Anyone else out there who actually really loved Discovery's S1 style of Klingons?
I think what matters is are you conscious the whole time. In my view, I feel like if I stepped onto a pad at Point A and walked off a similar part in Point B, and was awake for the whole experience, or at the very least experience no gap in memory, then it's not death. I think that if there's a break in consciousness, then sure, it opens things up to the death/cloning question, but I've never seen a depiction of teleportation that knocks the user out each time.
A clone. As far as I know, there's nothing in our established understanding of the world to suggest that merely copying the physical materials of my atoms would reproduce my memories and personality.
I mean, I can IMAGINE plenty of workarounds, the problem is that even the most practical way to explain them is illogical. It made far more sense that the NCC-1701 looked like how it did in the Cage (2254) up until sometime after Where No Man Has Gone Before (2265), before getting a refit for how it looks the rest of TOS (and again for the movies). Now, if I'm supposed to take the show at it's word, the ship went through a massive, complete refit by 3 years later in Will You Take My Hand? (2257), only to revert one time to it's 2254 appearance for 2265, and go through another refit by the Corbomite Maneuver (2266)? Is it really a lack of imagination here or is it actually that my imagination thinks about these things and fictional implications?
Seeing as anything that we copy or make backups of now is not self-aware, I don't see what that has to do with anything. If anything, a teleport (as conceived of and described in science fiction, not how it might "actually" work) is more like moving a file from one tree to another. The whole idea of the teleport as a plot device is to create a form of near-instant transportation. I feel like these thought exercises where "what if the teleporter cloned you and killed the original copy" miss that.
Its like, "hmm what if the train from New York to Boston actually brought you to a cloning facility in New Haven, shot you in the head and then replaced you with a lab-grown clone that went on to Boston in your stead" well then it wouldn't be what most people think of when they think of taking the train.
In order for me to be convinced that the common depiction of teleportation is a form of cloning and murder, I would need someone to prove to me that humans have souls in a metaphysical sense - that there's something about us as individuals beyond the sum of our lived experiences and the atoms that make up our bodies.
I so desperately wish that the Orville writers (IE, the DS9 and TNG writers I liked the most) were writing for current trek. So much of the criticisms levelled at the Berman-era are rectified here, and the show doesn't serve as propaganda for the US state department.
- We follow up with planets (or get more explicit narration about how they didn't just abandon some random planet to fend for itself after "fixing" a problem)
- Characters remember things from past episodes
- Gay and trans storylines
- Union politics make more sense than Federation politics
All without:
- Promoting the space NSA (Section 31)
- Promoting the view that governments have no choice but to act in bad faith so its up to Great Individuals to ensure they stay on the correct path
Not directly. We know that there are materials a replicator can't replicate - latinum (Ferengi currency) and dilithium (part of the power for warp drive) - or that are hard to replicate and so people prefer the real thing. I imagine that there are 24th century versions of the heavy metals we put in our modern day computers that can't be replicated. We even have references to "industrial replicators" in DS9, which implies to me something that spits out a prefabricated factory that then makes things, in addition to just being food replicators that can be deployed in a refugee camp.
change over time in a 60 year old sci fi franchise.
This common refrain is so condescending, as if we're being ridiculous expecting consistency in a piece of narrative media! It doesn't matter if the Klingons, at the time of TMP, were intended to be a total retcon, because DS9 made lines of dialog that make that impossible. I understand that there isn't a cohesive narrative across all of Star Trek, and I don't expect writers of an episode of 1990s television to be cognizant that maybe a prequel will come along and show anachronistic Klingons, but what I do expect is the producers of Enterprise to make better decisions than "but da klingons have ridges, how will people recognise the klingons if they look like how they did in TOS?" (IDK Berman, guess you should have thought of that before doing a prequel series).
And today, in this day and age where everyone at least knows about secondary worlds (IE, a setting distinct/irreconcilable from the real world) if not in name than be experience, I absolutely do expect a level of consistency above what we got in the 80s and 90s.
Obviously, advances in real world technology will impact how TV and movies are made, but we're not talking about Matte Paintings vs CGI. It's not like when the shows in the 90s made the switch from physical models to CGI, they randomly decided "hey, lets make the Romulan warbird a completely different looking ship", they recreated the physical model. When they started to be able to show more activity or detail in establishing shots of the ship or station, they didn't then also decide to give DS9 an extra pylon, or make it yellow and act like it always was like that.
People seem to think that inventing a matter replicator would prevent this, meanwhile all I can think is "they'd DRM the living shit out of replication tech". You want HEALTHY food? Better pay us 12.99 a month for the "Fit Package". "Sorry, but only Apple-certified replicator patterns work with the iWant."
I've yet to find any rule stating only that which was commented on this post is valid evidence. You'd have to have your head in the sand to miss that the current iteration of Star Trek stems back to the 2009 reboot movie which literally was marketed as "its not your father's Star Trek" and who's director continually complained that he found TNG and TOS to be "too cerebral". Alex Kurtzman, the guy in charge now, entered the franchise with '09. I don't think he's got the same mentality per se, but given that pre-Kurtzman trek saw past sets and props faithfully recreated and even celebrated (Relics from TNG, Trials and Tribble-ations from DS9, In a Mirror Darkly from ENT), while the current iteration, with a few exceptions (Beyond, Lower Decks, Prodigy), feels almost embarassed that it's a spinoff of a campy show.
