Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Star Trek related discussion, information, links, etc.

Moderator: Dancyer McCoy

Forum rules
For those who haven't noticed the Forum Rules have been revised. It might be a good idea to take a look at them if you haven't read them for awhile. You'll find them in the Forum Rules forum at the top of the index page.
User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:01 pm

sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Well, there went the argument. I have no response to you anymore. You didn't say anything in your last post in response to me Jace other than to be belligerent. So, yeah. This argument is pretty much done. But because I'm a glutten for punishment and have a keyboard and am not just on my cell, let's do this.
"I have nothing further to say to you except all of the things I'm about to say...."

:roll:
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This isn't a point, this is an oversimplification of the plot of TWOK. So yeah. I've got nothing to say.
Again... you just said something. But no... that literally is the plot of TWOK. It's not an oversimplification. It's a byline. It's exactly the plot summed up into one sentence and covers all the bases of the main crux of what drives the plot.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Your inability to acknowledge them does not change their existence. You have not proven them to not exist and I can provide a miriade of evidence they not only do exist but that a number of fans see them as well.
I do indeed have a hard time acknowledging things that don't exist. Perhaps it's a character flaw.

But I cannot prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. But just because a bunch of people have issues with something doesn't make it bad or not canon or whatever your latest statement is.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This is not a point or an argument.
No, it was me directly mocking your declaration. I didn't find it necessary to argue it since... you don't get to decide.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Discovery does not fit into the timeline and thus cannot be considered canon. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT do, so they are canon. End of story.
Except of course that it IS canon. Again... you don't get to decide. You can throw a fit if you want every day of the week and twice on Sundays, stomp your feet, make sweeping declarations and come off like a spoiled, entitled "fan" all you want... but the show takes place in the Prime universe and it exists. Therefore, it's canon. You don't have to like it.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Realize there are people with legitimate reasons to dislike a show and do not have to fall in line just because it bears the name of a certain franchise. Then I won't have to deal with it anymore.
Realize that just because you're entitled to your opinion doesn't mean other people have to agree with you and don't have the right to tell you all the reasons why on a forum we both share.

I never would likely have said anything to you if not for your direct insistence that the show isn't canon and you cannot abide it.

Basically, I responded to you because you threw a tantrum and I thought it would be amusing.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Bad fan? Really? And I'm the one gatekeeping?
Yes. Yes you are. "All Change is bad!" "This is not trek!" "I will not recognize this as Canon!" As if anyone cares...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Sure. Yeah. One has a theory that makes some sense, the other is subspace fungus.
As opposed to a super special crystal that doesn't obey the laws of known physics allowing it to regulate matter/antimatter reactions?
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
The fact that you know of the drive but don't know of how it directly compares to the warp drive of Star trek both confuses and amuses me.
The fact that you think it bares any resemblance at all to the Warp Drive of the Enterprise just because it has a potentially similar function doesn't surprise ME at all. Thing is.. I actually know what I'm talking about. They are not in ANY way similar. The Cochrane drive actually moves the starship faster than light, requiring deflector shields and other such technology to deal with shit it might fly into. The Alcubierre drive doesn't move the ship it's attached to AT ALL. It moves SPACE.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
It's right next to the unobtainium in my closet with the vibranium and adamantium.

I said based in some way real science, not 100% real science. It's all fake, but warp drive is more realistic than spore drive.
No, they are both precisely the same amount of realistic: Which is to say... Un.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Wep, that's why most are powered by a matter/antimatter reactor and still use a warp bubble. Yep, because they are all different technology and share nothing in common.
Yeah because no technologies that exist in this world could possibly share tech with other similar things, right? I mean, the plane I was on 2 weeks ago and the space shuttle both have jet engines and use the similar liquid fuels, but I don't think I'm taking the boeing to space anytime soon.

Bad metaphor on your part, but since you don't even understand how your previous comparisons work, I'll just let it go at that.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
It's spacemagic, I'm handwaving it away.

Maybe it uses spores...

