Discovery Star Trek: Discovery - Part 1

[Dark Raven]

I think Transporter technology would be more clear cut if there were no conversion of matter into energy. If it were merely a confinement beam that envelopes a person and moves them from one place to another like a car moving a passenger from one location to another, then it would be straightforward.

Isn't that how other teleporters in other science fiction or comics work? When Red Skull was zapped by the cosmic cube, was he converted to energy first or was he simply shifted from one location to another in a beam of light?

Sometimes it seems like Star Trek transporters are like jigsaw puzzles. Let's say you were taking it to a friend's house, you'd break it down into its pieces and then reassemble it back on the other end. But there has still been an element of disassembling. Or like any piece of machinery or tech that is too big to transport, and you have to take it apart while in transit and then reassemble it on the other end.

On the Orville, I sometimes wonder why they don't simply use transporter technology to get out of situations or beam down. Then I remember I'm not actually watching Star Trek.

On another note, I wouldn't mind if they killed off Michael Burnham. I feel that she's the weakest and dullest character and holds the series back. If they cut her loose and any ties to Spock, I think the series could grow much more freely. She feels the most forced.

 

[Flash525]

Technically speaking, everyone who uses the transporter is a copy. It breaks them down or disassembles their molecules on one end, and then the pattern buffer stores their patterns so that it can create a copy on the other end while the original is gone. It's not just shifting a person from one location to another.

I remember reading something about this a long time ago. Wasn't it rebuffed though? I was under the impression that the interpretation here of the transporter were misguided.

On another note, where was Reno this week? She was there with Stamets when Tilly disappeared last week, and now she's nowhere to be seen.

Honestly, whilst a damn good question, I never actually noticed her absence.

I think Transporter technology would be more clear cut if there were no conversion of matter into energy. If it were merely a confinement beam that envelopes a person and moves them from one place to another like a car moving a passenger from one location to another, then it would be straightforward.

Surely anything being transported in such a way would be broken down first? The sheer force of transporting a person through space would surely result in them being ripped apart otherwise? I suppose, in these instances, we need to remember that it is indeed fiction.

On another note, I wouldn't mind if they killed off Michael Burnham. I feel that she's the weakest and dullest character and holds the series back. If they cut her loose and any ties to Spock, I think the series could grow much more freely. She feels the most forced.

Hah, this'll never happen, at least for several years to come. DSC was (initially I guess) supposed to be her story, though it's certainly evolved a little since then. Ironically similar to the Walking Dead in that it all started with, and was about Rick, but other characters came along and took the focus from time to time, then Rick disappeared, and the show moved on. I guess if Michael were to die, the show would continue, but I wouldn't expect her departure anytime soon. ​

 

[Marvolo]

I'm hoping Michael becomes the Captain of Discovery eventually. I dont know why some people hate her. She certainly doesnt feel forced to me. Shes as valid a crew member as any other.

 

[Dr.]

I think Transporter technology would be more clear cut if there were no conversion of matter into energy. If it were merely a confinement beam that envelopes a person and moves them from one place to another like a car moving a passenger from one location to another, then it would be straightforward.

Quite apart from the enormous energy requirements, disassembling a human body (or anything else) at the level of quarks would produce heat hotter than the interior of a star. But based on the fictional evidence, nothing like an intense nuclear detonation occurs at the site of a transporter activation. Even if the body is only disassembled at the level of atoms (slightly less power needed, slightly less heat produced), there’s still the question of how to move these particles at high speed. (It’s strongly implied that a transporter signal, even if it doesn’t travel at light speed, is very fast.) Typically, moving particles around requires a massive particle accelerator. Finally, there’s the issue of performing a complete, high fidelity scan of the body (exterior and interior - including the “brain state” to preserve identity, personality, memories, etc.). This would involve, it might be assumed, a tremendous amount of computer processing power and bandwidth.

So, yeah… some fantastical tech that somehow moves a person through an extra dimension and/or utilizes a mini wormhole might be less problematic - inasmuch as the subject remains intact and there’s no ethical or quantum mechanical issues to do with disassembly/reassembly.

