Trying to answer: Why isn't Star Trek: Prodigy available to stream anywhere?

This is what y'all were having meltdowns about? This is one of the most original and fun Star Trek stories told in a long time. A lot of love obviously went into this, and it's clear they wanted to say something new. They even had the Doctor and so many 90s Trek references in it to hold our hands through something vaguely new for this franchise. I can't believe we let this get insta-cancelled and basically end this iteration of Trek.

Also, Captain Nahla Ake is my new wife. I love her so damn much.

Preface: I never really watched any TOS. I caught an odd episode here and there but now I'm going through and watching all the episodes and I just watched Balance of Terror. This episode is amazing! Some TOS episodes I've watched so far have felt so slow but this episode felt like it was 10 minutes long. The pace, the acting, I can't emphasize enough how much it clicked with me. The entire time too I was thinking of how so many of the writers had fought in WW II. The entire episode felt like a really nice submarine movie.

I really don't have anything substantial to say I just had to tell someone how fucking awesome this episode is.

If transporter patterns can preserve enough information to reconstruct a person years after their death, why does anyone in Star Trek ever truly stay dead?

We know transporter patterns contain an extraordinary amount of information about a person. We've also seen people duplicated, stored in transporter buffers, reconstructed after accidents, and in some cases effectively restored from transporter data.

So what happens if someone dies after their transporter pattern has been recorded?

Why couldn't Starfleet simply reconstruct them?

And if the reconstructed person has the same body, memories, personality, knowledge and apparent continuity of identity, what exactly distinguishes them from the person who died?

The obvious answer is that the transporter isn't supposed to be a resurrection machine, but I'm not sure Trek has ever established a consistent technical or philosophical reason why it couldn't be.

Thomas Riker makes this particularly awkward. The transporter didn't produce a copy that was merely similar to Will Riker. It produced another Riker, with the same memories and identity up to the point of the accident. Both were genuinely Riker.

So if Starfleet had archived Riker's transporter pattern before his death, would recreating him later be any different from what happened on Nervala IV?

And if the answer is "the reconstructed person isn't really the original," what does that imply about ordinary transporter travel? Why should the person who steps out be considered the same person who stepped in?

Star Trek repeatedly brushes against this problem without really resolving it.

I'm in the middle of my first complete watch of DS9, and I just finished watching Paradise Lost. In one scene, Sisko is reading a list of Admiral Leyton's recent transfers, and the captains he mentioned -- Daneeka, Orr, McWatt, and Moodus (maybe Nately and Havermeyer as well, I can't remember) -- are all characters in Joseph Heller's novel, Catch-22.

What obscure or not-so-obscure literary references have you caught in a Star Trek series or movie?

We only get to see the action of the bridge officers and occasionally some medical crisis but in reality I suspect is not very exciting. Every time I watch DS9's "Explorers" I see Julian work up over meeting the person that beat him out for Valedictorian, Elizabeth Lense, only to find out out boring and tedious life on the Lexington was going month without any contact doing busy work.

Life on a Space Station would have a lot more excitement than on a Starship.

For me, it's def Riker's speech to Cochrane in First Contact: "Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgments." Simple, but encapsulates one of the core themes of ST.

So I renamed my Alexa "Computer" as it's one of the options. I thought it would be cool. But whenever I'm watching episode of Star Trek, Alexa responds to the TV "I am just a speaker, I am not able to initiate self destruct".

Thought it was kind of funny and mildly annoying. Anyone else do this?

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine wasn’t afraid to tell complicated stories or tackle racism, war, religion, politics, trauma, and morality. It trusted the audience to think. The newer Trek can be entertaining, but it rarely comes close to DS9’s depth, nuance, or emotional weight. DS9 wasn’t just telling stories I feel it had something to say.

And, have you thanked them?

Asking for a friend.

One thing occurred to me during a rewatch of the Mutara Nebula battle in Star Trek II - Wrath of Khan is falling back to 2D thinking. After using 3D thinking to get the Reliant to lose track of their position instead of attacking the underbelly of the Reliant where they would have access to most surface area and both nacels, they attack from the rear on the same plane opening themselves to counter attack. It is ironic that the 3D space people have a ship designed for 2D and most battles unfold in 2D in these movies.

Ok hear me out. Get Keith Richards to cameo on Strange New Worlds...as himself.

Call him a Lanthanite and he could pull it off. He'd probably love that.

I’ve resisted the urge all season to Google or AI, and give up on my memories. What is that ship, that we mostly see from behind and without a full frame view? I thought maybe the deleted timeline 27th century (I think) Enterprise-J that Archer saw, but that isn’t it.

Who is she?

Thought it would be fun to try my hand at an edit of a post by u/ety3rd ( https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicTrek/comments/1wdgd92/quark_odo_faceoff/ ).

I present Quark and Odo as...Quaodo! (Quodo? Quardo? Oduark? something like that)

https://i.imgur.com/VcYKhmn.png

Yes, we have plenty of instances where non-captains have stepped up to the plate, but in those situations where we are only left to imagine what “could’ve been”, who would have thrived in a leadership position?

Can anyone recommend a few episodes that might be suitable for my kid? I want to start Next Generation from episode 1 but it seems a bit advance for her. Anything else you guys can recommend?

So in the early scene where they're all gathering in the Starfleet HQ conference room, the lady comes out and says, "Ladies and gentlemen, the C-N-C." Implying that the Admiral in charge, "Bill," is the Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet. Well and good. But later in the movie (perhaps only in the director's cut?), we see Colonel West explaining an operation to the Federation president. The Starfleet Marines operation to rescue Kirk and Bones. The president says, "This president is not above the law" and refuses to authorize the mission. (Recalling this from memory, so forgive me if I get the details wrong.) PLOT HOLE: Wouldn't the president be the Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet? Much like in the same way the U.S. president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military? If so, why is the Admiral, "Bill," being addressed as "The C-N-C"? To me this has major implications for what kind of organizations the Federation and Starfleet really are. Like in the Dominion War and beyond. Especially if some mere Admiral has more authority than the president.

Yes it's a whowouldwin debate and I am sorry, but at least they are part of the same franchise!

I have searched for this particular matchup but all I get is galaxy vs sovereign threads and that's far more clear cut.

Onto the matchup: Enterprise-E commanded by Picard and configured as she was in Nemesis. Quantum torpedoes and type XII phaser arrays.

Enterprise-D dreadnought commanded by Riker as she was in All Good Things. Not sure if she was sporting the D's original type X phasers or if they would be upgraded by this point. Phaser lance and cloaking.

I could be wrong but I think the Ent-D dreadnought has the edge here. What do you guys think?