I said that particular thing isn't important not that nothing is important. Not every data point has equal value.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
You can reshape the universe to match the modern world.
You can do that without calling it a reboot.
If that's how you want to play, we were there the moment The Next Generation premiered, which has been my point the entire thread. NONE of this holds together except by audience conceit, but it must be condemned this time because... Reasons?
Not only can you reshape the universe without a reboot, the people in charge have done it literally since the third produced episode of Star Trek.
Not if you want it to be a consistent narrative. As we've aptly seen with Discovery.
What is there to figure out? Bandwidth is finite, and even if it wasn't, there's a theoretical maximum to how much data you can actually transmit on a given frequency or set of frequencies.
In fact, the resolution of the holograms is consistently low enough -- and it is used in such situations -- as to suggest that they might actually be using the holograms to save bandwidth, because the projectors only have to render an image of the person who is actually talking and not any of the objects around him. If you're transmitting imaging data in a three dimensional matrix with a really good compression algorithm, it's probably easier to talk with holograms than it is from an actual viewscreen projection, the latter requiring a lot more bandwidth since it's broadcasting full color high definition images and multiple sound channels integrated from various pickups all over the room.
Suppose the Constitution class doesn't use holocoms because they have a kickass ultra-high gain communication system that laughs at your puny bandwidth allocations? All view-screens, all the time, because we're awesome like that!
And this is exactly my point: the holograms have LOWER quality than screen communications, so they're probably the next step up from "audio-only."
What exactly did we have to pretend didn't happen when TNG premiered? I've been watching Star Trek since 1975. TMP did more to deviate from TOS than TNG did.
Because "Prime" is only important in the sense of it being "not Kelvin." It's the timeline and continuity that CBS actually has the rights to.
And every other version of Star Trek
.A "consistent narrative" doesn't have to mean every line, prop and word has equal value. The writers should be able to shed what doesn't work, has become anachronistic or just plain implausible. Fiction is mutable.
And every other version of Star Trek
A "consistent narrative" doesn't have to mean every line, prop and word has equal value. The writers should be able to shed what doesn't work, has become anachronistic or just plain implausible. Fiction is mutable.
I guess I'm just odd in wanting a consistent narrative if that is what I'm being sold.
Well, the Eugenics Wars weren't "the last of your World Wars" anymore, now we have World War III and the Post-Atomic Horror. The Klingons were conquered, no wait they weren't they joined the Federation willingly, no wait they're still their own Empire just ignore the first three years of this show. How many times did Picard or Data say "No one has ever seen this before" about a phenomenon we had an episode of Star Trek about already? More than the never it should have been according to the standards Discovery is held to.
The narrative has never been consistent. It's never been sold that way.
The writers and producers of Discovery have said this will all line-up.
To me, knowing whether it’s a reboot or not informs my expectations and to a lesser whether I’m invested in the series or not.
Prime universe, more invested. Beyond that, I see no reason to be hung up about it. They’ve said it’s the same continuity as Enterprise and TOS and I accept that.
The Enterprise looks different, MU women aren’t half naked, holograms, sarek payed by not Mark Leonard. I can look past all the visual inconsistencies because they don’t matter really matter. It’s not a documentary. Klingons on TOS look a certain way, in TNG they are different, and in DSC they’re different again. It don’t really matter.
Prime universe, more invested. Beyond that, I see no reason to be hung up about it. They’ve said it’s the same continuity as Enterprise and TOS and I accept that.
The Enterprise looks different, MU women aren’t half naked, holograms, sarek payed by not Mark Leonard. I can look past all the visual inconsistencies because they don’t matter really matter. It’s not a documentary. Klingons on TOS look a certain way, in TNG they are different, and in DSC they’re different again. It don’t really matter.
I think the Jurassic Park franchise is living proof you can essentially create an alternate timeline between your story and reality and people will still find that it matters.
(At any rate, we do know factually that the Star Trek universe does not totally conform to reality in regards to historical events, so it's kind of a moot point whether we think that's good or bad.)
I was thinking more that DSC is or could be a good TV show even if there was zero continuity between it and its parent franchise. In other words, DSC is not inherently bad as TV show just because its inconsistent with the rest of the prime universe when taken on its own terms (for worldbuilding with the franchise has a whole, the fact that DSC has ignored its own rules about continuity with its parents is valid, but another discussion IMHO).
Umm, yep. You're just now asking the question that every other Trek fan was asking when the movie came out 22 years ago?
(James Cromwell was great in the role, no question — IMHO one of the best things about that movie. But I've often wondered if Braga and the other filmmakers had ever even seen TOS "Metamorphosis"...)
Braga and the rest were actually taking the DSC approach to continuity with Cochrane and did not care about the inconsistency. (Thankfully, they got a good actor and there's enough leeway to rationalize the mistakes.)
To be honest, it has never really occurred to treat Trek as anything other than the future of our world. They constantly reference our present and past, adjust the timeline to take account of advancing reality, and have traveled to modern day worlds indistinguishable from our own. I'd wager that's how most people view the show, or at the very least it isn't so obviously not our future that the average viewer isn't going to think it odd when their technology isn't more advanced than ours.
Based upon this thread, and others, the production team of Discovery are not to be trusted anyway. We should all just make up our own mines and not be blind sheep, slaves to CBS and their press releases.
Think for yourself!
Or something like that
Shouldn't the quality of the show be the prime determining factor in how invested one gets in a show?
It won't, at least not the way you want it to. The producers idea of lining up will not be yours.
Similar threads
