News Star Trek: Discovery Story Hints

[Captain of the USS Averof]

If the Vengeance is a doomsday weapon, then every single episode of ST has doomsday weapons. All the titular starships, and the Defiant, and a random warbird or Klingon warship, have the capability to lay waste to entire planets.

Still sounds like a doomsday weapon to me:

"The Vengeance was specifically designed to be a combat vessel and was larger, faster, and more heavily armed (with more advanced weaponry than other Federation ships of the same time period). According to Khan, Vengeance had "twice the size... three times the speed", and its warp drive was much more advanced in comparison to other Starfleet ships due to the Dreadnought class having been built as a battle cruiser. The Vengeance had been built to allow for a minimal crew and was largely automated. It was designed to be controlled by a single person if necessary. Its advanced phasers could be fired while the ship was at warp. The ship was also equipped with additional technologically-advanced features, including better shielding, more advanced transporters, and enhanced warp capabilities. The weapons systems of the Vengeance included an array of advanced phasers and two massive swivel-mounted torpedo launchers that could be deployed from beneath the saucer section. Vengeance could also launch drones which were, in turn, capable of launching several photon torpedoes before reaching and deliberately ramming their respective target(s). The Vengeance's phaser armament was extremely powerful – a focused barrage could penetrate the defensive shields of a standard starship (even at warp velocities), breach the hull and damage critical systems, and thereby force the other ship from warp back into normal space".

The Vengeance was also not used in a doomsday scenario, it was used to disable another (lesser) warship.

I'd say Admiral Marcus (and/or Khan's) plan of starting a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire for no reason sounds like a doomsday scenario to me.

As for the torpedoes: they didn't even have warheads. More like a long-range transport, used with motives that still elude me.

As I found out, not even fans of the movie know if the torpedoes were armed or not. Or armed but missing their fuel cells.

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/paramount-going-ahead-with-st4-according-to-engage.285202/page-12

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/paramount-going-ahead-with-st4-according-to-engage.285202/page-13

The plot of that movie was a mess.

Agreed!

 

[Mudd]

Doesn't matter what someone wrote about Vengeance, just what was in the movie. Which was awesome.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And what was in the movie was as much of a "doomsday weapon" as Nero's Narada or Krall's Swarm. Which means that either they all qualify or none of them does. The same applies to Shinzon's Scimitar armed with the thalaron weapon.

 

[captainkirk]

And what was in the movie was as much of a "doomsday weapon" as Nero's Narada or Krall's Swarm. Which means that either they all qualify or none of them does. The same applies to Shinzon's Scimitar armed with the thalaron weapon.

The Narada and the Swarm weren't the doomsday weapons. It was the red matter and the Abronath that were. The ships were just the means of getting there.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The Narada and the Swarm weren't the doomsday weapons. It was the red matter and the Abronath that were. The ships were just the means of getting there.

I agree then. Like I said, we either include all of them, or we exclude all 4 of them, based on the same criteria.

Either way, and to get back on the subject, the aforementioned film list proves that it's possible to create a great Trek movie either with a doomsday weapon/lunatic villain (TWOK) or without (TMP), just as it's possible to create a crap Trek movie either with a doomsday weapon/lunatic villain (ID) or without (INS). Your movie examples may vary of course.

 

[Four Lights]

Harberts also said the following:

"The advantage of her not being in charge of the bridge right now is we get to tell stories from a very different point of view."

I don't like the sound of the "right now" bit. Having her as first officer was one of Fuller's big ideas. I hope because he's now gone they don't end up making her captain just for the sake of it.

 

[Wouter]

Still sounds like a doomsday weapon to me:

"The Vengeance was specifically designed to be a combat vessel and was larger, faster, and more heavily armed (with more advanced weaponry than other Federation ships of the same time period). According to Khan, Vengeance had "twice the size... three times the speed", and its warp drive was much more advanced in comparison to other Starfleet ships due to the Dreadnought class having been built as a battle cruiser.


