually always liked Discovery's own design, eccentric as it is. The spinning is a bit dumb but the overall design works as something different, but still Trek. Nicer to look at than the Oberth class etc.

The future ships though ... eh, I dunno. I kinda get what they're going for with the idea of reactive modules changing shape; that the ships themselves are programmable matter too. But the execution means my eyes are constantly trying to work out what I'm even looking at. Book's ship has a weird shape that changes so much; ít's like Michael Bay's Transformers, where the robots are big chaotic jumbles of metal.

The discovery was created years ago by actual Star Trek people, it was part of a comic or something. The new ships were created by this bad robot lot.

pixelburp · 14-12-2020 12:37PM

Stark wrote: »

I'm sure those things must have failsafe checks to prevent accidents like two people materialising in the same place. Otherwise Linus would have materialised in the space outside the hull by now.

Sure, Trek often adds some hand waving technobabble - but I also bet it's not a 0% possibility either; that'd be impossible. So you'd imagine that heavy usage would only drive up the statistical likelihood of an Ensign zapping themselves into the bulkhead. That or just constant use giving you awful nausea, migraines or whatnot.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Not much point trying to make sense of these things as the writers don’t Star Trek is no longer sci fi it’s just fantasy.

Transporter tech is fantasy, let's not be coy here. Invented cos it was cheaper than making "shuttle lands on planet" FX sequences back in the 60s and just stuck since then. I believe the technology is kinda, sorta theoretically possible but the power requirements to dissemble and reassemble not just you, but the 32,000 species of bacteria that live on or in us, makes transportation the more outlandish technologies in Trek IMO. Far too many variables to juggle just to avoid disaster. And that's before you enter the philosophical quandary about the self; kinda nuked by the constant "transporter accident" episodes and Tom Rikers knocking about the universe

Unless everyone in the Trek world has horrendous gut issues because their gut bacteria were zapped out of existence 100 transports ago :pac:

breezy1985 · 14-12-2020 12:44PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The discovery was created years ago by actual Star Trek people, it was part of a comic or something. The new ships were created by this bad robot lot.

Its based on a Ralph Mcquarrie Enterprise design for the movies

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--MJHk6h06--%2Fc_scale%2Cf_auto%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_800%2F18lsjl7zu3nqljpg.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--MJHk6h06--%2Fc_scale%2Cf_auto%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_800%2F18lsjl7zu3nqljpg.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

GreeBo · 14-12-2020 12:59PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Sure, Trek often adds some hand waving technobabble - but I also bet it's not a 0% possibility either; that'd be impossible. So you'd imagine that heavy usage would only drive up the statistical likelihood of an Ensign zapping themselves into the bulkhead. That or just constant use giving you awful nausea, migraines or whatnot.

Transporter tech is fantasy, let's not be coy here. Invented cos it was cheaper than making "shuttle lands on planet" FX sequences back in the 60s and just stuck since then. I believe the technology is kinda, sorta theoretically possible but the power requirements to dissemble and reassemble not just you, but the 32,000 species of bacteria that live on or in us, makes transportation the more outlandish technologies in Trek IMO. Far too many variables to juggle just to avoid disaster. And that's before you enter the philosophical quandary about the self; kinda nuked by the constant "transporter accident" episodes and Tom Rikers knocking about the universe

Unless everyone in the Trek world has horrendous gut issues because their gut bacteria were zapped out of existence 100 transports ago :pac:

Agreed, but in a world where you have them, it seems mad that people dont use them all the time.
Book and Burnham escaped by using them every 30s earlier this season.

Based on the size of ships alone it would seem like they are required...
It would actually make more sense if turbo lifts were just transporter pads actually.

breezy1985 · 14-12-2020 01:02PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed, but in a world where you have them, it seems mad that people dont use them all the time.
Book and Burnham escaped by using them every 30s earlier this season.

Based on the size of ships alone it would seem like they are required...
It would actually make more sense if turbo lifts were just transporter pads actually.

Ya the transporter throws up a ton of plotholes.
In PIC it does seem that in cities you have to beam to a pad which is probably for common courtesy rather than technological necessity

FunLover18 · 14-12-2020 01:06PM

I'm 30, I got my first laptop which could play DVDs 12 years ago and I've had Netflix for over 5 years but too often I'm sitting on the sofa late at night watching Netflix on the PlayStation and I remember "I could be watching this in bed".

Old habits die hard. When you jump 900 years into the future, you're not going to suddenly adjust to modern technology like you've lived with it all your life.

pixelburp · 14-12-2020 01:38PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed, but in a world where you have them, it seems mad that people dont use them all the time.
Book and Burnham escaped by using them every 30s earlier this season.

Based on the size of ships alone it would seem like they are required...
It would actually make more sense if turbo lifts were just transporter pads actually.

More to that, why would you even need a standing army in Trek? Any unscrupulous race could just get one transporter, their most obsequious and decorated soldier and deliberately fudge their transporter's settings for infinite soldiers. The tech is just daft across the franchise, at least Enterprise kept it restricted by its own chronology.

Evade · 14-12-2020 01:40PM

pixelburp wrote: »

More to that, why would you even need a standing army in Trek? Any unscrupulous race could just get one transporter, their most obsequious and decorated soldier and deliberately fudge their transporter's settings for infinite soldiers

Because that doesn't work.

pixelburp · 14-12-2020 01:53PM

Evade wrote: »

Because that doesn't work.

Who says this magical box can't? It has frequently caused universe jumps, merged creatures, and duplicates of the original "pattern", so who says you couldn't intentionally hack the system so the transporter thinks it finished a cycle, allowing replication? If it's a machine, it can be hacked. It has bugs, those bugs can be intended. This is me speaking as a software dev who likes breaking things lol

The tech is the most easily defined as magical so I wouldn't put any limits on what it can or can't do. Cos the writers frequently didn't

corkie · 14-12-2020 01:55PM

Talk of transporter's has me wondering why they didn't develop the

"Spatial projector" or "Spatial trajector"

Feature in Picard to get from and to different planets

Evade · 14-12-2020 02:08PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Who says this magical box can't? It has frequently caused universe jumps, merged creatures, and duplicates of the original "pattern", so who says you couldn't intentionally hack the system so the transporter thinks it finished a cycle, allowing replication? If it's a machine, it can be hacked. It has bugs, those bugs can be intended. This is me speaking as a software dev who likes breaking things lol

The tech is the most easily defined as magical so I wouldn't put any limits on what it can or can't do. Cos the writers frequently didn't

There are plenty of limits to what transporters can and can't do and almost every time they're bent it's explicitly stated how.

This is a very "movie about space wizards intended for children" argument. Just because there's a box that does one fantastical thing that isn't a reason to throw out all the rules of your universe.

Evade · 14-12-2020 02:13PM

corkie wrote: »

Talk of transporter's has me wondering why they didn't develop the

"Spatial projector" or "Spatial trajector"

Feature in Picard to get from and to different planets

Or they should be at a point where they can reproduce Iconian Gateways or mitigate the side effects of the Inverter

Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Comments

Star Trek Discovery Season 3 [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]