Poll If they admitted it wasn't PRIME?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I'm pretty sure most people accept the Kelvin movies just fine, whether they like them or not.
What's that got to do with Discovery, though?
You are the one promoting the shift to a different universe. JJ-Trek would be exhibit A when asking how effective such a shit would be.
Sure there is. People take different meanings away from things all the time. I'm not going to consider it Prime just because CBS says so.
I'm still not sure what your point is. Do you hate the Kelvin movies because they're an alternate timeline? Would the setting in the Prime timeline or another affect your enjoyment of Discovery?
Does it bother you that Discovery looks and fits quite poorly into the TOS continuity?
I reject all those questions. The notion of competing universes is itself divisive. Either it's good or it isn't. Either is fits in tradition of Trek or it does not.
Why do they have to compete? They're just different versions of Trek. There's no right or wrong. Some people prefer Gotham. Some prefer Batman '66. Some prefer Sean Connery Bond, others Daniel Craig.
It has naught to do with preferences. You've had this agenda for years. I think you need to be up front about why you are bringing out this inquiry.
Please spell out this agenda. I'm just a simple iconoclast, I know not of which I speak.
But whether or not it's the prime universe that was presented for hundreds of episode is a matter of what's on screen as a final product, and has nothing to do with the showrunners statements that it is the prime universe.
TNG was different than TOS, but it fit as a continuation of the established TOS universe, minor differences were just that, minor.
That DIS is a earlier version of the established TOS (and overall Trek) universe is increasingly difficult to see.
It's more than someone jumping in with "you want the doors to be a certain color," there are major structural and philosophical differences.
Take a trip down memory lane. You've been trying to prove Star Trek is little more than action adventure for some time.
Personally, I tend to resist any definition of STAR TREK that is too reductive or prescriptive.
"Star Trek is about exploration."
"Star Trek is about social allegories and topical issues."
"Star Trek is about hope and optimism"
"Star Trek is about the Canon and world-building."
"Star Trek is action-adventure, period."
Etc.
In its fifty-plus-year history, STAR TREK has accommodated pretty every kind of story one can imagine: courtroom dramas, murder mysteries, espionage, political allegories, tragic love stories, swashbuckling adventure, and even out-and-out farces and comedies. And now DISCOVERY is stretching the boundaries even further by incorporating large-form serialized storytelling and morally ambiguous characters. Works for me.
My defensive shields go up whenever people start trying to cram STAR TREK into a box.by making sweeping declarative statements about what STAR TREK "is" or "isn't."
STAR TREK is whatever it wants to be, as long as it works.
"Star Trek is about exploration."
"Star Trek is about social allegories and topical issues."
"Star Trek is about hope and optimism"
"Star Trek is about the Canon and world-building."
"Star Trek is action-adventure, period."
Etc.
In its fifty-plus-year history, STAR TREK has accommodated pretty every kind of story one can imagine: courtroom dramas, murder mysteries, espionage, political allegories, tragic love stories, swashbuckling adventure, and even out-and-out farces and comedies. And now DISCOVERY is stretching the boundaries even further by incorporating large-form serialized storytelling and morally ambiguous characters. Works for me.
My defensive shields go up whenever people start trying to cram STAR TREK into a box.by making sweeping declarative statements about what STAR TREK "is" or "isn't."
STAR TREK is whatever it wants to be, as long as it works.
As I recall, you were the champion of the 700-m nuEnterprise, despite the several instances where those dimensions were not visually backed up. Your main reason was always "The showrunners said it was so."
I'm amused at the irony of this thread.
Nice flashback. What has that got to do with this thread?
So this thread is the equivalent of one saying "If the Enterprise wasn't 725m, would the Kelvin movies be ruined?"
(And every time you see that bridge window, it's backed up)
You're certainly right. It is just that different people appreciate different aspects of the franchise, so in their own evaluation they easily classify those aspects they like as the defining aspects of the Star Trek, and if they find a production lacking in those areas, it is can easily feel that it is not 'true Star Trek' to them.
And he was correct, so...
Then he should accept what the people who make the shows say is fact. nuEnterprise: 700m. Discovery: Prime timeline.
