• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Star Trek Discovery - Season 2 |OT| Exploration is logical

Apr 13, 2018
304
This show really does not respect its audience at all. Everything is so predictable, obvious, tropey. Well except where it is so paradoxical you think to yourself "na they wouldn't" but then they do.

Alone on a ship? Let's split up
Only one survivor? Definitely not a trap
Memory can't store all of a single human's experiences? No but it can store the memory of an entity over 100000 years old
etc. etc. et-funking-cetera
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,698
Hmmmmm!

Interesting.

So this is how Discovery's quirks get ironed out of the Star Trek that has come before.

I did like this episode. I do like the potential for where this can go. I guess this could be Voyager-like, in the sense of a ship, isolated.

I wonder if Spock will simply head back to the enterprise - that torpedo lodged in its hull might have something to do with that - or if they end up somehow with a 'split' Spock. I'm guessing the former.

One of my complaints about Disco so far has been the lack of more intimate familiarity with more of the crew, the wide cast of characters, most of whom get fleeting treatment. As opposed to previous Treks, which had a fairly homely sense of family onboard. Maybe this reduced crew set will allow a more traditional Trek-like treatment of the ship and crew going forward.

But I guess the open questions are, what will be the pretext for Discovery to go 'star trekking', as opposed to simply staying around that planet Michael's Mom stayed at... and what timeframe they'll be in... will there be interaction with familiar Star Trek factions, or even a future federation, or will it be strictly isolated in new territory. Let's see!

edit - oh, and Culber :( I wonder if that's really the end. That goodbye felt emotionally complicated. But maybe they will let it sit as a nuanced ending for that relationship, rather than reuniting them.

edit 2 - am slightly annoyed about the short treks thing. I actually loved the character here, but for me it was all totally new - as far as I know there's no (legal) way to watch those if you're in the international audience? They're not on netflix. Weird to incorporate them in such an important way and as part of the 'previously...'s if your international audience cannot watch them. Maybe I'm wrong, though, maybe they're up 'officially' somewhere for the international audience?
 
Last edited:

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,404
edit - oh, and Culber :( I wonder if that's really the end. That goodbye felt emotionally complicated. But maybe they will let it sit as a nuanced ending for that relationship, rather than reuniting them.
They didn’t retcon his death and resurrect him only to write him off again. I am sure he will make the transition to next season on this ship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,923
Hmmmmm!

Interesting.

So this is how Discovery's quirks get ironed out of the Star Trek that has come before.

I did like this episode. I do like the potential for where this can go. I guess this could be Voyager-like, in the sense of a ship, isolated.

I wonder if Spock will simply head back to the enterprise - that torpedo lodged in its hull might have something to do with that - or if they end up somehow with a 'split' Spock. I'm guessing the former.

One of my complaints about Disco so far has been the lack of more intimate familiarity with more of the crew, the wide cast of characters, most of whom get fleeting treatment. As opposed to previous Treks, which had a fairly homely sense of family onboard. Maybe this reduced crew set will allow a more traditional Trek-like treatment of the ship and crew going forward.

But I guess the open questions are, what will be the pretext for Discovery to go 'star trekking', as opposed to simply staying around that planet Michael's Mom stayed at... and what timeframe they'll be in... will there be interaction with familiar Star Trek factions, or even a future federation, or will it be strictly isolated in new territory. Let's see!

edit - oh, and Culber :( I wonder if that's really the end. That goodbye felt emotionally complicated. But maybe they will let it sit as a nuanced ending for that relationship, rather than reuniting them.

edit 2 - am slightly annoyed about the short treks thing. I actually loved the character here, but for me it was all totally new - as far as I know there's no (legal) way to watch those if you're in the international audience? They're not on netflix. Weird to incorporate them in such an important way and as part of the 'previously...'s if your international audience cannot watch them. Maybe I'm wrong, though, maybe they're up 'officially' somewhere for the international audience?
The Short Treks are on Netflix under Trailers, it's dumb.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,698
The Short Treks are on Netflix under Trailers, it's dumb.
OMG :O

I was sure I looked there back when they started coming out... but maybe I looked too early.

