CBS Offers "Star Trek: Discovery" Season 2 Premiere for Free on YouTube

I agree, many of the ideas here claiming the show is SJW simply don't pan out. I went ahead and purchased CBS all access to support the show.

yeah i don't get the SJW feel either with the show, i mean that's how star trek has always been even with the original in the late 60's, it wasn't an all white all male crew, it was always mixed and that was the point of the show especially in an era where tv wasn't like that so i just see them sticking to what the core of star trek always represented.. but as i've said what made the show bad was always the writing and characters themselves, not who was playing them. if they had kept it a stand alone show that pre-dated anything related to the vulcan's and spock i think the show could of been good. personally i'd of rather seen the show start off from the beginning of star fleet and how the whole thing was created and how they began exploring space, i don't really care about the few years leading up to where the original star trek series began.


Its basically "The Michael barnum show" which a shame because as others mentions tilly and some of the other characters deserve more spotlight. Its so bad I think theres a least two bridge crewmen we havent even been introduced to yet. The show pretty much lost me at this episode towards the end of the first season that I wann say is a time travel episode where MB and the meathead behind her in the clip fall in love over and over. I cant talk myself into watching anymore. Ill wait til the season is over and see if the reviews note any changes. Im not hopeful.

Ive never really watched Star Trek: Enterprise but I started watching it over the last couple days and even though its considered rough by Star Trek Standards its still a vast improvement over Discovery. Its at least "Interesting".

completely agree, even though Tilly is suppose to be that annoying super smart kid with no social skills everyone loves to hate she seems way more interesting then everyone else in the show. also like the episode where she has to fake being the captain.

S2E01 you pretty much get introduced by name to everyone on the bridge but that's as far as i was willing to go, that episode made my brain hurt.
 
Last edited:
In this case, "credibility" means being believable. Or being plausible enough to suspend disbelief while watching something that's obvious fiction.

Although normally applied to character action/interaction, I think the technical/literary term you're looking for is "vraisemblance" (literally "semblance of truth"). Knew that near-useless MA in French lit/cinema would come in handy one day :)

And yes, STD is severely lacking vraisemblance; and no, STD is not Star Trek. I agree with your assessment in general. In particular, the opportunity use of Tilly as an everyman/woman who would develop as the show went on is being completely thrown away, and has been replaced by a quirky/comic relief vehicle.

Until there's a real Star Trek series out there, I'll be watching The Expanse.
 
Although normally applied to character action/interaction, I think the technical/literary term you're looking for is "vraisemblance" (literally "semblance of truth"). Knew that near-useless MA in French lit/cinema would come in handy one day :)

And yes, STD is severely lacking vraisemblance; and no, STD is not Star Trek. I agree with your assessment in general. In particular, the opportunity use of Tilly as an everyman/woman who would develop as the show went on is being completely thrown away, and has been replaced by a quirky/comic relief vehicle.

Until there's a real Star Trek series out there, I'll be watching The Expanse.
10+ for The Expanse.
 
yeah i don't get the SJW feel either with the show, i mean that's how star trek has always been even with the original in the late 60's, it wasn't an all white all male crew, it was always mixed and that was the point of the show especially in an era where tv wasn't like that so i just see them sticking to what the core of star trek always represented..
Having women and blacks in it doesn't make a show "SJW". That's what the mainstream propaganda machine is trying to make you believe. That the "toxic" fandom is crying about that. In reality that makes zero sense. How come we liked the old star trek then? Did we just became racists after 2010?
Frankly I'm getting damn tired of having to state that on every page. Some people are like the horse that wants to push it's head under the feedbag no matter how hard I'm trying to pull it up.
 
Having women and blacks in it doesn't make a show "SJW". That's what the mainstream propaganda machine is trying to make you believe. That the "toxic" fandom is crying about that. In reality that makes zero sense. How come we liked the old star trek then? Did we just became racists after 2010?
Frankly I'm getting damn tired of having to state that on every page. Some people are like the horse that wants to push it's head under the feedbag no matter how hard I'm trying to pull it up.
If you think that's bad, imagine being black and constantly getting called a racist by these people. Yeah, it's really aggravating.
 
