Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

[DSG2k]

It’s the same Enterprise, just visually reinterpreted for a modern show.

That's the squinting option.

That’s how television works.

Nonsense. As I _said before_, such an argument means they may as well do Downton Abbey with iPhones and AR-15s and the internet yet keep the Victorian mindsets . . . you might be fine with it as a production update, or be willing to squint and pretend it's actually the same thing, but most people appreciate period pieces . . . even a future one like Star Trek.

That also used to include Star Trek producers who faithfully recreated those sets y'all love to call cardboard while also insisting that measurements you take mean the ship is bigger.

It's just so absurd.

The production team tried to show you a fictional reality within the constraints of Hollywood . . . limited time, limited budget, people not getting the memo at a time when those were actually used, et cetera. You don't have to like the fictional reality they tried to present, but it is what it is.

 

[HotRod]

But that was explained in-universe.

Twenty-five fucking years later.

 

[DSG2k]

But that was explained in-universe.

Exactly. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions were spent on explaining the TOS->TMP change, but somehow that's supposed to compare to a new show that seemingly avoids simple reuse of old canon details for sport.

 

[HotRod]

That's the squinting option.



Nonsense. As I _said before_, such an argument means they may as well do Downton Abbey with iPhones and AR-15s and the internet yet keep the Victorian mindsets . . . you might be fine with it as a production update, or be willing to squint and pretend it's actually the same thing, but most people appreciate period pieces . . . even a future one like Star Trek.

That also used to include Star Trek producers who faithfully recreated those sets y'all love to call cardboard while also insisting that measurements you take mean the ship is bigger.

It's just so absurd.

The production team tried to show you a fictional reality within the constraints of Hollywood . . . limited time, limited budget, people not getting the memo at a time when those were actually used, et cetera. You don't have to like the fictional reality they tried to present, but it is what it is.

Star Trek is not a period piece.

 

[Phoenix219]

Twenty-five fucking years later.

Even at the time, there were logical explanations, like there are different breeds or races in the Empire. It didn't straight up contradict everything, and the biggest change, the ship, was explained in detail.

Until they explain this is just a slightly different quantum reality, or the timeline was rewritten by the TCW, it is a straight up contradiction on multiple fronts.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

This isn't an argument that anyone can win, nor will anyone be happy at the end of it.

But Star Trek, like every other kind of fiction, is generally better when it keeps things consistent.

 

[DSG2k]

Yeah, I've lost interest in whatever nonsense you're trying to spout. I made my statement, I stand by my statement, and if you don't agree, then you don't agree.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree, and appreciate the effort in that direction.

By analogy, if I said I discounted Enterprise in favor of Masao's Starfleet Museum but acknowledged that Enterprise was the canonical version of the period, everyone can be happy. But, if I tell you Enterprise is objectively wrong because it doesn't fit, retcons things, and is overwritten by other material, and that you're wrong for accepting it, that's just picking a fight.

Hopefully we can have a better chat next time.

 

[Dukhat]

By analogy, if I said I discounted Enterprise in favor of Masao's Starfleet Museum but acknowledged that Enterprise was the canonical version of the period, everyone can be happy. But, if I tell you Enterprise is objectively wrong because it doesn't fit, retcons things, and is overwritten by other material, and that you're wrong for accepting it, that's just picking a fight.

None of that has anything to do with what I said.

 

[DSG2k]

None of that has anything to do with what I said.

(Sigh) ...

"analogy
/əˈnaləjē/
An analogy is a comparison between two different things, highlighting their similarities to explain a complex idea or make a point, often using metaphor or simile. It acts as a cognitive tool to transfer knowledge from a familiar domain to an unfamiliar one, such as comparing a brain to a computer. "

 

[Dukhat]

(Sigh) ...

"analogy
/əˈnaləjē/
An analogy is a comparison between two different things, highlighting their similarities to explain a complex idea or make a point, often using metaphor or simile. It acts as a cognitive tool to transfer knowledge from a familiar domain to an unfamiliar one, such as comparing a brain to a computer. "

I'm just going to drop this now, as it's clear what you're trying to do here, and I don't have time to waste on you.

 

[DSG2k]

Star Trek is not a period piece.

Yes, it is. This has been covered. Once by analogy with Verne's 2889 . . .

Cage-SNW-TOS Enterprise

That was virtually invisible on a 60s TV. I neglected to reply to this argument. First, lest one presume that this only became observable in the HD remasterings circa 2010, I was using this image and scale as far back as 2003, demonstrably, on my Volumetrics page, from SD sources. Second...

www.trekbbs.com

. . . and also by way of demonstration about the use of the term . . .

Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

They did, huh? Well if anyone even cared about the change to the Klingon makeup they would've made a two-parter explaining it.

www.trekbbs.com

Do we really have to go over it again? It's not required for you to like it, but it is what it is.

 

[DSG2k]

I'm just going to drop this now, as it's clear what you're trying to do here, and I don't have time to waste on you.

Yes, I was being magnanimous about your exit from the topic, and that seemingly made you mad enough to have to slap at the olive branch. (Shrug)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Trek is not a period piece. Next.

 

[HotRod]

Do we really have to go over it again? It's not required for you to like it, but it is what it is.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yes, it is.

No, it is not.

 

[DSG2k]

This isn't an argument that anyone can win, nor will anyone be happy at the end of it.

Oh, it can be won. It already has. What I think you meant is that the sides aren't going to convince each other . . . that much is true.

But Star Trek, like every other kind of fiction, is generally better when it keeps things consistent.

Amen.

 

[HotRod]

Oh, it can be won. It already has.

Indeed. The official stance of the owners of the intellectual property is that it’s simply an updated visual representation within the same Prime timeline. So..... I guess you lose.

 

[DSG2k]

What I think you meant is that the sides aren't going to convince each other . . . that much is true.

And examples of this appeared as I composed:

Star Trek is not a period piece. Next.

View attachment 52589

No, it is not.

See what I mean? Despite having the common usage of the term to refer to specific periods even in sci-fi settings served up and even explained in detail, some people will steadfastly refuse to change their tune on anything for fear of giving an inch.

It's silly.

The difference is that I happily acknowledge that there are production hiccups which can be construed as evidence against the scale du jour if we are trying to view Trek as documentary footage with zero acknowledgement of the realities of production or the preponderance of evidence. I simply don't agree that it is a good idea, and folks trying to claim it is objective fact and disagreement is stupid are obnoxious to me. It's worse when it is the same folks who dismiss the documentary approach in favor of treating the visual portion of the audiovisual storytelling as some hippy-dippy transcendental impressionism, best ignored when suitable.

Why not the audio, too? "I know the Captain said this, but I just don't like it, and we know the character was part of Trek YATIs before, so let's just discard everything I don't like while I glom on to my interpretation of this other statement like it was spoken by a deity."

It's no different than "ermagerd cardboard 1960s sets suck and needed replacing, but that temporary ceiling panel outside of the brig is totally undeniable proof of my pet theory that you're apparently not elite enough to agree with!"

Dubyatieff?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You know, you can believe whatever bullshit you like. I can't change your mind. But that doesn't make it true. Moving on.

 

[DSG2k]

Indeed. The official stance of the owners of the intellectual property is that it’s simply an updated visual representation within the same Prime timeline. So..... I guess you lose.

So you're encountering resistance with one argument so you're trying to distract by opening up the canon front where you ignore Kurtzman like you ignore canonical scale referents?

Oy vey.

(Sits back)

Go ahead, derail it all. Have a blast.