USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Groppler Zorn]

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.

Agreed. The Enterprise one just irks me. It bothered me at the time. Particularly when they had the D5 design later - which I really liked. Stuff like the ENT D7 takes me out of the show.

Also yes the DSC D7 raises far more questions than it answers.

 

[Longinus]

Agreed. The Enterprise one just irks me. It bothered me at the time. Particularly when they had the D5 design later - which I really liked. Stuff like the ENT D7 takes me out of the show.

If they ever do some sort of remastered version of the show, I wish they just replace that D7 with D5.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

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

Agreed on the set design. The exterior was fine overall insofar as I liked the saucer and nacelle only design. But I always thought that the aztecking and certain design elements made it look more like a 24th century ship than a 22nd.

 

[Belz...]

Right. So Voyager actually doesn't say that Excelsior transwarp engine failed.

I NEVER SAID IT DID. READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

Sure, but that is not what you said. Canon is canon even when contradictory.

Two contradictory things can't be true. So how can they both be canon once one of them supersedes the other?

And your interpretation that Excelsior transwarp engine failed is entirely made up as nothing of the sort has ever been said.

I NEVER SAID IT HAD. READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

I am not misinterpreting anything.

Yes you have. I just explained it to you. I have never said that I am an authority on what should be ignored. READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

Motor car.

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.

Your response does not counter what I said. READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

At this point it's clear that you're creating an alternate version of my posts and replying to that instead of what's written. Just like you do with your theories on Trek.

 

[Longinus]

At this point it's clear that you're creating an alternate version of my posts and replying to that instead of what's written. Just like you do with your theories on Trek.

Considering that I directly quoted our discussion and you still seem to be confused about what you actually said, I see no point in continuing.

 

[BillJ]

Two contradictory things can't be true. So how can they both be canon once one of them supersedes the other?

Continuity and canon are two distinct concepts. Canon is whatever appears onscreen, even if it is contradictory. James R. Kirk is just as much "canon" as James T. Kirk.

 

[Mudd]

Exactly so.

 

[GNDN18]

A graybeard poster pointed out that the following will derail threads, but I’ll do it anyway: four Gospels are in the Christian canon. All four are inconsistent with each other.

ETA Hi, Dennis. You appear as I write.

 

[Mudd]

Yep.

 

[Tuskin38]

Enterprise had some continuity issues, sure (cloaks, romulans, freaking D7),

I can see how the cloaks are an issue, but why the Romulans themselves?

Also it wasn’t a D7, it was a K’tinga, there are some differences. They used the same model in voyager in place of an actual D7 as well.

If they ever do some sort of remastered version of the show, I wish they just replace that D7 with D5.

Or the D4 that was actually designed for that shot but never used.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D4_class_(concept)

 

[Belz...]

Considering that I directly quoted our discussion and you still seems to be confused about what you actually said, I see no point in continuing.

Quoting doesn't prevent you from using strawmen. You just replied to a post where I explained and demonstrated that I never said the things you imply I said. It does no good for you to deny it since the posts are there for all to see.

 

[Belz...]

Continuity and canon are two distinct concepts. Canon is whatever appears onscreen, even if it is contradictory. James R. Kirk is just as much "canon" as James T. Kirk.

So it would be quite fine if someone claimed that Kirk's middle initial is R and not T because they're both canon and they prefer R? I think it's quite clear that, in canon, the T supersedes the R.

 

[Prax]

A graybeard poster pointed out that the following will derail threads, but I’ll do it anyway: four Gospels are in the Christian canon. All four are inconsistent with each other.

ETA Hi, Dennis. You appear as I write.

I will derail... you!

Wait...what's a graybeard poster?

 

[BillJ]

So it would be quite fine if someone claimed that Kirk's middle initial is R and not T because they're both canon and they prefer R? I think it's quite clear that, in canon, the T supersedes the R.

Nope. Both canon.

In continuity, the "T" is a retcon of the "R". So if you are writing a story set in the "Prime" continuity, you would use the "T". If a later production uses "C", then the "C" is canon as well.

Just look to the four gospels example above.

 

[Tuskin38]

So it would be quite fine if someone claimed that Kirk's middle initial is R and not T because they're both canon and they prefer R? I think it's quite clear that, in canon, the T supersedes the R.

Canon =/= continuity.

Canon is the facts, continuity is how they’re used/placed.

 

[Longinus]

Quoting doesn't prevent you from using strawmen. I've amply demonstrated your dishonest tactics and the data is there for all to see. If you can't even admit to that behaviour, then I see no point in even believing that you are capable of honest discussion.

I am not trying to misinterpret you man, you're just not making any sense. I literally and honestly do not understand what you're trying to convey in the piece of conversation I quoted in italics. You constantly accuse others of misinterpreting you or intentionally missing your point. Taking into account how often this happens, have you ever considered the possibility that you just express your points in unclear manner?

 

[Belz...]

In continuity, the "T" is a retcon of the "R". So if you are writing a story set in the "Prime" continuity, you would use the "T".

I have it on good authority that changes like this should be explained.

 

[Belz...]

Canon =/= continuity.

Canon is the facts, continuity is how they’re used/placed.

I'm not talking about continuity. How do you call the facts of the world, then, given that R is superseded by T in this example? It can't be a fact that Kirk's middle initial is both R and T.

 

[Jinn]

So it would be quite fine if someone claimed that Kirk's middle initial is R and not T because they're both canon and they prefer R?

Weeeeeell, the thing is that it technically wasn't explicitely stated that Kirk's middle name begins with R, just that "James R. Kirk" is written on his gravestone. This lead to for example the rationalization from the My Brother's Keeper novels that had Kirk being so good at racquetball that it was practically his second name as an in-joke between Gary and Kirk. This is of course not canon, but there is certainly room for interpreation regarding the validity of "R" in that context.

That being said, claiming that Kirk's middle name starts with R because it was on that stone is totally fine anyway.

I think it's quite clear that, in canon, the T supersedes the R.

It is quite clear that T is used way more often than R, I wouldn't say it supersedes it.

 

[Tuskin38]

I have it on good authority that changes like this should be explained.

One letter change doesn’t need to be explained.

Although Star Trek continues did it anyways. But it’s a fan series so moot point.