If you think that's bad, imagine being black and constantly getting called a racist by these people. Yeah, it's really aggravating.
That's confusing. Which people are calling who racist?
 
That's confusing. Which people are calling who racist?
The people who constantly refer to the "toxic" star trek fandom who keep insisting the only reason everyone hates STD is because they're racist misogynist homophobes, while ignoring that possibility that some of those fans are black. In this thread alone we've got a guy who has insisted 2 or 3 times that people hate STD because it has a black female lead in just the past couple pages of replies.
 
Oh boy a ST thread I wonder if there's a bunch of idiots in here screaming nonstop about SJWs and virtue signalling.
 
Oh boy a ST thread I wonder if there's a bunch of idiots in here screaming nonstop about SJWs and virtue signalling.

Oh look a reply to a Star Trek Discovery thread. I wonder if there's a bunch of idiots screaming nonstop about the only reasons someone can hate this show are due to being sexist and racist?

Seriously, you should read the posts before making blanket statements like that. There are many criticisms of the show which have nothing to do with SJW agenda pushing. Even when there are, specific examples that detract from the show can be made which prove this case. There are even comparisons about how progressive ideology has been used in Star Trek in the past and how it is done now, and what those differences are. We even covered why it worked before and doesn't now.
 
Oh boy a ST thread I wonder if there's a bunch of idiots in here screaming nonstop about SJWs and virtue signalling.

They invented ship teleportation, its almost as bad as Into Darkness curing death and teleporting from earth to Qo'nos. sorry if I'm screaming about SJWs too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
They invented ship teleportation, its almost as bad as Into Darkness curing death and teleporting from earth to Qo'nos. sorry if I'm screaming about SJWs too much.

Don't forget the Klingon's being super racists, yet having an entire civilization living underground on their home planet in tunnels big enough to hold a starship, cities etc. Oh, and of course you've got SJW agenda pushing with shuttles being declared unsafe for moving through asteroids, but snow globe shaped pods with a glass canopy makes perfect sense. And of course, Michael Burnham was the test pilot for those along side her resume of being the best at everything else in Starfleet. Yes, these are the "SJW" issues that take away from the otherwise exceptional writing.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the Klingon's being super racists, yet having an entire civilization living underground on their home planet in tunnels big enough to hold a starship. Oh, and of course you've got SJW agenda pushing with shuttles being declared unsafe for moving through asteroids, but snow globe shaped pods with a glass canopy makes perfect sense. And of course, Michael Burnham was the test pilot for those along side her resume of being the best at everything else in Starfleet. Yes, these are the "SJW" issues that take away from the otherwise exceptional writing.....:rolleyes:
LOL, I completely forgot about having an entire civilization of an alien species living on their homeworld.

The fact that Michael Burnham is absolutely perfect at 99% of everything she ever does is actually an SJW thing. Basically they seem to be capable of writing three types of characters, intersectional always-victims, Mary Sues, or bad guys. Seriously, every character that has had any significant amount of lines on STD(it's amazing that there are regular bridge crew like any other ST show, and they've still got characters with zero actual characterization) falls into one of those three categories(sometimes multiple).

Even Tom Paris on Voyager was a bit of a Marty Stu since he was an Ace Pilot(everything from large star ships to cars), had a decent knowledge of medicine, was a part time engineer, sometimes was a theoretical physicist, etc.

The key difference between Michael Burnham and Tom Paris? Sure Tom was good at everything, but he was generally only good at it while the better person was busy or incapacitated. Michael, "anything everyone else can do, I can do better". So while one comes off as "yeah, I probably know someone who generally seems to quickly pick up anything they ever attempt to do", the other one is just perfect while being the focus and results in being a terrible character. As already mentioned, the only character that's actually likeable on STD is Tilly, but she's in such a bullshit situation that's not believable either. It took Reginald Barclay(a better version really, and not because he's a man, mostly because his character was used sparingly and to good effect) DECADES(transferred to enterprise-D in 2366) to end up as a commander(depicted on Voyager in 2404 in an alternate timeline).
 
