Spoilers Season 2 Trailer

[Tuskin38]

if we accept what we are shown then as now, is a small, antiquated garbage scow

DSC doesn't show or imply that at all.

 

[DSG2k]

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

And that's fine. If you don't care then you don't care, and that is a perfectly acceptable point of view. The issue I have is people claiming I am wrong or making stuff up when that clearly isn't so.

I just came to share the makeup change observation and reply to Ricky Spanish. The rest is y'all.

 

[Tuskin38]

Tusken saying that shows not using Trek facts aren't Trek in 2017

Where did I say that?

 

[Vger23]

Now, now, don't "c'mon man" me after such obvious straw-manning and feigning of ignorance of all the continuity issues Discovery has. Discovery is a perfectly fine show in its own continuity just as surely as The Orville or The Expanse are. The only difference is that it is a Star Trek branded entertainment product that uses a few elements of the intellectual property whereas they do not.
Ô


Zero, of course. Such an argument would be nonsense, though I *have* seen STD fans claim the Trek universe already rebooted upon the appearance of TMP Klingons, ST6 Klingons, TNG Klingons, et cetera.



Zero, of course. Such an argument would be nonsense, though I *have* seen STD fans claim the TNG era rebooted when the bumpy-headed Trill went spotty.



Just out of curiosity, what do you mean, if not the below?



Nope. Again, that argument would be silly.

I stopped reading after "feigning of ignorance"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You cannot change or reboot the look of a story told via an audio-visual medium without changing the story.

Wrong.

 

[DSG2k]

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.

Not at all. There's plenty of room for new infoinfo, just not continuity-shattering things like instant jump drive.

Still waiting for those canon violations, by the way.

Ah, so you are going to pretend they don't exist? Wow.

 

[Tuskin38]

just not continuity-shattering things like instant jump drive.

It's too early to say that, the show isn't over.

 

[marsh8472]

Season 2 is 100 days away now

 

[DSG2k]

DSC doesn't show or imply that at all.

How does it not?

 

[Tuskin38]

How does it not?

In TOS the Enterprise destroyed 2 (3?) D7s in a single battle.

In DSC, the Discovery could barely handle a single Cruiser.

Clearly that shows the Connie is a stronger ship.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Still waiting for those canon violations, by the way.

This. To my knowledge, the only thing Discovery is contradicting is the design of pre-TOS Klingon ships, which was solely established by Enterprise. I think it's fair to say that Enterprise got it wrong, not Discovery. With the introduction of the D7 in Season 2 as a probable new design, let's just waive away the unimaginative ENT Klingon designs the same way we ignore James R. Kirk, Vulcanians, the time barrier, and the United Earth Space Probe Agency.

 

[marsh8472]

The federation is nearly conquered at the same level as TNG "Yesterday Enterprise". Then some how Discovery connects to TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager without a mention of those events?

 

[Amasov]

Not at all. There's plenty of room for new infoinfo, just not continuity-shattering things like instant jump drive.

Ah, so you are going to pretend they don't exist? Wow.

No, I want YOU to tell me what they are and to quit dodging. You've mentioned the spore drive. What are the other ones?

 

[Amasov]

In TOS the Enterprise destroyed 2 (3?) D7s in a single battle.

In DSC, the Discovery could barely handle a single Cruiser.

Clearly that shows the Connie is a stronger ship.

Well, Discovery IS a science vessel, so, I doubt its armaments are up to par with a heavy cruiser such as a Constitution class vessel.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The federation is nearly conquered at the same level as TNG "Yesterday Enterprise".

Not even close.

Then some how Discovery connects to TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager without a mention of those events?

Because, genius, those other series could not possibly be expected to mention events depicted in a series that had not been written at the time they were aired.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The federation is nearly conquered at the same level as TNG "Yesterday Enterprise". Then some how Discovery connects to TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager without a mention of those events?

They aren't ever relevant. They don't warrant a mention.

 

[Amasov]

Not even close.
Because, genius, those other series could not possibly be expected to mention events depicted in a series that had not been written at the time they were aired.

My usual answer to this sort of thing (aside from one similar to yours) is, with the amount of starships out there -- not to mention nearly a century passing between Discovery and The Next Generation onward, does one REALLY think that each officer on each starship or space station, respectively, knows every bit of Federation history?

Data, yes, absolutely. But, even then, within what context is it necessary to mention? In Way of the Warrior is there a scene we never saw where Bashir and O'Brien are sitting in Quark's and say to one another, "Remember reading in history about the Klingon-Federation war? That USS Discovery and its spore drive really saved the day. We wouldn't be here without it!"

 

[Vger23]

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' had 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.

Very good...!

 

[marsh8472]

Not even close.



Because, genius, those other series could not possibly be expected to mention events depicted in a series that had not been written at the time they were aired.

But the problem (genius also) is that the writers should operate within a realistic scope of a story's history if they're going to go into backstory land.

DS9 "Paradise Lost"

JARESH-INYO: What you're asking me to do is declare martial law.
LEYTON: What I'm asking you to do is let us defend this planet. We don't know what the changelings will do next, but we have to be ready for them. Ben, tell him.
SISKO: Sir, the thought of filling the streets with armed troops is as disturbing to me as it is to you, but not as disturbing as the thought of a Jem'Hadar army landing on Earth without opposition. The Jem'Hadar are the most brutal and efficient soldiers I've ever encountered. They don't care about the conventions of war or protecting civilians. They will not limit themselves to military targets. They'll be waging the kind of war that Earth hasn't seen since the founding of the Federation.
(edited to account for Star Trek Discovery)
JARESH-INYO: What about that one war with the Klingons in 2256-2257?
SISKO: Oh I forgot about that one. Alright, they'll be waging the kind of war that Earth hasn't seen since that Klingon war in 2256-2257.

 

[Vger23]

My usual answer to this sort of thing (aside from one similar to yours) is, with the amount of starships out there -- not to mention nearly a century passing between Discovery and The Next Generation onward, does one REALLY think that each officer on each starship or space station, respectively, knows every bit of Federation history?

Data, yes, absolutely. But, even then, within what context is it necessary to mention? In Way of the Warrior is there a scene we never saw where Bashir and O'Brien are sitting in Quark's and say to one another, "Remember reading in history about the Klingon-Federation war? That USS Discovery and its spore drive really saved the day. We wouldn't be here without it!"

I've always always said...you can find reasons to love something or you can find reasons to hate something. I've always found it much more fun to do as you've outlined here!