I remember that as well. That Picard was French did not go unnoticed.Probably why he had Picard surrender twice in the first five episodes, people went apeshit over that in the fanzines.
I remember that as well. That Picard was French did not go unnoticed.Probably why he had Picard surrender twice in the first five episodes, people went apeshit over that in the fanzines.
Plus, for most of TNGs run TOS was treated like the embarrassing uncle who gets drunk at family get togethers.
Just planet Africa and planet Irish.Could anyone imagine TNG going to Planet Gangster or Planet Nazi?
Just planet Africa and planet Irish.
It doesn't matter to you and the other Discovery fanboys here or Steve Shives. It does matter to a lot of the fandom. I'm not one to care about Holograms, I think the Klingons look fantastic here beside their clone tool/greeble 500% ships (and I would have liked to see some Augments here and there in TOS inspired Klingon uniforms), but there are canon things that do piss me off and do imo negatively impact the series.But it doesn't matter, because it is just a tv show. Some trek fans take this made up nonsense way too seriously and sometimes behave like religious fanatics over the most pointless details.
I realize this isn't every fan's preference, but I'll take a good story over canon consistency every time.
It doesn't matter to you and the other Discovery fanboys here or Steve Shives. It does matter to a lot of the fandom. I'm not one to care about Holograms, I think the Klingons look fantastic here beside their clone tool/greeble 500% ships (and I would have liked to see some Augments here and there in TOS inspired Klingon uniforms), but there are canon things that do piss me off and do imo negatively impact the series.
The Spock/Burnham shit just comes off as tedious fanfiction fanwank and makes the universe way more smaller that it needs to be, Trek was already too small in other shows (Trillion people in the federation 150 core member worlds but the entire Starfleet is borderline completely crippled when a whole 40 ships get destroyed and it will take years to recover.. wut) and here it's even smaller. Section 31 retconning is done insultingly bad and just a slap into the face of what much of the fandom loves about Star Trek and the Federation as a sheer concept, the show not taking on an updated TOS style aesthetic is a massive missed opportunity to give it a unique flair compared to the rest of the generic blue/orange/silver (muh DVD cover colour theory!) of current sci-fi.
So would I, too bad Discovery's writing at best is like a average episode of Voyager on methamphetamine.
How do you figure? I can name a dozen major inconsistencies between series or within series without much effort. Spock smiling in The Cage, but then being devoted to logic and rejection of emotion for the rest of TOS. Uniform difference between The Cage, Where No Man Had Gone Before and the rest of TOS. Klingons in TOS versus the entire rest of Star Trek beginning with the Motion Picture, Starfleet Command in place in ENT, but TOS referring to Space Command and Spacefleet Command up until the episode Court Martial. Trills not having spots in TNG,but having spots in DS9, Odon wanting to stay with Beverly in The Host, but Trills forbidden to continue romantic relationships from host to host in Rejoined. And hey, Number One sure looked an awful lot like Nurse Chapel in TOS. That's just off the top of my head.Seems like it was a priority and possible up until Discovery.
Actually, I think this is a great comparison. A great novel series or a great TV series create a rich universe the the reader/viewer takes part in discovering and enjoying.
Now taker my favorite novel series, the Foundation series by Asimov. The first books were written in the 1940's. In subsequent decades he wrote books that took place well before and well after, but they were always consistent with one another and built upon the the universe and 'history' that he created that spans hundreds of years. Now admittedly, he did have to retcon dates of some events in other series when he merged them with Foundation, but if someone wrote a new Foundation novel that ignored or changed that established history, I don't think that would be very well received.
Well put. I think the mythology is a great example as not only can mythology be updated for the times, but the stories can take on new significance not necessarily meant by the original authors. That is the power of myth in that it can take on new form as it ages.A novel is generally the work of single author. Trek, like mythology, is the work of numerous authors, separated by space and time, working off of each other's creations. I can't lie to you, I am baffled by some fans' upset over inconsistencies, retcons, and "canon violations". Trek manages to stay alive because, like mythology, it can be updated and translated into new ages and for new generations.
At Wondercon, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts were asked about the possibility of seeing a same-sex female romance in the series. Harberts hinted that they may have actually started seeding one in the first season without drawing attention to it.
“In terms of your question about a same-sex couple on the female side, you know, you may very well be already watching one and you just don’t know,” Harberts said. “As a gay man, what’s very important to me about portraying gay characters is that they always lead with their competence and their characters first and not with their sexuality. And that’s true of everybody on our bridge. All of our characters, who are so different, they lead with their professionalism and their strong character first. But you may already have a window into a relationship and you just don’t know it.”
So discussion in the Renewal thread got me wondering: whatever happened with this?
If they weren't trying to draw attention to it, they did their job a little too well. Unless you're counting in the background on "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad".
I think they could have a female/female relationship on DSC, but since Berg and Harberts are off the show, then whatever they specifically had in mind is null and void. Otherwise, you'd think we'd have seen whatever were trying to set up by now, and with who. We're almost half-way into the season.
Ummmnn...So discussion in the Renewal thread got me wondering: whatever happened with this?
The same as we would know if they were in a heterosexual relationship, we just assume it's the default setting and don't give it a second thoughtI'm not even sure who the F/F relationship could be.
I mean, there really are only two female main characters on Discovery - Burnham and Tilly. They obviously aren't into each other like that. Micheal still doesn't really seem to be "over" Ash.
That leaves the possibility of something like Detmer and Owo hooking up. And how would be know that, given how thin the characterization has been?
The same as we would know if they were in a heterosexual relationship, we just assume it's the default setting and don't give it a second thought
Actually, as a pescetarian myself, I couldn't care less what other people eatPersonally, as a vegan, I unconsiously presume everyone else is vegan, and then end up mildly surprised when I see them eating meat.
Actually, as a pescetarian myself, I couldn't care less what other people eat
I'm not saying I judge. I've been vegan for over 20 years now - way past that. I'm saying that I know I have an unconscious bias to presume people are like me, but am always surprised nonetheless.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.