So all the attempts to show how what we saw on Discovery can be justified has failed.
To those who think so, would you really rather not have the tech present in order to conserve continuity over not having a tech that will probably be a reality in the future included which, the absence of would serve to date the show?
Honestly, this makes the continuity
more coherent, and ironically what these people see as carelessness was likely a conscious choice by the producers/writers with full understanding of what they were doing. Everything we've heard from them for months now indicates this.
Better question: Would they rather the continuity be that folks like Harry Kim grew up with holodecks their whole life, but Scotty reached his 70s without ever seeing anything like it in his life, so the whole thing developed from nothing to holodeck in just the 50ish years in between... OR that it developed in stages?
I wonder, if Metamorphosis was never produced (the one with Zefram Cochrane), would these people be rejecting First Contact and Enterprise on the basis that warp drive could only exist 30 years TOS, because Pike was telling those humans from 18 years ago how much faster the ships were in The Cage?
All of which are hypotheticals, assuming what the technology can and can't do.
The only hypothetical explanation I've seen here is the idea that the holo-stuff is more of Discovery's experimental tech. But that isn't what the bulk of these posts have relied on, and I for one don't buy it anyway.
In fact, what most people seem to be doing is
not making assumptions. That is, most people here, like me, as well as the silent majority who didn't even feel the need to bring this up on a discussion forum at all. Really, the only reason we need an "explanation" in the first place is because
some people made knee-jerk assumptions like "buhh it's a holodeck" and "buhh it's The Doctor".
If you just take what was actually presented in the shows, then there is literally no inconsistency. You only need to "assume" the technology does not do what it literally
has not done in the show. You should understand this, because it's the same basic reasoning you're using to suggest there can't be any holograms around the TOS era. The difference is, you're holding on to an assumption that has now been proven false, and pretending a head-canon inconsistency is a real inconsistency.
Some are based on Twitter posts.
None are. The tweet simply confirms that our interpretation matches the writer's intention. Remember, the reason I brought it in was because someone suggested that the writers
will in the future write a Ship in a Bottle episode establishing that the technology is equivalent to holodecks. Now what was that about hypotheticals again?
Similarly, people said the holograms we saw in the first episodes were less advanced because they were fuzzy transmissions from other vessels. Now we've seen perfectly solid and indistinguishable-from-reality Klingons on a ship that was far larger than the actual room they were in.
Of course people said that, because they were, and still are. As usual, the problem is you're equating all types of holographic tech. We've actually seen three distinct types so far:
- Full room environment
- Augmented reality
- Portable display
And they've all been presented differently, as they should be. The proto-holodeck is of course the highest definition, then the AR (projecting into a real environment), then the portable version which is basically flat and one-sided (Georgiou's will). And we know all of these will be further refined many years later as we see in TNG and VOY. We're seeing the progression. It works. I'm sorry you can't see that.
