Nah, they just have a different interpretation. Just like the TMP writers didI think it's just a case of the writers not really understanding the terminology, then doubling down like crazy on it
Is Titan-A a refit of original Titan?
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
TMP's 'interpretation' wasn't an interpretation. It was the standard with which we defined 'refit' for the last 45 years. So you'll excuse the people who don't quite agree with Matalas's 'interpretation' of it.
I mean compared to real life.
Star Trek isn't real life.
So?
So we can only go by what Star Trek's fictional universe tells us. And that universe told us that for 45 years, 'refit' meant taking an old ship and rebuilding it into a new one, not taking some parts from an old ship and putting them in a new ship. Hence the continued debate about what a 'refit' means in this universe.
In regards to the current remarks being made, I see no reason to react negatively to the Producers reimagining what the required definition of a Refit should really be.
My response relies on remembering that previous reincarnations of Trek have also retread relevant retro terms.
My response relies on remembering that previous reincarnations of Trek have also retread relevant retro terms.
Indeed. Terms change, and history, while informative, is not set in stone of what it means.In regards to the current remarks being made, I see no reason to react negatively to the Producers reimagining what the required definition of a Refit should really be.
My response relies on remembering that previous reincarnations of Trek have also retread relevant retro terms.
In regards to the current remarks being made, I see no reason to react negatively to the Producers reimagining what the required definition of a Refit should really be.
My response relies on remembering that previous reincarnations of Trek have also retread relevant retro terms.
Can't speak for others, but I'm not reacting negatively. I simply think Matalas just wanted his Shangri-La design and just pulled something out of his ass to justify it.
Really ... ?
Now who's reimagining their own reactions regarding negativity..
Whatever dude. I stand by what I wrote. Sorry you don't like it.
Well, you have to understand, when writers make stuff up for Star Trek it's "pulling it out of their ass" vs. when writers use made up stuff from Star Trek it's honoring continuity.Really ... ?
Now who's reimagining their own reactions regarding negativity..
I trust you see the difference..
Has nothing to do with what I like or don't like ...
Just pointing out your own inverse reasoning.
You said you are not reacting negatively and then in the exact same post you diss the producer .... Negatively.
Has nothing to do with what I like or don't like ...
Just pointing out your own inverse reasoning.
You said you are not reacting negatively and then in the exact same post you diss the producer .... Negatively.
That's your opinion. 'Pullng something out of one's ass' isn't being negative. It's being realistic. But I see that further discussion of this will serve no purpose, so I'm out.
Redundantly.
... (idiomatic, vulgar, transitive) To fabricate (a factual-sounding claim) from no factual basis or evidence ...
Well, we can't all be Trek writers and pull things out of our assess positivelyRedundantly.
Yeah, I've never heard the term used in a positive way...
Are you telling me the term "pulling out one's ass" has been used positively in your experience? Genuine question.
Ah yes, when one relinquishes and retreats ...,
Watch how it's correctly done.
....
... it is always customary to lob just one more negative response for good measure.
Watch how it's correctly done.
....
Similar threads
