Mirror universe Disturbing.

[johnnybear]

I think the ion storm provided enough energy to allow a transporter to bridge the gap between the two universes. As the storm effect fades, the transporter will need more and more energy to bridge the gap. Once the storm effect fades to a certain point, the Enterprise cannot generate enough energy to bridge the gap. It sounds like the mirror universe was already there.

SCOTT: The two-way matter transmission affected the local field density between the universes, and it's increasing. We've got to move fast.
KIRK: How fast?
SCOTT: Half hour at the most.
KIRK: If we miss?
SCOTT [OC]: We couldn't get out of here in a century.
...
SCOTT: Hardly fifteen minutes, sir. The field density between the two universes is starting to close very fast.​

I'm not thinking the theory is correct at all but I think the schism between the universes probably happened much later than what we've been shown in the series! TOS and DS9 MU mention the events from the first episode so they're the same Mirror Universe where as ENT and DSC Mirror realities must be other ones as they don't actually fit in with established events and since DSC and ENT aren't the Prime Universe anyway...
JB

 

[Henoch]

Captain Archer is referenced in the DSC universe, so, at least there was both eras in both your alt mirror and alt prime universes. This also assumes that ENT was not in the prime TOS universe in the first place. I think ENT, DSC, TNG, DS9, and VOY are not in the prime TOS universe, rather they are all in the same alt universe. TNG, etc. reference back to TOS will look very different when they make a new TOS version sometime in the future set in their alt universe. At that point, prime TOS will fade from memory and be replaced with new alt memories. This stresses the importance of our work here on this site to preserve the true historic records as long as possible.

 

[johnnybear]

I think we have to accept that TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the TOS universe but due to conflicting continuity issues and advanced technologies not seen in the original series we must direct ENT and DSC to another universe I'm afraid!
JB

 

[fireproof78]

TNG is already in its own universe, and everything that spawned off of that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

due to conflicting continuity issues and advanced technologies not seen in the original series we must direct ENT and DSC to another universe I'm afraid!
JB

As Colonel Sherman Potter might say: Horse-hockey!

ENT and DSC are no less a part of prime universe continuity than any other Trek show. Any discrepancies that might arise are easily explainable, or even better, not worth complaining about in the first place.

More to the point: The people who created ENT and DSC have said, on the record, that both are part of the prime universe. Who are we to question them? If they say it's prime, then IT'S PRIME. End of discussion.

 

[fireproof78]

End of discussion.

You know that won't be the end of it, right?

 

[LJones41]

I'm not thinking the theory is correct at all but I think the schism between the universes probably happened much later than what we've been shown in the series! TOS and DS9 MU mention the events from the first episode so they're the same Mirror Universe where as ENT and DSC Mirror realities must be other ones as they don't actually fit in with established events and since DSC and ENT aren't the Prime Universe anyway...
JB

I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

 

[fireproof78]

I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

New to the fandom?

 

[F. King Daniel]

The MU falls apart under the most basic of scrutiny. It was a decent one-off idea, that's all.

In the Trek multiverse, there's something making sure the same people are born and interact in the same places despite radically different circumstances. The Enterprise-D was destroyed by Klingons in 2 timelines. Seven of Nine replaced Kes in a Jeffries tube with Tuvok, scanning a Krenim torpedo in 2 timelines. Kirk or Spock died in engineering saving the Enterprise in a battle involving Khan in 2 timelines. The DS9 crew all interact around the same station even with an entirely different political situation.

Maybe it's Spock's "currents of time" from "City On the Edge of Forever"

 

[Kilana2]

For Q the mirror universe is not disturbing, it is fun.

 

[Tuskin38]

I think we have to accept that TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the TOS universe but due to conflicting continuity issues and advanced technologies not seen in the original series we must direct ENT and DSC to another universe I'm afraid!
JB

Nope

 

[johnnybear]

The reality that the Enterprise D became a part of in Yesterdays Enterprise was not the Mirror Universe and the one seen in The Alternative Factor wasn't either! Which proves that not every other universe we see in Trek is the same one!
JB

 

[johnnybear]

More to the point: The people who created ENT and DSC have said, on the record, that both are part of the prime universe. Who are we to question them? If they say it's prime, then IT'S PRIME. End of discussion.

Well they tell us it's great and the like and we know it's not, don't we? There are pages on FB and the net where people are complaining about it and have thousands of angry members!
JB

 

[1001001]

There are pages on FB and the net where people are complaining about it and have thousands of angry members!
JB

How pitiful is that?

 

[DonIago]

When those thousands of angry members control the franchise I'll be more inclined to listen.

 

[fireproof78]

When those thousands of angry members control the franchise I'll be more inclined to listen.

If that happens I think I'll be done with the franchise.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think we have to accept that TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the TOS universe but due to conflicting continuity issues and advanced technologies not seen in the original series we must direct ENT and DSC to another universe I'm afraid!
JB

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. When did we reach the point where we're so obsessive about "canon" that, unless a franchise maintains 100% perfect continuity, plot-wise, visually, whatever, sequels and prequels don't exist "in the same universe" and aren't really sequels and prequels? Even though the obvious intent is that ENT or DISCO are prequels to TOS.

