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.
Comment on Paul Giamatti Boards ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 3 months agoThe 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.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 months ago
canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 3 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 3 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.
canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
I think putting the face onto the source is what made it lose the value, unfortunately.
My comparison is what they did with the Borg and the Queen. Wolf 359 is a terrifying, tragic ordeal, made all the more serious by the fact that it was done by one cube that could not be negotiated or reasoned with. As soon as the Borg had a way to negotiate and reason, they became less scary because they had understandable motives and goals that could be bargained with, as excellently demonstrated by Janeway.
Ultimately, I agree with you that it’s kind of more of a TOS-y sort of plot device. I do feel like back then they really followed the science being indistinguishable from magic logic, and we’ve progressed over time to wanting more hard and serious technobabble. I think that’s kind of a disconnect for me, personally, is that they had to dip into a serious explanation for something that effectively functions like magic.
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 3 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 3 months ago
I believe I did responf directly to your misrepresentation of the facts, but do go on.
(please don’t go on)
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I gave my opinion on a key plot point, which you took so much offense to, you ignored everything else in the post. Please, keep living up to your username.
Amazed@lemmy.world 3 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.
ThirdDurasSister@startrek.website 3 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.