(Not my real argument, but at this point you aren't gonna get that from me.)
You don't HAVE a real argument because there isn't one to have. It didn't happen on screen. The Transwarp project was abandoned canonically because it didn't work and despite what you seem to think... you have zero control over what is considered canon.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
You can call this Star Trek in the same way you can call a dog a cat, but it does not make it true. CBS can call it Star Trek, but that means only so much. What matters is the feeling. What matters is what it does.
No if CBS calls it Star Trek... then it's Star Trek. They own Star Trek. They get to decide. That's how copyright works. Why you don't get that is beyond me...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
By that definition alone, Discovery is Star Trek. It looks like Star Trek. It sounds like Star Trek. It plays out like Star Trek.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
If it doesn't look like Star Trek, sound like Star Trek, or have the same type of stories as Star Trek, is it Star Trek?
Oh for christ's sake... :roll:
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
Apply test to Orville and Discovery and ask yourself why the fans are reacting this way.
Orville is meh. Orville is the same stories we've already seen, recycled, and told with slightly more humor attached. No thanks. It's fine for what it is, but you know what it isn't?

Star Trek. It's just an homage. No more.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
And then remember Axanar.
What about Axanar? They were dumb enough to crowd fund the money to do something they should have just funded themselves if they had planned to do it. You cannot crowd fund on someone else's IP if there's no open license or contract to do so. IP law is pretty straight forward about that kind of thing.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
CBS has treated fans like crap and now they have made a series that ignores the expectations of fans.
Some fans. Discovery's reviews and ratings have been good since the outset by the vast majority of people. It's just people who can't accept the differences, like you, who are clamoring for it to go away and wanting to see it fail.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
No shit it divided the fanbase as it has. And forget just saying it's the fanatics.


It is.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
This fandom is dying.
It isn't.
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
It was massive only 10 years ago, even bigger in 2005 when Enterprise ended...
Are you joking? There's a reason Enterprise was cancelled. Trek WAS dying then. People didn't care anymore. ENT waited too long to become worth watching regularly. The Trek fanbase had largely written it off or walked away from it. Only diehards were even bothering. You're remembering things the way you want them to be and not the way they were...
sirus wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:47 pm
...and that doesn't even go into the size of it when TNG, DS9, and VOY were on the air. Trek used to be more than this. And now it has been mismanaged to hell and Discovery is the latest symptom of this. I have never bothered to pretend to like anything made by CBS for Trek and I won't start now. I don't like Discovery because I don't like the way it treats canon and I really don't like the way some new fans talk to us older fans who have a problem. Yes, yes I would have liked it if it looked exactly like it did in the 60s. I freaking adored Star Trek Continues and they worked their butts off to make it look just right. I loved Prelude to Axanar because they gave a crap about getting the look of the era right. If Discovery couldn't do that era right, they shouldn't have done that era.
Thank you for finally FINALLY being honest here.

You just don't like change. CBS has the rights and they're doing it their own way, which is their right, and you don't like and you refuse to like it. And you don't like all these new fans in your space. I'm not a new fan, by the way, but I don't stand for gatekeeping.

You say you would have liked it if it looked the same as it did back int he 60s...

Okay. Maybe you would have. It would have bored 90% of everyone else. It would have looked terrible, dated and out of place on modern TV. And with the existence of Enterprise already accepted, there was no reason to return to the 60s look of everything being so bland and cardboard. And also, this wasn't the Enterprise.

But at least you're finally telling the truth: You don't like it because it wasn't what you wanted.

It has nothing to do with Discovery... it has everything to do with you.

So do us both a favor, Sirus... just stop. Do what you said you were going to do a couple posts ago and stop.

Because you look foolish. Not because there aren't people who agree with you. There are. But they are able to express their opinions in such a way that doesn't seem like someone throwing a tantrum, without the numerous spelling and grammatical errors, and don't hate the show simply to hate it and are willing to give it a chance to grow into something they can truly enjoy even if they don't right now. They aren't throwing around declarations how it isn't canon or pretending like they understand theoretical physics and speculative propulsion.

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13808
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:31 pm

As opposed to a super special crystal that doesn't obey the laws of known physics allowing it to regulate matter/antimatter reactions?
I gotta tell ya: Super special crystal to regulate a reaction is at least analogous to a lens of some sort.

Fungus, on the other hand, tends to represent a very different kind of trip. :tomato:

Then, again, perhaps that's what they were going for. If so, at least it's funny.