Thanks! I have a little catching up to do...

They didn’t retcon his death and resurrect him only to write him off again. I am sure he will make the transition to next season on this ship.
Yeah... we can presume there's going to be some cross-traffic between the enterprise and disco in the next episode, given Spock. That is, if Culber even left. Although he said he was going to join the Enterprise, there was no sign of him in the exit to Enterprise, or on the Enterprise after.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,923
OMG :O

I was sure I looked there back when they started coming out... but maybe I looked too early.

Thanks! I have a little catching up to do...



Yeah... we can presume there's going to be some cross-traffic between the enterprise and disco in the next episode, given Spock. That is, if Culber even left. Although he said he was going to join the Enterprise, there was no sign of him in the exit to Enterprise, or on the Enterprise after.
No problem, enjoy it they are great! :)

And my guess is Culber and Spock will switch places due to whatever happens.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,698
Time travel question:

The suggestion seems to be that by doing this, Discovery will be erased from the current timeline. That it will be as if it wasn't ever there.

(It being that way also, obviously, neatly ties up everything 'odd' about Disco and the existing Star Trek timeline...why Spock never mentioned Michael, why the Spore drive is never mentioned etc).

But is that how going travelling to the future works via this method? After all, the history of Michael's Mom didn't change just because she threw herself forward in time via this suit.

Or do we just accept it'll be this way in this case for the sake of the plot...
 
Jan 29, 2018
1,301
Time travel question:

The suggestion seems to be that by doing this, Discovery will be erased from the current timeline. That it will be as if it wasn't ever there.

(It being that way also, obviously, neatly ties up everything 'odd' about Disco and the existing Star Trek timeline...why Spock never mentioned Michael, why the Spore drive is never mentioned etc).

But is that how going travelling to the future works via this method? After all, the history of Michael's Mom didn't change just because she threw herself forward in time via this suit.

Or do we just accept it'll be this way in this case for the sake of the plot...
I didn't get that suggestion at all. Discovery will go off to the future, not be erased from the timeline.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,698
Where I got that vibe from was from Saru.

Spock: Ergo, Discovery's very existence is the problem

Michael: Of course, as long as Discovery exists here and now, this will never be over.

Saru: You're proposing we remove Discovery from the galactic equation...entirely?

Pike: How exactly are we supposed to do that?

Michael: The time crystal. This is why we have it. To take the data out of this time. So control can never get it. Discovery has to go to the future.
Looking back I think it could be read either way at this point. That it's simply going to the future, or that it's going to be excised from the timeline entirely. But I'd suggest that if it's simply going to the future, with knowledge of it remaining, that it's not really a situation that will 'ever be over' wrt Control.

My strong impression from the first watch of that scene was that they were going to use the time crystal to move Discovery to another, future timeline. And that this would also tidy up why we never heard about Spore drives, or about Michael, in the 'current' Star Trek past. But I guess now I'm 50:50 on that.
 

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,404
Where I got that vibe from was from Saru.



Looking back I think it could be read either way at this point. That it's simply going to the future, or that it's going to be excised from the timeline entirely. But I'd suggest that if it's simply going to the future, with knowledge of it remaining, that it's not really a situation that will 'ever be over' wrt Control.

My strong impression from the first watch of that scene was that they were going to use the time crystal to move Discovery to another, future timeline. And that this would also tidy up why we never heard about Spore drives, or about Michael, in the 'current' Star Trek past. But I guess now I'm 50:50 on that.
No, their plan is to go to the future so control can’t get to the data. That is what Saru means with “taking out of the equation”
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,698
No, their plan is to go to the future so control can’t get to the data. That is what Saru means with “taking out of the equation”
If it's still in a timeline that Control is in, and can lay low in until the future, then this solution isn't really a final closure to the problem in the way Michael seems to suggest. (Or is it?)

