Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

[XYZpdq Jr.]

Don't believe the haters. Voyager is the last of the TNG era Treks. Janeway is a great captain. I love the Voyager lore nod at the end of Picard S3.

I wish you a very enjoy. Voyager had some bad episodes, but it's some of the best of Trek too.

Voy is that crack rock that fell under the couch
yeah it's got some lint but you know your junkie ass is gonna smoke it

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Klingons are the Muslim rapefugees of the 32nd century.

What the fuck is Nu-Trek's obsession with destroying everything? The Vulcans and Romulans and their planets are gone. Kronos is gone and the Klingons almost wiped out.

I actually came to ask exactly this. I need someone to update me on this because my first question was "WTF, did Kronos blow up too?"

I get that they want to make it all about refugees, but there is no need to blow someone's home up to make them a refugee. Do they know Venezuela and Syria still exist?

 

[Miller]

What the fuck is Nu-Trek's obsession with destroying everything? The Vulcans and Romulans and their planets are gone. Kronos is gone and the Klingons almost wiped out. The Federation died for a long time. The Burn was the most utterly retarded plot device that needs to be retconned out of existence. Oh some kid felt scared and destroyed all the dilithium in existence and blew up every single space craft that used it. That would be an extinction level event for every society. We must destroy everything created in the past and make our own show that's better!

It's because bad writers/ideologues can only destroy deconstruct things.
Kurtzman and his cronies don't understand science-fiction in general and especially the Star Trek setting. Every major civilization/faction is spread on multiple star systems, not just one fucking planet. These factions are big enough to deal with their own issues without the help of the Federation or another group, but in Kurtzman Trek the galaxy and the quadrants mean the same thing and the galaxy is as big as the solar system, as the concept of time and distance mean nothing to him.
I thought Romulus being destroyed was the dumbest thing ever made in JJ Trek and Kurtzman Trek but the Burn takes the trophy. This major event showed - once again - that Kurtzman has no idea of what Star Trek is because if all the dilithium was gone then the Romulans would have been the only remaining power in the quadrant.

 

[Rykel22]

I know little of the Burn beyond the general sad boy cry and blows up the magic energy regulating crystals, but if it affected planet side reactors, wouldn't every warp capable society have ruined planets due to multiple mater/anti-mater reactors going off MAD style? The radiation release would be crazy.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Don't believe the haters. Voyager is the last of the TNG era Treks. Janeway is a great captain. I love the Voyager lore nod at the end of Picard S3.

I wish you a very enjoy. Voyager had some bad episodes, but it's some of the best of Trek too.

I'm not that far in that it's too late to do a chronological order viewing, but I would have to find a list for that.

Edit: found this https://startrekviewingguide.com/ I will not watch anything after Lower Decks, but is Enterprise and Discovery worth including or should I just do TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager?

 

[Phillip Green]

View attachment 8489817

Lmao, I've never watched any Trek series from start to finish and I thought I would start with Voyager.

Certainly an unorthodox choice...

I mean, I can dig it if you're trying to be a completionist, but the first three seasons are really a slog. The writing was just awful in those early years.

Like, I'll never get the time I spent looking at a TV screen filled with Kazons back, and I'm bitter about it.

I'd honestly recommend sticking to a "must watch" list until the show significantly improves starting in Season 4.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I'm not that far in that it's too late to do a chronological order viewing, but I would have to find a list for that.

Edit: found this https://startrekviewingguide.com/ I will not watch anything after Lower Decks, but is Enterprise and Discovery worth including or should I just do TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager?

Don't worry about the watch order too much. The continuity from TNG through VOY is like a relay race. TNG hands off to DS9 in the first episode, and then hands off to Voyager in its first episode. They're all sort of in the "present" of their continuity. TOS is where it all started of course, but you don't need to watch even one episode of it to start TNG.

 

[Phillip Green]

I'm not that far in that it's too late to do a chronological order viewing, but I would have to find a list for that.

Edit: found this https://startrekviewingguide.com/ I will not watch anything after Lower Decks, but is Enterprise and Discovery worth including or should I just do TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager?

Enterprise is controversial, in terms of quality and "fan-canonicity". I enjoy parts of it, but it's not as good as the earlier shows.

Discovery is not controversial. It's not Star Trek and should be shunned.

I'd recommend watching all shows in production order (TOS->ST Movies 1-6->TNG->DS9->Voy->Enterprise), rather than chronologically. However, many people find the 60's production quality difficult to get into, and without that the TOS era movies will lack a lot of punch. As M1ddl3m4rch says, TNG is a perfectly fine place to start and flows into DS9 and Voy smoothly.

Edit: And I'll note, as with Voyager, all of the post-TNG shows get significantly better as they go along, so don't get discouraged at how cringe-inducing some TNG season 1 episodes are (there are definitely some doozies).

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Certainly an unorthodox choice...

I watched the trailer-teaser for Academy with the EMH, learned the "tricorder. medical tricorder" was a callback to the Voyager pilot so I watched it and just kinda kept going for a few episodes.