Shit ... perhaps they were channeling Lewis Carroll. :[]]
I genuinely don't get this: As long as I'm not going to be in the stall with you, neither of us is peering over the urinal divider, and no one is ogling, why should I care what sex or gender you are when using a public bathroom?

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:31 pm
I gotta tell ya: Super special crystal to regulate a reaction is at least analogous to a lens of some sort.
Sure, that makes logical sense. But it's still handwaving spacemagic since dilithium doesn't exist. lol
JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:31 pm
Fungus, on the other hand, tends to represent a very different kind of trip. :tomato:

Then, again, perhaps that's what they were going for. If so, at least it's funny.

Shit ... perhaps they were channeling Lewis Carroll. :[]]
I mean, given that we've now seen a few signs of life INSIDE the Mycelium network, I'm sure to a point, it was intentional. Especially given Tilly's "hallucinations"... Next week's episode looks like it might even further this dynamic.

I don't think it's any more or less silly. It's just different.

Scientists have already speculated that subspace may be multidimensional and that life may be possible within it. Fungal life is as likely as any other... maybe more likely. The transport mechanism hasn't really been explained fully but I don't expect them to, really. Handwavy spacemagic, etc.

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13808
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:04 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm
I don't think it's any more or less silly. It's just different.
Nah. It's definitely sillier. :wink:
I genuinely don't get this: As long as I'm not going to be in the stall with you, neither of us is peering over the urinal divider, and no one is ogling, why should I care what sex or gender you are when using a public bathroom?

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:12 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:04 pm
Nah. It's definitely sillier. :wink:
(-o|-)

User avatar
Michael
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 12686
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: North of the North Pole
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by Michael » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:00 pm

captainuniverse wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:32 am
Wait until you see the second episode of season two, Michael. It felt like a classic episode in my opinion.
I had the same reaction, cap. I watched the second episode of season two and thought it even better than the first.

Also, I have now watched all of season one. My quick review is: I love this show!

The first season in my opinion fires on all cylinders from the first scene. The pace, the scope of the story, the characters, it all works brilliantly, and surpasses the efforts of DS9, VOY, and ENT. The writing is excellent. While I felt the last two episodes of the first season strained credulity just a bit, I didn’t think they did so to the breaking point, and certainly not beyond what has been the norm for a number of episodes on past Trek series.

The writing in this series stands out as superior to what I saw in DS9, VOY, and ENT. These aren’t meandering intellectual exercises which get tied up in a bow in the last five minutes as was too often the case with those three series, but tightly written *real* stories which put the characters front and center and engage not only the mind but the emotions as well. And most importantly, there are consequences which are not simply hand-waved away (I’m looking at you DS9’s "In the Pale Moonlight"), but which are an integral part of the story being told.

The idealism and the philosophy with which Roddenberry imbued his universe is present not only in words, but in the actions of the characters. That means more to me than how the Klingons look, the design of the ships, or some fine point of Trek canon.

My view is that a storytelling universe which has been around for more than fifty years has to adapt to the time it is now presented just as Dr. Who and Marvel have done. Attempting to look exactly as it did and to tell stories exactly as they were told fifty years ago in my mind misses the point, and won’t appeal to most of those watching today. If Star Trek is to remain relevant, it must speak to people today—in terms of the culture in which they now live. It is my opinion that Star Trek: Discovery does just that.
-Michael Gray
Image
"In Great Deeds Something Abides"

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13808
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:40 am

Season One probably does fire "on all cylinders". I just don't approve of the vehicle's design, direction, or destination.

I agree that the last three movies and Star Trek: Discovery speak much better to a modern audience than does Star Trek of yore.

For some, though, that means more's the pity, because of what it says about a modern audience.

This series itself would not have been likely to drive me away from Star Trek. In conjunction with Abrams' films, though ... it may well contribute to doing just that. (The first season hurt its overall case, while the second is recouping some of that loss.)

This is not an "I'm taking my ball and going home" threat. Frankly, I think it's indicative of a larger issue for me.
I just can't relate to much of what goes on today, in Trek specifically or the world in general, like a decrepit old man bewildered by the march of time.