Of course this could just be a loose plot point that we're supposed to ignore. But hopping around in time, on the same timeline, doesn't seem so much more effective than hopping around in space, for an AI that is presumably ageless and can squirrel away somewhere (?)
 
If it's still in a timeline that Control is in, and can lay low in until the future, then this solution isn't really a final closure to the problem in the way Michael seems to suggest. (Or is it?)

Of course this could just be a loose plot point that we're supposed to ignore. But hopping around in time, on the same timeline, doesn't seem so much more effective than hopping around in space, for an AI that is presumably ageless and can squirrel away somewhere (?)
That’s what I think is happening. And I think it’ll tie into the temporal Cold War too
 
May 21, 2018
117
Did they explain why all of this is needed? Is the rest of Star Fleet unable to handle one of their divisions going rogue? I mean they had time to call the bloody Enterprise to come over, can they not get the rest of star Fleet to aid, it's ludicrous! How on Earth the plan to go through all this trouble and think Control will not continue to try and kill the rest of all life. Sigh. Also why can't they just park Discovery on the middle of intergalactic space while they purge Control....how is that not easier than flying the whole thing into the future?
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,002
Denmark
Did they explain why all of this is needed? Is the rest of Star Fleet unable to handle one of their divisions going rogue? I mean they had time to call the bloody Enterprise to come over, can they not get the rest of star Fleet to aid, it's ludicrous! How on Earth the plan to go through all this trouble and think Control will not continue to try and kill the rest of all life. Sigh. Also why can't they just park Discovery on the middle of intergalactic space while they purge Control....how is that not easier than flying the whole thing into the future?
Control shut down the long range communications network. They can only communicate to ships and planets nearby. Can't call for Starfleet if the phone is dead.

As for why not park Discovery in the middle of nowhere, I got a better one. Why not park it in the Mirror Universe? They have the coordinates for that jump on record and the Spore Drive is online. Well, was online.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,454
Control shut down the long range communications network. They can only communicate to ships and planets nearby. Can't call for Starfleet if the phone is dead.

As for why not park Discovery in the middle of nowhere, I got a better one. Why not park it in the Mirror Universe? They have the coordinates for that jump on record and the Spore Drive is online. Well, was online.

 
Aug 22, 2018
703
Control shut down the long range communications network. They can only communicate to ships and planets nearby. Can't call for Starfleet if the phone is dead.
They said ship-to-ship was fine but didn't specify range. And they could jump to Starfleet HQ and literally walk to the Chief of Staff's desk if needs be.
 
May 21, 2018
117
Control shut down the long range communications network. They can only communicate to ships and planets nearby. Can't call for Starfleet if the phone is dead.

As for why not park Discovery in the middle of nowhere, I got a better one. Why not park it in the Mirror Universe? They have the coordinates for that jump on record and the Spore Drive is online. Well, was online.
I missed that about the communications equipment, thanks for clarifying! Yep I agree, it makes no sense beyond they thinking future Michael has all the answers.
 
May 21, 2018
117
You've clearly not watched enough Star Trek if you think there's ever any friendly ships in range that aren't the Enterprise.
It just seems like they all think there's only one solution and the scaffolding is flimsy on why that is. They have for all practical purposes the ability to indefinably delay Control by jumping Discovery, but they don't think to use it to let everyone know that their AI is trying to take over the Galaxy .
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,498
It just seems like they all think there's only one solution and the scaffolding is flimsy on why that is. They have for all practical purposes the ability to indefinably delay Control by jumping Discovery, but they don't think to use it to let everyone know that their AI is trying to take over the Galaxy .
Oh, there is genuinely some issues around trying to sell the idea that this is the only way to keep it out of Control's hands for the time being. I was being facetious about Trek tropes.
 
I would almost assume that, since Control has the ability to affect any ship and any person it comes in contact with, that they'd want to isolate Control from the rest of Starfleet as much as possible. It has a single-minded fixation upon Burnham and the Sphere data, so they're using that to their advantage by not involving the rest of Starfleet--the more ships that are present, the more that Control could potentially take command of. By exploiting Control's fixation on the Sphere, they're trying to keep collateral damage as low as possible by leading Control to them and involving as few ships as they can.

