Star Trek Finally Reveals Uhura Became Captain of Her Own Starship

All I'm saying is, it comes at a cost. Like being all alone when you're old, all alone on your deathbed. And I wouldn't count on friends, because your best friends will be your age, as old and frail as you are. This is ancient wisdom, known for 10,000 years and, in our culture, forgotten five minutes ago.

 

But there's your standard. Within that context, the shows are in continuity. It's X-men movie very very vague, but it's there.

 

My sister is 60. Never married, no kids, no relationships. Just me (and she's a state away) and her cats. She has a ton of savings. House paid off, no loans, no debt. If she needs assistance when she's old, she no doubt has made the preparations for it. I only know that I am her beneficiary and should she predecease me, I'll find out just how well off she is (I don't ask, I don't care).

Needless to say, she has 100% zero regrets about her choices in life and would actually be offended if someone said her choices cost her too much. She doesn't even like kids.

She does love Star Trek though, thanks to me. She's cool.

 

You consider it a cost. Others don't. It depends on what you want out of life. Personally, I think it's a trap trying to find fulfillment from others if you can't find it within yourself first. Of course, as I said, it completely depends on what you want out of life.

Or put another way....

...what he said

 

The only ones calling the shows "alternate timelines" are fans uncomfortable with change.

I think it's very much a motivation and goal of these shows. Maybe not to the extent some fans want though. They are after all making a show for and in the 2020s. And fiction will always be mutable, especially in along running franchise.

 

All generalities are bad.

 

But only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

As an older person, this sounds very much like the perspective and anxieties of a younger person.

It's not wisdom, just an opinion.

BTW, we don't have 10,000 years of recorded history. Try 5,000 or so.

 

But it's felt like 20,000 years...

 

Apart from the makers of the 2009 movie who even called that new era a different timeline? Abrams didn't say he was a big fan of Trek either... But a new timeline can be both a curse and a blessing; the latter being you have a clean slate to do anything with regarding the same recognized and established character names and backgrounds...

Another example comes to mind -- Look at Shakespeare's plays. Language verbiage structure has changed since the 1500s and other arguments aside, nobody speaketh liketh thateth anymore (though it was cool when Q tried iteth). The same plays were recycled but played by different actors since the actors from 1593 were more or less dead a few centuries later, but nobody's perfect. Not to mention that plots would be tinkered with to be more "modern", whatever that can mean...

Granted, Shakespeare's profession wasn't as large or varied expansive when compared to the 20th and 21st centuries either.

And it was Shakespeare who also noted the limited number of tropes and combinations, the real issue is using them in a new way that makes them feel fresh again...?

Not to mention, most of the "classic movies/shows" were derided at the time when they were first made for being:

• too different
• too weird
• too expensive to make
• too reminiscent of something else (except they all borrow at some point)
  
• etc

and/or any combination of those.

The Wizard of Oz is one example of a movie that was a flop that was well-regarded later... (think "cult classic" except TWoZ had far more fans over time compared to other movies that became cult classics over time...) which had some remakes, of which many were rubbish because the same spirit was there and/or the fans were full of themselves or anything in between.

Battlestar Galactica from 1978 was a retelling of parables, so was 1970s Doctor Who... how well they did it is arguably subjective as well...

So, time will tell... it's still an honor when some franchise is continued or remade or rebooted - it lives on, in a sense. Can't say the same things about awesome shows such as "My Mother the Car", "Captain Nice", and others that are too cringe to bear...

 

No one on the production side that I can recall. As I said it’s more of a rationalization put forward by some fans.

 

Doug Drexler, who did art for DS9, ENT and PIC S2, said on FB that he considers DSC an alternate timeline but PIC to be a continuation of the TNG universe. Despite the Stargazer's bridge window and lack of carpets (and more seriously, the direct storyline connections like Disco using PIC's synth tech, the DSC/SNW Enterprise appearing in PIC S1 and DSC doing sequels to "The Cage" and the TNG "Unification" 2 parter which included footage from the originals)

 

That's a sweeping generalization if ever I've heard one.

