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

[jaime]

You know, I wish that discussion here made the distinction between, "I like/dislike it!" and "It's excellently/badly made!" Those aren't the same thing. I mean, I strongly dislike TOS, but would happily discuss its craft, design, staging, acting, and scripting without deriding it. I find that taking part in discussion here is, frankly, tough, as so little time is spent discussing what's on screen, especially story, plot, and character.

I'd love it if we spent more time deconstructing how it works. I want to talk about "How it's made," not "How much I liked it." I realize that I'm coming at this from a critical analysis stance, which may not be everyone's (or anyone's), but I think it'd be far more fun that way--rather than opening the first dozen threads and find that all of them are a war about canonicity and whether the show is great or sucks.

Even if you do it that way it goes bosoms skywards sometimes. I like DSC. I think a lot of it is badly written from a critical viewpoint especially in the context of other Star Trek. Which opinion would be seen as n attack on DSC. Which ends up in Batleths at dawn. Or handbags. Whichever’s easiest.

 

[jaime]

We just need more trigger-happy mods. "If you post about canon in the quality thread again you'll get a perma ban" is something I want to hear them say

I don’t think the two can be seperated. It’s a two way street. Quality Street. Yes, this whole sentence was just so I could use that joke. Maybe we could call the threads streets? There’s a train station on canon street.

 

[Jinn]

I don’t think the two can be seperated. It’s a two way street. Quality Street. Yes, this whole sentence was just so I could use that joke. Maybe we could call the threads streets? There’s a train station on canon street.

Sounds good to me! Considering that the latest thread I made was called "The Intersection of Prime and Canon" I'm all for the streets thing!

 

[fireproof78]

the Discovery subforum should really just have one gigantic thread where people just repeatedly post "I like this show" or "I don't like this show"
It would remove much of the redundant redundancy.

That would be nice. I think that would be very nice.

 

[jaime]

Sounds good to me! Considering that the latest thread I made was called "The Intersection of Prime and Canon" I'm all for the streets thing!

http://www.qualitystreetchocolates.com/

 

[Jinn]

http://www.qualitystreetchocolates.com/

Shit, and here I just had dinner

 

[Jinn]

You're right that there isn't any actual hard evidence that nothing got overwritten at this time, but if that Picard show set twenty years after Nemesis gets made there will be.

Actually, I just remembered that we do have hard evidence that the Prime Timeline exists after Romulus goes the way of the dodo in 2357: VOY: "Living Witness" Takes place circa 3074, so the new movies definitely didn't erase anything.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually, I just remembered that we do have hard evidence that the Prime Timeline exists after Romulus goes the way of the dodo in 2357: VOY: "Living Witness" Takes place circa 3074, so the new movies definitely didn't erase anything.

That's what the Starfleet Time Ship Relativity is for.

 

[Jinn]

That's what the Starfleet Time Ship Relativity is for.

Time. The slightly more final frontier. These are the voyages of the Time Ship Relativity. It's eternal mission to erase strange new timelines. To seek out changes and corrections. To boldly go where Kirk or Janeway fucked something up again! *starts cursing*

 

[Nyotarules]

I am watching Discovery again since I decided to watch every Star Trek episode and movie in universe event order, I am leaning on the side of 'the producers should have just done another reboot'. It will be fun to read the novels in universe reasons for the advanced production tech e.g holomirrors and holocommunication devices. Maybe after the Klingon war the Federation went through a Terran Dark ages phase, so TOS looks likes its 1965 A.D lol
Second time round I find Michael Burnham irritating and I don't know why

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Time. The slightly more final frontier. These are the voyages of the Time Ship Relativity. It's eternal mission to erase strange new timelines. To seek out changes and corrections. To boldly go where Kirk or Janeway fucked something up again! *starts cursing*

I would watch the hell out of that show

I find Michael Burnham irritating

Maybe because she’s never wrong in her own mind or she makes giant leaps of logic based on no evidence or that she thinks she knows culber’s partner better than he does so she’s going to handle him or she’s self righteous or that she’s somehow this super intelligent person who keeps making errors in judgement or...

