OMG! New preview! And it's great!

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Ensign you're trying awfully hard to force your perspective on other people.

Sigh...I make one thread title with the words "this should settle it" in it and I keep being told I'm "forcing my opinion" on people.

It's not an opinion, it's fact, that some responders on these threads seem to think they know what the first season is going to be like before it's aired. They don't even claim otherwise. How is this me forcing my opinion on people?

 

[zar]

Since the show takes place nine years prior to TOS, you would expect the terminology to line up more it than shows taking place a century prior and after.

You would expect it to line up with the universe it's set in, which happens to be full of warp core references over a 300-year timespan (starting with the Phoenix in ST:FC). It's silly to imagine the terminology survived for 200 years, then suddenly disappeared for 20 years or so in the middle, and then suddenly came back into fashion. Again, the only way this makes sense is if you're a purist pretending none of the other series happened.

 

[Tuskin38]

Sigh...I make one thread title with the words "this should settle it" in it and I keep being told I'm "forcing my opinion" on people.

It's not an opinion, it's fact, that some responders on these threads seem to think they know what the first season is going to be like before it's aired. They don't even claim otherwise. How is this me forcing my opinion on people?

I wasn't talking about that

 

[BillJ]

It's not an opinion, it's fact, that some responders on these threads seem to think they know what the first season is going to be like before it's aired.

I'm simply not seeing what you are seeing. I see people with concerns (I have concerns). This has been highly civil compared to other places.

 

[BillJ]

Again, the only way this makes sense is if you're a purist pretending none of the other series happened.

I'm not exactly a purist. But I think if you're working in a certain timeframe, you need to work in it.

It is incredibly unrealistic for terminology to remain unchanged for 300 years.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I wasn't talking about that

Were you talking to me at all? I'm the only one with "Ensign" in my username.

And if so, what were you talking about?

 

[starmike]

We are all basing our opinions on what we have seen. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure there is. After watching trailers for decades, you should know that a trailer only shows you one facet out of 100 that could exist.

 

[starmike]

Well we can only make assumptions on what we have seen. I'm not even saying it's bad to have a dark and gritty look. All anyone is trying to do is predict what they think it will be and whether or not they will like it. I have a question. Why do you think the show will be good because you have the same limited amount of info as anyone else? Aren't you making your assumptions on the same amount of data as everyone else?

For me I think the show is going to be good but I am just not sold on that opinion as much as you seem to be. I can see things in it that might work against it. It's all just fun speculation right now which is what internet tends to thrive on when it comes to new tv shows that people are looking forward to.

Jason

Imagine if you judged all of Trek from the dark lighting in The Doomsday Machine.

 

[zar]

I'm not exactly a purist. But I think if you're working in a certain timeframe, you need to work in it.

Considering nothing is established about the warp core in TOS other than the fact that it isn't seen or mentioned, and later productions establish that the "warp core" had existed since 200 years prior, they are working within the time frame. Note that the warp core is separate from Engineering in Discovery, as it was in TOS.

It is incredibly unrealistic for terminology to remain unchanged for 300 years.

Yeah... except it already has from the 18th to the 21st century.
engine - Sense of "device that converts energy to mechanical power" is 18c.

So why not "warp core" from the 21st to the 24th? Regardless, it's already in canon, whether you think it's realistic or not.

 

[MvRojo]

Nice pep talk. Needs more gazelle though.

God, I had forgotten that. LOL

 

[uniderth]

^^^
Getting a bit ahead of the curve as I don't believe the show has been renewed as yet (Call me crazy, but they probably want to see the actual reception and how it performs with regards to generating and retaining subscriptions to CBSAA. Not intimating it won't be renewed either, but it's hardly a 100% certainty.)

As for me - as a fan of TOS and that time period, I'm just dissapointed the writers didn't really bother to look a lot at ACTUAL TOS episodes as on social media one of its writers posted a Engineering Console pic with the comment: "Hot Warp Core action!"

If they'd bothered to pay attention to TOS - no one on TOS ever refered to the power source in Engineering as a "Warp Core" <-- That was a Berman & Braga 24th century era Star Trek term. 23rd century Federation ships had: "Matter/Anti-Matter Reactors" and "Pods" or "Nacelles" or "Warp Nacelles and "Anti-Matter Pods".