But as noted, this version is contradicted by a number of Trek episodes, as well as the “matter stream” and “pattern buffer” jargon.


More generally: granting the sci-fi conceit of “teleportation,” the concept of twin chambers or pods (as seen, for example, in The Fly) always struck me as quasi-plausible. I guess because it evokes the analogy of radio - where you need both a transmitter and receiver. And without hardware at both ends of the process, the radio waves (or transporter signals) are essentially useless. But in the ST version of teleportation, only half the hardware is, apparently, unnecessary. I.e., dematerialization or re-materialization can be done remotely, with no tech needed at the remote location.

 

[RockSP]

I'm hoping Michael becomes the Captain of Discovery eventually. I dont know why some people hate her. She certainly doesnt feel forced to me. Shes as valid a crew member as any other.

If some don't like her, hey so be it. Different strokes and all that good stuff. But anyone thinking they are just going to kill off the lead because they as an individual don't like them is looking to be disappointed, lol. Now if the actor wants to leave or there are behind the scenes issues between her and the producers then killing the character becomes an option, as we've seen multiple times in the past. I don't see that happening though. Martin-Green appears to be very enthusiastic about the part.

Reading these calls for her death kinda reminds me of someone I worked with back in the day wishing they'd kill of Sisqo and replace him with Ryker. Now granted this was during Season 1 of DS9 which wasn't good, IMO.

 

[chamber-music]

I didn't like Micheal in the first season but I like her in the 2nd season so far.

I like Micheal's current role as science office and general problem solver. I also enjoy the revolving Captain position idea on Discovery. Sets it apart from the other Trek shows and keeps things fresh.

 

[Dark Raven]

The two main things about Burnham I don't like are:

1) Sonnequa Martin-Green seems rather wooden and not that likeable. Were there not any other more interesting black actresses out there?

2) Trying to tie her to Spock and make her so important to the mythology is the thing which seems forced. If she weren't tied to Spock, she might seem like she has more room to breathe and be her own person.

 

[Flash525]

I'm hoping Michael becomes the Captain of Discovery eventually. I dont know why some people hate her. She certainly doesnt feel forced to me. Shes as valid a crew member as any other.

See, I'm hoping she doesn't become the Captain. I'm not quite sure what her position is at the moment; she was second in command of the Shenzhou, but she's not that high up in Discovery, is she? I worry that if she becomes the Captain, the show will end up focusing on her a little too much. At the moment there's a nice balance there.

I like Micheal's current role as science office and general problem solver. I also enjoy the revolving Captain position idea on Discovery. Sets it apart from the other Trek shows and keeps things fresh.

I'm quite liking this too, though I do wonder, if they continue down this route (which I'm totally happy with by the way) then there's a good chance that Discovery will be the ship with the highest number of Captain's once she's retired.

1) Sonnequa Martin-Green seems rather wooden and not that likeable. Were there not any other more interesting black actresses out there?

Not that you've forgotten, but I think a lot of viewers forget that Michael was brought up on Vulcan. She's a Human that has been brought up as a Vulcan; to adhere to logic and purge emotion. You can expect a Vulcan to do that without the usual side effects, but a Human? It probably stands to reason that they'd struggle to adapt. She was fine in the Walking Dead.

2) Trying to tie her to Spock and make her so important to the mythology is the thing which seems forced. If she weren't tied to Spock, she might seem like she has more room to breathe and be her own person.

I can appreciate this, cause her connection to Spock came out of nowhere (although to be fair, Spock's connection to Sybok came out of nowhere too). There may yet be more of a payoff to this though.​

 

[s72450]

Makes me wonder somewhat if by the end of the series something will happen that erases the Discovery crew from memory, hence why we never heard of Burnham until now or the spore drive. I mean it's a cheat way to make this relevant, but who knows.

 

[Flash525]

Makes me wonder somewhat if by the end of the series something will happen that erases the Discovery crew from memory, hence why we never heard of Burnham until now or the spore drive. I mean it's a cheat way to make this relevant, but who knows.

