I’ve seen the first 2 seasons - if there’s a third I’m still waiting for it to appear on Netflix
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
That's just an assumption, though. TSFS implied that it was something amazing and new and experimental, and TNG's supplements (and later VOY itself) downright supported that.
Why would they rename the tech anyway? Never, ever ever is it ever called transwarp in the TNG era. I find that theory rather thin.
No it’s not misleading since even your explanation was still your opinion
Now that's downright false. Words have actual meanings, independant from our interpretations.
You strongly suggested that the lack of explanation was a problem, not just a matter of preference.
Indeed.
Could you explain how? All I suggested was that you presented your opinion in a dogmatic way - by saying that “visual reboot explains everything”. That’s my opinion of what you said - that’s not a falsehood. It’s more misleading to try and ascribe intentions to my words that are not in evidence.
It’s a problem for me personally insofar as it affects my enjoyment of the show. In that context I believe that the lack of an explanation is a problem. But I’ve also strongly suggested and explicitly stated that everyone’s mileage varies on this issue
Also, from a linguistic perspective, this statement is a little simplistic.
While you’re correct that words have semantic meanings - i.e. dictionary meanings, a word’s meaning in context may be very different to what the dictionary says.
Words may have pragmatic meanings - a speaker may be trying to give an order phrased as a request, or words can have indexical meanings - where a particular term like “yinz” may signify a speaker’s regional affiliation, their geographical origin, the social values associated with that word such as class and correctness, or aesthetic value.
Sorry to wax lyrical about this - linguistics is what I do
Sure. Yet nothing beyond it being really fast was ever described. I'm sure a jet engine was pretty damn amazing compared to the propellers, yet ultimately they both just make a plane fly.
No, not really.
Why did they stop calling it 'time warp'? Why we say 'phone' and not 'telephone'? 'Trans' here just was means 'beyond current warp tech.' So what they call 'transwarp' in TNG, is beyond TNG warp tech, but not the same as Excelsior transwarp.
Sure, it is just a theory, but I think it makes more sense that whole thing just failing for no reason. Excelsior failed in TSFS because Scotty had tampered with the engine. Certainly they had tested it numerous times before that.
Last edited:
My TV time is extraordinarily limited. Currently, I think I get in about three hours per week. Otherwise, I'm working, cooking, reading, or writing.
I just did! This is the second time in a row that you've isolated the first part of my post and pretended that the rest of it doesn't exist. I'm done with this.
Styles implied that they'd not only catch up to the Enterprise but tractor it in mid-warp. That's pretty special.
The TNG technical manual flatly, black-on-white says so, and the tech makes a return in Voyager, and it's not called the same thing for no reason. How is that "not really" what I said?
Retcon. It was never called time warp. The Menagerie omits that line entirely.
Bad example. We also say "smartphone" when talking about modern phones, even if sometimes we just call them phones. You've just made my point for me with a real world example.
I actually responded to both parts of your statement but I won’t push the issue.
And in TNG-era they can do just that! There are numerous examples ow towing in warp, and in 'DS9:Paradise' Dax stops another Runabout with a tractor beam while at warp. So thank you for strengthening my case that Excelsior warp tech is indeed common place in TNG-era!
Who cares?
I explained why 'not really.'
I heard it.
No one says 'smartphone' unless distinction specifically needs to be made. And as at least here in Finland other sort of phones seem to be pretty much extinct, that is rarely.
But the whole important part about this in relation to Disco is not the semantics, it that Excelsior never demonstrated any capability that did not seem to exist in the later eras, nor was any such capability even mentioned. So it it is not the same situation as with the spore drive, which is shown to do thing the later ships cannot, and even more ludicrous implications are stated, though thankfully not (yet) demonstrated (travel instantly anywhere in the universe.)
So? That doesn't mean the term is still used.
It is not used any more. Language evolves. That was kinda my point. Please try pay attention.
:P
Still, the rest of my case remains: never again is it called transwarp, and other material, both canon and otherwise, suggests that it was a failure, never again developed by the UFP.
That's very condescending. Obviously, I care, since I brought it up. The people who worked on the show put that down in writing, so I assume this is something they decided early on when crafting TNG. It's at least indicative that the people making that series interpreted it that way, even if that didn't make it into canon. And again, VOY brings the tech back, so clearly the Federation isn't using it.
Where? You said "not really" and left it at that.
Ah, another poster who snips the cogent part of my argument in order to pretend that it doesn't exist. How nice.
I repeat: they cut that line out of the TOS version of that episode. Spock was also not logical in that episode. Are we going to pretend that he wasn't a Vulcanian... sorry, Vulcan, back then?
What are you talking about? People say that all the time!
That's quite misleading. The Excelsior's transwarp drive was never used on the show, so of course it didn't demonstrate ANY ability whatsoever.
What's with all those misleading arguments?
Was there not an argument earlier regarding the origin "Bones" and how people should know about sawbones?
No canon material suggest that.
Good for you. I don't. It is not canon.
I explained that 'transwarp' means 'beyond current warp tech.'
I don't think he was particularly illogical. Sure, he behaved somewhat differently than in later episodes. That has really nothing to do with time warp though.
They say it because other sort of phones still exist. JUst like as long as the Federation is operating ships with both pre- and post-Excelsior tech engines, they'd call the Excelsior warp 'transwarp.' But once all ships have been upgraded and tech is commonplace, people eventually just call it 'warp' Like no one says 'motor car.' TNG is 80 years later, plenty of time for terminology to change.
Or maybe Sulu used it in TUC? But you keep missing the point. This whole thing started from comparison to Spore Drive, and that is a flawed comparison, whether or not the Excelsior engine worked. Because SD did things later ships cannot, while Excelsior didn't. So Excelsior is not a case where a working supertech was buried. Either it never worked in the first place, or it did work and that's what they're using in TNG.
And by the way, I really do hope you don't care about the size of the Enterprise, because the 285m figure was never stated in canon.
Shush!Was there not an argument earlier regarding the origin "Bones" and how people should know about sawbones?
But actually it applies. Dropping 'saw' from 'sawbones' is similar linguistic drift than one I'm describing here.
I know and I don't care. I always thought the ship should be bigger, because the window arrangement implies so and the sets don't fit otherwise.
I don't think they were one of the ones who was arguing for the small size.
Edit: Oh lmao
Voyager does. This is the third time I bring that series up. Do you not consider it canon?
Canon is often not canon, either. The point is that non-canon sources made by people actually involved in the show can be valuable, even if you'd like to ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.
Your interpretation.
It has everything to do with the argument. The series was CHANGED after the first pilot. They changed some terms, the ship, the sets, the uniforms, Spock, some sound effects, props, etc. You can concoct explanations for some of those, but don't forget that a lot of those changes are not meant to have in-universe explanations.
They say it because that is the name of the fucking things.
Please stop speculating based on zero evidence. It's pointless.
Cannot? What's your basis for this assertion?
Since "transwarp" is ambiguous and there is nothing in canon to prove one way or the other you both can be correct regarding how warp developed.
Similar threads
