Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[cultcross]

Spock's ancestry? I don't really see any conflict between "Where No Man..." and "Corbomite"? He just wasn't as forthcoming about who his human ancestor was.

Not Spock specifically, I mean Prime Trek generally was already on the change. If the existence of a DY100 model on a desk is enough to make something an alternate universe, the differences between the early episodes of TOS indicate either multiple universes at play, or we accept that the Prime timeline has always been modified.

 

[fireproof78]

Not Spock specifically, I mean Prime Trek generally was already on the change. If the existence of a DY100 model on a desk is enough to make something an alternate universe, the differences between the early episodes of TOS indicate either multiple universes at play, or we accept that the Prime timeline has always been modified.

Go with the multi-verse theory. It's far more convoluted and makes less sense

 

[BillJ]

I don't see how.

Spock says cloaking devices are theoretical in "Balance of Terror", even though he served in Starfleet eight years earlier where they were being used all over the place by the Klingons.

Just like people want to rewrite the Eugenics Wars, contradicting what the character said in "Space Seed".

The mantra is now "well, Spock was wrong". That to me is tearing a character down. A character that was written to highly prize accurate information.

 

[fireproof78]

Spock says cloaking devices are theoretical in "Balance of Terror", even though he served in Starfleet eight years earlier where they were being used all over the place by the Klingons.

Just like people want to rewrite the Eugenics Wars, contradicting what the character said in "Space Seed".

The mantra is now "well, Spock was wrong". That to me is tearing a character down. A character that was written to highly prize accurate information.

Or the records were wrong. It's it a world war, perhaps not all the records are complete.

Also, cloaking devises were present in ENT's era. Is that tearing Spock down as well? What about him not telling anyone anything about his culture's marriage rituals, about his dad being the ambassador, etc? Where is the line drawn?

 

[BillJ]

Or the records were wrong. It's it a world war, perhaps not all the records are complete.

I guess Khan was wrong as well when he states "1996" in The Wrath of Khan?

Also, cloaking devises were present in ENT's era. Is that tearing Spock down as well? What about him not telling anyone anything about his culture's marriage rituals, about his dad being the ambassador, etc? Where is the line drawn?

Information being lost over the course of a century is a bit different than Spock somehow forgetting what was going on eight years prior. Him not revealing personal information is what the whole Michael Burnham character is hung on.

 

[Tuskin38]

Weren't they also surprised by the Cloak in 'The Enterprise Incident'?

 

[cultcross]

The mantra is now "well, Spock was wrong". That to me is tearing a character down. A character that was written to highly prize accurate information

Spock said lots of stuff that was either wrong or bizarre, see his speech about women and fear in Wolf in the Fold.

 

[Tuskin38]

This thread is like 100% off topic now

 

[BillJ]

Spock said lots of stuff that was either wrong or bizarre, see his speech about women and fear in Wolf in the Fold.

I think some dialogue that was emblematic (and problematic) of the times is a bit different than what is supposed to be factual information about a war. Spock can have opinions, he can also have facts about the history presented in the episode.

 

[BillJ]

This thread is like 100% off topic now

Welcome to the TrekBBS!

 

[Tuskin38]

Retcons are allowed to happen.

 

[cultcross]

I can just edit the OP to be about this. I have retcon power.

 

[eschaton]

I'm guessing the Khan miniseries is not going to take place in the 1990s. I guess we will find out.

 

[BillJ]

Retcons are allowed to happen.

Sure they can. No female captains is certainly one that should of and was retconned. But what's the point of claiming it is all one shared continuity when it is becoming nothing but a giant retcon?

 

[ITDUDE]

This thread is like 100% off topic now

Well, we needed another one since that Enterprise on Discovery thread seems to have finally died down.

 

[DaveyNY]

This whole conversation is why I say that "ENTERPRISE" gave us the perfect out with the Temporal Cold War.
Any and all changes can be attributed to subtle shifts in the Prime Timeline due to everybody and their brother bouncing around in time and screwing things up!!!

 

[Jinn]

But what's the point of claiming it is all one shared continuity when it is becoming nothing but a giant retcon?

I think you're overselling the amount of retcon necessary. When it comes down to stuff from previous series that definitely has to be changed I can really only think of the line in "Balance of Terror" and depending on how rigid you are early TNG holo-phoria but that was already conflicting with TAS.

Oh, wait, were you talking about only DSC or Trek in general?

 

[jaime]

Is that really when it first made a big splash in the UK? Here in the US I remember I first got a personal Internet connection in '93, and it was all over the media in '94.

Heck, by '99 the first dot-com boom was already starting to crash. (And Google had barely even made an appearance yet!)

I was one of three people in my year at school who had internet access in around 1997 or 98. On a dial up 28.8k modem (pcmcia card on a second hand laptop). It was unusual, and only just starting to take off when stuff like AOL came over the pond. We saw it movies (hello Sandra bullock) but even home computing was extremely rare as far as pcs were concerned until the mid to late nineties. Amigas were about two people in my class, no internet on those. Everyone else if they had hardware at all it was a games console...and usually the SNES and later after serious techlust, the PlayStation.
Mobile phones were not a thing till people left school and got a job, and even then, they are t truly taking off large scale till the Nokia ranges kicked off in 98/99 and again, never in schools. Tech was expensive here back then (still is for current gen stuff) especially compared to the U.S.
Even the Dursleys are t especially well off...upper management job, own their own home...maybe private school for Dudley, but it’s apparently local and he got in on a family tie...middle to upper middle class rural. Dudley got a computer I believe by the end, but no internet.
Even when the first Potter book came out it was rare, and Pottermania kicks in around the time the third book came out...99, 2000ish. It’s just making a splash and becoming more commonplace. But people aren’t buying a computer unless they need one (usually students or enthusiasts) and an internet connection may need an extra phone line put in too...again, puts it in the leagues of the fairly affluent. But then it really gets going in the new millennium, and the Potter movies along with it...but they are based in books where it’s all yet to happen, and the movies reflect that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In light of new information, I agree we'll see the Borg again. Just not in Discovery.

See this thread: link

[Les Nessman voice] Oooooooooo! [/Les Nessman voice]

I asked the question to see if there was any point in continuing the discussion I can't see eye to eye with this viewpoint at all, the idea that all stories are in another world and our own is rigid and immoveable, unable to wobble even slightly to incorporate a fiction.

Good catch.

In my view, attempting to carve out an imaginary universe in which a fictional story is true usually misses the point entirely. It's like trying to insulate a story from the one thing most quintessential about fiction generally, which is that it is based on lies.

Amusingly, in the case of a story that begins with a device like "Once upon a time..." or "In the future...," such an attempt to insulate a story from its own lies is doomed to failure. Those devices imply that the narrator is talking about, i.e. lying about, events in the real world. The fan who will try to carve out his or her alternate reality will still have to treat such a device as a lie when it's taken not to reference the real world.

It's worth noting that Star Trek had its own version of "Once upon a time..." in Shatner's monologue that begins with "Space, the final frontier" and ends with "to boldly go where no man has gone before." If that's not talking [i.e., lying] about people, I don't know what the fork it's doing.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess Khan was wrong as well when he states "1996" in The Wrath of Khan?

Possibly.

Information being lost over the course of a century is a bit different than Spock somehow forgetting what was going on eight years prior. Him not revealing personal information is what the whole Michael Burnham character is hung on.

That's a fair point. But, the cloak is an inconsistency that has plagued Star Trek for a while. So, I'm uncertain why Discovery's inconsistency are worse.