I doubt that'll be the case. Why would we need to have heard about the spore drive?

Presumably they'll stop using the spore drive because of it's effect on the spore life. As far as we know, it's only that one ship, owned by the Federation, that has the technology. It's further possible that only certain factions within the Federation will get to use it into the late 23rd and 24th (etc) century; would certainly explain how Sloan gets to DS9 so quickly.

The Excelsior had that transwarp drive in the Search for Spock. I don't remember that ever being mentioned again? It obviously wasn't the same type of drive implemented by the Borg. As for Michael, she's just an officer within Starfleet. Have we ever heard of Pike through TNG, DS9 or VOY? A lot of what Discovery has been about has been covert, so it's hardly surprising Burnham's name isn't plastered all across the history books.

 

[Dark Raven]

Not that you've forgotten, but I think a lot of viewers forget that Michael was brought up on Vulcan. She's a Human that has been brought up as a Vulcan; to adhere to logic and purge emotion. You can expect a Vulcan to do that without the usual side effects, but a Human? It probably stands to reason that they'd struggle to adapt. She was fine in the Walking Dead.

I can appreciate this, cause her connection to Spock came out of nowhere (although to be fair, Spock's connection to Sybok came out of nowhere too). There may yet be more of a payoff to this though.​

Both Saavik and Valeris seemed more interesting than Burnham, and they were Vulcans rather than humans. Spock was also far more interesting and didn't seem wooden. Leonard Nimoy was a better and more interesting actor than Sonnequa Martin-Green.

I don't know though if Burnham weren't even raised on Vulcan but just like any other human whether she would have been any more interesting. If she had no ties to Spock at all, would that have improved her performance and given her more freedom? I don't know.

Seven of Nine was meant to be emotionless too, but Jeri Ryan was still more interesting to watch.

Makes me wonder somewhat if by the end of the series something will happen that erases the Discovery crew from memory, hence why we never heard of Burnham until now or the spore drive. I mean it's a cheat way to make this relevant, but who knows.

I was hoping last episode would be where they'd have to stop using the spore drive because it was killing the aliens. I didn't want it to be about some monster (who turned out to be Hugh). I guess they wanted to get him back in the show though, but I was hoping it was the spore drive that was the cause of the problem.

I hope we don't have to go through several seasons with the spore drive, and only in the last couple of episodes of the entire series do they finally declare that it's illegal or harmful to the environment or other lifeforms.

 

[Flash525]

Both Saavik and Valeris seemed more interesting than Burnham, and they were Vulcans rather than humans. Spock was also far more interesting and didn't seem wooden. Leonard Nimoy was a better and more interesting actor than Sonnequa Martin-Green.

I wont disagree that Nimoy is the better actor, but he'd also been portraying the character for longer. Saavik and Valeris were interesting I suppose, but that's in part because we know less about them. That's my view at least. It's like, I find the Tholian and Breen more interesting than the Borg because we hardly know anything about the Tholian or Breen.

I don't know though if Burnham weren't even raised on Vulcan but just like any other human whether she would have been any more interesting. If she had no ties to Spock at all, would that have improved her performance and given her more freedom? I don't know.

It's something to ponder for sure. What did interest me about young Spock, is that he was the same age (give or take a couple of years) as Burnham. I didn't mind the idea that they were … siblings, but would have preferred him to be older than her. Is his age ever stated in TOS? You'd have thought, if they'd both grown up together, they'd have the same sense of logic to each other, although we've also got to remember that Michael didn't join Starfleet until adulthood (we saw her introduction to Georgiou).

Seven of Nine was meant to be emotionless too, but Jeri Ryan was still more interesting to watch.

Was you admitting her attire? Is that why more interesting?

 

[Dr.]

...What did interest me about young Spock, is that he was the same age (give or take a couple of years) as Burnham. I didn't mind the idea that they were … siblings, but would have preferred him to be older than her. Is his age ever stated in TOS?

