StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh look, we have a true fanboi on our hands. Can't even bother to defend the awful.

If you have some specific defense concerning anything I said have at it. I would normally say your silence is deafening, but I think its more along the lines of you know the indefensible is indefensible, but you soooooo want to be cool. Keep feeding this overweight stripper your dollars, there is no A-squad coming on after midnight.

Star Trek Magazine drew my interest in the series. Their recent articles describe Lt Cmdr Burnham as a Vulcan-raised human who, due to her upbringing, suppresses her emotions to enforce logic; at her Vulcan adoptive parents' request, Capt Georgiou attempts to teach Burnham how to express herself more.

So I read the Wikipedia article on Star Trek: Discovery- specifically, synopses of the episodes- to see if the series is worth getting on DVD (I don't have cable TV). Burnham's actions in the episode synopses, are that of an overly emotional, overly impulsive, overly violent FUCKTARD- the complete opposite of how she's described in Star Trek Magazine articles.

What the hell? Did someone vandalize the Wikipedia article? Or are the scriptwriters for the series just that incompetent? The impression I got from reading posts in this very thread, is that Burnham is an EPIC FAILed attempt to create a female James T. Kirk (the Chris Pine version).

Sidewinder wrote: 2017-10-07 11:41pm Star Trek Magazine drew my interest in the series. Their recent articles describe Lt Cmdr Burnham as a Vulcan-raised human who, due to her upbringing, suppresses her emotions to enforce logic; at her Vulcan adoptive parents' request, Capt Georgiou attempts to teach Burnham how to express herself more.

So I read the Wikipedia article on Star Trek: Discovery- specifically, synopses of the episodes- to see if the series is worth getting on DVD (I don't have cable TV). Burnham's actions in the episode synopses, are that of an overly emotional, overly impulsive, overly violent FUCKTARD- the complete opposite of how she's described in Star Trek Magazine articles.

What the hell? Did someone vandalize the Wikipedia article? Or are the scriptwriters for the series just that incompetent? The impression I got from reading posts in this very thread, is that Burnham is an EPIC FAILed attempt to create a female James T. Kirk (the Chris Pine version).

I think the show has potential, but they took some huge missteps; They should have started with episode 3, and slowly revealed the events of the first 2 "prologue" episodes via flashbacks. They also should have made her actions, as you pointed out, less emotionally driven, and not presented both her and the crew of the Shinzhou as so incompetent and naive. The relationship between Michael and the Shinzhou's captain, over the 7 years that they supposedly worked together, needed a lot better development, in order to sell just how much Michael had grown during that time.

Haven't watched anything since episode one, since I ain't pay for this shit, and her argument for shooting the Klingon's was just fine. What happens after that is something I have no idea. But in episode one, it's pretty much any internet argument that starts with 'The Federation is so dumb with their 'no shoot first' shit, they should XYZ'

The things that grate, is that no matter what the Feds did, the Klingons were spazoids who WANTED A WAR.
No matter what
No matter the reasoning

THEY
WANT
WAR

Klingons have always been aggressive. But never , have they been morons. Remember their proverb? Only a Fool Fights in a Burning House
This starts, with no clue what the house is, or who's in it, or how many guns they have. Never mind trying to invoke The Black Fleet.
I seriously doubt, that any of the current writers have a clue about the Komerex Zha. Or what Khomerex tel Khesterex means. The 100-year isolation flies in face of that, so its not these guys anyways

Patroklos wrote: 2017-10-06 01:23pmIf you have some specific defense concerning anything I said have at it. I would normally say your silence is deafening

You asked me to answer something and then berate me for not answering, in the same sentence?

Prometheus Unbound wrote: 2017-10-08 10:57am

Patroklos wrote: 2017-10-06 01:23pmIf you have some specific defense concerning anything I said have at it. I would normally say your silence is deafening

You asked me to answer something and then berate me for not answering, in the same sentence?

I asked you post something relevant to the post you responded to BECAUSE your silence on the specific OT comments within it is deafening. It's an invitation to break said silence. You know, instead of pouting like a three year old because someone didn't like your favorite TV show.

