STD: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

[Alinis]

Mudd was going to turn over the group to the Klingons, which would undoubtedly get the entire crew executed and tortured. However, Mudd also was willing to maroon the Enterprise crew on a planet where they'd eventually die, so I think that fits his morality. He's a terrible-terrible person.

The only person he was sadistic and brutal to was Lorca, who left him to be tortured and die in a Klingon prison.

Mind you, I'm not defending this episode too much because it DOES have a major continuity fact. I think it would be on Mudd's permanent record, "Oh, by the way, Captain Kirk, this guy is a known TERRORIST and Klingon collaborator."

So I don't object to Mudd being ruthless to the man who abandoned him and killing people when he can reverse time as well as turning them over to the Klingons. I do object to the fact that you can't have Mudd do this kind of thing and get treated as a harmless nobody later.

Other random thoughts:

* Was this a 21st century themed party?
* In the spirit of Trekkie nerdom, how did this song get created when there was a nuclear war in the 90s. Was this song brought over from a alternate universe like the Voyager episode one?
* Why is Tilly a huge withdrawn nerd here and suddenly party girl? Is that Romulan ale working that fast?
* I *LOVED* The Andorian Space Suit. That was the best part of the episode (sadly)

I have to agree that it is rather hard to believe that Mudd would be treated the same in the original series if he had done the sort of things he's pulled in Discovery especially by Captain Kirk given his sense of righteousness.

[G-Man]

~2:05: "These are the moments that make life so gloriously unpredictable."

Anyone else getting an Ivanova from "Voices of Authority" vibe? " "I love surprises! A papercut - just another wonderful surprise!"

Of course, in her case it was just BSing.

[G-Man]

Does anyone else find the discussion of why the Space Whales are endangered rather - nonsensical?

"They're often so consumed by [eating alpha particles in solar winds] that they ignore all of their instincts."

(a) Isn't feeding on alpha particles an instinct? (b) Why is it referred to as a "task?" Are space whales sapient (I suppose they could be - earth whales are sapient, according to Star Trek IV) and trying to accomplish something here? (c) Unless they have a goal which they rationally determined to pursue for eating the alpha particles, why would they develop a behavior that would destroy their species? Our genes did not evolve to kill us. This only makes sense if something in the environment changed and they are relying on instincts developed under different pressures.

Of course, this might be explained elsewhere in the episode (I never watched).

[Seaward]

Does anyone else find the discussion of why the Space Whales are endangered rather - nonsensical?

"They're often so consumed by [eating alpha particles in solar winds] that they ignore all of their instincts."

(a) Isn't feeding on alpha particles an instinct? (b) Why is it referred to as a "task?" Are space whales sapient (I suppose they could be - earth whales are sapient, according to Star Trek IV) and trying to accomplish something here? (c) Unless they have a goal which they rationally determined to pursue for eating the alpha particles, why would they develop a behaviour that would destroy their species? Our genes did not evolve to kill us. This only makes sense if something in the environment changed and they are relying on instincts developed under different pressures.

Of course, this might be explained elsewhere in the episode (I never watched).

Honestly, going from what I saw in the review (haven't seen the episode myself) I assumed it was meant to be a reference to pandas. It's at least in some level of public perception that pandas are all but trying to make themselves go extinct, faking pregnancy in order to get more food instead of actually mating, that sort of thing.

I get the feeling that feeding on alpha particles in solar wind can't be a very efficient way of feeding, much like how otherwise omnivorous bears ended up eating something like bamboo that they barely get any energy or nutrition from.

[Madner Kami]

Does it have to be a murderer, or can we include psychopaths who've committed other crimes? Because, y'know, Bill Cosby.

"WTF? We saw this character two whole times in the old series, and he was just this lovable TV personality starring in family sitcoms and selling Jell-O pudding pops! Now in the prequel they're making him a crazy rapist? These writers clearly don't know what they're doing!"

