Pearl Harbor is based on actual events. The type of carriers present are historical facts. Star Trek is fiction. The starships are equally fictional.
Apples and oranges.
SNW truly respects TOS continuity!
- Thread starter C.E. Evans
- Start date
Apples and oranges.
CBS may not care. But the people who make SNW clearly do.
A sneak peek of next week's episode. The levels of unfiltered TOS cheesiness in this series bring nothing but smiles to my face. Dammit, this show is great.
This is going to be like one of those Gilligan’s Island dream episodes, right? Those were the best!
"Throw some crap over the standing sets and make them look just different enough! And make everyone wear funny-looking costumes!"
Star Trek: throwing shit on other shit and dressing in weird costumes since 1966 and we're proud of it.
Star Trek: throwing shit on other shit and dressing in weird costumes since 1966 and we're proud of it.
That's what I said. They care, just not in the same way you do.
The people making the show however, care about the franchise deeply. it's clear from interviews and segments on Ready Room.
Admiral Morrow said in ST3 that the Enterprise is 20 years old. Whatever refit it undergoes in 2265 is enough to make him consider it a brand new ship that looks like cardboard due to, uh, the infamous 2260s Starfleet resource shortage. Works for me.
As for Q&A and the Cage, well, different bridge module for the Rigel/Talos missions and 2250s era dress uniforms that just happen to look like sweaters. Works for me.
As for Q&A and the Cage, well, different bridge module for the Rigel/Talos missions and 2250s era dress uniforms that just happen to look like sweaters. Works for me.
Somewhat unrelated, but recently (maybe on this site, I don't recall) I ran across a "TOS anti-Fandamentalist" reading of Star Trek, in which TOS and TMP (and maybe TAS, I forget) are the only non-canon part of the franchise. Perhaps this is blasphemous, but that is part of what makes it most amusing to me.
I think it'd have to at least Wrath of Khan as well due to it having non-Asian Kyle and TAS for the same reasons in regards to April.
Exactly. Arguments premised on treating Trek as analogous to real history make no sense.
Probably became a thing when TNG was announced.
Or they have it on Blu Ray where the option to watch either versions of the show are there.
Obviously a poster or two in this thread, whom I notice ignored my question. Oh well. Whatever head canon makes them feel better. I just think it's hypocritical.
I take the heretical position that everything produced as STAR TREK created from TWOK onward - minus the Kelvin films - is part of the so-called "Prime Timeline," but that TOS and TAS as we, the audience, experienced them, are not. I consider TOS and TAS as televised as existing in their own bubbles as a sort of rough draft. I waffle on which side of the imaginary divide I put TMP on. It may straddle the divide.
All the series are "canon," if one insists on using that term. All the major events and significant minor events "happened" to the characters, but not necessarily exactly the way we experienced them as viewers.
But, as James Blish was fond of having Spock say, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference."
Hasn't mechanical transformation tech been a staple of sci-fi since forever? Transformers morphing from cars into aliens and back. Power Ranger Zords morphing into different shapes and combining. Even TOS had Gary Seven's 1960s room morph into a futuristic command center somewhat.
Why is it so hard to assume that Starfleet ships have a similar reconfiguration command for bridges etc. and that this would account for cosmetic differences?
Why is it so hard to assume that Starfleet ships have a similar reconfiguration command for bridges etc. and that this would account for cosmetic differences?
Because it it isn't stated explicitly. Strict literalism is often at play.
Bridge modules seem to be very plug and play. I can live with that.
I wish they'd stuck with the TOS look as well, but just go with the long held "modular ship design" explanation. It works fine for me.
If there are other inconsistencies, isn't head-canoning the explanation part of the fun of fandom?
Guess I need to update this a little, but...
Yes. I don't know why when I say I consider it a reboot it offends some people or make their heads spin. The response I get is "CBS says it isn't" and I haven't seen CBS say anything of the sort. Just that it is in the prime timeline, whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't care what CBS says, it doesn't fit. Just like there were things Roddenberry said that I don't accept because they don't fit. If canon is the sum of all official sources (usually the live action shows), then the explanation that works for me is that Discovery and SNW are set in a parallel universe that lets the production reboot the setting while keeping roughly to the same timeline. That is consistent with the mirror universe and other things we see in Trek canon. That is my head canon and is consistent with the official claims of following the prime timeline.
Been saying that for a while.
Similar threads