Don't forget the Klingon's being super racists, yet having an entire civilization living underground on their home planet in tunnels big enough to hold a starship. Oh, and of course you've got SJW agenda pushing with shuttles being declared unsafe for moving through asteroids, but snow globe shaped pods with a glass canopy makes perfect sense. And of course, Michael Burnham was the test pilot for those along side her resume of being the best at everything else in Starfleet. Yes, these are the "SJW" issues that take away from the otherwise exceptional writing.....:rolleyes:

The Mary Sue thing is less of a political agenda and more a standard Hollywood over compensation. They did the same thing with blacks and gays. After blackspolitation films of the 70's hollywood was eager to revamp its portrayal of blacks, they over compensated as made every black character pimpesq comedic relief in the 80's, then turned them all into folksy wise men in the 90's. Gays where comedic releif in the 90's and folksy wise men in the 2000's (even till today, gays are tvs gurus).

Hollywood has only started casting blacks as normal people in the last 15 years, and gays more recently.

So women are somewhere along the line of comic gold to wisest badass.
 
In all seriousness, there is some blatant SJW agenda pushing here. Its not generally as obvious to me as it seems to be for other people. I do not see this shit everywhere like many people do. What I do see in the show impacts its credibility. Even then, it isn't the show's biggest problem by a long shot.

I can only think of one major problem that's a result of SJW agenda pushing and that's how the characters are portrayed. Every woman is strong and can do anything while every straight white man is a super villain. The other males are generally portrayed as super incompetent and or spineless wimps. Women are being propped up at the expense of men. The older Star Trek shows didn't need to resort to that in order to be progressive. To further the problems with its characters, we have a Mary Sue issue. There are now two Mary Sue characters with the introduction of the engineer from the crashed ship who is smart enough to just "figure out" complex medical procedures with no training, etc. The more realistic female characters sit there on the bridge untapped, because they decided to have a main character rather than focus on an ensemble cast. You know, that stupid formula that worked for the franchise for over half a century. Let's just throw that out because....reasons.

The worst part of that scenario is that they've got tons of female characters that are featured across Discovery's cast (they seem to outnumber males in terms of characters with names) but the writers won't do anything with them. We didn't even know their names until the Season 2 pilot. Even after being told, they were ultimately forgettable because those characters are entirely under utilized. But you don't even need to touch on the SJW agenda to illustrate why this show is bad and why it isn't Star Trek. Even if this show didn't have the Star Trek name on it, there would still be some glaring issues with the writing. However, developing this same show without the Star Trek name would have covered up for a lot of what we have to complain about. If the show wasn't trying to be Star Trek, it would have made the lore / canon issues a non-issue.

Unfortunately, they made it a Star Trek show. The issue being that long time fans know what a Starfleet officer looks like. We know what Starfleet's entrance requirements are, at least in part. We also know that most of the spineless and weak willed characters like Tilly, Commander Saru (however the fuck that's spelled) and the various spineless or incompetent males wouldn't have made the cut. Star Trek has rarely showed Starfleet officers as spineless or incompetent with a few exceptions to prove the rule. This is one of the many ways the show is inconsistent with its predecessors. Its one of the many reasons long time fans reject the show.

Michael Burnham being a Mary Sue is a huge problem. Her skin color and gender wouldn't change that. If it was a male character, we'd still say he was badly written. Its one of the show's largest issues. The character isn't likable, nor is she remotely someone most viewers can relate to. Her being black or female has nothing to do with that.

Again, you have plenty of examples of strong female characters in fiction that none of us have had issues with. This includes previous Star Trek series'. The original pilot episode of ToS had "Number 1." I never had a problem with her when I saw this pilot for the first time in the early 1990's when it was more or less broadcast as a lost episode. While I didn't like the inconsistent writing of Captain Janeway, I didn't care that she was female. Her character is still popular to this day. Seven of Nine was well received and not just because she was attractive. Some of the best episodes of Voyager center on her character. The half-Klingon Engineer, Lt. Torres was also very well received and my favorite out of the bunch. She had genuinely good episodes centered around her. Despite my dislike of that series overall, I have to say that it probably had the strongest lineup of female characters in any Star Trek series to date.

