That is about as dumb as this argument is. It would be like saying Star Trek: The Next Generation isn't a sequel to Star Trek.
When and how will DSC crossover with the TNG sequel?
- Thread starter Red Panda
- Start date
That is about as dumb as this argument is. It would be like saying Star Trek: The Next Generation isn't a sequel to Star Trek.
Love the fact we are getting a Picard series. I don't see it as TNG part II, but as Picard part II.
Most of the cross-over is Burnhasm and Picard trying to out do the other as to who is the most arrogant and self-righteous.
Obviously will need to be a multi-episode arc.
And yet, the Enterprise-D did...
(We just never saw them in use on camera beyond the second season, and rarely before that, because they merely made for extra unnecessary VFX work with not much in the way of dramatic return, since a group of people staring at a hologram is much the same as said group of people staring at a screen or monitor. But surely they were always still there in-universe, yes?)
The TNG viewscreen itself was supposed to be an intuitive holographic display with depth, too, rather than a flat (or even curved) projection. That's why when we see the same shot from different angles, the corresponding perspective within the displayed view changes accordingly:
The E had a wholly holographic viewscreen in First Contact as well, like the ones on DS9. There just wasn't a window behind it! (Or were the blast doors simply closed? Or was that itself a holographic trick too?
)
Oh, they were trying out a "new holo-communicator" in "For The Uniform" (DS9), sure...but that can quite easily be taken to mean a new model, not a previously non-existent category of thing altogether. The particularly striking thing about it was that it was entirely solid, as if the person were actually there on the bridge and not a mere projection:
This would no doubt explain why it was confined to a single small area; it's all well and good for an intangible ghost like Anderson's in "Battle At The Binary Stars" to go traipsing around your bridge, passing harmlessly through things, but a firm-as-flesh potential saboteur like Eddington? Too risky.
Besides, the Defiant was explicitly introduced as a tough little prototype with "no luxuries of any kind...designed for one purpose only: to fight and defeat the Borg." No holodeck on her either. It would be a waste. (And the Malinche was an Excelsior...perhaps after their ignominious beginnings they were somewhat stripped down in terms of bells and whistles as well, and Harry in "Flashback" [VGR] knew his history a bit better than we've given him credit for!)
Here I would also point out Ronald D. Moore's own reasoning behind introducing it in the first place:
"That's something I had been pushing for because I just think it's so absurd that in the twenty-fourth century they have holodeck technology that allows them to recreate Ancient Rome, but everybody talks to each other on television monitors. It's just so lame. The viewscreens have been around for over thirty years. Can't we move to something a little more interesting? But it's like pulling teeth." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, p. 419)
Meanwhile, the one back on the station in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" (DS9) looked to be much the same as those in DSC, and nothing was ever said about it being new, so we might as well just assume it was always there...
(Perhaps it's even quite old!)
There again, perhaps this would only be a limitation for a solid, sophisticated, sentient hologram like the EMH, which was a brand new, experimental thing. Could be a compatibility issue. Or a bandwidth or buffering issue. (Such issues no doubt existed in Discovery's time as well; if you just want a mirror image of yourself standing motionless projected a foot or two away, photorealism may be achieved, but real-time conversations over longer distances pose greater challenges on that front.) Or a power consumption issue. They were always (ostensibly) concerned about that aboard Voyager, given their situation. That's why they rationed holodeck use! (And, presumably, avoided gratuitous use of holography elsewhere.)
-MMoM
Last edited:
Spin off.
Squee?
This is silly. What I do expect to happen is we'll see the Discovery mentioned. Same with an event or two and maybe characters directly or in the background on screens. Same way Enterprise was referenced in Discovery. Or events from Kirk's time were mentioned in passing.
Get in Billy West, John DiMaggio and Katey Sagal, they can do "Picardarama" and it'd probably be a lot more fun.
I stand corrected. Bring in Gil Gerard and Erin Gray and do "Buck Picard in the 25th and a Half century".
Or maybe not, the title might be too easy for hecklers to play with if they hated the show... Tilly and that thing on her forehead does suggest she might be a recovered Drone. I've not kept up, but she's the most refreshing character on the show and enough to get me to take another look.
No worries, it will. STD/DSC/DISCO/JUMBLEMUSH has been doing fanservice since day one and badly so.
Fair enough with regards to TNG-era Trek, but the point is: how do you make The Picard Show's 2399 look more advanced than Discovery's version of 2257? There were zero holograms in TOS, but now the more advanced stuff has been retconned into that era. How do you make it look like Disco and Picard aren't contemporary?And yet, the Enterprise-D did...