In TOS, Spock was more-or-less Nimoy’s age (35ish at the start of the series). So he would have been early 20s during “The Cage” and will be about 25 when he (eventually ) shows up in DISCO. Burnham is 4 or 5 years older.

 

[Dark Raven]

I wont disagree that Nimoy is the better actor, but he'd also been portraying the character for longer. Saavik and Valeris were interesting I suppose, but that's in part because we know less about them. That's my view at least. It's like, I find the Tholian and Breen more interesting than the Borg because we hardly know anything about the Tholian or Breen.

It's something to ponder for sure. What did interest me about young Spock, is that he was the same age (give or take a couple of years) as Burnham. I didn't mind the idea that they were … siblings, but would have preferred him to be older than her. Is his age ever stated in TOS? You'd have thought, if they'd both grown up together, they'd have the same sense of logic to each other, although we've also got to remember that Michael didn't join Starfleet until adulthood (we saw her introduction to Georgiou).

Was you admitting her attire? Is that why more interesting?

Leonard Nimoy hadn't been playing Spock for longer in the first season of TOS but he was already more interesting than Burnham. Same with many other characters.

Burnham has the blandness of Mayweather from Enterprise and the abrasiveness of Kira Nerys or Ro Laren.

Even when we didn't know much about Burnham, she was dull. At the time one could've argued that it's because we don't know enough about her. But now we do, it can't be that she's dull because we know too much about her compared to those we know less about.

 

[Flash525]

Leonard Nimoy hadn't been playing Spock for longer in the first season of TOS but he was already more interesting than Burnham. Same with many other characters.

Admittedly, I didn't grow up with TOS, so maybe I'm not the best person to draw on a Spock/Burnham comparison.

Burnham has the blandness of Mayweather from Enterprise and the abrasiveness of Kira Nerys or Ro Laren.

Even when we didn't know much about Burnham, she was dull. At the time one could've argued that it's because we don't know enough about her. But now we do, it can't be that she's dull because we know too much about her compared to those we know less about.

I think her character could use some work, but I don't find her to be the dullest character in Trek history. I can think of other dull characters; Crusher, Dianna (for a long while), Reed and Mayweather (though Reed was built on a bit as the show went on), Chakotay? I think DS9 is the only show that hasn't had a dull main character that I can think of.

 

[s72450]

Oddly enough talking about other Trek reminds me that we've yet to see use of a holodeck in Disco. I'm not sure the technology was there during TOS era, although it was used once in Enterprise though not as a Starfleet technology.

I always loved the idea of the holodeck and thought I'd be a Barclay and never want to leave, but every holodeck episode of a Trek show was always the same and always so dumb to me. The only show I ever felt used it for what it would most likely be used as was DS9 with the holosuites. I mean let's be honest, it would totally be used for sex. The other Trek shows always used it for random episodes about detectives from the 20's or old Irish towns.

 

[Dr.]

As a series lead, Martin-Green seems quite serviceable. And though she doesn’t necessarily knock my socks off with her thespian range and skills, she’s by no means bad.

And actually… I find that all the ST leads (with the exception of Patrick Stewart) have certain performance quirks and idiosyncrasies that might be deemed distracting by some : Shatner was famously over-the-top; Brooks sounded like Barry White; Mulgrew was rather Katherine Hepburn-ish; and Bakula - though mostly good - occasionally affected an odd head movement to indicate passion or anger.

So in that company, Martin-Green kinda fits in.

 

[Ozbridge]

I do wonder whether those Disco haters are still out there, and if so, how they can genuinely say Disco is a bad show.

There're still lots of haters of the show. I'm pretty sure that mods at The Orville's sub-reedit even ban mentioning Discovery, because the moment the word (no matter whether it is positive or negative) is uttered it will 99% derail into bashing the show and needless arguing. The reasons usually are "unlikable lead", "annoying characters", "bad writing", "Spock has an adopted sister out of nowhere", etc.

Though I prefer Discovery, I still like Orville a lot and the two shows are really different that I feel any comparison unnecessary.

