Those are different problems. I want Trek to remain consistent with todays technology and history and build upon that. Jumping to the 32nd Century doesn't push anything forward in the sense I mean. It just flips some pages on a calendar.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 2x03 - "Assimilation"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
The Neutral Zone had cryogenic satellites just a few years after air-date, matching Space Seed's Botany Bay date, and if Khan were taking over the world in the mid 1990s that means he'd be born around the time TOS was airing, which seemed crazy to have such genetically engineers supermen at that time, and as mentioned upthread the nuclear weapons platform in 1968 was not contemporary to the episode.
90s predictions for early 21st century dates seem to fit somewhat. Ares IV doesn't feel impossible for the circa 2030s if SpaceX do well with Starship, certainly not an order of magnitude out. Gloss over some tech terminology and Past Tense isn't too bad a prediction for 30 years in the future. Data's claim that Broadcast TV won't survive much past 2040 is reasonable. We'll see about Irish reunification by 2024, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happens in the next decade as a consequence of brexit
90s predictions for early 21st century dates seem to fit somewhat. Ares IV doesn't feel impossible for the circa 2030s if SpaceX do well with Starship, certainly not an order of magnitude out. Gloss over some tech terminology and Past Tense isn't too bad a prediction for 30 years in the future. Data's claim that Broadcast TV won't survive much past 2040 is reasonable. We'll see about Irish reunification by 2024, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happens in the next decade as a consequence of brexit
How do you know that for a fact?
(And id fact the empirical evidence is against you as WERE that the case, the S1 episode "Space Seed" would never have made it out of the concept phase. They'd have killed it -- "You're wanting a story where in the 1990s we'll have a major war and the world will be overthrown Eugenic Hybrid Tyrants...Not on Star Trek...")
Most SF is about our future. I simply doubt alternate history was on their minds in the 60s. TOS's story telling was very much rooted in the 1960s. They were about projecting/predicting the future not rewriting the past. WWII was just two decades past, so I'm pretty sure world wars and Übermenschen were very much on their minds. Khan started out as the very Nordic Harald Ericssen/John Ericssen/Ragnar Thorvald. So I doubt they thought that setting a world war or supermen in the 1990s was a problem. Especially with Eugenics having been a thing since the 1880s and a central idea of the Nazi Party.
I doubt in the 60s that they even imagined we’d still be talking about the show in the 90s, never mind the 2020s. I’d say 99% of all television produced at any given time is destined to be forgotten.
It’s the lucky shows that make it through generations of culture. The rest is so much pop culture ephemera.
It’s the lucky shows that make it through generations of culture. The rest is so much pop culture ephemera.
Sorry if this was mentioned. I was just watching the battle, when Rios tells Seven to "target forward ship, starboard nacelle" and the photon torpedo hits the underside of the saucer/deflector area, dead center. (both Borg torpedoes also hit the same exact spots on the other 2 ships)
Hey, at least he didn't say "aft nacelle", but maybe those only exists in the Kelvin-verse
Hey, at least he didn't say "aft nacelle", but maybe those only exists in the Kelvin-verse
I mentioned it a few pages ago…and Rios even compliments her on the shooting!
Sorry I missed it. I noticed the error on previous viewings, but hadn't made a point of mentioning it.
Still, a hit is a hit.
What Jurati did to the Queen is impossible.
However she wouldn't be the Queen's jailer if she was super duper susceptible to assimilation.
1. She's a genetically enhanced Super Woman.
2. She's a synth.
3. Inoculation chips are to fight techno-organic viruses.
However she wouldn't be the Queen's jailer if she was super duper susceptible to assimilation.
1. She's a genetically enhanced Super Woman.
2. She's a synth.
3. Inoculation chips are to fight techno-organic viruses.
Someone make sure they get Guy's car keys before he tries to head home.
Sorry, I know this is a little bit off the topic of the thread, but it did come up here. I was just curious, for those of you who prefer to interpret Star Trek as being specifically in our future, what makes that an important element for you?
Just from my personal perspective, I watch and read a fair bit of fiction where the characters' history is not "our" history, but that doesn't prevent me from emotionally engaging with the characters or their stories. So it isn't a concern for me at all that the Star Trek characters' world did not experience the same history that our real world did, and I am still able to be heavily invested in their stories. But I am interested in hearing any thoughts about the opposite viewpoint.
Just from my personal perspective, I watch and read a fair bit of fiction where the characters' history is not "our" history, but that doesn't prevent me from emotionally engaging with the characters or their stories. So it isn't a concern for me at all that the Star Trek characters' world did not experience the same history that our real world did, and I am still able to be heavily invested in their stories. But I am interested in hearing any thoughts about the opposite viewpoint.
Because that is always a central conceit of Trek. If it was pitched as an alternative future then the premise would work just as well but my buy in would be different.
FFS, the contrivance I am complaining about is that the transporter conveniently injured the one of the three that would best fit into the 21st century anti-immigrant story. Not complaining about taking on that story at all. (And as I said in another post clarifying that, if the ship had put down in the Antebellum South, then the writers would have injured Raffi with the transporter instead. Contrived.)
It's called "plotting." All plots are nothing but contrivance for the purposes of the writer. There is not a Trek episode ever written that could or would happen, not because it's a fantasy universe but because real events don't unfold in fictional patterns.
None of the complaints about the undocumented immigrant storyline are valid. If you want something different, find someone who thinks it's worth their money to pay you to write for them.
Good luck with that.
I always kinda did.
exactly why I kinda give TOS, early TNG and the first few movies a bit of a pass when it comes to continuity stuff like Harry Mudd calling Spock a “Vulcanian” or UESPA, etc…
it was an efficient and funny way to get there.
That's because Khan wasn't genetically engineered (in the modern sense) in Space Seed, he was the product of selective breeding. No doubt the result of a project started in the late 1800s. He didn't become genetically engineered until TWOK.
Well, when I was a kid, I initially got attracted to the "our future" idea in contrast to Star Wars (which I did NOT like). I found the Trek stories so meaty and compelling and interesting, and they really made me think about our world today and where it could go in the future. Trek was instrumental in building my value system, and I don't think I would have necessarily thought of it in those terms without the "our future" framing to guide me there.
Meanwhile, Star Wars felt utterly empty. There was no substance to those stories, they were about nothing beyond their own insular universe. I attributed this hollowness to Star Wars being set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. So this made me grow even more attached to the Trek approach.
Obviously, since then I've come across plenty of stories set in fantastical realms that still have something compelling to say about real life, or are just engaging/entertaining/moving stories on their own merits (and I've even grown to appreciate Star Wars). The MCU is a great example -- it started as our world and has now massively diverged, but the stories still resonate. So I don't consider it a requirement across the board for everything. But I still remain deeply attached to the notion that Trek is our future, in that sentimental childhood way that'll always be there.
I also find it fun to hop around the various eras of the franchise and see how the vision of what a hopeful future is has changed over the decades. It is fascinating to watch a rapey TOS straight into an ultra-modern Discovery.
OK. Not remotely clear from your first post. If it upsets you to be misunderstood, you could avoid that by writing with greater clarity.
And @Serveaux nails it with "It's called 'plotting.'" It actually is not necessary to injure Raffi or Rios to tell these stories, there's plenty of other plot points that could have fulfilled the same function. This one worked for me, and many others -- I've seen a lot of positive comments in this thread on that bit. Of course, YMMV.
Last edited:
Exactly. But people like to use that as an argument for continuity having no relevance today