DS9 did this well too with the original Dax. The second, not so much. Kira was fine, although I hated the religious angles and stories they did with her. I hated Kai Wynn, (she wasn't designed to be liked) but she was well played and integral to the story. The point being is that the show could have handled its characters and formula more like the earlier Star Trek series and it would have worked perfectly well. Again, I bring up the point about how classic Star Trek always showed men and women as different, but equal. Discovery doesn't. It shows men as either evil or totally spineless and incompetent.

So, if sexism is one of only two reasons for us to hate Star Trek Discovery, how do you explain all the fans of earlier Star Trek series and their female characters? You can even take ToS and to a lesser extent take TNG out of the mix as they were weaker offerings in the female department. TNG did improve over time and by the end of it, Counselor Troy had a massive turn around as a character. Even Dr. Crusher who did little more than just "be present" in most stories was brought back over fans writing in asking for just that after the actress was fired between season 1 and season 2. Again, how do you reconcile our supposed sexism with the fact that fans have enjoyed a laundry list of female characters in Star Trek.

The race card is a weak one as well. Fans never seemed to have problems with Geordi LaForge. No one seemed to have a problem with Michael Dorn's character of Worf who was clearly black. Even Uhura was well liked from the 1960's. She's also liked in the reboot movies such as they are. You also have Avery Brook's Commander/Captain Sisko from Deep Space Nine. A personal favorite of mine. He's black and you can't use the "alien makeup" defense like you could for Worf. So again, how do you reconcile racism as a reason to dislike STD when being a long time fan of previous shows discounts this idea?

How about we turn back to the show's actual problems? You have the Klingon problem as another example of what's wrong with STD. I'm not talking about their redesigned physiology, although that is yet another problem. The show's original producers even stated that they modeled Klingons after Trump supporters. In truth, they did this based on their inaccurate perception of Trump supporters. This doesn't matter so much beyond it having the opposite effect the producers and writers obviously intended.

If you look at the pilot episode objectively, the Klingons are the good guys and the Federation is in the wrong. That's really not how that should have gone for the show's narrative. The Federation was never the aggressor in battles with Klingons in the original series or its films. The premise of the first season being that Michael Burnham got the wrap for starting a war with the Klingons is a stretch by itself. Her intentions don't even matter here. Her mutiny failed. It accomplished nothing. The only thing she did was kill a Klingon who attacked her over her trespassing on a Klingon ship / station / satellite thing. The writers of the show failed to understand the source material and failed to construct a believable scenario for the show's events to progress. That breaks suspension of disbelief. It violates Star Trek's internal consistency and even basic logic.

The show also portrays its legacy characters in a totally inconsistent way while claiming its in the Prime Timeline. Turning Spock into a sociopath and a hipster undergoing a spiritual crisis is a total departure from the original character. He's also a sister slammer and very emotional from what we've seen. Again, more inconsistency. Sarek is nothing like the Mark Leonard version of the character either. He's far too warm and caring. He's also a shitty father who failed his sons but does a bang up job with his adopted human daughter. Some go on to mention Michael being adopted as being a huge canon breaking issue. I don't think it is if you can accept Star Trek V's introduction of Sybok. By that point, Spock and known Kirk for decades and never mentioned him. It stands to reason that he wouldn't mention Michael Burnham although she does look like an ex-girlfriend so there is that.

STD's lack of continuity and internal consistency with the original material is enough to doom this show.
 
I personally enjoyed the episode. I thought the pod scene was very entertaining...look forward to watching more.
 
I personally enjoyed the episode. I thought pod scene was very entertaining...look forward to watching more.

That scene makes no sense. Its cool looking, I'll give you that but it makes no sense. You can't take a shuttle down to the wrecked ship, but snow globe shaped pods with glass canopies can fly down there with no issue? This is the problem with the writing. We end up treated to all kinds of shit visually, but the scenes make no sense and don't follow any logic as we know it.
 