I urge you, seriously, go back and watch a couple of episodes of the Cosby Show. You'll notice something. What we once considered comedic surreal behaviour, gets a really, reeeeaaaaally different vibe in hindsight, especially when he starts to use this "looking into a different reality"-kind of thing with his face and starts to talk in a very strange voice, especially and in particular, when he is trying to get into his wife's pants.

Does anyone else find the discussion of why the Space Whales are endangered rather - nonsensical?

Your assessment is correct, but you are missing a detail. You are assuming that consuming alpha particles from suns is normal feeding behaviour. There are other types of consumption known to man, that drastically change the behavioural patterns of people, even if the changed behaviour is suicidal. The same is true for other species on this planet and thus, presumably, could be true for species not from this planet.
Plus, there's the possibility of the spacewhales having contracted an unknown form of a disease that change their behavioural patterns. For example, think about fungi of the cordyceps-group and how infected individuals behaviour's change (warning, serious body horror if you search for it). Or how an infection with toxoplasma gondii changes the behaviour of mice and rats and, at least suspected, even humans.

[AllanO]

Admittedly this is a pet peeve of mine- holding fictional characters to standards of consistency that don't even hold up in the real world let alone fiction.

Riedquat already covered various arguments around this that are good (why what is possible does not make for a plausible story), but I've always maintained that history is harder than fiction, fiction has to make sense, life and so history is under no such obligation...

[CharlesPhipps]

I think there's some obvious being missed about pandas and mating, though we haven't found it yet. But it is a weird pisstake at Star Trek IV that Space Whales are not going extinct because of hunting.

[TheLibrarian]

Maybe one day we'll finally get some new Star Trek that has the guts to fully detach itself from all existing continuity and forge a new path, because this episode is the best argument for that. It's an actually clever time loop episode: the loop isn't some kind of accident or phenomenon, but an actual tool of the villain's plan. And his plan isn't destruction or domination, but just to keep redoing the same heist until he finally figures out how to succeed, like Ocean's Eleven meets Edge of Tomorrow. And the character who figures out the time loop is happening (Stamets) isn't the POV character for the episode (Burnham). But the whole thing rests on the notion that this crazy-eyed Mudd is the same goofball who irritates Kirk & co. a decade later. This Mudd also has the potential to be interesting in his own right, and I love Rainn Wilson's performance, but reconciling him with the TOS version is a mess.

I like Discovery best when it doesn't seem to care about "established" continuity. It has its own distinct aesthetic while still taking cues from other iterations of Trek. The spore drive is the kind of classic Big Idea science fiction that these long-in-the-tooth SF franchises don't usually have the daring to try anymore, and they've built a whole series around it. I've been bored to tears by the Klingons and The Mirror Universe for over twenty years now but at least Discovery has its own unique and fairly consistent ideas about them. It's interesting to see a Federation ship-of-the-line commanded by the kind of amoral and insane skippers like Decker and Tracey and Garth that were always part of Starfleet while the crew struggles to uphold Federation ideals (it's not remotely explored enough in this series).

But Trek, like Star Wars, feels like it has to balance the demands of an aging and intractable continuity-obsessed but loyal hardcore fanbase while still needing to cater to a new audience to remain relevant and profitable, and ends up serving too many masters as a result. I don't know what the answer is: in-continuity installments of major franchises, even decades later, tend to be pretty successful, while out-and-out reboots tend not to be, and quality's sometimes the reason, but not always.

[AlucardNoir]

Maybe one day we'll finally get some new Star Trek that has the guts to fully detach itself from all existing continuity and forge a new path, because this episode is the best argument for that. It's an actually clever time loop episode: the loop isn't some kind of accident or phenomenon, but an actual tool of the villain's plan. And his plan isn't destruction or domination, but just to keep redoing the same heist until he finally figures out how to succeed, like Ocean's Eleven meets Edge of Tomorrow. And the character who figures out the time loop is happening (Stamets) isn't the POV character for the episode (Burnham). But the whole thing rests on the notion that this crazy-eyed Mudd is the same goofball who irritates Kirk & co. a decade later. This Mudd also has the potential to be interesting in his own right, and I love Rainn Wilson's performance, but reconciling him with the TOS version is a mess.

I like Discovery best when it doesn't seem to care about "established" continuity. It has its own distinct aesthetic while still taking cues from other iterations of Trek. The spore drive is the kind of classic Big Idea science fiction that these long-in-the-tooth SF franchises don't usually have the daring to try anymore, and they've built a whole series around it. I've been bored to tears by the Klingons and The Mirror Universe for over twenty years now but at least Discovery has its own unique and fairly consistent ideas about them. It's interesting to see a Federation ship-of-the-line commanded by the kind of amoral and insane skippers like Decker and Tracey and Garth that were always part of Starfleet while the crew struggles to uphold Federation ideals (it's not remotely explored enough in this series).

But Trek, like Star Wars, feels like it has to balance the demands of an aging and intractable continuity-obsessed but loyal hardcore fanbase while still needing to cater to a new audience to remain relevant and profitable, and ends up serving too many masters as a result. I don't know what the answer is: in-continuity installments of major franchises, even decades later, tend to be pretty successful, while out-and-out reboots tend not to be, and quality's sometimes the reason, but not always.

Thing is, why even call it Star Trek then? no, seriously. If you're not going to be a continuation of what came before, why even use the same name? if you aren't going to please the old/older fans why even use the same name? Why bother attracting the old fans with the use of a known brand name, and as such a known quantity if you're doing something entirely devoid of the previous iteration? Why not just use a new name? Why does it have to be Star Trek/ST: Into Darkness/ST: Beyond/ ST: Discovery if it will be so different - in both tone and content - that the old fans will find nothing of interest in it? And this is me being charitable, since the tonal shift between old trek and nu trek is so jarring it is actively putting old fans off the movies and the show.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain old fans do not appreciate your brand new take, on the one hand - wile betting on nostalgia and old fans to guarantee initial interest in a project that has nothing to do with the old, on the other.

For a remake not to fail the IP you are rebooting must be old enough and meh enough that most people will either not remember it, not have heard of it or not care enough if it's rebooted/remade.

There were 23 years of no new content between the original Galactica and the new miniseries. 23 years with an ever decreasing number of syndicated runs. That's an entire new generation being born and growing up not watching the original. Maybe catching an episode here or there. There were what? 4 years between Enterprise and a continuous 19 years of Star Trek on TV on the one hand and the 2009 nu Trek. 19 years of consistency for how the Klingons looked, 19 years of consistency about how most races looked and behaved. And then came the Abramsverse. 4 years later with a whole new look, a whole new feel and a whole new way of thinking. Why even use the Star Trek name if you weren't going to be making Star Trek but a Star wars knock off?

There were 18 years between the original Trek and TNG. And even then TNG was set 99 years after the original show, so as to give the writers and the viewers an out. You don't need to have watched the old show, you're welcome to this new thing. And then we got 19 years of consistency - more or less.

There were what, 50 years between the original Scarface movie and the Pacino remake. 50 years, and Star Trek got 4... Star Trek shouldn't have been rebooted. Not so soon after the flame of the 80's revival had just been extinguished. Maybe in 2020 or 2025. 20 years after the 80's revival had ended, 60 years after the original show had begun - and even then, maybe. But 4 years after Enterprise? You don't get to blame the fans you attracted by using the Trek name when they have 40 years of shows and movies to point at when they tell you that your movie isn't Star Trek.

[Riedquat]

Admittedly this is a pet peeve of mine- holding fictional characters to standards of consistency that don't even hold up in the real world let alone fiction.

Riedquat already covered various arguments around this that are good (why what is possible does not make for a plausible story), but I've always maintained that history is harder than fiction, fiction has to make sense, life and so history is under no such obligation...

Not the most earth-shattering example but several years ago Carlisle United avoided relegation out of the football league due to a goal from the last kick of the game, scored by the on loan goalkeeper. It happened, can't argue with that, but if you were to put that as the climax to a story it would be rightfully dismissed as an implausible, convenient far-fetched for a happy ending (for Carlisle at any rate) bit of cheesy nonsense.

Erk, looked it up, 19 years ago. That's depressing.