I don't imagine I or my stuff will be missed.
I genuinely don't get this: As long as I'm not going to be in the stall with you, neither of us is peering over the urinal divider, and no one is ogling, why should I care what sex or gender you are when using a public bathroom?

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:50 pm

Michael wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:00 pm

Also, I have now watched all of season one. My quick review is: I love this show!
Amen!
Michael wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:00 pm
My view is that a storytelling universe which has been around for more than fifty years has to adapt to the time it is now presented just as Dr. Who and Marvel have done. Attempting to look exactly as it did and to tell stories exactly as they were told fifty years ago in my mind misses the point, and won’t appeal to most of those watching today. If Star Trek is to remain relevant, it must speak to people today—in terms of the culture in which they now live. It is my opinion that Star Trek: Discovery does just that.
I agree with literally every point you made but ESPECIALLY this.

Stories change and the way we tell them changes. The stories we told 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago were each different in fundamental ways, even though the core remained the same. And the way we told them at each of those intervals was drastically different as well. It's why older TV shows just have a hard time holding up today. Just as ones from the early days of TV did in the 70s.

It doesn't mean ANY of them were wrong or bad. It just means things changed. It doesn't say anything bad about the audience, either. Because the world changes. Modern TV shows need to be more sophisticated and have more to offer an audience than they used to in the way of visuals, multi threaded storylines, complicated characters that maybe aren't as clear cut good or bad as they used to. They need to be REAL. Or at least MORE real than they used to be.

Discovery is Modern Trek for a Modern World.

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13808
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:57 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:50 pm
Discovery is Modern Trek for a Modern World.
Yep.

But there's good and bad in that.
I genuinely don't get this: As long as I'm not going to be in the stall with you, neither of us is peering over the urinal divider, and no one is ogling, why should I care what sex or gender you are when using a public bathroom?

User avatar
Michael
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 12686
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: North of the North Pole
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by Michael » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:21 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:50 pm
Stories change and the way we tell them changes.
And that is a good thing.
It doesn't mean ANY of them were wrong or bad. It just means things changed. It doesn't say anything bad about the audience, either. Because the world changes.
I agree.
Discovery is Modern Trek for a Modern World.
Exactly.
-Michael Gray
Image
"In Great Deeds Something Abides"

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:44 pm

JaceRidley wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:50 pm
Discovery is Modern Trek for a Modern World.
Do you not like the classic show? Do you not feel "In the Pale Moonlight" holds up? Does the Trek of the past so diminish with age that it loses it potency this much that we need a new dark world, a "modern Trek"?

Star Trek came out in an era when all the shows were dark and brutal. It came out in an era of racial tension and strife. And how did it tell it's stories? Did it do them as Discovery does? Because let's face it TOS came out in an era a lot like this one. Imagine if Gene had come out and instead of making Klingons an allegory for some outside power, the Communists at the time, specifically the Soviet Union, he said they were "Lyndon B. Johnson Supporters". Because the showrunners of Discovery did something a lot like that.

I can go on and on as to how this "Modern Trek" is less than the Trek before it. I think the Orville is much closer, despite the potty humor. It shows a bright and shining future, standing in contrast to a world in which we live in where that seems impossible. TNG, DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise all played off the motif of that same bright future. Star Trek was meant to show a brighter future.

I'm tired of seeing crewmen getting blown into space.

I'm tired of blood and violence in Trek.

I am tired of darkness in Trek.

We already had a Star Trek Into Darkness and no one really liked it. Why must we continue to travel darker? I like season 2 of this show as it is feeling like it is going to move upward. I felt like episode 5 was trying to hard to be bright and positive and needed a redshirt death to hammer home the danger, but all in all, there has been a move back to the light.

Star Trek is about the light. I used to think Star Wars was about the light too, but recent movies have been all about the gray howling void and I'm not about that life.

Star Trek is the show where sometimes you beat the enemy by finding out their scheme and then beaming all the pesky little tribbles onto their ship before they jump into warp and sometimes you have to dance with the devil by the pale moonlight to do it. Either way, it is in service to the better nature of humanity.

