>>96250408I mean I'm with you, but the question about how a show today can be worse than one from 50 years ago seems silly to me.
It's just about as old as Columbo. Does that make Columbo even a little bit worse than most crime series of today?
Granted, sci-fi can age terribly, but only if it hasn't got a single good thought going for it. As ludicrous as his stories are (and to a degree were even then) H.G. Wells' stories are still interesting to read, because they propose neat concepts like a material that blocks gravity from one side to the other in First Men In The Moon. (And the immediate consequence of creating such a material, namely everything in the building above it losing all weight, and everything around them rushing in with full force to equalize things.)
That's what makes good sci-fi, proposing something that might not necessarily be 100% viable, but is believable with a bit of suspense of disbelief, and exploring what it means and what it makes possible.
That's why continuity is such a huge issue with Discovery, because they introduce stuff like the spore drive, and expect people to believe that somehow the Borg never assimilated anyone who knew about this potential; all while treating it as no more than a better Warp-drive, without ever really delving into new possibilities.