That scene makes no sense. Its cool looking, I'll give you that but it makes no sense. You can't take a shuttle down to the wrecked ship, but snow globe shaped pods with glass canopies can fly down there with no issue? This is the problem with the writing. We end up treated to all kinds of shit visually, but the scenes make no sense and don't follow any logic as we know it.

They actually did explain it. Michael gives the explanation that the pods were specifically designed for landing under similar conditions. All this takes place right after they enter the pods. They also speak about why a typical craft was not suited for the landing while they were on the bridge.

I completely understand someone not enjoying the show for various reasons, but I didn't find issue with that scene.
 
They actually did explain it. Michael gives the explanation that the pods were specifically designed for landing under similar conditions. All this takes place right after they enter the pods. They also speak about why a typical craft was not suited for the landing while they were on the bridge.

I completely understand someone not enjoying the show for various reasons, but I didn't find issue with that scene.

What your missing is that Star Trek has always been on the science side of fiction, and using a glass ball vs. a armored shuttle in a dangerous environment makes zero sense in the world of material sciences.
 
What your missing is that Star Trek has always been on the science side of fiction, and using a glass ball vs. a armored shuttle in a dangerous environment makes zero sense in the world of material sciences.
Seemed reasonable enough to me. An armored ship that had slim to no chance of landing or a pod with a relativity good chance of landing. Again, I completely understand one not liking the show.
 
They actually did explain it. Michael gives the explanation that the pods were specifically designed for landing under similar conditions. All this takes place right after they enter the pods. They also speak about why a typical craft was not suited for the landing while they were on the bridge.

I completely understand someone not enjoying the show for various reasons, but I didn't find issue with that scene.
That is not an explanation that makes any sense. As often as shuttles crash in the Star Trek universe, they're still effectively armored personnel carriers that have managed to survive combat including being shot at, vs. a glass pod. The only actual explanation is "Because Michael said so", since it yet again involves the show doing something that would not happen in any other series just for the sake of having the main character be different and right due to her being better than the entirety of the rest of Starfleet.
 
Seemed reasonable enough to me. An armored ship that had slim to no chance of landing or a pod with a relativity good chance of landing. Again, I completely understand one not liking the show.

Your missing the point, in no situation would a glass canopy pod be a better option that an armored one.

I get it, you like the show, but I haven't even watched that much of it and I can conclusively say, this is not Star Trek.
 
Your missing the point, in no situation would a glass canopy pod be a better option that an armored one.

I get it, you like the show, but I haven't even watched that much of it and I can conclusively say, this is not Star Trek.

I dont think im missing the point. I'm simply disagreeing with that assessment of the pod scene.
 
That is not an explanation that makes any sense. As often as shuttles crash in the Star Trek universe, they're still effectively armored personnel carriers that have managed to survive combat including being shot at, vs. a glass pod. The only actual explanation is "Because Michael said so", since it yet again involves the show doing something that would not happen in any other series just for the sake of having the main character be different and right due to her being better than the entirety of the rest of Starfleet.

You clearly feel very strongly about this so I'm just going to leave it at that...
 
They actually did explain it. Michael gives the explanation that the pods were specifically designed for landing under similar conditions. All this takes place right after they enter the pods. They also speak about why a typical craft was not suited for the landing while they were on the bridge.

I completely understand someone not enjoying the show for various reasons, but I didn't find issue with that scene.

Nothing about that makes sense. There is some dialog to "explain" the reasoning, but that explanation doesn't make sense.

That is not an explanation that makes any sense. As often as shuttles crash in the Star Trek universe, they're still effectively armored personnel carriers that have managed to survive combat including being shot at, vs. a glass pod. The only actual explanation is "Because Michael said so", since it yet again involves the show doing something that would not happen in any other series just for the sake of having the main character be different and right due to her being better than the entirety of the rest of Starfleet.

Exactly.

Your missing the point, in no situation would a glass canopy pod be a better option that an armored one.

I get it, you like the show, but I haven't even watched that much of it and I can conclusively say, this is not Star Trek.

Precisely.

I dont think im missing the point. I'm simply disagreeing with that assessment of the pod scene.

