Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[rafterman1701]

It's like people don't remember the time when we just ignored the physical differences between old-style and new-style Klingons and Romulans, the use of TNG sets in TFF and TUC, the fact that the first Cardassian on screen had facial hair, and the first Trill lacked spots.

Klingons were eventually explained in story, making it a difference people in the universe saw, not just the audience. Plus, the design evolved through the timeline. And each change after TMP was a refinement. Still ridges, still long hair.
The sets are essentially the same design from the films so that's not weird or a problem. The one Cardassian had hair but facial hair gets shaved off sometimes. There's a big difference between a redesign after one appearance and a redesign after 500 episodes. The first Trill makeup changed because of Terry Farrel but they figured one guest appearance shouldn't constrain them with a regular. But even that difference was explained in the fiction.
The problem with the Klingon redesign is that they missed an opportunity to diversify design by also using TOS and TNG designs. They had story potential from ENT to use in their war, but they chose to ignore the canon that could have enhanced their story. Imagine Voq as a smooth Klingon not an albino, versus T'Kuvma as a ridged one, pissed the Fed cursed their race! But that stuff was totally ignored.

 

[Tuskin38]

So, was the Enterprise blasted with a shrink-ray prior to "The Man Trap", or is this a reboot all along?

We can’t tell how big the ship is in that shot

 

[Donker]

There is no logical explanation for how the 2257 Paris changed into the 2372 Paris.

Haha as a fan of urban design, I found the Discovery rendition of Paris hilarious.

Paris is never going to build up like that, do people seriously expect Parisians to allow the destruction of Paris cultural and architectural heritage for bland International style skyscrapers?
I mean, sure you have La Defense, but La Defense in itself is actually quite off in the distance and is extremely controversial.
It's to me just a very American-centric view of urban design, "Heritage value? Whats that?".
Paris WILL build up, but it's not going to be around it's distinctive historic quarters.

 

[Tuskin38]

Haha as a fan of urban design, I found the Discovery rendition of Paris hilarious.

Paris is never going to build up like that, do people seriously expect Parisians to allow the destruction of Paris cultural and architectural heritage for bland International style skyscrapers?
I mean, sure you have La Defense, but La Defense in itself is actually quite off in the distance and is extremely controversial.
It's to me just a very American-centric view of urban design, "Heritage value? Whats that?".
Paris WILL build up, but it's not going to be around it's distinctive historic quarters.

What if the city was heavily damaged in WW3?

 

[STR]

Haha as a fan of urban design, I found the Discovery rendition of Paris hilarious.

Paris is never going to build up like that, do people seriously expect Parisians to allow the destruction of Paris cultural and architectural heritage for bland International style skyscrapers?
I mean, sure you have La Defense, but La Defense in itself is actually quite off in the distance and is extremely controversial.
It's to me just a very American-centric view of urban design, "Heritage value? Whats that?".
Paris WILL build up, but it's not going to be around it's distinctive historic quarters.

France was conquered by the British in the wars of the 21st century, which is why so many prominent 24th century Frenchmen love Shakespeare and earl grey so much.

It's practically canon.

 

[Donker]

What if the city was heavily damaged in WW3?

In real life? They'll do what they did after WW2 throughout Europe, rebuild the classic buildings in their classical architectural style to as much as possible. (though sadly never reaching their pre-war glory)
I mean, look at Berlin today

and this city was flattened, in WW2 and by flattened I mean pretty much literally, not a building was left standing by the end of WW2.

I like the DS9 rendition of Paris, most of the classical buildings are still there but there are a few sky scrapers scattered around. But the Disco rendition is like, more Hong Kong than Paris.

 

[Mudd]

Haha as a fan of urban design, I found the Discovery rendition of Paris hilarious.

Paris is never going to build up like that, do people seriously expect Parisians to allow the destruction of Paris cultural and architectural heritage for bland International style skyscrapers?
I mean, sure you have La Defense, but La Defense in itself is actually quite off in the distance and is extremely controversial.
It's to me just a very American-centric view of urban design, "Heritage value? Whats that?".
Paris WILL build up, but it's not going to be around it's distinctive historic quarters.

These folks are not long on taste.

 

[cooleddie74]

What if the city was heavily damaged in WW3?

Riker did say that most of the world's major cities were destroyed in the Third World War. That could exclude Paris unless a lower-yield nuclear detonation occurred on the outskirts of the city and the destruction was limited to the peripheral areas and the most recognizable landmarks were either completely undamaged or suffered only minor damage that could easily be repaired in the years after the war and First Contact. My guess is that Paris remained intact during the war and didn't fall victim to a nuclear attack.

 

[Mjolnir2000]

How is this even a discussion? The powers that be say it's prime timeline, therefore it's prime timeline. That's how canon works. If something in Discovery contradicts something that we saw earlier, then that's called a retcon, and the thing in Discovery takes precedence. That's how canon works.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

Klingons were eventually explained in story, making it a difference people in the universe saw, not just the audience.

It took them seventeen years to even acknowledge the change on screen, and that was only because they were doing a story where they had no choice but to show the old-style Klingons. It took almost another decade before a writer decided to explain it. That means for nearly half of Star Trek's existence, ridge-head Klingons existed without any explanation for why they looked different from the TOS one.