More importantly, why even worry about this? What possible difference does it make? Every movie or TV series since the silent era has its fair share of discrepancies or inconsistencies. Doesn't mean that every third sequel or prequel ever made is actually a reboot set in a different universe just because they changed the sets and costumes or whatever, or because they retconned a plot point from one of the previous movies.

Is THE WRATH OF KHAN not really a sequel to "Space Seed" because Khan's multi-ethnic crew from the TV episode have inexplicably morphed into a bunch of blond Aryan types? Of course not. Are TNG and GENERATIONS set in different universes because Scotty's guest-appearances don't quite match up? Are TNG and DS9 in different universes because Dax bears no resemblance to the Trills on TNG--and has borrowed her look from "The Perfect Mate" instead?

These are movies and TV shows made by dozens of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Of course they're not going to match up perfectly, nor should they be expected to. And not every deviation requires an in-universe explanation, especially when a common sense, real-world explanation is perfectly adequate.

Occam's Razor applies here: which explanation is simplest?

A) They updated the art direction . . because, you know, it's a TV show, not reality.
B) IT'S A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE!!!!

Honestly, Option A is good enough for me. Why not just relax, take the prequels as prequels, as they're intended, and stopping fretting about whether this make-believe universe is 100% consistent all the time.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. When did we reach the point where we're so obsessive about "canon" that, unless a franchise maintains 100% perfect continuity, plot-wise, visually, whatever, sequels and prequels don't exist "in the same universe" and aren't really sequels and prequels? Even though the obvious intent is that ENT or DISCO are prequels to TOS.

More importantly, why even worry about this? What possible difference does it make? Every movie or TV series since the silent era has its fair share of discrepancies or inconsistencies. Doesn't mean that every third sequel or prequel ever made is actually a reboot set in a different universe just because they changed the sets and costumes or whatever, or because they retconned a plot point from one of the previous movies.

Is THE WRATH OF KHAN not really a sequel to "Space Seed" because Khan's multi-ethnic crew from the TV episode have inexplicably morphed into a bunch of blond Aryan types? Of course not. Are TNG and GENERATIONS set in different universes because Scotty's guest-appearances don't quite match up? Are TNG and DS9 in different universes because Dax bears no resemblance to the Trills on TNG--and has borrowed her look from "The Perfect Mate" instead?

These are movies and TV shows made by dozens of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Of course they're not going to match up perfectly, nor should they be expected to. And not every deviation requires an in-universe explanation, especially when a common sense, real-world explanation is perfectly adequate.

Occam's Razor applies here: which explanation is simplest?

A) They updated the art direction . . because, you know, it's a TV show, not reality.
B) IT'S A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE!!!!

Honestly, Option A is good enough for me. Why not just relax, take the prequels as prequels, as they're intended, and stopping fretting about whether this make-believe universe is 100% consistent all the time.

I need to save this for all future prequel debates.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. When did we reach the point where we're so obsessive about "canon" that, unless a franchise maintains 100% perfect continuity, plot-wise, visually, whatever, sequels and prequels don't exist "in the same universe" and aren't really sequels and prequels? Even though the obvious intent is that ENT or DISCO are prequels to TOS.

More importantly, why even worry about this? What possible difference does it make? Every movie or TV series since the silent era has its fair share of discrepancies or inconsistencies. Doesn't mean that every third sequel or prequel ever made is actually a reboot set in a different universe just because they changed the sets and costumes or whatever, or because they retconned a plot point from one of the previous movies.

Is THE WRATH OF KHAN not really a sequel to "Space Seed" because Khan's multi-ethnic crew from the TV episode have inexplicably morphed into a bunch of blond Aryan types? Of course not. Are TNG and GENERATIONS set in different universes because Scotty's guest-appearances don't quite match up? Are TNG and DS9 in different universes because Dax bears no resemblance to the Trills on TNG--and has borrowed her look from "The Perfect Mate" instead?

These are movies and TV shows made by dozens of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Of course they're not going to match up perfectly, nor should they be expected to. And not every deviation requires an in-universe explanation, especially when a common sense, real-world explanation is perfectly adequate.

Occam's Razor applies here: which explanation is simplest?

A) They updated the art direction . . because, you know, it's a TV show, not reality.
B) IT'S A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE!!!!

Honestly, Option A is good enough for me. Why not just relax, take the prequels as prequels, as they're intended, and stopping fretting about whether this make-believe universe is 100% consistent all the time.

To each his own. Every single person has the right to accept or not accept any particular form of fiction, including continuity issues and down right re-writing what the forefathers of Star Trek did so well. Many don't have to bend over backwards because of a declining fanbase's desire to ignore what was clearly inconsistent to what was developed - just for everything to fit. I'd rather discard it because the updated art direction doesn't fit, the stories doesn't fit, the characterizations doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, it is not Star Trek. Can I enjoy them individually for what they are? Absolutely, and I can damn well sure not enjoy them for what they were but wearing rose colored glasses to make what could never fit into some bullsh*t continuity is ridiculous.

 

[Greg Cox]

Wouldn't the "forefathers of Star Trek" be FORBIDDEN PLANET?

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)