Why is that exactly? This is where the writers not knowing a franchises history comes back to bite the new show in the ass and why fans hate it. In Star Trek, shuttles are capable of planetary landings. Some of them even have warp capability. If nothing else, a shuttle craft has SHIELDS. That alone makes the craft better suited than pods with glass domes that make up the entire front of the ship. There is no universe where anyone would think flying through a field of floating rocks toward a PULSAR in a flying snow globe makes any fucking sense. No one would take this option over doing the same thing in a shuttlecraft. Frankly, there is no good explanation for these pods to even exist in the Star Trek universe.

This is also inconsistent with the show's lore as they have transparent aluminum in the 23rd century. Yet, the pods have glass domes and they lack shields. A shuttle has two pilots. Ideally, a really good one and one who can take the load off the other one with certain systems or as a backup in case the first one gets incapacitated. The pods require four independent pilots be good enough to not pull their own rendition of a TIE fighter chasing the Falcon through an asteroid field. Two of the four pods were destroyed in flight. Not only does the concept not make sense, but the scene actually PROVES it was a stupid idea.

Again, the pods do not make sense according to Star Trek lore and they make no sense from a writing standpoint. This scene was designed to look cool and nothing more. Flash over substance.
 
Nothing about that makes sense. There is some dialog to "explain" the reasoning, but that explanation doesn't make sense.



Exactly.



Precisely.



Why is that exactly? This is where the writers not knowing a franchises history comes back to bite the new show in the ass and why fans hate it. In Star Trek, shuttles are capable of planetary landings. Some of them even have warp capability. If nothing else, a shuttle craft has SHIELDS. That alone makes the craft better suited than pods with glass domes that make up the entire front of the ship. There is no universe where anyone would think flying through a field of floating rocks toward a PULSAR in a flying snow globe makes any fucking sense. No one would take this option over doing the same thing in a shuttlecraft. Frankly, there is no good explanation for these pods to even exist in the Star Trek universe.

This is also inconsistent with the show's lore as they have transparent aluminum in the 23rd century. Yet, the pods have glass domes and they lack shields. A shuttle has two pilots. Ideally, a really good one and one who can take the load off the other one with certain systems or as a backup in case the first one gets incapacitated. The pods require four independent pilots be good enough to not pull their own rendition of a TIE fighter chasing the Falcon through an asteroid field. Two of the four pods were destroyed in flight. Not only does the concept not make sense, but the scene actually PROVES it was a stupid idea.

Again, the pods do not make sense according to Star Trek lore and they make no sense from a writing standpoint. This scene was designed to look cool and nothing more. Flash over substance.
I can't speak to Star Trek lore, but I felt the shows explanation was suffcient for a science fiction television series. I clearly don't have as much skin in the game as some of the folks here...
 
Yet you have nothing to support your disagreement, you are clearly missing the point.

He also didn't touch on another really stupid plot point in the episde which is the engineer who figured out how to keep patients alive who are clearly near death from like four different alien species because she is an engineer who "reads allot."

I can't speak to Star Trek lore, but I felt the shows explanation was suffcient for a science fiction television series. I clearly don't have as much skin in the game as some of the folks here...

Again, how is taking a ship with an entire front half made of GLASS into an asteroid field sufficiently explained in the show? It isn't about having skin in the game. Its about terrible leaps in logic and things in the show being done that don't make sense. Its about the show being all flash and zero substance.
 
Only my opinion.

Which is based on what? If that explanation was good enough for you, I have to conclude that you simply didn't understand the scenario, nor what a shuttle craft in Star Trek can do vs. one of these snow globe pods. Again, everything in this scene was done to be flashy. Why would you have ridiculously long launch tubes taking up space in the ship for these stupid pods? If they needed that kind of launch system to be more effective than shuttcraft in a high gravity scenario, then how the fuck were they supposed to be able to take off and return to the ship? Going towards a pulsar would be relatively easy. Oh, and a shuttle could probably handle a lot more gravity than a glass pod with no shields.

