I'll be watching both for sure!
[/QUOTE]I'll be watching both as well! I love a good space adventure, and with The Orville being a good, fun, Sci-Fi series, DSC will serve the more dramatic side!
Attended the premiere - no spoilers
- Thread starter Search4
- Start date
[/QUOTE]I'll be watching both as well! I love a good space adventure, and with The Orville being a good, fun, Sci-Fi series, DSC will serve the more dramatic side!
A new news article has been published at TrekToday:
Last night, the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery took place in Los Angeles and plenty of Trek actors, past and present, were...
Continue reading...
Last night, the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery took place in Los Angeles and plenty of Trek actors, past and present, were...
Continue reading...
I think your definition of narrative continuity would make any prequel nigh on impossible.
Actually, Spock was finding out about the Tribbles as the episode was progressing. He was in the Sickbay lab with McCoy, was doing calculations on their consumption on the bridge. He wouldn't have needed to do any of that if that was in the Starfleet database and contained warnings about them.How dare we discuss the known details of the series!
Seems like Federation Google would have given them all they needed. Why would McCoy need to do anything more than that to ascertain what makes them tick?
Common sense? Usually good things don't happen when you take a wild animal out of its natural habitat.
Not just that, but a 2005 film intended to take place prior to the 1980 film. The year it was made is irrelevant.
No. Let's agree that we must endlessly debate and waste precious hours of our lives in pointless arguements over visual entertainment that in twenty years will undoubtedly be rebooted and dumped into the trash bin of history.
Need moar table flips!
I was editing my post above as you were replying, so in fairness I reverted that post back to its original form, and I will include the revised information in another post here.
The part I was going to add was to say this:
Prequels are made so that when viewing them, it is understood by all that they are prequels that were made after the original reference material.
However, it seems you view prequels, such as the SW prequels, ENT, and this upcoming Discovery TOS prequel different than I (and I would hazard a guess to say "most people") view prequels. I think most people view them as I stated above -- and the filmmakers (who count quite a bit because it is their intellectual property) view prequels that way too.
I have never run across a person (until now) who doesn't view prequel films and TV shows as being made in the chronology of "real-world filmmaking" but rather view them in a very strict sense as as being made in the "in-universe" chronology -- i.e., people who (for all intents and purposes of this argument) consider that ENT was made before TOS.
Fixed it.
I don't think so. There was a lot of already "knowns" in TOS. I just don't see the point in having a tribble, it feels like overkill on top of all the other things they are using.
^^^
But, Spock specifically said "... their predator-filled environment..."<--- And Spock (In TOS) never proceeds to state specifics unless he's verified the information - so, logically, he looked up information available on Tribbles in the Ship's Library Computer.
^^^
But, Spock specifically said "... their predator-filled environment..."<--- And Spock (In TOS) never proceeds to state specifics unless he's verified the information - so, logically, he looked up information available on Tribbles in the Ship's Library Computer.
Is there something that doesn't come from a predator filled environment?
I have to agree with some of the others. Star Trek wasn’t made to be watched in chronological order. It isn’t one coherent story, not a single plot like Star Wars is.
Enterprise should be watched after voyager.
Do you watch each episode of DS9/Voyager in order where they overlap timeline wise?
This runs back to my original question in all of this: why does it need to be part of the Prime timeline? Why can't it be its own thing and stand on its own?
Weeelllll...this time around I have, yes. I used an online "chronological order guide" that I found.
But I agree with your post, and in fact did save ENT for last.
Some fans prefer to know everything's connected. In fact, that might be a good subject for a poll. Personally, I love knowing that it all happened in the same universe. And as that's clearly the intent, I see no issue.
Oh, I see.
AND
Hmm. That view seems so bizarre.
Let's say I wrote six novels each telling part of a continuing and progressing story. But then I only published 4, 5, and 6. Finally after thirty years later I finally publish 1, 2, and 3 unchanged from their original form.
That is how I think prequels should be, generally speaking. Narrative wise they should be the what the films would have been had they been written first. To write them otherwise, unless its a flash back where it takes place in the narrative present but presents material from the narrative past, just makes zero sense to me. You're writing a story that is intended to be the beginning of the story, so it should read(/view?) like the beginning of the story.
Well maybe there's a lesson in there for ya'.
Hint: See my post about Enterprise being intended for watching.
This seems to be a reoccurring problem.
That might be true; however, that is not the point.
The point being argued here is that the inclusion of tribble in a story that is a prequel to TOS somehow causes the introduction to Star Trek Fans of tribbles in "The Trouble with Tribbles" to no longer make sense....
...as if someone would watch TOS: Trouble with Tribbles and say "what's the big deal?...we already saw tribbles 10 years earlier in DSC".
It didn't "need" to be. They could've gone another route. But, they didn't. How important that is to each person depends on how much value they place in having all the Trek series in one connected timeline. I like that, so I'm happy. But, YMMV.
I don't know Fuller's et al's reasons but I'm guessing part of the reason is that the Prime timeline, last I heard, makes a lot more money than the Kelvin timeline. In fact, CBS prevented JJ from overwriting the Prime universe completely for this reason.
Have you paid attention to Star Trek fans for the last fifty years? It will be the first question they ask!
That's the thing. That's not how most prequels come to be.
A more apt analogy would be if you wrote three novels and then later realized that there's a rich backstory that you'd like to put into novel form, so you release a new trilogy that takes place before the old one. You're writing it at a time when you and all your readers are already familiar with the first trilogy you wrote.
You didn’t answer my other question.Oh, I see.
AND
Hmm. That view seems so bizarre.
Let's say I wrote six novels each telling part of a continuing and progressing story. But then I only published 4, 5, and 6. Finally after thirty years later I finally publish 1, 2, and 3 unchanged from their original form.
That is how I think prequels should be, generally speaking. Narrative wise they should be the what the films would have been had they been written first. To write them otherwise, unless its a flash back where it takes place in the narrative present but presents material from the narrative past, just makes zero sense to me. You're writing a story that is intended to be the beginning of the story, so it should read(/view?) like the beginning of the story.
Well maybe there's a lesson in there for ya'.
Hint: See my post about Enterprise being intended for watching.
This seems to be a reoccurring problem.
