USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[BillJ]

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

The change is explained, it is a retcon. Some retcons make sense, others we get used to or we don't.

 

[Belz...]

The change is explained, it is a retcon. Some retcons make sense, others we get used to or we don't.

Hopefully that stands for the redesign of the Enterprise then.

One letter change doesn’t need to be explained.

I was kidding.

 

[Tuskin38]

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 How do you call the facts of the world, then, given that R is superseded by T in this example?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.

That is continuity.

 

[Prax]

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.

A retcon is not just a supercession of facts, a retcon is what's used to make sense out of an alleged contradiction.

For instance, I will attempt to retcon the James R. Kirk:

"At the academy, Kirk acquired the nickname "Ricky." The nickname stuck with him and people even called him Jim Ricky, or Ricky Kirk, and that's where the R. comes from."

 

[BillJ]

Hopefully that stands for the redesign of the Enterprise then.

The redesign is canon. It isn't part of the Prime timeline. See, easy explanation.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

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

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

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.

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.

Belz, if you keep finding yourself in situations where everyone is supposedly misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, perhaps the issue doesn't always lie with them, but rather with how you present your ideas?

You also need to dial it back from the ALL CAPS AND BOLD YELLING.

 

[Jinn]

It can't be a fact that Kirk's middle initial is both R and T.

This is actually a good point; I know people who have multiple second names, so maybe Kirk's third name started with R and Gary was more acquainted with that name.

 

[Tuskin38]

A retcon is not just a supercession of facts, a retcon is what's used to make sense out of an alleged contradiction.

For instance, I will attempt to retcon the James R. Kirk:

"At the academy, Kirk acquired the nickname "Ricky." The nickname stuck with him and people even called him Jim Ricky, or Ricky Kirk, and that's where the R. comes from."

the Enterpise Klingon Augment arc would be a show example of a retcon.

 

[Belz...]

The redesign is canon. It isn't part of the Prime timeline. See, easy explanation.

I see that you're using different standards for one and for the other. Is "T" in a different timeline than "R" also? Why not the same explanation for both: "it was changed"?

 

[BillJ]

Why not the same explanation for both: "it was changed"?

Because the creators of Discovery have uttered the magical words: "it is a visual reboot". A visual reboot can't be the same as the Prime timeline.

 

[Tuskin38]

Because the creators of Discovery have uttered the magical words: "it is a visual reboot". A visual reboot can't be the same as the Prime timeline.

Yeah it can. The prime timeline is a continuity. It is in that continuity.

 

[Mudd]

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.

Both are nonetheless canon. Canon does not mean "without contradiction" - not in any way, ever.

 

[Jinn]

Is "T" in a different timeline than "R" also?

This was actually implied in one of Peter David's novel (Q-Squared, methinks), of course also non-canon.

Why not the same explanation for both: "it was changed"?

Because that would be boring and some people like to come up with creative in-universe reasons? Or not so creative in-universe reasons in my case

 

[Tuskin38]

Not every contradiction needs to be explained or ignored.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah it can. The prime timeline is a continuity.

Not without its "look" it isn't. The look is part of the universe, every bit as much as the lore. Once you've rebooted the look, you've rebooted the universe.

 

[Tuskin38]

Not without its "look" it isn't. The look is part of the universe, every bit as much as the lore. Once you've rebooted the look, you've rebooted the universe.

Nope. Only if you choose to think that.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, if you keep finding yourself in situations where everyone is supposedly misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, perhaps the issue doesn't always lie with them, but rather with how you present your ideas?

Can I not complain to TWO posters (not everyone) that they consistently respond to arguments that I have not made? Is that not a rather uncivil behaviour? Or should I just shut up and pretend like I actually said these things that I have not said? Can I do the same to them?

 

[BillJ]

Nope. Only if you choose to think that.

By that standard, they can make Vulcans red, with no ears, six foot tales and eat their vegetables through a port in their stomachs. Once you've changed the look, you've changed the universe.

 

[Belz...]

Not without its "look" it isn't. The look is part of the universe, every bit as much as the lore. Once you've rebooted the look, you've rebooted the universe.

Absolutely not. If that were true, you'd have a new timeline every time an actor was changed or some prop or costume or set was altered without a proper explanation. That'd be insane. We'd have hundreds of Trek timelines by now. I think you're setting way too high a bar for continuity here.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I always retconned it as Gary Mitchell was taunting Kirk with some painful in-joke from their Academy days.