Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[lawman]

I was one of three people in my year at school who had internet access in around 1997 or 98. On a dial up 28.8k modem (pcmcia card on a second hand laptop). ... even home computing was extremely rare as far as pcs were concerned until the mid to late nineties. ...
Mobile phones were not a thing till people left school and got a job, and even then, they are t truly taking off large scale till the Nokia ranges kicked off in 98/99

Huh, interesting. I'd just assumed that British middle-class life was usually pretty much indistinguishable from American middle-class life, certainly in terms of the kinds of consumer technology available.

Heck, last time i was in England (2011 — eek, time flies), it seemed to me like the mobile phone options there were more advanced than in the US! (Although the broadband at the Oxford college where I was staying was, undeniably, pretty unreliable.)

 

[Arpy]

No.

Your loss.

Regardless of what they're wearing, female humans are not baby birds.

Language.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thinking about the ratio of chicks in miniskirts to guys in tank tops, I suspect Trek's fanbase isn't as evenly distributed as one might imagine.

Your loss.



Language.

Casual objectification, condescension, and mansplaining, respectively. What a hat trick. Yippie.

 

[Jinn]

Language.

Yeah, it's a metaphor; one that is specifically noted to be "often offensive".

 

[Lord Garth]

This thread is like 100% off topic now

In the Olden Days of TrekBBS, I used to close threads after they reached 100 posts. That's what we did. Otherwise it would take too long for the pages to load on some computers. They never had a chance to go off-topic...

... I'm so glad those days are over!

 

[BillJ]

Oh, wait, were you talking about only DSC or Trek in general?

Trek in general. Everyone's mileage will vary, but I see nothing wrong with sticking with what was established in TOS, outside of the blatant misogyny. Or for the powers that be to be honest and just tell us that TOS is no longer part of the tapestry that they consider the "Prime" universe.

Either way.

 

[Jinn]

Trek in general. Everyone's mileage will vary, but I see nothing wrong with sticking with what was established in TOS, outside of the blatant misogyny. Or for the powers that be to be honest and just tell us that TOS is no longer part of the tapestry that they consider the "Prime" universe.

Either way.

I started to kinda adapt a view on TOS/later installment differences that i also have on Marvel Comcis timeline. I'm just going to accept what I'm currently seeing as "true" and then later when I'm watching something different I'll see that as "true" for the moment.

Except for the mysogny. That can go screw itself.

 

[Nerys Myk]

,

I guess Khan was wrong as well when he states "1996" in The Wrath of Khan?

Wrong? No, but in 2018 it needs to be modified. "1996" is not important to Space Seed or TWOK, is just a number writers pulled out of the air. There are a hundred more important things to Star Trek in Space Seed and TWOK than that date. The date is almost meaningless to the stories at hand. It`s just an indicator that it takes place in our future (from a 1960's/80's perspective) and Kirk's past. It can just as as easily be 2096 with no impact on either story. Getting hung up on the minutia is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[BillJ]

Getting hung up on the minutia is missing the forest for the trees.

We're talking about a show that is nothing but minutiae at this point. That goes out of the way to exploit minutiae.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We're talking about a show that is nothing but minutiae at this point. That goes out of the way to exploit minutiae.

DISCO? No not really. It does like to toss in Easter Eggs a little too much and perhaps leans a bit too much on established characters, but that's somewhat different than the minutiae fans obsess over. "1996" is minutia. Khan, not so much.

 

[BillJ]

DISCO? No not really. It does like to toss in Easter Eggs a little too much and perhaps leans a bit too much on established characters, but that's somewhat different than the minutiae fans obsess over. "1996" is minutia. Khan, not so much.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm someone that is detail oriented, and "1996" is a detail that we've had for fifty years now. I don't see any good reason to change it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm someone that is detail oriented, and "1996" is a detail that we've had for fifty years now. I don't see any good reason to change it.

It's an insignificant story element that has no actual impact on the story. Also, "1996" happened. Those are two very good reasons to ignore it. That it's been around for fifty years is not a good reason to keep it. There are a lot stuff from fifty years ago we're better off with out. Nostalgia and familiarity just don't cut it. And I say this a person who was watching the show fifty years ago and saw TWOK opening day. As the eminent philosopher Elsa of Arendelle said, "let it go".

 

[BillJ]

It's an insignificant story element that has no actual impact on the story.

If it has no impact, then there's no reason to change it. I don't buy that it can't be worked in. @Greg Cox was able to do it quite well.

 

[Tuskin38]

If it has no impact, then there's no reason to change it. I don't buy that it can't be worked in. @Greg Cox was able to do it quite well.

If it has no impact, you can also change it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If it has no impact, then there's no reason to change it. I don't buy that it can't be worked in. @Greg Cox was able to do it quite well.

See reason two.
IMO, no he wasn't. I love Greg's stuff but that was a misfire.
Loved the third part though.

 

[BillJ]

If it has no impact, you can also change it.

If it has no impact on the story, then it is simply change for the sake of change. Which is usually the worst reason to change something.

 

[BillJ]

IMO, no he wasn't. I love Greg's stuff but that was a misfire.

I loved the books, thought they were fun. At least the first two. Never cared for the third one. It is like the Mirror universe here!

 

[Nerys Myk]

If it has no impact on the story, then it is simply change for the sake of change. Which is usually the worst reason to change something.

No it's a change to keep the franchise current and viable. To prevent it getting bogged down under the weight of it's own minutia and fanboy nostalgia.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I loved the books, thought they were fun. At least the first two. Never cared for the third one. It is like the Mirror universe here!

Strokes goatee.
Parts one and two are the type of fangasm writing that you would excoriate DISCO for if it did the same. Part three is a fairly exciting adventure story.

 

[BillJ]

No it's a change to keep the franchise current and viable. To prevent it getting bogged down under the weight of it's own minutia and fanboy nostalgia.

Minutiae and fanboy nostalgia is exactly what is driving Trek at this point, between the Abrams films and Discovery.

I seriously can't believe someone new to the franchise would reject either based on the premise that a fake war happened in 1996.