• Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Kernal64@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • smoothbrain coldtakes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          We can replace the words “magic” with “strongly telepathic” and it’s basically the same problem.

          It’s a great idea to fuck warp travel right on its head as a concept, but the execution was majorly lacking for me. I would have much rather had a continuation of the plot from Force of Nature where warp had significantly damaged subspace gradually (like a climate change allegory), rather than a universe-wide explosion that happened all at once in a flash.

        • Kernal64@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

            • Kernal64@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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! lol

    • usernamefactory@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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!