I don't hate the idea, I just want them to be consistent about what the rules are.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
If it is a popular name in fandom, then it gets a letter. Those are the rules.
Except for the Excelsior!
Give them time...
OK, here goes:You don't know them by heart?!
Then you shall be forced to write down Voyager's registry 74,656 times and the Defiant's registry 74,205 times!
74,656 times Voyager's registry and 74,205 times Defiant's registry =
74,656 * USS 74,656 + 74,205 * USS 74,205 =
(74,656²+74,205²) USS =
11,079,900,361 USS.
(Algebra still has its uses every now and then.)
Sir, this is Star Trek.
I haven't given up on it yet.
I would. And I love continuity.
YATI strikes again.
- With the exception of ST5, all the TOS movies are better than any of the TNG movies.
- We need Trek set during the hundred year gap after the TOS movies. Preferably a captain Sulu series (and yes, I am saying recast Sulu).
- DS9 season 1 is actually really good (and not just Duet).
- I don't like the more triangle saucer sections of the more recent TNG era ships.
I still think DS9 has comfortably the strongest pilot and first season of any Berman-era Trek.
That will be the Section 31 movie featuring Rachel Garett ( and someone else who rhymes with Hace Spitler)
Honestly I wasn't so enthusiastic after "Emissary".
For me DS9 got better and better after a bumpy start.
I am so sick of trying to split hairs to reconcile incompatible elements, especially dialog, but also interiors, exteriors, props, and spacecraft. The ship of things meshing together consistently sailed long ago. Trying to fight against that is tedious and fun-sucking.
Star Trek is not real. The episodes are not historical documents. There does not need to be a consistent universe defined by the events of all episodes taken together.
I am perfectly content for some things to be certain ways in some episodes, and for those same things to have incompatible properties in other episodes. Canon and continuity are two entirely different things. What matters the most is whether I enjoy the episodes, not whether they mesh together consistently.
Let each episode tell its own story.*
* - That does not mean that each episode exists in its own timeline. It means nothing of the kind.
*inner peace*
Star Trek is not real. The episodes are not historical documents. There does not need to be a consistent universe defined by the events of all episodes taken together.
I am perfectly content for some things to be certain ways in some episodes, and for those same things to have incompatible properties in other episodes. Canon and continuity are two entirely different things. What matters the most is whether I enjoy the episodes, not whether they mesh together consistently.
Let each episode tell its own story.*
* - That does not mean that each episode exists in its own timeline. It means nothing of the kind.
*inner peace*
A statement that bothers me so much more than any cosmetic and creative changes on the surface. The very notion that if something's different in one series from another or even one episode to another that it's a sign they take place in different timelines and continuities is beyond ridiculous and may well be THE single worst fan theory I've ever heard to explain surface differences in ship and set differences from one series to the next.
No. ENT and SNW are the same timeline as TOS, especially the latter. No, FC didn't change anything and no, the NX-01 didn't not exist prior the events in that movie. It was always there, as evidenced by Archer's ship being in the holodeck database of the 1701-D more than three years before Picard and his crew traveled back to 2063 Earth.
No, little ripples in the Temporal Cold War or the Temporal Wars aren't setting episodes in their own unique timelines, much less entire series. Stop it. It's beyond silly. Believe it if you want, but know you're not going to get much if any support for it.
Their choice. Not gonna fly with me unless the producers tell us that.
And even then.
What is gained? Is enjoyment really that impaired by changes? Is suspension of disbelief so fragile that a prop change or a set change means new timeline?
Similar threads
- Locked
