Spoilers Season 2 Trailer

[DSG2k]

Spoken like fact, but, nothing but theories and assumptions.

What post were you reading? I proffered no theories or assumptions. I provided facts and my opinions on some issues, but disregarding it as some sort of guesswork is very odd.

Discovery is not, nor will it ever be, a reboot.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because if you are not a fan for whom continuity is relevant than there's no point arguing about it.

Just tell me, please, why is it ok {...}

I find the notion that things cannot change over time to be odd. That said, I find the notion that things should change over time in a flip-floppy way (e.g. foreheads, the size and shape of the Enterprise, phasers, et cetera) to be even more odd.

 

[DSG2k]

Then I supposed Star Trek V and VI must take place in different universes because the bridge of the Enterprise is different in each film.

That's approximately the exact opposite of what you should've concluded, but you know that.

 

[DSG2k]

Because that's exactly what they did, with GR stating that Klingons were always meant to appear that way. So, which one is the more accurate and why should we respect one over the other?

As you know, that background comment was later overridden, twice. But just as the Enterprise was refit over time between TOS and TMP (which they spent lots of money to explain), it would have made sense to conclude something happened, and we were later shown that it did.

 

[DSG2k]

Your argument is just as silly as the ones you're calling silly.

To what argument do you refer? That L'Rell's makeup is different now?

 

[DaveyNY]

I know all the 'Real Life' reasons for the changes throughout the production history of Star Trek, but I find it a Hell of a lot more Entertaining to try and find "In Universe" somewhat logical answers than, ripping the creators to shreds for their decisions.
And I enjoy it immensely when They attempt to give us somewhat rational reasons in different episodes.

My 'Head-Canon-Trek-Space' has learned to adapt and go with the flow for over 50 years, rather than getting my knickers in a twit over it.
The only one who loses when one doesn't see that is yourself.

 

[DSG2k]

The argument that the demand for consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds is as silly as the quote from which it is derived.

 

[Tuskin38]

To what argument do you refer? That L'Rell's makeup is different now?

The Discovery is a reboot because of some changes.

 

[Amasov]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because if you are not a fan for whom continuity is relevant than there's no point arguing about it.

I'm not arguing, though. So many claim the show doesn't follow continuity but NEVER provide proof of this. So, I ask you to.

 

[BillJ]

So many claim the show doesn't follow continuity but NEVER provide proof of this.

Lots of folks have. Then the standard reply is "well, that isn't important".

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

been keeping an eye out for changes to the sets in season 2. other than the new corridor we saw in the first trailer, i noticed they revamped the little blue LED alcove on the bridge (left, behind pike):

it now has GNDN (or whatever) conduits like in the corridors, rather than just banks and banks of pointless blinking blue lights.

Pike in the Discovery uniform looks like Commander Jeffrey Sinclair of Babylon 5.

 

[Amasov]

Lots of folks have. Then the standard reply is "well, that isn't important".

It's clearly important enough for them to make an issue out of it.

 

[BillJ]

Pike in the Discovery uniform looks like Commander Jeffrey Sinclair of Babylon 5.

He really does! I wonder why they didn't leave him in the TOS uniform they spent all the money on and time to create. Especially considering he is only going to be there for a season.

 

[Amasov]

That's approximately the exact opposite of what you should've concluded, but you know that.

No, I just use those as my only points to support why V and VI are terrible movies. It's things like this that I allow to detract the experience.

 

[fireproof78]

As you know, that background comment was later overridden, twice. But just as the Enterprise was refit over time between TOS and TMP (which they spent lots of money to explain), it would have made sense to conclude something happened, and we were later shown that it did.

Which sets the precedent for things to change, without explanation.

So, Klingon's physical appearance changed. So what? I can come up with a variety of reasons why that is not a problem, including the fact that Kirk regards Klingons the same way from TOS to the films without comment on their appearance. Discovery has done nothing that Trek hasn't done in the past.

 

[thribs]

I hope by season 3 they'll be wearing the proper TOS uniforms and not the STD one.

 

[Tuskin38]

I hope by season 3 they'll be wearing the proper TOS uniforms and not the STD one.

I hope not

 

[DSG2k]

I'm not arguing, though. So many claim the show doesn't follow continuity but NEVER provide proof of this. So, I ask you to.

A quick search of previous posts proves that's not true.* I must therefore assume, based on experienceexperience with STD fans, that if I point to things like the "displacement-activated spore hub drive" or the Enterprise redesign and embiggening you will reply with something inane like "well, they declared it top-secret" or "they just refit the ship", and if I don't acquiesce to the absurdity I get flamed . . . none of which is the same thing as no proof being provided.

I do hope for a pleasant surprise, though.

(* I also see Ricky Spanish basically saying canon-schmanon and Tusken saying that shows not using Trek facts aren't Trek in 2017, though, so that's hilarious since they both seem to have swapped positions. No offense, guys.)

 

[CorporalClegg]

STD fans, that if I point to things like the "displacement-activated spore hub drive" or the Enterprise redesign and embiggening you will reply with something inane like "well, they declared it top-secret" or "they just refit the ship", )

No. Most of us contend "It doesn't fucking matter."

 

[DSG2k]

The Discovery is a reboot because of some changes.

No, Discovery is a Trek reboot because of many, many changes. You cannot change or reboot the look of a story told via an audio-visual medium without changing the story. The TOS Enterprise, if we accept what we are shown then as now, is a small, antiquated garbage scow, inexplicably referenced as having speed records in her name, and of a class that is inexplicably tied to officer advancement despite being like a Miranda in the TNG era.

Discovery makes as much sense as doing a Downton Abbey prequel with cellphones, M-16s, and electric Teslas. It's fine as its own thing but let's not pretend it fits.

 

[Amasov]

A quick search of previous posts proves that's not true.* I must therefore assume, based on experienceexperience with STD fans, that if I point to things like the "displacement-activated spore hub drive" or the Enterprise redesign and embiggening you will reply with something inane like "well, they declared it top-secret" or "they just refit the ship", and if I don't acquiesce to the absurdity I get flamed . . . none of which is the same thing as no proof being provided.

I do hope for a pleasant surprise, though.

(* I also see Ricky Spanish basically saying canon-schmanon and Tusken saying that shows not using Trek facts aren't Trek in 2017, though, so that's hilarious since they both seem to have swapped positions. No offense, guys.)

No, because your belief seems to be that if we don't see something or hear about something in a previous series or film, that means those 'somethings' can't exist on Discovery.

Still waiting for those canon violations, by the way.