USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
This is a logical fallacy.
If you concede that they are "versions of Star Trek," then you must also concede that they are ALL Star Trek.
It would more accurate to say that ENT, VOY, DS9 and TNG are not TOS. That is true.
DIS/DSC is not TOS. Its DSC: and it's Star Trek.
Tell that to GR. He updated the moment he could in TMP and TNG.
That's not quite how I view things. To me, the intent of TNG was to create a legitimate sequel to TOS, and DS9 and VOY simply followed along with that formula. However, something changed right around the time VOY ended and preproduction for ENT began. To me, ENT was more of a desperation idea of "what the hell are we going to do now?" which ultimately ended up being "let's make a show that takes place before TOS but looks like Voyager." To me, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY all flowed together reasonably well, but for some reason ENT screwed everything up, and now we have another show that looks (at the outset, anyway) far more like a sequel to ENT than a prequel to TOS/TNG etc. It just doesn't flow right with the 40-odd years of Roddenberry/Berman Trek to me. But this is of course all just my opinion.
I do see your point, but it can be debated both ways, because note how much of what we have seen since TOS includes this:
"Based upon"....even though 'Star Trek' is part of the title.
To be fair, reality is unrealistic. The bestselling computer game in 1993 was Myst and a forest there looked like
The bestselling PC game 18 years later in 2011 was Minecraft and a forest there looks like
Tech does go backward in real life, strangely enough. Things don't actually "flow right" in the real world.
Yeah, they're all spin-offs of the original show.I do see your point, but it can be debated both ways, because note how much of what we have seen since TOS includes this:
"Based upon"....even though 'Star Trek' is part of the title.
Disco is the same as TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.
No I watch them on the weekend.
Well, that's what I was talking about as well. If they had returned to the TOS era back when Relics was made, for a full series, I don't think they would've just rebuilt the TOS sets. They would've updated it.
Correction. TOS was accepted in the 60s. There's a reason why they redid the entire thing in the 70s, just a few years later.
Of course, and my point was that we might as well accept the out-of-universe change as having no in-universe explanation and just enjoy the show. I'm a big Trek nerd and I like things to make sense as much as the next guy, but it's just too much work, especially if it messes up my enjoyment.
I'm pretty sure they don't have this sort of tech.
And updating it would have been fine. But there's a difference between an update and a complete change.
TOS is remembered far better in the public consciousness than TMP is.
Well I like the work (I'm a guy who tried to think up my own Legend of Zelda timelines before Nintendo released one, wrote up an entire list on which EU works can still fit with Disney's Star Wars, wrote up an Ultima timeline, and an X-Men timeline).
And until someone outright says onscreen they don't have this tech, it's as valid a fan theory as any other. If you don't want to believe in that fan theory, then don't.
Indeed he did. Because he felt that Star Trek was dated. And he said so. And a lot of fans didn't agree. And still don't. And their position is just as legitimate as the other side, because there is no 'truth' to be derived out of it. You can't ask every member of the viewing public worldwide whether or not they care about the look of things, so neither side can 'prove' their case.
Because they had a dumptruck full of money? I imagine fans would've still showed up for TMP, regardless of which sets were used.
Different issue. There is Star Trek the original television show: three years, 79 episodes. Then there is Star Trek the media franchise (or cinematic/television universe!). When you say they are versions of Star Trek, it means within the media franchise. I was simply saying that the original poster's comment was a logical fallacy, and it was.I do see your point, but it can be debated both ways, because note how much of what we have seen since TOS includes this:
"Based upon"....even though 'Star Trek' is part of the title.
Haha!! Could be!! Makes almost no basic sense, but yeah, could be!
Note the 2 round windows on the lower saucer rim, next to the impulse engines.
Who wouldn't love a nice view of a warp nacelle? Besides, it would actually be the same view as rec room on the refit.
Similar threads
