Star Trek: Discovery - spoilery thoughts?

For all topics regarding speculative fiction of every stripe. Otherwise known as the Geek Cave.
User avatar
Paul Walker
Officer
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by Paul Walker »

One of my friends came up with an interesting hypothesis (which I fervently hope is wrong). That the spores on Discovery end up creating / affecting sporestitian life forms (i.e. the Caretaker).

I also think that it's a prequel just now so that we don't get upset that starfleet is now at war with the klingons, and because the books have made a real comeback, and no-one wants to risk affecting their popularity.
"We are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters."
User avatar
Madner Kami
Captain
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by Madner Kami »

That would be "sporocystian". The word "sporocystian", despite it's seemingly clear roots in "spore" and "cyst" is a non-word, a word without meaning, technobabble and I'd find it quite stupid to tie in Discovery with Voyager of all series in such a hamfisted way.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
User avatar
cilantro
Officer
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:11 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by cilantro »

Paul Walker wrote:
I also think that it's a prequel just now so that we don't get upset that starfleet is now at war with the klingons, and because the books have made a real comeback, and no-one wants to risk affecting their popularity.
The more I think about it, the more I start to think that Discovery should've been set like a 100 years after TNG or something.
technobabbler
Officer
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:39 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by technobabbler »

###One of my friends came up with an interesting hypothesis (which I fervently hope is wrong). That the spores on Discovery end up creating / affecting sporestitian life forms (i.e. the Caretaker).

given episode 4's propulsion subplot, I swear a write/showrunner is paying an homage to psychedelic shrooms.

###The more I think about it, the more I start to think that Discovery should've been set like a 100 years after TNG or something.

All the reason STD should be real-time years post-DS9/Voyager. Cameo of Seven of Nine in a Wrath of Khan Project Genesis-like top secret briefing.... exposition-technobabble--here is the result of our research on the Caretaker: shroom-warp! Line drop that Engineer Stammits did his post-doc overseen by 7 of 9.

The Klingon subplot revolves around Tkuvma wanting to take out the Federation because post-Romulan homeworld blowing up, it's the Federation and Klingons as the two big powers left. And like the Highlander, Tkuvma says there can only be one
User avatar
cilantro
Officer
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:11 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by cilantro »

technobabbler wrote:###One of my friends came up with an interesting hypothesis (which I fervently hope is wrong). That the spores on Discovery end up creating / affecting sporestitian life forms (i.e. the Caretaker).

given episode 4's propulsion subplot, I swear a write/showrunner is paying an homage to psychedelic shrooms.

###The more I think about it, the more I start to think that Discovery should've been set like a 100 years after TNG or something.

All the reason STD should be real-time years post-DS9/Voyager. Cameo of Seven of Nine in a Wrath of Khan Project Genesis-like top secret briefing.... exposition-technobabble--here is the result of our research on the Caretaker: shroom-warp! Line drop that Engineer Stammits did his post-doc overseen by 7 of 9.

The Klingon subplot revolves around Tkuvma wanting to take out the Federation because post-Romulan homeworld blowing up, it's the Federation and Klingons as the two big powers left. And like the Highlander, Tkuvma says there can only be one

Yeah, I really do think that they should've just place Discovery like a 100 years (okay after watching a youtube video it pointed out that in like 117 years the Federation will get holograms BUT then maybe like a 150 years after TNG/DS9/VOY then?) after Picard/Sisko/Janeway. Everything is so weird and nothing really fits very well into an established canon.

Also, um STD is an abbreviation for certain type of diseases. :lol:
User avatar
GandALF
Officer
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:54 am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by GandALF »

"To resist assimilation" interesting choice of words there.
technobabbler
Officer
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:39 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by technobabbler »

GandALF wrote:"To resist assimilation" interesting choice of words there.
from the limited news that I've heard of (I don't follow Trek news), the Disco-Klingons are supposed to be an allegory about Trump supporters. A little ham-fisted, but ok, I'll go with that.

But the writing/episodes so far (arguably) portray the Federation more like European "White Man Burden" colonial imperialists and the Klingons are written (arguably) as sympathetic. To me, STD/Disco is more like the British v. Zulus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

And as in-universe, we never see a canon big-picture Alpha Quadrant map, for all we know, the Klingon Empire is on the verge of being surrounded by an expansionist Federation on one side and Romulans on the other (yes, space is 3-D ...assume everyone's on the same plane)

Given the writing, I'm cheering for the Klingons to capture Burnham and try her for war crimes and send her to the Klingon pce prison planet. The End. Season 2: fast forward to 20 years post-DS9.
Last edited by technobabbler on Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FakeGeekGirl
Officer
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:53 am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by FakeGeekGirl »

A lot of people are bitching about the spores / tardigrade thing but is it really any sillier than the anti-matter creatures that Captain Ransom was using to power the Equinox?
technobabbler
Officer
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:39 pm

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by technobabbler »

FakeGeekGirl wrote:A lot of people are bitching about the spores / tardigrade thing but is it really any sillier than the anti-matter creatures that Captain Ransom was using to power the Equinox?
willing to suspend my disbelief on Shroom-Warp but given it's never mentioned again for the next 100 years----writers are pushing it.

But to nitpick about canon, Bio-Shroom-Warp could be better technobabble-rationalized as having its origins in those Voyager bio-gel packs. And then Shroom-Warp research accelerated after Voyager came back with info on the Caretaker. In-Universe explanation: that space spore-life is rare in the Alpha Quad.

and longer the series develops without a good reason for being a prequel, the more cynical I get that it's a prequel only to keep Kirk, Spock and the gang as the ace in the pockets of showrunners.

But it seems that TNG (by a plurality) is people's most favorite Star Trek.
Last edited by technobabbler on Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fixer
Doctor's Assistant
Posts: 592
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:27 am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery - thoughts?

Post by Fixer »

Plot twist: The spores are actually midichlorians.

Life creates them, makes them grow. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together. Discovery also travels by spinning, which is a good trick.
Thread ends here. Cut along dotted line.
------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Reply