Agreed, Discovery has really only scratched the surface of what can be done with the Federation’s rebuilding itself, Earth’s new isolationist tendencies, and the unified Vulcan/Romulan society. It’d be a shame to leave all that behind. Plus, we still need to learn what’s become of the Klingons!
Comment on Paul Giamatti Boards ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 months agoI couldn’t agree less re: the 32nd century. They’ve created an interesting setting, and I’m glad they’re going to keep it alive.
usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
The Burn being caused by a magic baby having a tantrum kinda ruined the whole setting for me. There’s a lot of potential with moving to the 32nd century, but if that’s the quality of storytelling we’re gonna get, it doesn’t seem worth it. I’d much rather see a 24th century setting that follows up on the galaxy post Dominion War and the return of Voyager. There’s a lot of untold story there that would be great to see… Although I’d hope it’s not more magic baby style stuff.
ThirdDurasSister@startrek.website 5 months ago
The Burn has one of the most classic Star Trek explanations ever—normal human(oid) gains magic powers after being exposed to strange energies. The Burn was several classic Star Trek stories woven together to tell a new tale. It’s basically a retelling of the TOS episode Charlie X.
Trauma acting as the trigger for those powers is the most believable part of the Burn. Emotions causing people to react is nothing new. It’s how humans operate in real life. Entire wars have been started over the death of a loved one. Emotions acting as a trigger is not new to Star Trek either. It’s been used a motivation for dozens of stories.
Star Trek has used the trope dozens of times and several in an almost identical scenario. Such as when Kevin wiped out the Husnock in response to them murdering his wife. Or Riker breaking his promise not to use his Q powers after Wesley was killed. It’s a realistic human(oid) response—trauma like the loss of a loved one can trigger a reaction with no bounds.
It’s really disgusting anyone would refer to the grief and trauma one experiences over the loss of a parent as a “tantrum.” Your comment is the very definition of hyperbole.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 months ago
I think the cause of the Burn is a nearly-perfect example of Star Trek’s humanist values, and find it interesting when people feel the need to go out of their way to misrepresent it with words like “magic” in an effort to justify their dislike of it.
canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
We can replace the words “magic” with “strongly telepathic” and it’s basically the same problem.
It’s a great idea to fuck warp travel right on its head as a concept, but the execution was majorly lacking for me. I would have much rather had a continuation of the plot from Force of Nature where warp had significantly damaged subspace gradually (like a climate change allegory), rather than a universe-wide explosion that happened all at once in a flash.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 months ago
I don’t know that I agree that “telepathic” is quite the right word - Su’Kal was a polyploidal mutant whose genes were affected by the dilithium in the environment - a sci-fi extension of a real genetic phenomenon that can occur when extreme environmental stresses are present. The explanation they gave was more scientific that many of those that we’ve had across the history of the franchise.
At the end of the day, if it doesn’t work for everyone, that’s fine - I personally think it’s a very TOS/TNG idea, sort of a “Charlie X” by way of “The Survivors”, and I think it’s pretty obvious that the producers wanted the source to have a “human face” if you’ll forgive the expression.
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I find it interesting when people who are confronted with disagreement about a plot point they like resort to making implications about the other person’s character instead of discussing anything in the post they’re responding to.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 months ago
I believe I did responf directly to your misrepresentation of the facts, but do go on.
(please don’t go on)
Amazed@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Agreed. For me, the only “magic” Star Trek needed was stories about relationships that took their time unfolding, with competency. There occasionally were unexplained encounters, but the focus was always on something that could be solvable when the crew worked together. There was resolution. Plus, I really liked the episodic structure of TNG and DS9, where I could get onboard with any episode almost. Within the self contained episodes there could be “twists of fate” that exist today. No more giant fantastic leaps than we already make by believing everything is in the future with their tech.
The “new” trek is too focused on being cinematic. Discovery was interesting at the beginning but it was overly precious and predictable, and overly representative. Designed to keep people hooked. I think the quality suffered greatly. I think representation is super important, having characters with diverse identities, but doing it for diversity’s sake isn’t the way. If we’re really in the future, then people just are.