Of course it would be great if they explained that in the actual text, too.
 
Oct 25, 2017
16
I’m reasonably certain that Discovery is the Borg’s origin story. Control wanted the sphere’s data to become ‘fully conscious’ - whatever that means, since it is clearly already fully conscious given that it is capable of wanting to acquire more knowledge and is able to enact complex strategy. With this data, control wipes out the universe. If the data disappears along with the ship into the distant future, control is unable to get to it, and is therefore not the instantly all powerful being it wants to be - so it spends the rest of eternity assimilating knowledge and species in the hope of replicating all of the sphere data. Hence Borg. I’d bet on it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,923
Control shut down the long range communications network. They can only communicate to ships and planets nearby. Can't call for Starfleet if the phone is dead.

As for why not park Discovery in the middle of nowhere, I got a better one. Why not park it in the Mirror Universe? They have the coordinates for that jump on record and the Spore Drive is online. Well, was online.
I could bet they don't want to risk doing that because such a jump could kill Stammats and honestly I would rather be stuck in the future than in that universe. I mean they can't really go back once they are there since the Discovery is the only semi-reliable way of crossing universes unlike time-travel, which many things in Trek can do "relatively" safe.

I would almost assume that, since Control has the ability to affect any ship and any person it comes in contact with, that they'd want to isolate Control from the rest of Starfleet as much as possible. It has a single-minded fixation upon Burnham and the Sphere data, so they're using that to their advantage by not involving the rest of Starfleet--the more ships that are present, the more that Control could potentially take command of. By exploiting Control's fixation on the Sphere, they're trying to keep collateral damage as low as possible by leading Control to them and involving as few ships as they can.

Of course it would be great if they explained that in the actual text, too.
I can buy that, nice explanation but yeah if they would mention this that would be great.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,330
I would almost assume that, since Control has the ability to affect any ship and any person it comes in contact with, that they'd want to isolate Control from the rest of Starfleet as much as possible. It has a single-minded fixation upon Burnham and the Sphere data, so they're using that to their advantage by not involving the rest of Starfleet--the more ships that are present, the more that Control could potentially take command of. By exploiting Control's fixation on the Sphere, they're trying to keep collateral damage as low as possible by leading Control to them and involving as few ships as they can.

Of course it would be great if they explained that in the actual text, too.
I mean that makes perfect sense and is logical,
 
May 21, 2018
117
I would almost assume that, since Control has the ability to affect any ship and any person it comes in contact with, that they'd want to isolate Control from the rest of Starfleet as much as possible. It has a single-minded fixation upon Burnham and the Sphere data, so they're using that to their advantage by not involving the rest of Starfleet--the more ships that are present, the more that Control could potentially take command of. By exploiting Control's fixation on the Sphere, they're trying to keep collateral damage as low as possible by leading Control to them and involving as few ships as they can.

Of course it would be great if they explained that in the actual text, too.
Sure this is a fine take I could get behind if they bothered even hinting at it in the show,However they still need to tell Starfleet about control anyway. They are in damage control and capitalizing on Control wanting the sphere data, but elect to get rid of the potentially helpful data instead of concealing it by literally putting Discovery out of reach of control somewhere far. They could use that data to help them fight control, which they still need to do.
 
Sure this is a fine take I could get behind if they bothered even hinting at it in the show,However they still need to tell Starfleet about control anyway. They are in damage control and capitalizing on Control wanting the sphere data, but elect to get rid of the potentially helpful data instead of concealing it by literally putting Discovery out of reach of control somewhere far. They could use that data to help them fight control, which they still need to do.
If by the "potentially helpful data" you mean the Sphere data, the whole point is that possessing the data, even sealed and further encrypted, would be putting Starfleet at risk. They can't weaponize the data without putting whoever holds it at risk. By moving the data to the future, they remove the risk of (current) Control possessing it, after which Starfleet can make moves against Control in the current timeline. But there's no way to attack Control directly with the Sphere data still in play without risking Control assimilating more ships to attack the Discovery. Discovery and the data have to be taken out of the equation entirely first.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,822
Sure this is a fine take I could get behind if they bothered even hinting at it in the show,However they still need to tell Starfleet about control anyway. They are in damage control and capitalizing on Control wanting the sphere data, but elect to get rid of the potentially helpful data instead of concealing it by literally putting Discovery out of reach of control somewhere far. They could use that data to help them fight control, which they still need to do.
How exactly do they notify Starfleet since Control has cut them of from subspace communications? I mean contacting Starfleet was the first thing they tried to do.
 