I do not consider myself 'uncomfortable with change.' Back in 2017 when CBS first announced they were going to make a new Star Trek TV series taking place ten years before TOS, I knew even back then that it wasn't going to look and feel just like TOS. And I was fine with that, mainly because I was so happy to have a new Trek show back on television. But what I really didn't expect was to see a show that looked and felt nothing like TOS. Did the show have Starfleet? Yes. Saucer-and-nacelle starships? Yes. Transporters? Yes. Phasers? Yes. Warp drive? Yes. Vulcans? Yes. Klingons? Ye....sort of. But other Trek shows in the 24th century had all that too, and it's inarguable that they all still recognized and evolved from the TOS benchmark far more than DSC did, and they were set a century after TOS! I never got the impression that DSC was interested in recognizing or tributing TOS at all. They instead went out of their way to make their show look and feel as different from TOS as they could, while advertising that it takes place in the same universe. To me, that's like saying that Christopher Nolan considers his Christian Bale Batman films to be in the same universe as the '60's Batman TV show, and that Bale's Batman is the same guy as Adam West's Batman. There are fundamental problems with that idea, but that's essentially what CBS did.

Now, to CBS's credit, I do believe they realized that things went too far, and that's why SNW has more of a TOS vibe than DSC ever did. I even fully expect to see a Klingon in season 2 that looks more like Kor than T'Kuvma.

So I'm not uncomfortable with change. I like DSC and SNW on their own merits. I can enjoy them without worry about what CBS or anyone at the TrekBBS thinks of my opinion of what 'universe' they take place in. Because it's all made up. Ten years from now some new showrunner might declare that DSC and SNW indeed take place in an alternate universe from TOS, and the ones who are presently toting CBS's line will all change their tune and salivate when they hear the bell.

 

This is why discussions of "canon" are meaningless. Because "canon" is whatever the IP owners decide at the time.

Either like the shows or don't. Either accept they're in the same universe or don't. It's all a buncha BS.

TNG thru Enterprise existed comfortably in the original series established universe and even acknowledged the style of the original as well as the characters. Disco and SNW? I take them as "Star Trek" shows and accept that they're Star Trek and enjoy them (or don't) on their own merits, but they don't fit comfortably for me. So I - personally - choose not to count them. Both of those shows, as far as I am concerned, will have THEIR version of TOS in their timeline.

Officially, it's not the case, but in my house it is. And honestly, that's all that matters to me.

 

Yeah, pros can get all fannish about this stuff too,

 

It's true that the 24th century shows imitated 1960s television.

 

Don't really want to go off topic, but you might want to read this (written by an Oz expert):

http://thewizardofoz.info/wiki/The_...ie_a_flop_at_the_box_office_when_it_opened.3F

 

I keep wondering what kind of propulsion system the USS Leondegrance had.

The Lesser Magellanic Clouds are 200,000 light years away, and Uhura commanded a mission that went there, surveyed, and came back in five years, meanwhile seventy years later it would have taken Voyager seventy years to go 70,000 light years.

Perhaps this connects to the Andromeda Galaxy missions from Vonda McIntyre's Star Trek novelizations. Was the USS Magellan a "proof of concept" that an extragalactic drive worked, and the Leondegrance, built a few years later, was a refinement based on the data from the Magellan's flight into something that could be made more conventional?

 

The same effect that let the SS Valiant, a warp 1.x ship go to Galactic Barrier? I've felt for awhile that warp travel is not strictly linear. Since it's not real physics it can be anything anyone wants, but let's say spaceflight is affected by gravitic obstacles, etc, then getting from one place to another might have better paths at times (hence why Voyager couldn't just fly straight from point a to point B and pass through the chewy nougat center of the Milky Way.)

If there are those shortcuts then they get exploited and used often. Might explain the ridiculously quick travel times between Earth, Kronos and Vulcan, or how SS.Valiant, a ship that scarsely went faster than the speed of light. made it to the edge of the galaxy, which, even if we're talking about the narrowest edge could be up to 1000LY. I know this belongs in Trek Tech. Anyway, we always make the joke about the speed-of-plot, but considering this goes as far back as Where No One Has Gone Before, the idea that warp speeds, while consistent, do not equate to equivalents distance/rate. must be some relativistic effects going on.

Short answer, she used the same shortcut Sybok took in the opposite direction to ShaKaRee.

 

Unimaginative writing leads to the idea that a character didn't have a successful life/career without commanding a starship.