USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
No you claimed there haven’t been always been explanations for things and that it didn’t follow what I said. I could claim the opposite doesn’t follow too - so in reality, what you said isn’t correct - because I’m claiming it.
This is simply your opinion rather than an argument - whether you like that the changes were flagged up or not is irrelevant. It’s part of canon - that’s all there is to it. The potential was introduced so Star Trek should have to deal with it, whether you think it’s stupid or not.
There’s no evidence for any of the conjecture here - but it helps to support my argument. A line of dialogue about refitting the Enterprise fixes this whole issue for me because it follows the precedent not only established in earlier Trek but also in DSC - as mentioned by @The Mighty Monkey of Mim earlier in the thread in relation to the uss cooper
Irrelevant. The assumption is consistent with every piece of evidence and avoids the CONSTANT FANWANK, which is itself unsupported speculation. Mine simply avoids spending precious time and energy on a fool's errand.
First of all, opinions and arguments are not mutually-exclusive. Second, no, it's not my opinion, it's a fact that fanboys keep getting twisted into logical knots trying to find "explanations" for everything.
That is a bizarre argument. That they've made efforts to explain one change in the past in no way entails that they should endeavour to explain any other change.
What conjecture? Are you knee-jerk disagreeing with me, here? I simply mentioned a possibility, since we DON'T KNOW. And that the TOS-TMP refit is impossible is not conjecture. Just overlay the two if you don't believe me.
I'm not sure you're clear on what that even means.
Ok - agree to disagree since we’re not going to get anywhere here
Ok - agree to disagree since we’re not going to get anywhere here
Your loss. If only you'd listen. You just brush aside some points that I've made because -- what? You can't change your mind?
And now that I think about it, there IS evidence for my position on this, since in the real world they DID change the Enterprise. We have no evidence for any in-universe change, especially given the difficulties of explaining the change in-universe, so actually my assumption is _better_ supporter.
Visual evidence is evidence enough.
That's a good argument, I haven't considered it from that angle yet. Thanks you for deepening my understanding of the subject matter.
Well, the assumption that the look of the Enterprise is retconned is based on your dislike of fanwank explanations (which is fair enough), like a refit would be. It is by no means a better or worse explanation.
Well, that turned slightly condescening. I approve
I'm sure many things can be said about Groppler Zorn, but I haven't met anyone in the DSC forum who is more willing to consider alternate viewpoints.
So, the fact that the Enterprise got changed out-of-universe supports the conclusion that it wasn't changed in-universe. Got it.
Where are you going to go next if They actually mention something in Season 2 about the ship's changes?
You constantly assert your opinions are fact, and pretty much insist that everybody else conform to your opinions.
I'm just wondering how you'll spin all that if your theories don't pan out.
"Man, it's about time they ripped out all that retro 20th century shit, the colours where hurting my eyes. And I can read everything! we can use proper interfaces. I was getting sick of gluing fucking gummy bears to consoles and pretending it was real."
"I know, and at least we get the proper uniforms the rest of the fleet uses next month. I was getting tired of this shade of red."
"Yeah, the rest of the fleet should finally stop laughing at us now."
"And proper food! not just that clown of a chef cutting watermelon into cubes, dying it and thinking we wouldn't notice."
"Yeah, another week without taco and I'd have killed half the *400* people on this ship."
"That was...oddly specific."
"I know..."
"I know, and at least we get the proper uniforms the rest of the fleet uses next month. I was getting tired of this shade of red."
"Yeah, the rest of the fleet should finally stop laughing at us now."
"And proper food! not just that clown of a chef cutting watermelon into cubes, dying it and thinking we wouldn't notice."
"Yeah, another week without taco and I'd have killed half the *400* people on this ship."
"That was...oddly specific."
"I know..."
What do you make of different versions of the model in back-to-back shots? Should we trust the visual evidence then?
That's why it's a fool's errand: Star Trek is fiction; don't expect it to follow the rules of reality. Unfortunately, yes, but that's the deal. There are several real-life considerations; budget, creative choices, etc. And in my opinion, unless there's a stated or otherwise reasonable explanation available, it's a lot easier to simply consider it to be a retcon or something of the sort.