Now, i get the need to update the set designs and the look, and have no issue with that, but I really hate Trek 24th century technobabble being thrown into the 23rd century Trek era. There's nothing wrong at all with the original technobabble jargon used for TOS; and it just makes me wonder how much of the line "Oh we know and love TOS and have big fans of TOPS on the writing staff..." is just a bunch of PR BS? <--- Will it kill my enjoyment of the series (assuming I like the characters and the story...)? No. But if they're going to go 24th century with everything else, they should stop touting how much 'attention to detail' they did with regard to the 23rd century era they decided to put the show in.

In fact, to be honest - TOS really didn't actually HAVE a lot of 'technobabble' when compared to the Berman & Braga era; so in general I HOPE they would respect that to; but given what I've seen and heard from the staff themselves at various Con and Press Panels posted on Youtube - that's probably a dead hope as well, especially with an ST:VOY novel author as a lead writer for the show. I mean you want to talk about a Star Trek series that made entire episodes of technobabble dialogue (that sucked) - that Star Trek: Voyager in a nutshell <-- And the only Star trek series I quit watching (after "The 37's"); and I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 on NBC (I was 6 and really into space based science fiction and a big fan of NASA manned spaceflight at that age too.)

YES! THIS! I'm already on the verge of not even watching. But the first shot of crew in shirt sleeves running around a glowy "warp core" or referencing the glowy nacelle domes as bussards, I'm out.

We also never saw a female captain on TOS..... certain things have to be let go, including '60's terminology... you really want to see data TAPES again?

Hell, yes I was to see storage media referred to as data tapes. Why should we dump the terminology used during the fictional time period we're depicting? Our society is full or anachronistic things like this. We use snail mail envelopes as logos for email. cell phones make a click sound when taking a picture even though there is no mechanical shutter.

Even that aside, how can an "anti-matter pod" be out of date when it doesn't even exist in reality? Just becasue LATER Trek series called them warp engines, doesn't negate the terms usage during the fictional time period depicted.

During TOS and TMP it was envisioned by the writers and artists that photon torpedoes were nothing but pure energy, but that was never confirmed on screen, and then it was confirmed in TWOK that they had physical casings, which continued into every subsequent production. Should we imagine that never existed before just because the TOS writers never thought of it? In-universe it makes the most sense that they always had casings, and they were just never mentioned during TOS.

Maybe so. Maybe torpedoes were caseless prior to TMP and when they changed to cased torpedoes they needed those huge launchers like on the Refit. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both, becasue technology changes. Later cased torpedoes don't contradict earlier caseless torpedoes.

The same applies to the term "warp core", which was used in ENT.

Enterprise can go suck a lemon.

And before you go cursing Berman's name for that, remember who actually put it there: Doug Drexler, a raging TOS fanboy. You were six in 1969? Doug was staying up late on school nights to watch Scotty drive starships while you were still in diapers. He worked on the TOS sets for the throwback episodes in TNG, DS9, and ENT... and he also put a warp core underneath Engineering on the TOS Constitution. Are you going to tell me Doug "didn't really bother to look a lot at ACTUAL TOS episodes" now?

Big whoop. Doug Drexler can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't change the content of the actual episodes.

 

[starmike]

We also never saw a female captain on TOS..... certain things have to be let go, including '60's terminology... you really want to see data TAPES again?

Just yesterday I saw someone referencing recording on their phone as "videotaping".

 

[starmike]

Big whoop. Doug Drexler can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't change the content of the actual episodes.

The lack of a use of something doesn't mean you can't use it. For example, if we find an alien species was discovered 10 years before TOS, that doesn't mean that because it wasn't mentioned in TOS that it should be used. That's just silly.

 

[uniderth]

The lack of a use of something doesn't mean you can't use it. For example, if we find an alien species was discovered 10 years before TOS, that doesn't mean that because it wasn't mentioned in TOS that it should be used. That's just silly.

Agreed, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we already do have terminology in use during this fictional time period and using later terminology would be REPLACING that, not simply showing an an unseen aspect. What are the chances that the original Enterprise crew never referred to their "warp core" in ALL their adventures? Showing unseen aliens is one thing; completely retconning the known aspects of ships operation is another.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

I wish they had just said "Ya know what? This is a STRAIGHT reboot with no relation to canon." That way they could avoid all the mess.

Considering how up-in-arms everyone is about the gay character.

