You're barking up the wrong tree there.
I just have no use for the clickbait hounds that use division to enrich themselves.
Could this be set in the Kelvin timeline?
- Thread starter Emperor-Tiberius
- Start date
You're barking up the wrong tree there.
I just have no use for the clickbait hounds that use division to enrich themselves.
You're barking up the wrong tree there.
I just have no use for the clickbait hounds that use division to enrich themselves.
How does me or midnights edge pointing out DIS is in a different timeline create division?. Disliking DIS or debunking the lie that it’s part of the original timeline doesn’t cause division; why would it?
You could probably due to do some research on them. They've been talked about quite a bit in various threads.
I’m not defending everything they’ve posted, but their video is very convincing on this subject. The legality of bad robot or CBS being able to make original timeline Star Trek is well documented. They can’t. 25% different etc. When CBS says DIS takes place in the prime timeline, which they have said often, they are correct. Unfortunately that’s not the same as the original timeline....
Nah. I just do what Star Trek fans do and adjust for changes. Any more than Saavik's actress change means different timeline. Or TMP to TWOK and on and on.
YMMV and all that.
I can see that it does in fact look different than TOS, with a look that is technically more updated than TOS. However, I still can believe that it is all happening in the same universe as TOS.
Despite the modernization of the overall look, I have no problem imagining the people and events of DSC eventually becoming the people and events of TOS, TMP, and onward.
Well they're wrong.
Here's a really extreme example, Proconsul Neral
Went from looking like this in TNG:
To looking like this in DS9:
Politics on Romulus must be rough.
Romulan augment virus.Here's a really extreme example, Proconsul Neral
Went from looking like this in TNG:
To looking like this in DS9:
Politics on Romulus must be rough.
Here's a really extreme example, Proconsul Neral
Went from looking like this in TNG:
To looking like this in DS9:
Politics on Romulus must be rough.
He must have been exposed to a bunch of radiation, like Zephram Cochrane.
Kor
Well, we do know that they are.
Strawman, both throw some backstory into their plots in an attempt to appeal to fans. That's all I said about that. That's as far as I go with that comparison, anything else you read too much into. I'm not saying they're equivalent. But there is resemblance to me. Discovery has some big shoes to fill if you're trying to say DSC succeeds in comparison to ENT in general. Unless you're talking about succeeding in comparison to ENT episode "These are the Voyages". Even in that case CSB All Access has a couple million subscribers compared to 3.8 million estimated viewers of ENT "These are the Voyages". It would depend how you're determining what success means.
Sure and there's additional hours of footage in the animated series and movies. But to each their own also. The 23rd century does not interest me much either beyond what has already been established in TOS and the movies.
"apologists"... nothing to apologize for. It's the same timeline as TOS. Youtube tinfoil hats can't change that
I do not compare show to show. Not worth the effort to me.
I'm in general success with the story. In my opinion "These are the Voyages" messes up "Pegasus" far more than DSC has done to TOS.
Fair enough. I hope you find the Picard show enjoyable
ENT felt that after 25 years we finally needed an explanation for why Klingons looked different in TMP as opposed to TOS.
It's been 30+ years since TNG changed the look of Romulans on us (adding forehead ridges) without giving any explanation whatsoever as to why they look different. So is it time, 30 years later, for Star Trek to give us an in-universe explanation for the different-looking Romulans?
That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is "No, because there is no need to explain it in-universe."
It's been 30+ years since TNG changed the look of Romulans on us (adding forehead ridges) without giving any explanation whatsoever as to why they look different. So is it time, 30 years later, for Star Trek to give us an in-universe explanation for the different-looking Romulans?
That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is "No, because there is no need to explain it in-universe."
I don't think DSC messes up TOS at all. It has added stuff, but has not been contradictory. I could watch all of TOS right now and probably find nothing major that is said in TOS that contradicts anything said in DSC.
Spock is in an insane asylum because he's been chasing angels, since his big foster sister was mean to him. And the only people who can save him are on a WMD made by a Mirror Universe mercenary, powered by magic mushrooms. That Captain Pike is babysitting, because the walking tuna isn't ready to yet.
Stop me when this starts to sound weird...
While based on the movies, I would say the series' are different continuities.
Stuff like this...
The Cage said:
Can anyone see the Discovery version of Pike saying this?
And the fact I can't see women now ever taking the backseat to men the way they did in the 60's, keeps me from ever being able to reconcile the two as the same thing. I seriously can't see Tilly (or anyone else) in an ass-showing mini-skirt talking about how she's frightened or wrapped up in the captain's arms on the bridge in a moment of tension.
Like people have said over and over about the look. TOS was a product of the sixties, Discovery is a show made in the 21st century. Same thing applies for the content.
YMMV.
We've seen skirts in DSC already, Nhan wears one, and we saw women wearing pants in TOS, not all of them wore skirts.
It might be a personal choice, not regulation.
We've been doing it for decades.
It might be a personal choice, not regulation.
Why is it so hard to ignore lines?
We've been doing it for decades.
Similar threads
