Ok, fine. I can't keep people's positions straight here. I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those insisting that 285m was gospel.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Ok, fine. I can't keep people's positions straight here. I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those insisting that 285m was gospel.
They say on Voyager that Excelsior transwarp failed? In what episode and what do they say exactly?
Well that's a non sequitur.
Such information can be interesting, but ultimately I base my interpretation on what's actually seen on screen. Besides, it is not like the makers of the show themselves feel beholden to such background information or even necessarily agree with each other.
Of course. It is not like any of this is real.
And you're the authority on which parts of the shows we have to ignore? I don't think so.
And in a decade no one will say that, because there will be no other sort of phones. Motor car.
Are you new on these forums or something? Put it is not based on zero evidence. We're told Excelsior has transwarp, and then we later see Excelsior warping about. It is perfectly reasonable conclusion that Excelsior is using that transwarp engine.
Do later ships instantly travel vast distances like Discovery? No they do not.
Last edited:
Oh, certainly!
Yep, sure. But based on evidence it is at least as valid interpretation than that it somehow failed.
It really depends on where you live, here in eastern Canada, the only people I hear saying 'smartphone' are the people trying to sell it to you, like at a store or in advertisements.
Most people I know in casual conversation just say 'phone' or 'cell phone'.
I assumed “transwarp” in TSFS meant something different to its meaning in Voyager. In my head canon, the TSFS transwarp project led to the re-evaluation of the warp scale in the 24th century meaning that, as Janeway would go on to explain, ships in the 23rd century weren’t half as fast (disco notwithstanding...)
Maybe based on TSFS alone (although possibly there’s something on memory alpha/beta about this) I always assumed that excelsior was refit with conventional warp engines and it wasn’t until later that transwarp drive was perfected.
However, as we know 24th century ships were faster than their 23rd century sisters, and we see excelsior class ships in the 24th century with the same nacelle design, it stands to reason that they did indeed get the transwarp engine working at some point.
Only when they’re snapped there by Q.
Maybe that’s how the Q travel instantaneously places? By spore.
And maybe the distress call put out by Enterprise at the end of s1 has to do with her engines being damaged - maybe she needs an upgrade which will come with new pylons... for all we know the Enterprise was actually the first ship in the transwarp project...
Totally agree re: terms for phones. In the UK you’ll hear “phone” or “mobile” but rarely “cellphone” or even “smartphone” (unless someone is being really specific).
From a linguistic perspective it’s really interesting (to me at least!) to look at this kind of thing. A speaker can be *completely convinced* that their word is the *only* word for a particular concept, because they may not have experienced other varieties, or come into contact with them frequently enough to be aware of such differences. The last time I was in Canada I was going on and on about using sat nav until someone pointed out to me that the local term was GPS - then everyone knew what I was talking about. Should have been better prepared at a linguistics conference I guess!
I suppose a similar notion applies to definitions of canon, continuity, etc. One of the things I enjoy on this site is having my own long held beliefs challenged. If fandom was a geographical area I think your point of “it depends where you live” would be equally valid.
I would live in a place where there is an explanation for the Enterprise changes.
Many others would live in a place where no explanation is needed.
Hopefully we’d be able to coexist without too much disagreement...!
Linguistics....
Considering the apparent plight of certain posters around here, I think an additional entry for the Urban Dictionary definition of 'rebooty' is warranted:
When fans have been spending excessive amounts of time on message boards for the purpose of arguing about reboots, and neglecting everything else in their lives, they need to take a break and get some rebooty.
Considering the apparent plight of certain posters around here, I think an additional entry for the Urban Dictionary definition of 'rebooty' is warranted:
When fans have been spending excessive amounts of time on message boards for the purpose of arguing about reboots, and neglecting everything else in their lives, they need to take a break and get some rebooty.
Nice
I actually tried that but then afterwards ended up discussing the relative merits of recasting actors in Harry Potter with my gf - rebooty came with baggage from a different fandom...!Anyway - back to the Enterprise... trekmovie had an interview with Rebecca Romjin where she mentioned the sets and said they had a 60s vibe to them. I know there’s no direct evidence and the big E doesn’t seem to be sticking around for long but I wonder whether we’ll see the bridge? And I don’t mean a tiny glimpse through its window...!
They've changed the visuals and technology. They've retconned the story to the point it might as well be a reboot.
So it's a reboot. Prime Universe in name only.
So it's a reboot. Prime Universe in name only.
Are you taking the piss? Did you not read what I said about how the two connect? Or are you just pretending not to?
I'm not sure you're clear on what that term means. It means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. There's no syllogism there, so it can't be a non sequitur.
And I'm not kidding: canon is often, especially in Star Trek, superseded by new, contradictory information. Happens a lot in fiction.
No you don't. Your interpretation is entirely made up; based on things NOT seen. Nowhere do they say or imply that Transwarp just became regular warp.
Why the fuck do you keep misrepresenting what I said? You're doing the same thing to me that you're doing to Star Trek, by the way, adding information that isn't there to invent or support your own interpretation. How is that conductive to a discussion? How about you stick to what I actually say?
You don't know that, and you can't use a future you don't know as an argument.
That does not counter what I said. Read it again.
You could say that about TMP to a degree. And ENT. As I said several times, Trek has never been particularily respectful of its own 'canon'.
Arguably never to this degree. ENT had the out of temporal interference, where characters explicitly say it's a repeatedly altered timeline.
Totally agree that it’s an issue of degree.
Enterprise had some continuity issues, sure (cloaks, romulans, freaking D7), but they didn’t take something as fundamental as the starship that launched the franchise and alter the design because “modern”. They were pretty respectful in that regard.
But DSC and ENT have the same problem - Neither did a good enough job of suggesting the TOS aesthetic. Admittedly DSC has gone way further than ENT did, and since the franchise has a history of explaining visual changes, tptb have got themselves into a bit of a bind.
And I say all that knowing full well that I’m wrong somehow.
Yeah, I can't disagree with that.
I'm not sure that is really a continuity issue though. It just suggests the Klingons stick with what works. The D7 in Discovery is the continuity issue, and no amount of "visual reboot" changes that.
Right. So Voyager actually doesn't say that Excelsior transwarp engine failed.
Sure, but that is not what you said. Canon is canon even when contradictory.
And your interpretation that Excelsior transwarp engine failed is entirely made up as nothing of the sort has ever been said.
I am not misinterpreting anything. You try to declare a piece of canon invalid because it doesn't fit your argument.
Motor car. Also, has already happened here.
Me: '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 things later ships cannot, while Excelsior didn't.'
You: 'Cannot? What's your basis for this assertion?'
Me: 'Do later ships instantly travel vast distances like Discovery?'
Yep. Read it again, you're still not making sense.
FWIW, I don't think ENT needed to suggest that. It's in its own time period.
However, with that said, The aesthetics of TOS are all over the set design of ENT. The ship exterior, The bridge layout, the consoles, etc
Similar threads