Don't worry about the watch order too much. The continuity from TNG through VOY is like a relay race. TNG hands off to DS9 in the first episode, and then hands off to Voyager in its first episode. They're all sort of in the "present" of their continuity. TOS is where it all started of course, but you don't need to watch even one episode of it to start TNG.

I'm not stressing too much over watch order, mostly interested to keep it interesting and not just binge an entire season of one show.

Enterprise is controversial, in terms of quality and "fan-canonicity". I enjoy parts of it, but it's not as good as the earlier shows.

Discovery is not controversial. It's not Star Trek and should be shunned.

I'd recommend watching all shows in production order (TOS->ST Movies 1-6->TNG->DS9->Voy->Enterprise), rather than chronologically. However, many people find the 60's production quality difficult to get into, and without that the TOS era movies will lack a lot of punch. As M1ddl3m4rch says, TNG is a perfectly fine place to start and flows into DS9 and Voy smoothly.

Yeah I might just do production order. Thanks!

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

I'm not at all a Star Trek fan but even I am offended because this absolutely fucking awful series. I'm a writer myself and this shit makes me sick. Woke hacks like Kurtzman are getting hundreds of millions and the studios don't give a fuck about the quality of the writing.

 

[Rykel22]

I know little of the Burn beyond the general sad boy cry and blows up the magic energy regulating crystals, but if it affected planet side reactors, wouldn't every warp capable society have ruined planets due to multiple mater/anti-mater reactors going off MAD style? The radiation release would be crazy.

So, because I am a nerd and can't let things go, I've done some more thinking about this. Let's assume that planet side, most reactors were fusion based, so no dilithium to fail and matter/antimatter explosion. But any ship in orbit would still go up, releasing massive amounts of Gamma Rays, which would generate EMP when hitting the atmosphere.

What I'm saying is, the Burn should have reduced most planets to Mad Max/Age of Strife levels of fucked.

 

[Mussolini’s Merkin]

You get the strong sense the writers are just jingling keys. None of these deaths matter. The Federation basically shrugged off Vulcan. Picard’s involvement with the refugees could have been a natural continuation of the Reunification in TNG.

I’m not saying you gotta do, like, ten seasons of the Maquis, nobody’s asking for infinite Romulans. But they just don’t know how to write new problems for Starfleet. So they blow up a planet. And then forget about it.

I for one am interested for how the next series, a decade from now, will manage to retcon all of this crap and get back to the original Trek timeline.

I know little of the Burn beyond the general sad boy cry and blows up the magic energy regulating crystals, but if it affected planet side reactors, wouldn't every warp capable society have ruined planets due to multiple mater/anti-mater reactors going off MAD style? The radiation release would be crazy.

Shhhhhh. Shhh, shhh. No thinking here, that's not allowed in Nu-Trek. Just shiny lights and screeching emotional crew members.

 

[Calandrino]

The writers need refugees for their television morality plays, so they blow up planets to make them from Trek species.

They did like 1,000 TNG-era episodes where colonists adamantly refuse to abandon some backwater hellhole and come live on Earth, even in the face of near-certain death. Then another 1,000 where some nigh-utopia can't join the Federation because they don't meet some EU regulatory standard or whatever and need to evolve some more before humans have to care about them.

 

[King Dead]

I can't make myself watch this trash. STA is just mentally ill people in a writers room somewhere confessing all their illnesses. I'm not a therapist. They'd at least have to pay me.

I dunno if people have come up with a better term for it, but I think "therapy writing" (more accurately "therapyspeak writing," though that's more cumbersome to say) is a good way to describe this method of how modern Hollywood writes things.

There's nothing wrong with using personal experiences to inform your writing. Hell, I'd say it's pretty normal to draw from life experience for any creative work. "Write what you know," and all that. The thing is, you need to then weave those experiences into your story in a natural way. This is especially true for corporate work, but even if it's not, you still want your story to appeal to a wide swath of people, and the best way to do that is to make the story easily relatable. For just one example, the hero's journey, a structure that anyone can understand and get into.

Modern hack "writers" don't do that, though, and definitely not the ones who keep fucking up legacy series. They don't think of writing as a simple job delivering an entertaining show for the public to watch, they see it as an opportunity to get paid to work out all their "demons" (read: they got made fun of once in school or their parents made them go to church or something else entirely mundane and stupid to get hung up on) and have pretty actors play their self-inserts and live vicariously through them fixing all their past regrets. They're not just drawing on life experiences, they're hamfistedly shoving them in where they don't belong. And they're not even interesting experiences, it's just the dumbest pettiest shit. The biggest writers decades ago went to war or lived through the Great Depression or any number of horrors and hardships, while the worst thing that happened to one of these faggots is they read a mean tweet. Millions of dollars are spent on effectively allowing retards to have very expensive therapy sessions, and the general public has to suffer through that garbage instead of something actually fun to watch, if they don't learn to avoid it altogether.