Burak Gazan wrote: 2017-10-08 02:41am The things that grate, is that no matter what the Feds did, the Klingons were spazoids who WANTED A WAR.
No matter what
No matter the reasoning

THEY
WANT
WAR

Klingons have always been aggressive. But never , have they been morons. Remember their proverb? Only a Fool Fights in a Burning House
This starts, with no clue what the house is, or who's in it, or how many guns they have. Never mind trying to invoke The Black Fleet.
I seriously doubt, that any of the current writers have a clue about the Komerex Zha. Or what Khomerex tel Khesterex means. The 100-year isolation flies in face of that, so its not these guys anyways

T'Kuvma wanted a war, because an external opponent would unite the houses and make Q'onos great again. The rest of the Klingons seemed happy to carry on infighting as usual because you might as well fight people that are already here rather than some nerds all the way over there.

Knife wrote: 2017-10-08 02:07am Haven't watched anything since episode one, since I ain't pay for this shit, and her argument for shooting the Klingon's was just fine. What happens after that is something I have no idea. But in episode one, it's pretty much any internet argument that starts with 'The Federation is so dumb with their 'no shoot first' shit, they should XYZ'

The scenario in the pilot is a classic no win scenario. If Michael gets her way and they fire first, they lose to a superior Klingon vessel, if they give a friendly greeting T'Kuvma gets to use it to rally the rest of the Klingons behind his propaganda that the Federation is out to erode the cultural identity of the Klingon people.

In principle, Michael was correct, they should have fired first. The Shenzhou would still be destroyed and all aboard would be dead, but they'd have had a minor border skirmish with one Klingon faction not a war with the whole empire.

Knife wrote: 2017-10-08 02:07am Haven't watched anything since episode one, since I ain't pay for this shit, and her argument for shooting the Klingon's was just fine. What happens after that is something I have no idea. But in episode one, it's pretty much any internet argument that starts with 'The Federation is so dumb with their 'no shoot first' shit, they should XYZ'

The whole argument on shooting first has one major assumption in it: That Klingon culture hasn't changed significantly in over 100 years.

Vendetta wrote: 2017-10-08 02:40pmIn principle, Michael was correct, they should have fired first. The Shenzhou would still be destroyed and all aboard would be dead, but they'd have had a minor border skirmish with one Klingon faction not a war with the whole empire.

Would it ?

Or would the other houses view the Federation attacking first as an act of war ?

bilateralrope wrote: 2017-10-08 11:21pm
The whole argument on shooting first has one major assumption in it: That Klingon culture hasn't changed significantly in over 100 years.

As opposed to a radical 180 degree change in their culture by deciding to do nothing and hope they will just go away or send over a diplomacy team? I'm really not sure if the writers wanted a farcical situation to make fun of the 'The Federation doesn't shoot first' meme, or were making an honest to god comparison of projecting your motives on an alien culture instead of accepting an alien culture for what it is even if you don't understand it.

It's not like it was First Contact with Klingon's. Only watched the first season or two of Enterprise but remember they had contact and know at a basic level that the Klingon's were a warrior race and violent. The Earther's knew other species who knew Klingon's. It's not like they are totally unknown. They know what their culture is like at a basic level and yet projected their ideals onto it in a mind numbingly dumb display.

It was Federation territory with a Klingon fleet, a Federation relay that was destroyed, and they played the 'we never fire first' card. Dumb.

bilateralrope wrote: 2017-10-08 11:21pm

The whole argument on shooting first has one major assumption in it: That Klingon culture hasn't changed significantly in over 100 years.

And Sarek flat out tells her that. That just because it worked for then and for the Vulcan's doesn't mean it will work now for the Federation.

Commander Landry: "Look, Captain! Im Doing Science!"
Spoiler

As an episode, it was not utterly retarded, except for one thing
Spoiler

bilateralrope wrote: 2017-10-08 11:21pm

Vendetta wrote: 2017-10-08 02:40pmIn principle, Michael was correct, they should have fired first. The Shenzhou would still be destroyed and all aboard would be dead, but they'd have had a minor border skirmish with one Klingon faction not a war with the whole empire.

Would it ?

Or would the other houses view the Federation attacking first as an act of war ?

The other houses' support of T'Kuvma is based on him persuading them that the Federation's rhetoric "we come in peace" is a prelude to cultural eradication. If the Shenzhou had just shot at him for violating Federation space he would be exposed as a liar before those houses who don't really like him all that much anyway.

The support of the other houses didn't solidify until Giorgiou actually said "we come in peace".

Burak Gazan wrote: 2017-10-09 10:30am As an episode, it was not utterly retarded, except for one thing

Sure, that and having no military presence withing 86 hours of the planet producing 40% of your entire fuel supply. Supply lines win wars.

