I'm happy that you're happy!
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
You do know that late 21st century would imply 2079, not 2179, right?
2179 would be considered 22nd century.
EXACTLY!
We don't need Star Trek History to match our own.
We are our own individual Time Line.
Trek is it's own thing with it's own unique Time Line.
We can learn from it.
Just like Lilly Sloane from the most recent epside of ST: Lower Decks where she hops around the Trek Multiverse
Last edited:
This is hilarious…. Did you use ai to generate this?Tell that to Wesley Crusher and his computer display.
Funny, you should know exactly where that screen shot comes from, right?
I will agree there is no need.
But that's not what Trek attempts to per on screen evidence.
So, people can work with that as they need.
I do. And Farpoint said 2079. Fixed.
You do you, if you want to follow the company line, so be it.
The rest of us will go our own way.
Enjoy yourselves, let's not fight over things that don't need fighting over.
Can we agree on that?
Peaceful co-existence as fellow Trekkies?
This type of "drama" makes it hard to take what you say seriously.
Ok, you do whatever you want.
Don't expect to change my mind about the amount of Prime Timelines out there.
It's ok, we're allowed to have differences of opinions.
That's exactly what they are doing, per an interview with Kurtzman a while back. (I don't have the link, but I know it was discussed in a couple of threads a while back.) He was trying to say how making the histories match would make STAR TREK inspirational, which is dead wrong. It already is inspirational. I never agreed with his mentality about that. It also insults the intelligence of the audience. (I'm pretty sure I made that point during that discussion after that interview link was posted.)
I just don't see the insult. It's trying to bring Trek inline in a way that some have taken it and others disagree.
That excuse from Kurtzman and Goldsman never made any sort of sense, especially given Picard season 2 which they oversaw. That entire season is based around a pivotal manned space mission to Europa that's necessary for humanity to end up as the Federation.
Well, how is having a continuity with a manned space mission to Europa that's supposed to happen this year, and the result of which is to fix climate change, any more or less a fake history than Eugenics Wars happening in the 1990s?
Less filling!
Wait, what?
Wait, what?
In their defense, that was still a few years in the future from when that episode was produced.
I think the point is that they try to keep Trek as close to our reality as possible, which has been what most shows have done. When TOS went back in time to the 30's or the 60's, it very much looked like our 1930's or 1960's. In the Voyage Home, it was our 1980's San Francisco. Voyager went to 90's L.A. Enterprise to early 2000's Detroit, complete with Conan O'Brien. SNW did Toronto in the 2020's.
Now, they'll insert little things that differentiate them from purely being our timeline. Things like the Millennium gate from Voyager, or the bridge across Lake Ontario in Toronto, but generally every production has treated Trek as being our future.
Well put. The creative conceit of Star Trek is its an extrapolation of our future from what ever present it is being filmed or written in. No one on the creative side of Star Trek has been interested in "alternate history".
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