If I walk to the teleport pad, expecting to blink from Point A to Point B, but instead I experience a blink from Point A to Point A, I'm the kind of person who'd need to be physically coerced, threatened, or tricked into captivity, because I'd immediately hop off the pad like "uh why am I still here I'm supposed to be in Berlin, I'm not leaving until you refund my transport cost or get me to Berlin". If I'm not conscious, then I'm the victim of criminal action, not the teleporter.
Likewise, the version of me that just experienced a normal teleport would live their life as they would have anyways.
Both of us would be me. Then, as our experiences diverged from the point of duplication, we'd become different people (See: Thomas, the duplicate of William Riker in Star Trek. The only reason Thomas and not Will is considered the copy is because of audience perspective, but empathizing with each of them makes one see how both are Will Riker at the start of the episode). This all of course, assumes we don't discover something like the popular conception of souls during the early trials. But I don't believe there's anything about a "soul" that can't be tied to the sum of one's lived experience, which would be copied too.
I would consider a clone to be more expansive of who it could include besides copies of myself as I am now - it would also be someone grown from the literal same embryo as me who'd lived a completely different life with even a different name.
Doctor Who has faithfully recreated sets, props, and costumes from as far back as the 60s as recently as 2017. Continuity is a different story - there's literally no doctor who canon - as the constant time traveling impacts things. Even the smaller TARDIS exterior from the Classic series is referenced as an actual, visual difference by the revival series. The current powers that run Star Trek would just pretend it was always that big.
I'll never accept the idea that it's okay to update a design but not properly reboot it and set it in a completely different and seperate continuity just because what you're making a spin-off of is old enough that it doesn't deserve to be treated legitimately. How many more years before the crude, gritty aesthetic of Star Wars suffers the same fate as the crude and campy aesthetic of Star Trek?
Whole series of television shouldn't be ignored by their own spinoffs just because their set designer and marketing teams decided something was lame or uncool.
If you were a Federation citizen living on any of the core worlds (earth, vulcan, andoria, and tellar prime) I think you'd be okay. It's not like it's something you have in the home anyways - we don't get much civilian life in Star trek but it's implied that you just physically go to the transport pad you want to use and use it.
All that needed to be maintained was that the Klingons we see Kirk face in TOS were all afflicted by the virus - while it's still reasonable to assume that, the presence of these hitherto unseen 3rd variant of Klingon complicates instead of simplifies, which is what ENT's arc did. Now what, it's ANOTHER coincidence that THESE klingons are even ridgier than we've seen before, but the other ones are still out there? To borrow your parlance, the Discovery redesign was intended to overwrite and replace what came before, because apparently Star Trek, unlike every other fantasy and science fiction thing I like, is Forbidden from being treated like a secondary world that should have its own internal consistency.
I was completely content to accept it was a coincidence that Kirk only saw augment virus-impacted Klingons in TOS, just like how ST Picard ended up establishing for Romulans (northern vs southern to explain the v shape bone ridge they had through TNG-ENT).
I don't consider them different. I saw TMP for the first time after having grown up on TOS ans TNG and thought "oh they switched to TNG makeup for the Kirk movies?"
The irritation for TNG looking different than TOS also silly and misplaced. It's 100 years later. That provides plenty of time in-universe for things to drift and evolve from one depiction to another. It's the same reason why I have zero qualms in terms of continuity with S3 and s4 of Discovery.
what if you aren't disassembled on the first side? Just copied over. Then it's not what most people imagine when they say "yes".
Using the star trek transporter as the example, you actually experience the teleportation process. In one episode, we see the perspective of someone being transported and they go into a white void, briefly, and then appear in the 2nd location. It takes like 8 seconds. We also know that some transporters are faster than others.
I don't believe there's anything special about my current body. Barring teleportation, I fully believe that if it were possible to disassemble a person, but them in a box, ship them across the Pacific Ocean, and then put them back together again, that they'd be the same person.
I don't see how being converted into energy and back represents death.
Correct. The thought experiment where it's like "ooh but what if it disintegrated you and 3d printed a copy of yo-" like that's not what a fucking teleporter is. You've just made some other science fiction device that I wouldn't use, I'd use the teleporter.
I don't buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.
If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it's me. It's isn't some fucking clone, it's me. You're just being turned into some other form (energy, if we're using Star Trek rules) and then being turned back.
I'm pretty sure that at 26, I'm already a completely different person than the baby I was born as, literally. My cells have all died and been replaced. The horror. ./s
Yeah, I really think a lot of the support for the Klingon redesign and other revisionist aspects of Discovery/the current era of trek it spawned comes from a "but the Original Series is cringe fail and LAME. We have to make cool science fiction action shows for the modern era and couldn't possibly respect such an old show" mentality.
Frankly, I don't get how someone can watch a whole scene and go "well that didn't actually mean anything for the characters that just experienced it". It makes more sense to assume that words have their intended meaning, and that Worf's friends were genuinely shocked to see flat-headed Klingons than it does to pretend Worf, Bashir, and company never actually had that discussion. Like, yeah it's all fake but main characters are supposed to be real people, the situations are supposed to be real to them...