(We just never saw them in use on camera beyond the second season, and rarely before that, because they merely made for extra unnecessary VFX work with not much in the way of dramatic return, since a group of people staring at a hologram is much the same as said group of people staring at a screen or monitor. But surely they were always still there in-universe, yes?)
The TNG viewscreen itself was supposed to be an intuitive holographic display with depth, too, rather than a flat (or even curved) projection. That's why when we see the same shot from different angles, the corresponding perspective within the displayed view changes accordingly:
The E had a wholly holographic viewscreen in First Contact as well, like the ones on DS9. There just wasn't a window behind it! (Or were the blast doors simply closed? Or was that itself a holographic trick too?
Oh, they were trying out a "new holo-communicator" in "For The Uniform" (DS9), sure...but that can quite easily be taken to mean a new model, not a previously non-existent category of thing altogether. The particularly striking thing about it was that it was entirely solid, as if the person were actually there on the bridge and not a mere projection:
This would no doubt explain why it was confined to a single small area; it's all well and good for an intangible ghost like Anderson's in "Battle At The Binary Stars" to go traipsing around your bridge, passing harmlessly through things, but a firm-as-flesh potential saboteur like Eddington? Too risky.
Besides, the Defiant was explicitly introduced as a tough little prototype with "no luxuries of any kind...designed for one purpose only: to fight and defeat the Borg." No holodeck on her either. It would be a waste. (And the Malinche was an Excelsior...perhaps after their ignominious beginnings they were somewhat stripped down in terms of bells and whistles as well, and Harry in "Flashback" [VGR] knew his history a bit better than we've given him credit for!)
Here I would also point out Ronald D. Moore's own reasoning behind introducing it in the first place:
"That's something I had been pushing for because I just think it's so absurd that in the twenty-fourth century they have holodeck technology that allows them to recreate Ancient Rome, but everybody talks to each other on television monitors. It's just so lame. The viewscreens have been around for over thirty years. Can't we move to something a little more interesting? But it's like pulling teeth." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, p. 419)
Meanwhile, the one back on the station in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" (DS9) looked to be much the same as those in DSC, and nothing was ever said about it being new, so we might as well just assume it was always there...
(Perhaps it's even quite old!)
There again, perhaps this would only be a limitation for a solid, sophisticated, sentient hologram like the EMH, which was a brand new, experimental thing. Could be a compatibility issue. Or a bandwidth or buffering issue. (Such issues no doubt existed in Discovery's time as well; if you just want a mirror image of yourself standing motionless projected a foot or two way, photorealism may be achieved, but real-time conversations over longer distances pose greater challenges on that front.) Or a power consumption issue. They were always (ostensibly) concerned about that aboard Voyager, given their situation. That's why they rationed holodeck use! (And, presumably, avoided gratuitous use of holography elsewhere.)
-MMoM
I know you meant that as a joke, but I'm not so certain I wouldn't be entertained as hell by it! LOL
You add quantum or some other sciencey prefix to everything. Standard SF trope.
Hologram
Hologram
We can split hairs about terminology here, but, yes, I agree that there's a big difference between a new Picard series and the further adventures of TNG.
The holographic communications didn't make much sense in Discovery, compared to other Discovery holographic technology. Holographic mirror? Solid hologram. Holodeck? Solid holograms. Holographic communications? All weird looking, like there's interference. Yet there was no problem communicating across light-years.
It's all ones and zeroes. Either the projector has the information to give you the image, or it doesn't.
But can we really say for sure? Picard may be the center of it, but there will be a supporting cast, and I'd bet a few familiar faces will be in that cast.
TNG looks more advanced then Discovery, so it won't be hard.
I had a similar annoyance with the Shinzon hologram in Nemesis. He looked like he was in the room, but his voice was all scrambled and tinny. Like, you have the bandwidth to send a flawless full-body hologram of a person but the voice doesn't come through clearly? We could send crystal clear voice over copper wire decades before we could transmit even the simplest 2d images in real time!
It was probably for dramatic effect, so you know he was a computer image without flickering the hologram.
Oh, of course it was. It was a way to signal to the audience that he wasn't in the room without having to spend money on a visual effect. Doesn't make it any less stupid from an in-universe perspective though.
That is just underestimating the intelligence of your audience: "they won't know it is a hologram unless we do something to it!"
Similar threads
