Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[BillJ]

It does not matter, have you seen the Phase II ship? The TMP ship is the same size and shape. There is simply no way it is the same ship., unless TOS was wrong. But those movies are full of errors and fans have been trying to make them work for ages.

You can't be all hard-ass on one point with the "creators said so" because you agree with them, then turn around and try to shove your own interpretation in because you disagree with something.

That's hypocrisy.

In Star Trek, the 1701-refit is a continuation of the 1701 from TOS. Live with it.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Okey-dokey. I'm not following down that rabbit hole.

See looks are not canon man. But they gave things like Size and decks and such on film. TMP was a visual reboot, we all know this. GR had the ship totally redesigned and I think at the time he never meant to show the old designs again. He was like that, he was close at one point to ruling all of TOS non-canon. I think because his vision moved past TOS

 

[BillJ]

See looks are not canon man. But they gave things like Size and decks and such on film. TMP was a visual reboot, we all know this. GR had the ship totally redesigned and I think at the time he never meant to show the old designs again. He was like that, he was close at one point to ruling all of TOS non-canon. I think because his vision moved past TOS

But... but... but... but!!!

 

[Spider]

So far Discovery doesn't appear to me to be in any Star Trek timeline I'm familiar with. And I'm good with that as long as it's a good show.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

See looks are not canon man. But they gave things like Size and decks and such on film. TMP was a visual reboot, we all know this.

My final word on this; I was speaking to naval tradition, not cinematic visuals. If you keep the existing keel, it's a refit. If you lay a new keel, it's a new ship. I didn't make the rule.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

You can't be all hard-ass on one point with the "creators said so" because you agree with them, then turn around and try to shove your own interpretation in because you disagree with something.

That's hypocrisy.

In Star Trek, the 1701-refit is a continuation of the 1701 from TOS. Live with it.

Yeah, I agree on film its a refit. I am simply pointing out the flaw in claiming its a refit of the TOS design. You do reconstructions like that ( the US navy did a few subs like this) , but not refits. Its a whole different thing. We actually saw the TOS ship get a refit from the cage to TOS.

from a design point of view, they can't be the same ships. Its like saying this

Is the same truck as this

It does not work. The design forms are just not the same. It however does work if one had tossed the TOS look, as GR had. At that point, looks did not matter to him. He was not trying to like the two ships up. The only time it does not work is if you claim looks are canon.

 

[N-121973]

See looks are not canon man. But they gave things like Size and decks and such on film. TMP was a visual reboot, we all know this. GR had the ship totally redesigned and I think at the time he never meant to show the old designs again. He was like that, he was close at one point to ruling all of TOS non-canon. I think because his vision moved past TOS

Except for the image of the TOS ship on the refit rec deck. Or the profile view of the TOS Enterprise on the Enterprise D's briefing lounge wall, or the models from the Enterprise E.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

My final word on this; I was speaking to naval tradition, not cinematic visuals. If you keep the existing keel, it's a refit. If you lay a new keel, it's a new ship. I didn't make the rule.

What is the "keel" on a space ship though? I mean they replaced everything. They did not even keep the corridors? It works, as long as you ignore the look.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

insert fc_drunk_troi_timelines.gif

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, I agree on film its a refit. I am simply pointing out the flaw in claiming its a refit of the TOS design. You do reconstructions like that ( the US navy did a few subs like this) , but not refits. Its a whole different thing. We actually saw the TOS ship get a refit from the cage to TOS.

Or you could just go "everyone interprets things in their own way" and not try to cram your interpretation down peoples throats, and call people liars when they don't see things your way...

 

[Mirror Mirror]

No offense but now you're bei

Except for the image of the TOS ship on the refit rec deck. Or the profile view of the TOS Enterprise on the Enterprise D's briefing lounge wall, or the models from the Enterprise E.

TNG was many years after TMP, a decade. As I said, GR changed his mind, TAS was not canon to him, then it was, TOS was not canon, then it was. He rewrote the klingons totally from TOS to TMP

 

[Spider]

I had one of those once, same year model, with a camper.

Yeah, I bees a redneck. LOL

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Or you could just go "everyone interprets things in their own way" and not try to cram your interpretation down peoples throats, and call people liars when they don't see things your way...

I said you lied to yourself as you kept saying it was not prime after the people who get to decide if it is or not had said it was. As this was a fact. TMP redesign is one of the most debated subjects in all of star trek. Officially we all know its called a refit. But fans like to debate this and I am no diff. I just roll my eyes when its called a refit from the TOS ship as it makes no sense from a design or engineering stand point. I gave you a visual reason above.

