Kelvin Timeline came to be because of its introduction into STO. Daniels refers to it as that in the JJVerse level where you go to that said universe to help the USS Yorktown against the Sphere Builders.
It’s a good mission but the dialogue doesn’t make sense if you go into it using the JJPrise or Vengeance. They really need to add some dialogue branches.
I'm not positive, but I think the Okudas actually came up with it for the updated Encyclopedia before they used it in STO.
That's right. The Encyclopedia is written as if it were an in-universe reference, so they needed a name that might be given to it in-universe. I'm guessing that CBS decided they'd make that the official designation across all their licensees, or something like that, and that's why STO picked it up so quickly.
I would like to humbly suggest the name "Grimdark Bluniverse" for the Discovery TV series.
Why so serious all the time? Sometimes a name is just funny.Boxing this for DSC spoilers (in case anyone still hasn't seen it all) and because it's a digression from the thread topic:
I don't see how Discovery's any more "grimdark" than DS9. Its first-season story arc was pretty much the same as the Dominion War arc -- the Federation is increasingly overpowered by a ruthless enemy, forced to compromise its ethics, until the point that the leaders are willing to go along with a villainous entity's plan to commit genocide, yet the lead characters refuse to let it happen and find a way to reach out to an enemy leader and negotiate a ceasefire, thereby saving their society from itself and reaffirming the values they embody. If anything, it was less dark as a portrait of the UFP than the Dominion War was, because the primary sources of villainy came from the Mirror Universe rather than being compromised Starfleet officers like Section 31. And Burnham, Saru, and the others repeatedly came down on the side of refusing to accept a moral compromise, rather than grudgingly accepting one (or trying to) as Sisko did in "In the Pale Moonlight." Many of the most effective and powerful moments in the season were moments where the characters stood up for what was right, reached out to one another, bonded as a crew, and found a better way. The only way in which DSC is darker than DS9 is in the strictly literal sense of set lighting and color schemes, and they even found a (very nonsensical) Mirror Universe-based excuse for keeping the lights low.
Keith DeCandido just posted his season overview on Tor.com, and I think one of his points there is relevant here. This season was plotted and written as a single arc, the sort that's often released all at once on services like Netflix and can be binge-watched; but CBS chose to broadcast it in the old way, one week at a time with a midseason break. So maybe that kept us from experiencing it the way it should've been experienced. Keith talks about how things that were done as intentional foreshadowing ended up feeling like "giving away" the story twists in advance, because we had so much time to think them through and predict where they were going. But another effect is that people saw the darkness at the beginning of the story -- the problems that motivated the characters to push back and demonstrate their better qualities over and over -- and assumed that darkness defined the entire narrative, when in reality it was more about the resistance against that darkness. Maybe bingeing the whole season at once would give a better sense of the intent.
Why so serious all the time? Sometimes a name is just funny.
I fondly remember watching The Tonight Show as a young lad, when a guest would inadvertently set up Johnny for a witty one-liner like some of the more mundane humorists would resort to, and instead he would inevitably wow the audience with one of his classic 20-minute lectures on the history of comedy and bullet-pointed lists of why he was the funniest man in show-business, all while Ed backed him up with copious footnotes delivered in his gravelly voice as any great comedy sidekick should.I don't understand the use of "I was making a joke" to mean "You are not allowed to engage with the ideas the joke was referencing." Humor is not a shield from discussion. Humor is a way that people express opinions about things, and if you express an opinion, that is implicitly an invitation to reply and engage in discussion. The humor people use reveals their assumptions and perceptions, and if a listener believes those assumptions and perceptions are in error, then they have a right to critique them.
Anyone who knows me personally -- hell, anyone who knows any member of the Bennett family -- would find it laughable that you think I'm "so serious all the time." Humor is always part of how Bennetts communicate. But that's just it -- it's part of the greater whole, which also includes thoughtful analysis and discussion. Humor is not adversarial to that, it is integral to the process. Humor, ideally, is driven by thinking about things, by questioning things and looking at them from new angles. So to suggest that nobody should be allowed to question or evaluate someone's use of humor is, to me, utterly contradictory.
You're making the mistake of assuming your sense of humour is absolute. The simple truth is, some people find things funny that you do not, and vice versa.Also, some jokes miss the mark or just aren't funny. People who use "I was only joking" as an excuse to reject criticism of their humor will never be able to hone their humor. Listening to feedback from our audience is how we improve. People often respond to criticism of their jokes by saying "Don't you have a sense of humor?", but that ignores the sense part. A sense of humor is not blind laughter at everything, it's the ability to judge what's funny and what isn't. It implies the ability to say "that's not funny, and here's why."
Calling Discovery "grimdark" isn't funny because it implies ignorance of the subject. That impression may have seemed valid months ago, but if you actually watch the whole season, it becomes clear that it's not really all that dark compared to DS9 or even some of TOS. However dark the situation, the characters repeatedly refuse to compromise themselves to the same extent some DS9 characters did, and the overall thrust of the season is ultimately pretty upbeat and idealistic, even sentimental. So that joke just doesn't work anymore. It's outdated and it misses the mark.
Also, some jokes miss the mark or just aren't funny. People who use "I was only joking" as an excuse to reject criticism of their humor will never be able to hone their humor. Listening to feedback from our audience is how we improve. People often respond to criticism of their jokes by saying "Don't you have a sense of humor?", but that ignores the sense part. A sense of humor is not blind laughter at everything, it's the ability to judge what's funny and what isn't. It implies the ability to say "that's not funny, and here's why."
Calling Discovery "grimdark" isn't funny because it implies ignorance of the subject. That impression may have seemed valid months ago, but if you actually watch the whole season, it becomes clear that it's not really all that dark compared to DS9 or even some of TOS. However dark the situation, the characters repeatedly refuse to compromise themselves to the same extent some DS9 characters did, and the overall thrust of the season is ultimately pretty upbeat and idealistic, even sentimental. So that joke just doesn't work anymore. It's outdated and it misses the mark.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.