And everyone was fine with that. If Enterprise had been canceled after the third season, nobody would feel there was some huge, unanswered question about Klingon history that was a gaping hole in canon.

 

[STR]

Riker did say that most of the world's major cities were destroyed in the Third World War. That could exclude Paris unless a lower-yield nuclear detonation occurred on the outskirts of the city and the destruction was limited to the peripheral areas and the most recognizable landmarks were either completely undamaged or suffered only minor damage that could easily be repaired in the years after the war and First Contact. My guess is that Paris remained intact during the war and didn't fall victim to a nuclear attack.

Or Paris got flattened and they only chose to rebuild the Eiffel Tower and a few other landmarks.

Actually, when I think about it, as a mostly-open all-steel structure, the Eiffel Tower would probably fair pretty well in a nuclear strike so long as it avoided a direct hit. There's not a lot of surface area and it would probably sway-out whatever force it receives. The glassed in restaurant and tourist areas and going to get blown out though. It's also in the middle of a park, away from any nearby buildings that would be consumed in the post-blast firestorm. The structure itself should be good.

 

[lawman]

...for nearly half of Star Trek's existence, ridge-head Klingons existed without any explanation for why they looked different from the TOS one. ... And everyone was fine with that.

It baffles me when I see people say this sort of thing. It was simply never true that "everyone was fine with that." Were you actually a fan in 1979 when the ridged Klingons first appeared? Have you read any of the (numerous!) pre-internet articles and fanzines and stories speculating about how and why the Klingons looked so different? Heck, even one of the early Trek novels, John M. Ford's excellent Final Reflection, zeroed in on the question. It was one of the longest-running unanswered questions in Trek lore. The fact that you are blasé about it after the fact does not mean you can retroactively infer that everyone in the fan community was blasé about it at the time. Had it been so, It's fair to say that the ENT writers would never have bothered to build a story around explaining it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've yet to encounter a good reason why it isn't.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

It baffles me when I see people say this sort of thing. It was simply never true that "everyone was fine with that." Were you actually a fan in 1979 when the ridged Klingons first appeared? Have you read any of the (numerous!) pre-internet articles and fanzines and stories speculating about how and why the Klingons looked so different? Heck, even one of the early Trek novels, John M. Ford's excellent Final Reflection, zeroed in on the question. It was one of the longest-running unanswered questions in Trek lore. The fact that you are blasé about it after the fact does not mean you can retroactively infer that everyone in the fan community was blasé about it at the time. Had it been so, It's fair to say that the ENT writers would never have bothered to build a story around explaining it.

People speculated about the issue, sure, but I never, even on Usenet, encountered anyone who was screaming about it being a huge gaping plothole that meant the movies and spinoffs had to be a different universe from TOS.

And Enterprise only explained the issue after the series fell into the hands of a show runner who felt the need to provide a fanwanky explanation for everything. If the show had gotten a fifth season, we probably would've found out the Borg repaired V'ger, the Galactic Barrier was created by the Preservers, and Trelane was the time traveling son of Decker and Ilia.

 

[fireproof78]

It baffles me when I see people say this sort of thing. It was simply never true that "everyone was fine with that." Were you actually a fan in 1979 when the ridged Klingons first appeared? Have you read any of the (numerous!) pre-internet articles and fanzines and stories speculating about how and why the Klingons looked so different? Heck, even one of the early Trek novels, John M. Ford's excellent Final Reflection, zeroed in on the question. It was one of the longest-running unanswered questions in Trek lore. The fact that you are blasé about it after the fact does not mean you can retroactively infer that everyone in the fan community was blasé about it at the time. Had it been so, It's fair to say that the ENT writers would never have bothered to build a story around explaining it.

And yet, still the same continuity.

 

[lawman]

And Enterprise only explained the issue after the series fell into the hands of a show runner who felt the need to provide a fanwanky explanation for everything...

...and produced the only watchable season of the show.

No arguing about taste, I guess.

 

[Ovation]

...and produced the only watchable season of the show.

No arguing about taste, I guess.

No. There isn’t. I’ve been watching Trek since 1973 (as a six year old). After TOS, ENT is my favourite (and I’ve seen every official iteration of Trek on screen from 3-30+ times, depending on which one). I’ve liked it all (not equally, of course) but I’d rather watch just about any episode of ENT before any of VOY, half of DS9 or TNG. The only thing that is close to pushing ENT to third place is DSC.

Oh and Into Darkness, followed by Trek 09, are far and away my favourite of the films.

 

[Nyotarules]

Well after last night with the 'devastating war' that never was arc, I could not care less what timeline the show is in.

 

[Nyotarules]

I love fan logic like this. It's no different than saying something like "I've seen all of TNG and you never see Picard's gentials. Therefore it's canon he doesn't have any."


Anyway, Archer IV, Yesterday's Enterprise

I think I saw a lump under his trunks in Captain's holiday

 

[Nyotarules]

Enterprise happened. It's Prime. TOS doesn't mention Robert April, either, but we know he's canon.

So is McCoy's daughter that he never spent any time with....deadbeat dad, no wonder Kirk is his best friend.