I do visual design for a living. Trying to make the TOS model design and the TMP model design the same ship really jumps out at me. Its like trying to make this

And this

The same ship because they share a vague shape outline jumps out at me. That is where the design eye takes over and I see how those shapes and forms do not work together.

Trek has been trying to work in TOS designs for ages and really almost everything about trek's visual design is based off TMP and not TOS.

 

[Noname Given]

TNG was many years after TMP, a decade. As I said, GR changed his mind, TAS was not canon to him, then it was, TOS was not canon, then it was. He rewrote the klingons totally from TOS to TMP

TAS was made 'not canon' by Paramount. Reason after TAS Filmation claimed that anything it created for TAS was copywritten and owned by Filmation (Lt. Arex, Lt. M'Ress, etc.); requiring Paramount to pay royalties for anything specif to TAS.

Thus when Paramount was planning and producing TNG - to AVOID any potential/possible legal court issues - the edict was: "Nothing from TAS can be used in TNG - period. It's de-canonized.

Over the years, after Paramount/CBS re-negotiated some licence deals an Filmation ceased to exist. TAS was suddenly 're-canonized.

It was strictly a business decision for expediency - not because GR/Paramount or anyone else 'didn't like' or felt the stories/execution of TAS was 'below standards'.

 

[XCV330]

My final word on this; I was speaking to naval tradition, not cinematic visuals. If you keep the existing keel, it's a refit. If you lay a new keel, it's a new ship. I didn't make the rule.

Spaceships don't have keels. There's no dichotomy to refitting an 18th century man-o-war and some imaginary starship, unless there is a big chunk of wood the starship is build around. Now that there are starships powered on fungi, who am I to say no.
.
Closest analogy might be the periodic refurbishments each of the STS space shuttles received, every few years.

But that was not a television show. There is only so much trying to cram reality based changes from the series into this wierd idea of canon. If you try to be orthodox about it, you'll get nowhere. Try correlating the number of decks on 1701A in ST5 with anything else canon.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

TAS was made 'not canon' by Paramount. Reason after TAS Filmation claimed that anything it created for TAS was copywritten and owned by Filmation (Lt. Arex, Lt. M'Ress, etc.); requiring Paramount to pay royalties for anything specif to TAS.

Thus when Paramount was planning and producing TNG - to AVOID any potential/possible legal court issues - the edict was: "Nothing from TAS can be used in TNG - period. It's de-canonized.

Over the years, after Paramount/CBS re-negotiated some licence deals an Filmation ceased to exist. TAS was suddenly 're-canonized.

It was strictly a business decision for expediency - not because GR/Paramount or anyone else 'didn't like' or felt the stories/execution of TAS was 'below standards'.

Yes, I know the business side. But I read somewhere, and others have said the same, that he kinda hand waved it himself before hand. He was like George Lucas, he did not consider himself bound by canon. He made Star trek so in his mind he and he alone got to decide what was and was not star trek.

 

[BillJ]

I do visual design for a living. Trying to make the TOS model design and the TMP model design the same ship really jumps out at me. Its like trying to make this...

I don't care what you do for a living, try to be a human being for a few minutes and realize we all see things differently.

And CBS has no power over how I interpret entertainment.

 

[XCV330]

TAS was made 'not canon' by Paramount. Reason after TAS Filmation claimed that anything it created for TAS was copywritten and owned by Filmation (Lt. Arex, Lt. M'Ress, etc.); requiring Paramount to pay royalties for anything specif to TAS.

Thus when Paramount was planning and producing TNG - to AVOID any potential/possible legal court issues - the edict was: "Nothing from TAS can be used in TNG - period. It's de-canonized.

Over the years, after Paramount/CBS re-negotiated some licence deals an Filmation ceased to exist. TAS was suddenly 're-canonized.

It was strictly a business decision for expediency - not because GR/Paramount or anyone else 'didn't like' or felt the stories/execution of TAS was 'below standards'.

I've always wondered if that's why Kzin never made it back into trek. Not only the problem of the TAS rights but then issues with Niven's state. Now that Ringworld is going to be a series, I suppose we'll never see Kzin on trek again. That's a shame. Like it or not, Kzin are where Niven's worlds and Star Trek meet.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I don't care what you do for a living, try to be a human being for a few minutes and realize we all see things differently.

Dude, there is seeing things differently and then there is rejecting reality. The fact is, you or I do not get to pick what is officially prime or officially canon. We can have head canon and fan canon, we all do. But reality is what it is. You claiming "This is not prime" is simply not true.

 

[BillJ]

Dude, there is seeing things differently and then there is rejecting reality. The fact is, you or I do not get to pick what is officially prime or officially canon. We can have head canon and fan canon, we all do. But reality is what it is. You claiming "This is not prime" is simply not true.