Also remember, the transporters weren't supposed to be viable until Mary Sue Burnham pulled a solution out of her ass on the fly to show up the other Mary Sue. Star Trek used to have writing that could stand up to this kind of superficial scrutiny. STD can't. It breaks the suspension of disbelief by being utterly ridiculous and contrived.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to Star Trek lore, but I felt the shows explanation was suffcient for a science fiction television series. I clearly don't have as much skin in the game as some of the folks here...

This is the problem, Discovery would have been decent Sci-Fi, but you can't take Star Trek and make it not Star Trek without causing a train wreck, and that is what has happened.

If Discovery was just Discovery, a show about a science ship with fancy technology against the backdrop of a looming war with an aggressive alien species, it would have been ok.

This is Star Trek though, a series that has run since the 1966, spanning 5 series, with 32* seasons total, and 14 movies. It has an established continuity but beyond that it has its own established science, and narrative structure.

I don't know why Star Trek can't progress past Nemesis on the timeline, and every time they do a prequel it is progressively worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Which is based on what? If that explanation was good enough for you, I have to conclude that you simply didn't understand the scenario, nor what a shuttle craft in Star Trek can do vs. one of these snow globe pods. Again, everything in this scene was done to be flashy. Why would you have ridiculously long launch tubes taking up space in the ship for these stupid pods? If they needed that kind of launch system to be more effective than shuttcraft in a high gravity scenario, then how the fuck were they supposed to be able to take off and return to the ship? Remember, the transporters weren't supposed to be viable until Mary Sue Burnham pulled a solution out of her ass on the fly to show up the other Mary Sue. Star Trek used to have writing that could stand up to this kind of superficial scrutiny. STD can't. It breaks the suspension of disbelief by being utterly ridiculous and contrived.
I only know what the show has shown me. It was explained that the shuttles could not land in those conditions and the pods could because they were designed in such a fashion. As I'm not as well versed in Star Trek shuttle technology as you I was inclined to take their word for it. Seemed to me they choose their best option. Of course a glass pod wasn't ideal but they made that much clear.
 
I only know what the show has shown me. It was explained that the shuttles could not land in those conditions and the pods could because they were designed in such a fashion. As I'm not as well versed in Star Trek shuttle technology as you I was inclined to take there word for it. Seemed to me they choose their best option. Of course a glass pod wasn't ideal but they made that much clear.

I know I'm kind of jumping in here, but a shuttle in Star Trek is both armored and has shields, I don't think this era's shuttles had warp drive, but they are more than capable of navigating and surviving asteroid fields and impacts, as well as weapons fire for a period of time. They typically travel at impulse speeds making them as fast as most other ships, but are more nimble because of their size.

Most star fleet ships are at least drafted out in real life, they account for all crew quarters and equipment, and work with the limited space that a star ship provides.

Shuttles are standard in every Starfleet ship, but that wasn't good enough for this shows writers, so they added something dumb to make a scene that looks cool, but causes all kinds of practical problems in the Star Trek Universe (long ass launch tubes). Again, this is made more problematic because for some dumb reason Star Trek keeps jumping back to the past, rather than progressing forward.

Edit: While completely acceptable to not be well versed in Star Trek, it does not excuse the show of its errors, nor does it excuse the criticism from long time fans. It is entirely possible to both make a good show and stay within established convention for a series that has run for 34 years. If that cannot be done, then don't make it Star Trek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
I know I'm kind of jumping in here, but a shuttle in Star Trek is both armored and has shields, I don't think this era's shuttles had warp drive, but they are more than capable of navigating and surviving asteroid fields and impacts, as well as weapons fire for a period of time. They typically travel at impulse speeds making them as fast as most other ships, but are more nimble because of their size.

Most star fleet ships are at least drafted out in real life, they account for all crew quarters and equipment, and work with the limited space that a star ship provides.

Shuttles are standard in every Starfleet ship, but that wasn't good enough for this shows writers, so they added something dumb to make a scene that looks cool, but causes all kinds of practical problems in the Star Trek Universe (long ass launch tubes). Again, this is made more problematic because for some dumb reason Star Trek keeps jumping back to the past, rather than progressing forward.

Fair enough, but I and I'm guessing many others were not aware of these facts.

The levels of disbelief one is willing to suspend varies from person to person. I believe my threshold exceeds that of many here...
 