I'd say Admiral Marcus (and/or Khan's) plan of starting a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire for no reason sounds like a doomsday scenario to me.

The Vengeance is merely larger and better armed than the Enterprise was at the time. It may have been build for war, but so is the Defiant and its sistership, and those don't necessarily have more (or even as much) firepower as the Galaxy class ships of their time. If Marcus' plan was to use the Vengeance to destroy Qo'nos, it may have qualified. As it was, he used it to destroy another vessel, something often done (or attempted) on ST even by "hero" ships.

Going by info from TOS to DS9 (like the attack on the Founder's planet and the bombing of the Cardassian cities), even ships like the TOS Constitution ships are able to make Earth-like planet uninhabitable, at least on the surface. TNG/DS9 era ships could even open the crust of a planet to ensure there are no survivors. They're all doomsday weapons if used in such a manner- even the cruise liner Enterprise-D. I suppose it would also be trivial for Starfleet and their opponents to use various biological agents, it they were inclined to do so.

Marcus could have just armed those torpedoes and/or used the Vengeance in an planetary attack role and the capital of the Klingon empire would have been destroyed. The almost total lack of a Klingon response to various Starfleet actions in that movie implies that Qo'nos has no defense at all and also that Klingons don't react to heavy provocations. They might as well have been attacking the Pakled's, those might have tried some ruse at least...

Having seen ID, one wonders why Marcus is so focused on a Klingon empire that has been show as totally impotent nobodies, not even able to stop a small Starfleet landing group that is arguing and fighting among themselves. They make Worf look incredibly competent as chief of security...

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Harberts also said the following:

"The advantage of her not being in charge of the bridge right now is we get to tell stories from a very different point of view."

I don't like the sound of the "right now" bit. Having her as first officer was one of Fuller's big ideas. I hope because he's now gone they don't end up making her captain just for the sake of it.

I always figured Fuller's idea was to bring her to captainhood, too.

 

[Michael]

Well, I don't think he ever outright said that. But sure, that could have been his plan all along. I'm with @Four Lights though, I would hope they let her be second-in-command for as long as possible. We'll see how the series play out and evolves, but right now I feel the fact that she's not the captain is one of the main draws of the show.

 

[tenmei]

One thing I'm curious about - What is/was Commander Burnham's original name. If we were supposed to know her as Number One for the first season (seem to recall we'd have found out her name in the finale), then stands to reason it must have been a 'twist reveal' (ie Commander Mayweather) which would have lesser impact if we knew from the outset her name.

 

[cultcross]

I don't think she was ever intended to be known only as Number One.

 

[tenmei]

I didn't mean she was only intended to be known only as Number One - just that it was the plan that we wouldn't know her name at the start of the series, perhaps for several episodes, perhaps for the full first season.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/08/28/bre...k-discovery-details-in-august-27th-interview/

Elaborating on Discovery’s protagonist, Fuller remarked “When we introduce our protagonist, she is called Number One for that very reason, in honor of Majel Barrett’s character in the original pilot. And as we were first talking about the series and talking to CBS, we said “Initially, we will only call this character Number One, because in the 60’s, in the first pilot, Gene Roddenberry was very progressive, and he had a female first officer, and CBS [NBC] executives at the time said America is not ready for a female in a command position.”

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm genuinely worried that the early rumours are correct. That Burnham makes a life or death decision at the end of federation space that fractures prime into multiple dimensions. That the Klingons understand or control this force, that i has affected them in the past. Where Sarek is also in Balance of Terror as a Romulan and will be a Klingon commander in the Motion Picture.

That was an early rumor where? In a parallel universe?

^ This is the first I've heard that rumor, not that I've been following them closely. Either way, it's pretty funny.

As for the summary, it sounds pretty promising and gives me more hope for the show.

It's from some YouTube channel with an apparently decent track record. They at least got a bunch correct about the 2016 Ghostbusters.