 

[starmike]

Agreed, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we already do have terminology in use during this fictional time period and using later terminology would be REPLACING that, not simply showing an an unseen aspect. What are the chances that the original Enterprise crew never referred to their "warp core" in ALL their adventures? Showing unseen aliens is one thing; completely retconning the known aspects of ships operation is another.

Still don't agree. Just because "warp drive" was used in a general sense instead of "warp core" is just silly. It amazes me what Trek fans will complain about.

 

[zar]

Maybe so. Maybe torpedoes were caseless prior to TMP and when they changed to cased torpedoes they needed those huge launchers like on the Refit. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both, becasue technology changes. Later cased torpedoes don't contradict earlier caseless torpedoes.

Yes it can be both, I completely agree. Discovery could go either way and it wouldn't contradict anything. That's the point. They can say BOTH "core" and "reactor" in the same show and it would fit perfectly. The problem is Noname thinks that there is a One True Way and even mentioning the other term means they ignored Trek history. That's nonsense.

Doug Drexler can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't change the content of the actual episodes.

Again, Noname's reasoning is that they must not have watched TOS because they mentioned a warp core. This discredits that reasoning, unless Noname is willing to claim Doug is a phony too.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Agreed, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we already do have terminology in use during this fictional time period and using later terminology would be REPLACING that, not simply showing an an unseen aspect. What are the chances that the original Enterprise crew never referred to their "warp core" in ALL their adventures? Showing unseen aliens is one thing; completely retconning the known aspects of ships operation is another.

I gotta say this seems like nitpicking at minutiae. Does this really change the story or the characters? I don't just think, I know, that I have read Trek novels set in the TOS era where they use the term "warp core", and to be honest, until this thread, I never noticed that TOS didn't use that term. Apparently I am not the only one who failed to notice (it's actually pretty hard to notice that something is absent unless it used to be there). So they didn't talk about the warp core. They didn't talk about a lot of things that were likely there. Big whoop, to borrow a phrase.

 

[Tuskin38]

Agreed, but I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we already do have terminology in use during this fictional time period and using later terminology would be REPLACING that, not simply showing an an unseen aspect. What are the chances that the original Enterprise crew never referred to their "warp core" in ALL their adventures? Showing unseen aliens is one thing; completely retconning the known aspects of ships operation is another.

YES! THIS! I'm already on the verge of not even watching. But the first shot of crew in shirt sleeves running around a glowy "warp core" or referencing the glowy nacelle domes as bussards, I'm out.



Hell, yes I was to see storage media referred to as data tapes. Why should we dump the terminology used during the fictional time period we're depicting? Our society is full or anachronistic things like this. We use snail mail envelopes as logos for email. cell phones make a click sound when taking a picture even though there is no mechanical shutter.

Even that aside, how can an "anti-matter pod" be out of date when it doesn't even exist in reality? Just becasue LATER Trek series called them warp engines, doesn't negate the terms usage during the fictional time period depicted.



Maybe so. Maybe torpedoes were caseless prior to TMP and when they changed to cased torpedoes they needed those huge launchers like on the Refit. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both, becasue technology changes. Later cased torpedoes don't contradict earlier caseless torpedoes.



Enterprise can go suck a lemon.



Big whoop. Doug Drexler can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't change the content of the actual episodes.

I don't think this show will be for you if these tiny insignificant details will turn you off.
The last line in your sig is kind of ironic based on the content of your posts.

 

[uniderth]

I gotta say this seems like nitpicking at minutiae. Does this really change the story or the characters? I don't just think, I know, that I have read Trek novels set in the TOS era where they use the term "warp core", and to be honest, until this thread, I never noticed that TOS didn't use that term. Apparently I am not the only one who failed to notice (it's actually pretty hard to notice that something is absent unless it used to be there). So they didn't talk about the warp core. They didn't talk about a lot of things that were likely there.

That's probably because we've all been indoctrinated by B&B style Trek. We fail to look at what the content of Star Trek actually is and instead look at what we think it is. It's the same with Kirk -drift. "Of course Kirk was a womanizer, everyone knows that." Eeeexcept he wasn't.

"Of course the glowy domes on the nacelles were bussard collectors." Eeeexcept they weren't. (Yes, I'm going to belabor this point until it becomes acknowledged in fandom or the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first.)

Big whoop, to borrow a phrase.

YES!

I don't think this show will be for you if these tiny insignificant details will turn you off.

Inconsistencies in the world building can completely throw me out of the story.

The last line in your sig is kind of ironic based on the content of your posts.

True. True.