Why did you make such a dishonest response? Since what follows that word explains why it's irrelevant, why respond to it out of context, especially since you were going to reply to the rest right after? I see no point to doing that, except to add to the confrontational aspect of the discussion. That's very puzzling to me.
It's not that I dislike them; I engage in them myself from time to time. It's that they are added speculation that is not needed.
I'll take your word for it. It does leave my question open, however: why did he ignore my points?
That is again NOT what I said. You quoted me, right there, saying something different that what you're claiming I said! Here goes again: It's self-evident that there is a real-life change to Trek. Unless there's a stated, or otherwise reasonable, explanation for the change in-universe, it's entirely reasonable to assume that the change is either retroactive, or simply not meant to be mulled over.
Take this example: Did Starfleet change the uniforms between TMP and TWOK? Or did Meyer (like everyone else) simply not like the TMP uniforms and decided to go with something more naval-looking? Who cares? There is no need for an in-universe explanation. That's the point I'm making: if you can find an easy explanation, knock yourself out. But if you have to tie yourself into knots over it, then it's not worth the time and effort, and I'd rever you to the MST3K mantra.
I don't think the remastered episodes had that issue.
Depends on how well the explanation sticks, as usual.
Support that accusation or retract it. If I say "I like bacon", is that asserting my personal tastes as fact? Just because I insist on my opinions does not make them statements of fact, and I'd be surprised if you didn't value your own opinions highly, as well.
What theories? My position is one of ABSENCE of theories. This reminds me of creationists calling science a religion. What I'm arguing is to avoid speculating beyond what can be supported. Avoiding speculation is not, itself, speculation.
I don't need-need an explanation for changes. It's no big sticking point / sore point for me.
But the discussion is interesting.
In-universe, we don't know what happened over the course of the final two years of the five-year mission. TAS is....comme ci, comme ca. It doesn't really apply. Phase II is out, because it was conceived but not produced.
We are left with this:
KIRK: My experience, five years out there dealing with unknowns like this, my familiarity with the Enterprise, this crew.
DECKER: Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise.
Eighteen months. That's a significant amount of time. And do we have a good conception of how long it takes a shipyard....any of them....to accomplish any particular task? I don't think any of that has been firmly established.
The last we saw of the Enterprise was in Turnabout Intruder. We don't know what she looked like from that point through to the end of the five-year mission. We don't know if there was a partial refit within those two years or not. But Decker's comment makes it quite clear that in those 18 months there was a lot of work done, to make an almost entirely new ship.
But the discussion is interesting.
In-universe, we don't know what happened over the course of the final two years of the five-year mission. TAS is....comme ci, comme ca. It doesn't really apply. Phase II is out, because it was conceived but not produced.
We are left with this:
KIRK: My experience, five years out there dealing with unknowns like this, my familiarity with the Enterprise, this crew.
DECKER: Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise.
Eighteen months. That's a significant amount of time. And do we have a good conception of how long it takes a shipyard....any of them....to accomplish any particular task? I don't think any of that has been firmly established.
The last we saw of the Enterprise was in Turnabout Intruder. We don't know what she looked like from that point through to the end of the five-year mission. We don't know if there was a partial refit within those two years or not. But Decker's comment makes it quite clear that in those 18 months there was a lot of work done, to make an almost entirely new ship.
Well, the CVN-65 Enterprise spent 36 months in overhaul starting in 1979. When it came back out, it didn't look significantly different.
I think you need to take a step back and take a break.
Why? I'm perfectly calm.
This is yet another episode where defending one's opinion on this website is seen as some sort of bad thing. I've even had a mod berate me for pointing out blatant misrepresentation. Am I not allowed to debate my side of the discussion anymore? Are my opinions verboten because they're not fanwank? I'll gladly leave if that's the way this place is run.
You're allowed. I mistook your random capitalization as yelling.
Similar threads