Kojiro wrote: 2017-10-09 01:05pm

Burak Gazan wrote: 2017-10-09 10:30am As an episode, it was not utterly retarded, except for one thing

Sure, that and having no military presence withing 86 hours of the planet producing 40% of your entire fuel supply. Supply lines win wars.

And the beaten-to-death "the Klingons ambushed us" bullshit
Without cloaks. How, exactly does that work? Or is this newfedspeak for "We're incompetent fucking retards who can't watch the radar on long range because that's boring..."

Question: Has Trek ever been hard sci-fi? I ask because everything I've seen from the property suggests it never has been.

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:02pm Question: Has Trek ever been hard sci-fi? I ask because everything I've seen from the property suggests it never has been.

Honestly? I don't think *anybody* has ever seriously advocated it (anybody that wasn't a Trektard or troll, anyway). There is simply too much that isn't hard-SF about it. Light SF would be a better qualifier as they do make a vague attempt, from time to time, to follow physics and such... but for the most part, it's governed by the need to make it look good on TV.

Elheru Aran wrote: 2017-10-09 05:07pm

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:02pm Question: Has Trek ever been hard sci-fi? I ask because everything I've seen from the property suggests it never has been.

Honestly? I don't think *anybody* has ever seriously advocated it (anybody that wasn't a Trektard or troll, anyway). There is simply too much that isn't hard-SF about it. Light SF would be a better qualifier as they do make a vague attempt, from time to time, to follow physics and such... but for the most part, it's governed by the need to make it look good on TV.

Then these hard sci-fi complaints make this thread even more depressing than it already is. If Trek has never given the impression it's hard sci-fi and instead is nothing more than social commentary in a different setting, who gives a shit about supply lines?

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:12pm

Elheru Aran wrote: 2017-10-09 05:07pm

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:02pm Question: Has Trek ever been hard sci-fi? I ask because everything I've seen from the property suggests it never has been.

Honestly? I don't think *anybody* has ever seriously advocated it (anybody that wasn't a Trektard or troll, anyway). There is simply too much that isn't hard-SF about it. Light SF would be a better qualifier as they do make a vague attempt, from time to time, to follow physics and such... but for the most part, it's governed by the need to make it look good on TV.

Then these hard sci-fi complaints make this thread even more depressing than it already is. If Trek has never given the impression it's hard sci-fi and instead is nothing more than social commentary in a different setting, who gives a shit about supply lines?

Now supply lines aren't a SF thing though, they're a basic strategic knowledge thing. It doesn't much matter whether you're fighting a battle in Nyack, NJ or on Qo'Nos, you still need supply lines, whether you're a hard SF or light SF, and that's not going to change.

The argument is that ignoring basic strategy is SoD-breaking, and... well they have a point. Social commentary is one thing, ignoring basic how-it-works is another.

Burak Gazan wrote: 2017-10-09 10:30am As an episode, it was not utterly retarded, except for one thing
Spoiler

They have made the Klingons , into literal monsters. Cannibalism? And don't give me the fucking bullshit about ''well, she's a different species..." Klingons have been many things THIS aint one of them

I thought the point was that they were starving...

They were starving right after the battle? Cause that aint the takeaway I got. And the Great T'whatsisname's followers can be bribed for the price of a good meal. VERY devout.

Rather than looking to hard/soft SF, there's 'how has Trek done this before?'. There is such a body of material that there's usually an answer.

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:12pm

Elheru Aran wrote: 2017-10-09 05:07pm

JLTucker wrote: 2017-10-09 05:02pm Question: Has Trek ever been hard sci-fi? I ask because everything I've seen from the property suggests it never has been.

Honestly? I don't think *anybody* has ever seriously advocated it (anybody that wasn't a Trektard or troll, anyway). There is simply too much that isn't hard-SF about it. Light SF would be a better qualifier as they do make a vague attempt, from time to time, to follow physics and such... but for the most part, it's governed by the need to make it look good on TV.

Then these hard sci-fi complaints make this thread even more depressing than it already is. If Trek has never given the impression it's hard sci-fi and instead is nothing more than social commentary in a different setting, who gives a shit about supply lines?

It still has to, if it wants to be good, be consistent in its own universe. Long range sensors are a thing, and if you don't want them to work like they do 99% of the time you have to give us a reason, which episodes of the other series do (usually via meaningless technobabble unfortunately, but its something to hang your hat on. They TRY)

The new episode was again filled with Starfleet being stupid as always but hey what else is new.

Disappointing.