I can't speak to Star Trek lore, but I felt the shows explanation was suffcient for a science fiction television series. I clearly don't have as much skin in the game as some of the folks here...
It's not a matter of having skin in the game, it's a matter of this show supposedly being in the same timeline as the rest of the tv series and all of the movies except for the reboot and based off of 50 years of supporting fiction including from eras before and after STD takes place, it doesn't make any sense.
I only know what the show has shown me. It was explained that the shuttles could not land in those conditions and the pods could because they were designed in such a fashion. As I'm not as well versed in Star Trek shuttle technology as you I was inclined to take their word for it. Seemed to me they choose their best option. Of course a glass pod wasn't ideal but they made that much clear.
And that's fine. I'm not even going to claim some bullshit like you can't be a real fan for not having watched any of the rest of star trek. However, it doesn't change that the scene makes no sense given the available options, the entirety of the rest of hte supporting fiction, and the general dislike from the fans who have watched other ST content based on... crap like this.

Let me ask you this: If they had just used a shuttle instead of glass pods, since you apparently haven't seen much of Star Trek prior to discovery, would it have been detrimental to the scene? It's not like a shuttle couldn't have been hit, or required expert piloting, or even had its crew sustain injuries. I'm going to guess here, but probably not. If I'm right and you don't believe that using a shuttle would have been detrimental, then if the staff of the show supposedly has people at least familiar with the rest of the content, then what purpose does it serve to change it other than to irritate prior fans?
 
Fair enough, but I and I'm guessing many others were not aware of these facts.

The levels of disbelief one is willing to suspend varies from person to person. I believe my threshold exceeds that of many here...

I believe you are mixing up disbelief with the jarring that us fans of the series experience when the narrative convention established over decades is dramatically broken like this. STD is by no means the first to do so, but it is by far the worst if you ignore Into Darkness (which imho is the worst).
 
It's not a matter of having skin in the game, it's a matter of this show supposedly being in the same timeline as the rest of the tv series and all of the movies except for the reboot and based off of 50 years of supporting fiction including from eras before and after STD takes place, it doesn't make any sense.

And that's fine. I'm not even going to claim some bullshit like you can't be a real fan for not having watched any of the rest of star trek. However, it doesn't change that the scene makes no sense given the available options, the entirety of the rest of hte supporting fiction, and the general dislike from the fans who have watched other ST content based on... crap like this.

Let me ask you this: If they had just used a shuttle instead of glass pods, since you apparently haven't seen much of Star Trek prior to discovery, would it have been detrimental to the scene? It's not like a shuttle couldn't have been hit, or required expert piloting, or even had its crew sustain injuries. I'm going to guess here, but probably not. If I'm right and you don't believe that using a shuttle would have been detrimental, then if the staff of the show supposedly has people at least familiar with the rest of the content, then what purpose does it serve to change it other than to irritate prior fans?

Not something I considered before, but yes I'd be fine with them using a shuttle for the scene. Though my enjoyment may be slightly diminished if the blue shirt didn't get blown up :)
 
I believe you are mixing up disbelief with the jarring that us fans of the series experience when the narrative convention established over decades is dramatically broken like this. STD is by no means the first to do so, but it is by far the worst if you ignore Into Darkness (which imho is the worst).
Yes, I believe you are probably right.
 
Not something I considered before, but yes I'd be fine with them using a shuttle for the scene. Though my enjoyment may be slightly diminished if the blue shirt didn't get blown up :)

Blue shirts don't die that often, relish it :)
 
I can't speak to Star Trek lore, but I felt the shows explanation was suffcient for a science fiction television series. I clearly don't have as much skin in the game as some of the folks here...

The problem with the scene (and, from what I understand the show in general) is that the explanation essentially boils down to "it works because the plot says it does" which is just lazy writing. Doing something because its cool (also known as the "rule of cool") is all fine and dandy but in a show like Trek it also needs to be done in a way that is believable. Its a problem the reboot movies had too, a feeling that they decided to do a cool scene and then haphazardly wrote a reason for doing it last minute.
 
Back
Top