The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We should always try to disprove our conjectures and only accept them if they resist disproof. If all you have is conjecture, that's reason to doubt the hypothesis, not assume it's true.
In this case, it's just improbable that such a generic, widely used SF technology would be seen as something to avoid because of just one recent use of it. I mean, they didn't avoid space travel or ray guns because Lost in Space used them, so why would they avoid something as ordinary as videophones because Voyage used them? It doesn't make any sense.
You have to put these things in context. Everything looks like a pattern if you narrow your focus so much that you only see the parts you want. Which is why skepticism is so important.
Okay, first: there is no “burden of proof.” I’m not making a claim or arguing a case. I am posing an idea, a suggestion, a possibility. If you want to keep it in legal terms, I am introducing a possibility to the jury. When an attorneys says “isn’t it possible the accused was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife” he’s not presenting a fact requiring proof, he’s giving the jury something to deliberate. Reasonable doubt.
Nothing I said requires citing.
Second: I’m gonna be 54 in a few months. I didn't ask or need to be schooled on the history of science fiction visual media. While I didn’t watch more than one Charlie Chaplin film (not my thing), I
have seen
Metropolis,
Things to Come, the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials, all of the Universal monster films and hundreds of other SF movies and episodes in the last 5 decades. I am WELL AWARE that Irwin Allen Productions didn’t invent the concept of the video phone in 1964, just as I am well aware that Norway Productions didn’t invent the concept of the flip phone. I never suggested that they did. Re-read my posts. Your responses are the equivalent of mansplaining. Uncool. Don’t assume you’re the only one who knows stuff.
Space travel is one thing, but when you're creating a universe that is meant to take place centuries after the 20th and a contemporary show which takes place in the 70's - a series that you are well aware of - is using similar technology, it is possible you think "maybe I don't want to use something so close." Maybe they wanted to be more unique. If they can be inspired by much older films to create their tech they can be just as aware of a CONTEMPORARY show to guide their choices on how to implement them - or not implement. So yeah it makes sense. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't mean it ain't.
You're answer could simply have been, "meh, it's possible I guess but I doubt it." That's it.
Contrary to what a few folks like to believe, this is not a scholarly website on the history of Star Trek. It’s a discussion board where I like talk about my favorite series, have fun and maybe pick up some things I didn't know from people who do the research. I wish people would stop opening the airlock and blowing the fun out of the room.