 

[Dark Raven]

Oddly enough talking about other Trek reminds me that we've yet to see use of a holodeck in Disco. I'm not sure the technology was there during TOS era, although it was used once in Enterprise though not as a Starfleet technology.

I always loved the idea of the holodeck and thought I'd be a Barclay and never want to leave, but every holodeck episode of a Trek show was always the same and always so dumb to me. The only show I ever felt used it for what it would most likely be used as was DS9 with the holosuites. I mean let's be honest, it would totally be used for sex. The other Trek shows always used it for random episodes about detectives from the 20's or old Irish towns.

The original series didn't have one. I found that the Holodeck in other series seemed to take away from some of the types of episodes they had in the original series.

Ones about 1940s detectives or Sherlock Holmes etc would've been actual planets with that kind of culture and civilisation in the original. Now these were merely fantasy settings, and still onboard the ship. There was merely a malfunction. So classic Trek episodes like Patterns of Force, City on the Edge of Forever, Specter of the Gun, Bread and Circuses or A Piece of the Action would've merely been holodeck adventures if done in later series.

I was happy therefore when we did get actual episodes set in these types of environments in TNG like Time's Arrow.

The holodeck probably doesn't fit Discovery's darker tone. Certainly it wouldn't have fit the first season that's for sure. But Discovery has barely explored any planets either, so why should they just be having holodeck adventures still on the ship?

 

[Flash525]

Oddly enough talking about other Trek reminds me that we've yet to see use of a holodeck in Disco. I'm not sure the technology was there during TOS era, although it was used once in Enterprise though not as a Starfleet technology.

The techology shouldn't exist (for the typical Federation starship) just yet. Section 31 may have it for training purposes I guess, but it's not the commodity that we saw in TNG.

I always loved the idea of the holodeck and thought I'd be a Barclay and never want to leave, but every holodeck episode of a Trek show was always the same and always so dumb to me. The only show I ever felt used it for what it would most likely be used as was DS9 with the holosuites. I mean let's be honest, it would totally be used for sex. The other Trek shows always used it for random episodes about detectives from the 20's or old Irish towns.

If it were around today, then most certainly, but another 200/300 years from now? Trek is supposed to be humanity at it's best, and I'd think with so many opportunities out there, and the realisation that we're not confined to this small blue and green world, people would use the holodecks for legitimate reasons; research, anger ventilation, re-enactment, adrenaline. Endless possibilities.

 

[RockSP]

Well sex is a legitimate reason as well. It's not like people have "evolved" past screwing in the Trek-verse.

 

[s72450]

I'd like to think we'd be advanced enough, but then again Kirk and Riker pretty much slept with half the galaxy lol

 

[Dark Raven]

In the Orville, they used the holodeck for sex, but that was because it was between Claire and Isaac. And it was a recreation of Claire's bedroom. The reason they used it for sex was because Isaac couldn't exist in his human form outside of the holodeck, as it was the program that was making him appear human.

However, most of the time I don't see why most people wouldn't simply use their bedroom. Unless they want the holodeck as a getaway location, like a tropical paradise, but then it's not used exclusively for sex but for the setting.

It seems though that anyone can seem to walk into someone else's program while it's running. That doesn't seem very private. If you want that privacy, either your bedroom is the best bet, or a real location off ship.

I think it could function as an acceptable substitute for certain locations when you want to take a break but don't want to go far. So if you want to go to the beach, or you want to practise a sport and need an arena. Where possible though, it would be better to go to the real thing.

 

[Teelie]

TNG did have that whole thing with Barclay using the holodeck to have sex with replicas of various female crew members. Other than the implications he was pretending to sleep with them no one really seemed all that disturbed by it.

Even Riker had a brief romance with a hologram. So sex in holodecks is a totally accepted if unseen part of Trek.

DS9 was the most open about it but it isn't like the writers never acknowledged it either. I think even Voyager dabbled in that.

 

[RockSP]

DS9 was the most open about it but it isn't like the writers never acknowledged it either. I think even Voyager dabbled in that.

Yep. I recall Tuvok boinking a hologram of his wife, lol.