Long story short, all the best Starfleet officers are Lawful Good and if you can't see a Paladin doing it, your main character/CO sure as fuck shouldn't.
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

JM1776
Federation Ambassador
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 13808
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Pennsyltucky
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JM1776 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:05 pm

Star Trek is the show where sometimes you beat the enemy by finding out their scheme and then beaming all the pesky little tribbles onto their ship before they jump into warp...
:-s

That was one of the most myopic and cruel endings a Trek episode ever had.

The Klingons disintegrated every one of those tribbles, and we both know it.

It's possibly one of Trek's ten darkest conclusions if a viewer can see past the nose on his or her face.
I genuinely don't get this: As long as I'm not going to be in the stall with you, neither of us is peering over the urinal divider, and no one is ogling, why should I care what sex or gender you are when using a public bathroom?

User avatar
sirus
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:21 am
Location: In a van by the river, stealing your wi-fi

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by sirus » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:33 pm

JM1776 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:05 pm
Star Trek is the show where sometimes you beat the enemy by finding out their scheme and then beaming all the pesky little tribbles onto their ship before they jump into warp...
:-s

That was one of the most myopic and cruel endings a Trek episode ever had.

The Klingons disintegrated every one of those tribbles, and we both know it.

It's possibly one of Trek's ten darkest conclusions if a viewer can see past the nose on his or her face.
:hrs:
I thought Worf implied the Tribbles proved to be an ecological menace? That would have meant they would have survived and gone on to live on a number of different worlds. Given their nature as hardy adapters and food scavengers, I would not be surprised if they survived independent of the batch brought back by Sisko and the gang well into the 24th century. The Klingons ensured they were not common. But I do not see it going quite that easy.

Also, Scotty clearly said they would be no trouble at all, so the Klingons likely weren't bothered too much... \:/
From ignorance lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

ryjuda.deviantart.com

User avatar
Michael
Senior Admin
Senior Admin
Posts: 12686
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: North of the North Pole
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by Michael » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:39 pm

sirus wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:44 pm
Star Trek is the show where sometimes you beat the enemy by finding out their scheme and then beaming all the pesky little tribbles onto their ship before they jump into warp and sometimes you have to dance with the devil by the pale moonlight to do it. Either way, it is in service to the better nature of humanity.

Long story short, all the best Starfleet officers are Lawful Good and if you can't see a Paladin doing it, your main character/CO sure as fuck shouldn't.
How is what Sisko did "In the Pale Moonlight" Lawful Good?

He stated in his log:
So… I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all… I think I can live with it… And if I had to do it all over again… I would.
How is that not dark?
-Michael Gray
Image
"In Great Deeds Something Abides"

User avatar
JaceRidley
-The Captain-
-The Captain-
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery - Season 2

Post by JaceRidley » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:26 pm

I had written a VERY long reply to Sirus but apparently I took too damn long to write it since I was doing other things and the forum lost it all on me so I'm a bit annoyed right now....

The highlights:

Sirus, your views of Star Trek are so far off the mark, I'm not really sure we're watching the same show.

I had written out about 30 examples of all the ways you were wrong about Starfleet officers being paragons of virtue and citing specific examples about all of them but it's all gone now... suffice it to say, if need be, I can replicate the list.

Examples included, but are FAR from limited to, Janeway murdering Tuvix, using psychological torture on the crew of the Equinox, giving aid and comfort to the enemy with the Borg, Starfleet conspiring to kill the Klingon Chancellor, the very existence of General Order 34, the events of Sisko covering up a murder and forging documents, Garth of Izar, Nova Squad, Red Squad, Ben Maxwell's one ship war against the Cardassians, Archer stealing Warp Cores from people, The ENTIRE EVENTS around the development of the Phase cloak and the Starship Pegasus, the ENTIRE series of events around the movie Insurrection and the Starfleet Sanctioned removal of the Ba'ku, and many, many others. Really, I could go on a LONG time concerning every show and every movie. I have examples for everyone.

In the end it works out to this...

You're seeing Star Trek how you WANT to see it. Now how it is. You've constructed some kind of dream world scenario where everything in the classic series and the 80s-90s was perfect and Discovery is just dark and nothing else was. It's bullshit. It's time to wake up from your dream now.

I don't care if you like the show. But it's time to stop making shit up to support your dislike of it and then claiming that those reasons, which aren't true, make it not canon and not star trek.

Post Reply