It's at least three continuities...
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
I just watched that episode yesterday. "Its good to see you again captain, it's been a long time" Get's me every time...
Maybe they'll eventually drop that one? It's happened before in history of mankind:Can't be. Remember, CBS has passed biblical law down from the mountain that this is all one continuity.
Heh. Nice attention to detail by Mel. He's indeed dropping XI-XV, since those are in his right hand, on the reader's left.Maybe they'll eventually drop that one? It's happened before in history of mankind:
Their hair is totally different.
****
The DIS mirror universe had humans who were xenophobic and very light sensitive
The TOS mirror universe had a half Vulcan first officer and no light sensitivity.
Last edited:
Well, it's somebody's Spider-Man.
And why shouldn't it be?
I know, let's pretend that the Raimi Spidey and these things with the British kid and the new Avengers movie are all in the same continuity.
I mean really, how hard could it be?
Give me ten minutes and a flip chart!
Andrew Garfield is my Spider Man.
Tobey Maguire is the one and only for me.
Sooo, you're up for a gladitorial battle to see who's right?
Only if there's TOS fight music and impractical ceremonial weapons.Sooo, you're up for a gladitorial battle to see who's right?
Does a lightsaber count? It may not work anymore though
Prime Universe: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT. The post-TOS series maintained visual continuity when referencing their predecessor (TNG: Relics, DS9: Trials & Tribbleations, ENT: In a Mirror Darkly 1 & 2). Shat's Kirk, Nimoy's Spock, that low budget 60's bridge set -- that's *not* an alternate timeline, that's the past. Same universe.
Abramsverse: Alternate timeline. We all know the story...
As for Discovery: Created during the Abramsverse era, but not part of it. Claims to be part of the Prime timeline. If that's the case, then it co-exists with everything TOS - ENT *except* so far as visual continuity. So close to TOS era it's hard pressed to believe the visual aspects of technology would change so drastically. Then again, look at the ENT bridge and reconcile it (and the ship) with TOS. At some point we just have to accept visual continuity issues are going to be an inevitable result of our RL technical development and the ever-evolving picture of our future, along with the financial resources these productions now have to realise their vision of our future.
The main issue contributing to this issue is that for 35 years, Star Trek went forward in the timeline. Then it got the prequel bug and spent the next 18 years (off and on) mining it's past as we viewers in the 21st century kept moving forward in our timeline. Understandably we would want our vision of the future to look different to how we would - or could - realise it in 2001. Or 1987. Or 1966.
So, to sum up:
Prime Universe: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT & DISCO. So far as visual inconsistencies, it's best not to try and reconcile it in-universe.
Abramsverse.
Abramsverse: Alternate timeline. We all know the story...
As for Discovery: Created during the Abramsverse era, but not part of it. Claims to be part of the Prime timeline. If that's the case, then it co-exists with everything TOS - ENT *except* so far as visual continuity. So close to TOS era it's hard pressed to believe the visual aspects of technology would change so drastically. Then again, look at the ENT bridge and reconcile it (and the ship) with TOS. At some point we just have to accept visual continuity issues are going to be an inevitable result of our RL technical development and the ever-evolving picture of our future, along with the financial resources these productions now have to realise their vision of our future.
The main issue contributing to this issue is that for 35 years, Star Trek went forward in the timeline. Then it got the prequel bug and spent the next 18 years (off and on) mining it's past as we viewers in the 21st century kept moving forward in our timeline. Understandably we would want our vision of the future to look different to how we would - or could - realise it in 2001. Or 1987. Or 1966.
So, to sum up:
Prime Universe: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT & DISCO. So far as visual inconsistencies, it's best not to try and reconcile it in-universe.
Abramsverse.
Except that, notoriously, the second visual reference from TNG back to TOS (the first being Admiral McCoy) was totally botched and had to be fixed in TNG-R. From "The Naked Now":
Original: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x03/nakednow052.jpg
Remastered: http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x03/nakednow_hd_157.jpg
Probably not coincidentally, this sort of thing is exactly what's feeding the division. One fan says, "Hey, but that's not actually what the ship looked like during the Psi 2000 mission." Next, half a dozen rationalizations get returned, ranging from "close enough for Starfleet historical records" to "but that's the most recent image of the ship in the public's mind" to "it's not that important." Then, BAM! You've got an argument and fans digging into their positions.
Hey, we can just meet in the middle! *gets out shovel*I've dug so deep, I'm halfway to China!
Some have noted that the lighting in the alternate universe in "Mirror, Mirror" is darker and moodier than in the real universe, possibly indicating that everybody is light-sensitive. I'm not sure I notice much of a difference.
Kor
There isn't any difference in bridge lighting. The light sensitivity thing is just another Disco invention that ignores previous continuity.
The only lighting in the episode that seemed to be any darker was Spock's quarters.
Similar threads