May 21, 2018
117
If by the "potentially helpful data" you mean the Sphere data, the whole point is that possessing the data, even sealed and further encrypted, would be putting Starfleet at risk. They can't weaponize the data without putting whoever holds it at risk. By moving the data to the future, they remove the risk of (current) Control possessing it, after which Starfleet can make moves against Control in the current timeline. But there's no way to attack Control directly with the Sphere data still in play without risking Control assimilating more ships to attack the Discovery. Discovery and the data have to be taken out of the equation entirely first.
Sure I understand that's what they are doing , I just find it silly. They could achieve the same by just placing Discovery in a different Galaxy and randomly drop data as they investigate the sphere's archive . I mean they could also just copy the data put it in a different Galaxy and blow up the backup in the ship (as it should be satisfied it won't be lost). It just sounds unearned to say that the only path is going to the future because there are some signals saying so given that they don't even know the extent of Controls influence, for all they know without this data they would be sealing their fate on figuring out a bunch of things to counter Control.
 
Sure I understand that's what they are doing , I just find it silly. They could achieve the same by just placing Discovery in a different Galaxy and randomly drop data as they investigate the sphere's archive . I mean they could also just copy the data put it in a different Galaxy and blow up the backup in the ship (as it should be satisfied it won't be lost). It just sounds unearned to say that the only path is going to the future because there are some signals saying so given that they don't even know the extent of Controls influence, for all they know without this data they would be sealing their fate on figuring out a bunch of things to counter Control.
They know from Michael's mother that all attempts to protect the data end in Control destroying the universe, iirc. There's no reason to believe that doing the same thing again would end differently. The only path where she hasn't seen the outcome was a path where the Sphere data was taken out of play entirely. That's the whole reason why they were trying to send it to the future with Dr. Burnham to begin with, because they know keeping it ends in failure.
 
May 21, 2018
117
They know from Michael's mother that all attempts to protect the data end in Control destroying the universe, iirc. There's no reason to believe that doing the same thing again would end differently. The only path where she hasn't seen the outcome was a path where the Sphere data was taken out of play entirely. That's the whole reason why they were trying to send it to the future with Dr. Burnham to begin with, because they know keeping it ends in failure.
My understanding per Spock is that the current timeline was never observed by her mother as she has lost her power to influence the timeline. They are flying blind here. They are going with what appears to be future Michael telling them to do this, but clearly future Michael would not be able to tell them which way is better, just her own way.
 
My understanding per Spock is that the current timeline was never observed by her mother as she has lost her power to influence the timeline. They are flying blind here. They are going with what appears to be future Michael telling them to do this, but clearly future Michael would not be able to tell them which way is better, just her own way.
Yes, that's correct, we agree on that. But Dr. Burnham has seen enough timelines where she was sure that keeping the data ends in failure, so they're flying blind by trying a method that they haven't already tried—sending the data away instead of trying to protect it like you proposed, because all other attempts to protect it that Dr. Burnham saw ended in failure.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,894
They should just move the data to a flash drive and then smash it, throwing the fragments into a star.

They have the schematics for the Red Angel suit and its memory storage tech, after all, and moving the data to the suit worked before (except for Leland's interference).

But that wouldn't make for good TV. I'm fine with the current plan, to be honest. (I also don't see how Starfleet can defeat Control if Control really can spread the way it has, but whatever. I have really low expectations for computer/AI plots in fiction.)
 
Last edited: