I wish they had left the 32nd century as a “Discovery - only”. After the jump to the future it felt like the show had no stakes. Everything felt disconnected.
It feels like an easy excuse for the writers to pull just about anything out of their asses, “because it has been so long” and “tech has evolved exponentially”.
SNW proved that there was a lot more to explore even in the 23rd century. So much could have been done with the fallout of the Dominion War in the 24th.
But it’s all up to the writers. If they’re good the show can be good.
The Burn being caused by a magic baby having a tantrum kinda ruined the whole setting for me. There’s a lot of potential with moving to the 32nd century, but if that’s the quality of storytelling we’re gonna get, it doesn’t seem worth it. I’d much rather see a 24th century setting that follows up on the galaxy post Dominion War and the return of Voyager. There’s a lot of untold story there that would be great to see… Although I’d hope it’s not more magic baby style stuff.
The Burn being caused by a magic baby having a tantrum kinda ruined the whole setting for me
The Burn has one of the most classic Star Trek explanations ever—normal human(oid) gains magic powers after being exposed to strange energies. The Burn was several classic Star Trek stories woven together to tell a new tale. It’s basically a retelling of the TOS episode Charlie X.
Trauma acting as the trigger for those powers is the most believable part of the Burn. Emotions causing people to react is nothing new. It’s how humans operate in real life. Entire wars have been started over the death of a loved one. Emotions acting as a trigger is not new to Star Trek either. It’s been used a motivation for dozens of stories.
Star Trek has used the trope dozens of times and several in an almost identical scenario. Such as when Kevin wiped out the Husnock in response to them murdering his wife. Or Riker breaking his promise not to use his Q powers after Wesley was killed. It’s a realistic human(oid) response—trauma like the loss of a loved one can trigger a reaction with no bounds.
tantrum
It’s really disgusting anyone would refer to the grief and trauma one experiences over the loss of a parent as a “tantrum.” Your comment is the very definition of hyperbole.
I think the cause of the Burn is a nearly-perfect example of Star Trek’s humanist values, and find it interesting when people feel the need to go out of their way to misrepresent it with words like “magic” in an effort to justify their dislike of it.
I find it interesting when people who are confronted with disagreement about a plot point they like resort to making implications about the other person’s character instead of discussing anything in the post they’re responding to.
I gave my opinion on a key plot point, which you took so much offense to, you ignored everything else in the post. Please, keep living up to your username as you find a place on my block list.
Agreed. For me, the only “magic” Star Trek needed was stories about relationships that took their time unfolding, with competency. There occasionally were unexplained encounters, but the focus was always on something that could be solvable when the crew worked together. There was resolution. Plus, I really liked the episodic structure of TNG and DS9, where I could get onboard with any episode almost. Within the self contained episodes there could be “twists of fate” that exist today. No more giant fantastic leaps than we already make by believing everything is in the future with their tech.
The “new” trek is too focused on being cinematic. Discovery was interesting at the beginning but it was overly precious and predictable, and overly representative. Designed to keep people hooked. I think the quality suffered greatly. I think representation is super important, having characters with diverse identities, but doing it for diversity’s sake isn’t the way. If we’re really in the future, then people just are.
Agreed, Discovery has really only scratched the surface of what can be done with the Federation’s rebuilding itself, Earth’s new isolationist tendencies, and the unified Vulcan/Romulan society. It’d be a shame to leave all that behind. Plus, we still need to learn what’s become of the Klingons!
I wish they had left the 32nd century as a “Discovery - only”. After the jump to the future it felt like the show had no stakes. Everything felt disconnected.
It feels like an easy excuse for the writers to pull just about anything out of their asses, “because it has been so long” and “tech has evolved exponentially”.
SNW proved that there was a lot more to explore even in the 23rd century. So much could have been done with the fallout of the Dominion War in the 24th.
But it’s all up to the writers. If they’re good the show can be good.
I couldn’t agree less re: the 32nd century. They’ve created an interesting setting, and I’m glad they’re going to keep it alive.
The Burn being caused by a magic baby having a tantrum kinda ruined the whole setting for me. There’s a lot of potential with moving to the 32nd century, but if that’s the quality of storytelling we’re gonna get, it doesn’t seem worth it. I’d much rather see a 24th century setting that follows up on the galaxy post Dominion War and the return of Voyager. There’s a lot of untold story there that would be great to see… Although I’d hope it’s not more magic baby style stuff.
The Burn has one of the most classic Star Trek explanations ever—normal human(oid) gains magic powers after being exposed to strange energies. The Burn was several classic Star Trek stories woven together to tell a new tale. It’s basically a retelling of the TOS episode Charlie X.
Trauma acting as the trigger for those powers is the most believable part of the Burn. Emotions causing people to react is nothing new. It’s how humans operate in real life. Entire wars have been started over the death of a loved one. Emotions acting as a trigger is not new to Star Trek either. It’s been used a motivation for dozens of stories.
Star Trek has used the trope dozens of times and several in an almost identical scenario. Such as when Kevin wiped out the Husnock in response to them murdering his wife. Or Riker breaking his promise not to use his Q powers after Wesley was killed. It’s a realistic human(oid) response—trauma like the loss of a loved one can trigger a reaction with no bounds.
It’s really disgusting anyone would refer to the grief and trauma one experiences over the loss of a parent as a “tantrum.” Your comment is the very definition of hyperbole.
I think the cause of the Burn is a nearly-perfect example of Star Trek’s humanist values, and find it interesting when people feel the need to go out of their way to misrepresent it with words like “magic” in an effort to justify their dislike of it.
I find it interesting when people who are confronted with disagreement about a plot point they like resort to making implications about the other person’s character instead of discussing anything in the post they’re responding to.
I believe I did responf directly to your misrepresentation of the facts, but do go on.
(please don’t go on)
I gave my opinion on a key plot point, which you took so much offense to, you ignored everything else in the post. Please, keep living up to your username as you find a place on my block list.
If you have to make things up that weren’t in the episode, I’m going to respectfully suggest that your point is pretty bad.
I’m also going to suggest that you know that it’s pretty bad, which is why you chose to employ such a weak rhetorical device to begin with.
But sure, I’m the one that’s offended!
Agreed. For me, the only “magic” Star Trek needed was stories about relationships that took their time unfolding, with competency. There occasionally were unexplained encounters, but the focus was always on something that could be solvable when the crew worked together. There was resolution. Plus, I really liked the episodic structure of TNG and DS9, where I could get onboard with any episode almost. Within the self contained episodes there could be “twists of fate” that exist today. No more giant fantastic leaps than we already make by believing everything is in the future with their tech.
The “new” trek is too focused on being cinematic. Discovery was interesting at the beginning but it was overly precious and predictable, and overly representative. Designed to keep people hooked. I think the quality suffered greatly. I think representation is super important, having characters with diverse identities, but doing it for diversity’s sake isn’t the way. If we’re really in the future, then people just are.
Agreed, Discovery has really only scratched the surface of what can be done with the Federation’s rebuilding itself, Earth’s new isolationist tendencies, and the unified Vulcan/Romulan society. It’d be a shame to leave all that behind. Plus, we still need to learn what’s become of the Klingons!