She’s my favourite character.

 

[jaime]

I am watching Discovery again since I decided to watch every Star Trek episode and movie in universe event order, I am leaning on the side of 'the producers should have just done another reboot'. It will be fun to read the novels in universe reasons for the advanced production tech e.g holomirrors and holocommunication devices. Maybe after the Klingon war the Federation went through a Terran Dark ages phase, so TOS looks likes its 1965 A.D lol
Second time round I find Michael Burnham irritating and I don't know why

Because she is quite annoying. It’s extra frustrating, because there’s a lot of people Hating on her for bad reasons, and I don’t want anything in common with those people, but damnit she really is irritating.
I blame it on the writing mostly.

Edit: actually I dunno if it is the writing. It’s just all I got to hang it on. It’s not like she’s got a face like cliff Richard or something. Though she did pee me off by clumsily dismissing Sisko and Janeway in her publicity.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Maybe because she’s never wrong in her own mind or she makes giant leaps of logic based on no evidence or that she thinks she knows culber’s partner better than he does so she’s going to handle him or she’s self righteous or that she’s somehow this super intelligent person who keeps making errors in judgement or...

She’s my favourite character.

Heh, I don't know if you meant that as damnation with faint praise or not, but for my part, I feel it genuinely. I find her compelling and interesting not least because of her flaws and missteps, and her continual struggle to overcome them.



-MMoM

 

[Nyotarules]

^ For me its not her flaws, its the whole righteous Starfleet vibe she has going on, she would not fit as a crew member under Captain Kirk. Actually the Discovery version of Starfleet are run by a bunch of wimps. The 'we're not soldiers, we're explorers' rubbish is right out of the Kelvin verse, yep that's it, these are the Kelvinversion of the characters, the Prime versions would expect to kick butt when the Klingons showed up!

 

[fireproof78]

Heh, I don't know if you meant that as damnation with faint praise or not, but for my part, I feel it genuinely. I find her compelling and interesting not least because of her flaws and missteps, and her continual struggle to overcome them.



-MMoM

Same here. I love the challenges and difficulties presented, not just for her but the Federation as a whole. And there are a lot of missteps that make it more real. Sorry, no escapism here.

 

[jaime]

^ For me its not her flaws, its the whole righteous Starfleet vibe she has going on, she would not fit as a crew member under Captain Kirk. Actually the Discovery version of Starfleet are run by a bunch of wimps. The 'we're not soldiers, we're explorers' rubbish is right out of the Kelvin verse, yep that's it, these are the Kelvinversion of the characters, the Prime versions would expect to kick butt when the Klingons showed up!

I agree she would not fit under Kirk. But none of these guys are the explorers we get under Picard either. They’re all a bit..middle management. Even Lorca.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Heh, I don't know if you meant that as damnation with faint praise or not, but for my part, I feel it genuinely. I find her compelling and interesting not least because of her flaws and missteps, and her continual struggle to overcome them.



-MMoM

I wouldn’t have minded her having flaws and making missteps - I just didn’t feel like that’s what they did. Michael seemed convinced she was right the whole time - there just wasn’t anything I found either relatable or redeemable about her. The only time she showed any growth at all was when she told Tilly she’d given her bad advice.

I really want to like Michael. But she just has this... quality that rubs me the wrong way. I don’t relate to her. I find the character unlikeable.

They seemed to do the same with Stamets - in that he was kind of a jerk at the start - but he became one of my favourite characters by the end. Tilly annoyed me at first - but she grew on me and had some endearing qualities. I loved the “power of math” from the s2 trailer.

Michael... just does my head in. I really hope I take to her more in s2.

 

[Lt. Tyler]

Ohh I love the Enterprise-D style helm and Nav consoles! LOL

 

[fireproof78]

I find it amusing that people need to like a character in order to find them likable.

 

[Lord Garth]

Michael seemed convinced she was right the whole time

So she's like the vast majority of the human race... who are also convinced they're right the whole time.