As another example, look at Pixar. Its early years were simple stories or novel premises that wide audiences could relate to: toys coming to life when we're not looking, an ant colony struggling to survive, monsters in your closet are real (but they're also like you), a father searches for his lost son (but they're fish). But ever since the therapy-brained took over writing and directing, their movies only appeal to one person: the director. Wow, the protagonist of Turning Red is a chink girl living in Canada, just like the director! Wow, the protagonist of Elio is a spic boy living on a military base, just like the (former) director! These movies definitely aren't multi-million dollar therapy sessions! And predictably, because they have such narrow appeal, the general audience kept away.

As Hollywood continues to be insular and nepotistic, I don't see this shit turning around anytime soon, if at all. These tards lose money hand over fist with their garbage writing, yet they kiss the right asses so they continue to get work. The rest of us will have to make do with entertainment produced before these insufferable theater kids took over.

 

[Captain Syrup]

Don't believe the haters. Voyager is the last of the TNG era Treks.

I think Berman Trek is the same show three times. It's DLC. Hastily pushed out, one after another: new texture packs, new skins, maybe a slightly tweaked UI, but you’re still playing the same character classes, the same movesets, the same encounters, over and over again.

 

[Dragged Into Sunlight]

that Kurtzman has no idea of what Star Trek is because if all the dilithium was gone then the Romulans would have been the only remaining power in the quadrant.

I didn't even think about that. They used artificial singularities to power their warp drives. Apparently the writers didn't remember either.

I know little of the Burn beyond the general sad boy cry and blows up the magic energy regulating crystals, but if it affected planet side reactors, wouldn't every warp capable society have ruined planets due to multiple mater/anti-mater reactors going off MAD style? The radiation release would be crazy.

Yes, every single device powered by dilithium not only stopped working but exploded. Which means that even small shuttlecraft exploded. And all the replicators you would need to recover from that kind of destruction? Also powered by dilithium. Utterly nonsensical plot device.

 

[Phillip Green]

So, because I am a nerd and can't let things go, I've done some more thinking about this. Let's assume that planet side, most reactors were fusion based, so no dilithium to fail and matter/antimatter explosion. But any ship in orbit would still go up, releasing massive amounts of Gamma Rays, which would generate EMP when hitting the atmosphere.

What I'm saying is, the Burn should have reduced most planets to Mad Max/Age of Strife levels of fucked.

This is sound reasoning. According to the TNG tech manual, the Enterprise D had a fuel capacity of 3000 m^3 of anti-deuterium, spread among numerous individual 100 m^3 pods. That's a lot. I've found fan estimates that this represents up to 260,000 kg.

This much A/M annihilation would be truly catastrophic in orbit of a planet, likely sterilizing (or even melting) a good chunk of the surface.

However, on-screen evidence of warp core breaches seem to show much less energetic destruction. Certainly enough to destroy the ship, but not planet scale destruction. Both the original refit Enterprise and the D went down without planet killing destruction. Even assuming the DS9 battles are much less dense than shown on screen, fleet engagements would be impossible with AM fuel going full buck-wild when a ship explodes.

Not that I want to defend "the burn" (a deeply retarded plot device that ruins the Trek universe), but given the on-screen evidence, you could rationalize that the AM storage pods are insanely durable and reliable, being able to survive intense explosions without requiring external power. According to this line of thought, warp core breaches essentially annihilate what's already in the fuel lines (which is plenty), but the majority in main storage tanks are safe.

The quasi-canonical tech manuals state that even the largest orbital bases (Earth Space Dock and DS9) use fusion engines only, and AM is one of the few things that are expensive for this society to create (with huge solar collectors in the Sol system dedicated to produce the energy needed to create anti-hydrogen at scale). So it probably is only starships that need the energy density A/M engines provide.

Of all the many stupid things in Discovery, this is at least something I can try to explain away.

 

[Rykel22]

Of all the many stupid things in Discovery, this is at least something I can try to explain away.

On explosions on screen, writers and fx guys can't really show the full scale of the boom, because there goes the budget for the next 10 years. And even with the showed blasts and only reacting the active fuel, think about the number of warp capable ships that would be in orbit of any major planet. The amount of EMP producing rads and debris should have rendered them dead worlds.

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

This is sound reasoning. According to the TNG tech manual, the Enterprise D had a fuel capacity of 3000 m^3 of anti-deuterium, spread among numerous individual 100 m^3 pods. That's a lot. I've found fan estimates that this represents up to 260,000 kg.

"260,000 kilograms of antimatter contains 111,696,00 megatons of destructive force"​

That's the number I got when I asked a calculator. The Tsar bomb had something between 50-54 mt of yield, depending on who you ask. If that shit goes off on a planet, that's toast. Like, toast-toast. The thing is, you can have M/AM-reactions without dilithium for power generation purposes. It's either direct plasma-electricity conversion or used in the same way as any other old power plant (boiling water to turn wheels).

The Klingons nearly wiping themselves out because OSHA regulations are for suckers, well, it's believable, outside of the Burn-bullshit.

 

[Zorak Prison Pod]

Good thing nothing produced after 1999 is canon or we'd all be in trouble!