Something like that, anyway. I've watched their alleged Trek scoops over the past few months despite generally not being a YouTube user. I got curious. They paint some considerable doom and gloom over the production, although the supposed premise doesn't seem too bad to me.

Whether or not any of it's true, I dunno. I have faith in Gretchen, Harbert, Meyer, and Beyer. I think the first season will be rough around the edges but solid and enjoyable. I really like the things they're all saying lately.

Once again gentleman, your source. The same guy who said the new Trek series (being developed in secret) would premier Jan 1, 2015 and would be Enterprise Season Five, which would be followed by a Klingon War series, likely to be filmed on the Axanar sets:

 

[Campe]

Once again gentleman, your source. The same guy who said the new Trek series (being developed in secret) would premier Jan 1, 2015 and would be Enterprise Season Five, which would be followed by a Klingon War series, likely to be filmed on the Axanar sets:

When did this maroon post this?

 

[Noname Given]

It could go either way at this point. It's weird that they mention having to do Trek in episodic format, as if DS9 didn't exist. Heck even TNG had some mini arcs.

I wonder what the decision is that it could actually affect the universe.

At best TNG had ONE 3 part episode: "BoBW I" and "BoBW II" and "Family". It did have a number of two-parters.

DS9 at the start of Season 6 had a 6 episode arc where they had lost/evacuated DS9 and it was controlled by the Dominion for the first 6 episodes of the season.

ENT's Season 3 was pretty much one season long serialized arc with 3 'side' episodes during that season.

ENT's Season 4 was characterized by a number of 3 and 4 part 'mini-arc' storylines.

I'll also give an honorable mention to VOY in that as I understand it, the story for "Year of Hell" was originally pitched as a Season long arc, but UPN said "No."

So, yeah, it's not like this kind of storytelling is 'new' to the Star Trek franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

When did this maroon post this?

Not long after the recent trailer hit, which sent him off the deep end.

 

[Ketrick]

At best TNG had ONE 3 part episode: "BoBW I" and "BoBW II" and "Family". It did have a number of two-parters.

There was the Worf discommendation arc which started with "Sins of the Father", continued in "Reunion", and concluded in "Redemption, parts 1 and 2". Admittedly, the episodes weren't contiguous, but it was still a story arc.

As far as Lt. Commander Burnham and the choice she makes goes, it could simply be that her choice causes an interstellar incident that starts or nearly starts a war and causes her to be made first officer of the USS Discovery instead of being made captain of her own ship and potentially derails any likelihood of career advancement in her foreseeable future.

 

[jaime]

DS9 didn't do arcs in the modern TV sense. It was just a little bit serialized.

The entire show from beginning to end is an arc for Sisko. That's not even counting myriad other things. Your comment is disingenuous.

 

[jaime]

As usual, my interest in a project grows, and then someone says something so completely backward that I begin to wonder if they actually watched the show. Most of the movies have been about lunatics with doomsday weapons. Character development has never really been a thing. We had to rely on the TV shows for that. Yes, the episodic ones had to do so within the confines of an hour (or forty minutes if you're watching on PAL DVD), but that's where the narrative meat was at.

Not to mention that everything said is basically Seven of Nines whole shtick, and so similar to the other outsider characters.

 

[Mudd]

The entire show from beginning to end is an arc for Sisko.

That's stretching a point that's very thin to begin with. You know, I get that Niners think the show was wonderful. What you have to bear in mind is that

1. There was a lot of real adult TV writing going on in the 80s and the 90s to compare DS9 with, instead of just sitting it alongside TNG and saying "oh, this is more sophisticated. Those shows featured substantial character development and serialized narrative that Trek never approached (other than maybe a bit during the Xindi year); and
2. Most people who watched Star Trek to begin with gave up on DS9 during its run. By its third year in the series had lost more than half the viewers that TNG had handed off to it, and they never returned. DS9 is not a direction the Franchise needs to pursue.