News Spock has already been cast
- Thread starter Red Panda
- Start date
- Status
It's funny, I always corrolated seasons with quarters, but I have the year begin with spring, so a three months deviation from fireproof's model. And I know it doesn't really make sense, but that's the way I like it!
Well, it does make sense really. Arguably more sense the official way. Spring has always been associated with youth, birth, new beginnings, etc. That's why eggs and rabbits are the symbols of easter. Autumn is the time of death and endings, with Winter stuck in between the two as a sort of twilight/limbo. For some reason, somewhere along the line people in our culture decided that limbo goes at the 'beginning' of the year rather than the 'end'. But that's just an arbitrary choice.
Actually what the Cryptic Devs have stated is that what they are doing IN the game for their "Age of Discovery" update WILL actually be considered 'canon' in the Star Trek universe.
The only other thing that was stated by Lead Designer Al Rivera was that he really loved ST: D; and he was excited that what they'll be doing will be considered canon by CBS and TPTB (until it's not.
) No one on the Cryptic STO Dev team said said they were "confused".I think Al was just confused. I don't think it is canon.
It's probably the same thing as the DSC novels and comics, they're closely connected to the show, but the aired show has final say if they actually use those story ideas.
The only other thing that was stated by Lead Designer Al Rivera was that he really loved ST: D; and he was excited that what they'll be doing will be considered canon by CBS and TPTB (until it's not.
What I meant by confused, was when someone brought up the looks of the Klingons, he said it was weird that all these different designs would be interacting or something like that.
Last edited:
If a viewpoint blatantly disregards facts, it's not an opinion; it's a falsehood.
I'm so tired of the: "Anything not post TNG at this point = 'looking back...' <--- because that's a load of BS.
Star Trek has always been set in the future - and STis 240 years in the future. From today, that's 'looking ahead' no matter how you slice it.
This.
Even Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were talking about this on the Enterprise BLU-RAYs. When developing that series, Paramount wanted them to go further into the future. And their response was, "So the ships are shinier? Uniforms tighter?" Star Trek is set in the future no matter what year it is. But, everyone seems to use the TNG-era as being the "present" and anything before it is looking back and anything after it is the future.
All of Star Trek IS the future.
No, it's opinion.
Officially my favorite post in this thread.
My staff still won't let me post here in an official capacity.
Yeah, but Trek is now old enough that it's no longer the future as we would imagine it today. TOS is a very '60s view of the future, while TNG is a late '80s/early '90s updating of that '60s view of the future. Each was done within the limitations of the time. Returning to those shows' settings require us to either operate within their framework -- to do a "period" drama, essentially -- or to overwrite them to conform to today's expectations. So I get why people wouldn't like either of those options.
That said, I think the real problem with Discovery so far -- the writing -- transcends the setting. If they keep trotting out threadbare Trek tropes, it doesn't matter if the show is set in the 23rd, 24th or 42nd century.
As I posted in the other thread about Spock, in the same interview that Kurtzman says that they will be tying everything into prime canon, he says that other characters from The Cage may show up, because of this:
"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."
"Our timeline". How is that NOT a clear indication that it's NOT prime?!?
He comes across as just not knowing what he is even saying.
"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."
"Our timeline". How is that NOT a clear indication that it's NOT prime?!?
He comes across as just not knowing what he is even saying.
As I posted in the other thread about Spock, in the same interview that Kurtzman says that they will be tying everything into prime canon, he says that other characters from The Cage may show up, because of this:
"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."
"Our timeline". How is that NOT a clear indication that it's NOT prime?!?
He comes across as just not knowing what he is even saying.
His line directly after this one is definitely that of someone playing coy. I took the whole statement as being something like, "Well, obviously the Enterprise would probably still exist, so who knows what we might see this season!"
Uh, yeah, I'll wait until someone from CBS echoes that sentiment.
By that logic saying that DSC and TOS are in the same universe is a falsehood, because it blatantly disregards the facts that DSC showed cloaking devices and TOS made it extremely clear that cloaking devices haven't been a thing until now.
He obviously meant time period.As I posted in the other thread about Spock, in the same interview that Kurtzman says that they will be tying everything into prime canon, he says that other characters from The Cage may show up, because of this:
"Obviously, characters that existed would probably still exist in our timeline."
"Our timeline". How is that NOT a clear indication that it's NOT prime?!?
He comes across as just not knowing what he is even saying.
also should't this post have gone in the 'Prime universe' discussion thread?
I think we need to start ignoring that because both Discovery and Enterprise did.
Yeah, personally I just ignore that line, but it's a good point in this particular discussion.
I do think the endgame is to completely overwrite the original series with their "vision" of Star Trek.
- Status
Similar threads
