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

[uniderth]

1) Spock having a positive relationship with his parents, particularly his mother, as a child, to the point that she read him Alice in Wonderland

And what makes this event uniquely "prime" timeline? It couldn't have happened in any other universe?

2) The USS Defiant ending up in the Mirror Universe

The problem with this is that we know that Defiant from "The Tholian Web" did not end up in the past of the mirror universe seen in "Mirror, Mirror" becasue the level of technology on the I.S.S. and U.S.S Enterprise was exactly equal, with the exception of agonizer booths and Mirror Kirk's special tantalus field.

The "Mirror, Mirror" mirror universe didn't have a 100- leg up on technology that the U.S.S. Defiant would have given them.

So again, we can conclude that neither "In a Mirror Darkly" or "Discovery" are part of the ("prime") timeline, becasue they majorly contradict what was shown.

Because there's no such thing as the "Disco-verse".

There was no such thing as the "Kelvin timeline" until there was. I don't think an appeal to the status-quo holds much weight.

Visual aesthetics aren't Canon because there's never been any one single unified visual aesthetic in the entire history of the Star Trek franchise; things have changed and/or evolved based on the technology available at the time of each franchise installment's creation and/or the whims of the creators of said installments.

Various consistent cross-era depictions, the largest being "Trials and Tribble-ations" speak to the contrary. While visual have changed in series depicting different era's, when those cross over into other depicted eras they are consistent.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I thought there was a chance you might actually see reason here, but there's clearly no convincing you of anything because you've already decided upon your "alternative facts" and your baseless delusions, so I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

Visual aesthetics aren't Canon because there's never been any one single unified visual aesthetic in the entire history of the Star Trek franchise; things have changed and/or evolved based on the technology available at the time of each franchise installment's creation and/or the whims of the creators of said installments.

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.

 

[DigificWriter]

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.

* Waits for @uniderth to come in and make the argument that these things don't exist in the Prime Timeline either *

 

[Balok's Decoy]

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.

Yep, inconsistencies do not negate "canon." And in fact, perfect consistency does not necessarily equate to canon either. Star Trek Continues is not canon, for example, despite the fact that it is high quality, has near perfect aesthetic consistency with TOS, and doesn't explicitly violate previously established continuity. It isn't canon because it lacks the one essential quality of canon: copyright. Canon has nothing to do with consistency. Canon is an imaginary set of related properties that rights-holders define as sharing the same sandbox. That's it. It cannot be defined on plots, aesthetics, or anything having to do with the story. It's a contrived determination by rights-holders. If CBS came out tomorrow and said that DS9 is no longer canon, it wouldn't be. And yet...it wouldn't matter.

 

[Spider]

Anti Prime Timeline posters: "It doesn't look the same! It can't be Prime! Visuals are just as important as events!"
Pro Prime Timeline posters: "The producers say it's prime! It's a visual reboot! The originals would look dated in a 2017/18 series!"
Anti Prime Timeline posters: "The original designs are icons and timeless! Please look at these examples of things from the 60s that look timeless and yet futuristic!"
Pro Prime Timeline posters: "Look at these things from the 60s that are clearly rooted in the 60s! Plus design trends change!"
Anti Prime Timeline posters: "Rabbit Season!"
Pro Prime Timeline posters: "Duck Season!"
Anti Prime Timeline posters: "Rabbit Season!"
Pro Prime Timeline posters: "Duck Season!"
/thread

Did I miss anything?

It's wabbit season, not rabbit season.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

And what makes this event uniquely "prime" timeline? It couldn't have happened in any other universe?

By that logic you can't prove that any two episodes of Star Trek are set in the same universe. Even Best of Both Worlds Part II could be a slightly different timeline from Part I where Riker had bacon for breakfast instead of sausage.

McCoy's not the doc in Where No Man Has Gone Before? Alternate universe!

Saavik changes appearance in TSFS? Alternate universe!

Spot changes sex? Alternate universe!

Saying Disco's an alternate universe is no different from "A wizard did it."

 

[EnderAKH]

It's wabbit season, not rabbit season.

Absolutely correct! My apologies. I do not know where my head was at there. Fixed.

 

[Spider]

Absolutely correct! My apologies. I do not know where my head was at there. Fixed.

Never underestimate a Trekkie's ability to find something to small to argue over. LOL

 

[F. King Daniel]

So the new-old Enterprise is comparative in size with the 750m USS Discovery.

Here's what it should be:

Here's what it is:

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

 

[The Wormhole]

is this a reboot all along?

That's what I'm going with.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

My answer is no. I will use Paris as an example.

Here is Paris from TNG/DS9:

Here is Paris from DIS:

There is no logical explanation for how the 2257 Paris changed into the 2372 Paris. Paris is not near a major earthquake fault and Earth will not be attacked between 2257 and 2372.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My answer is no. I will use Paris as an example.

Here is Paris from TNG:

Here is Paris from DIS:

There is no logical explanation for how the 2257 Paris changed into the 2372 Paris. Paris is not near a major earthquake fault and Earth will not attacked between 2257 and 2372.

Oh yeah, I was too busy marking out at the reused ST'09 building where Burnham got her medals and gave her dozenth speech to remember Paris looked like something from Star Trek Into Darkness and not Next Gen.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

What is it with modern Star Trek to uglify beautiful cities?

 

[dahj]

What is it with modern Star Trek to uglify beautiful cities?

They're looking at what we're doing in the present and extrapolating for the future...

 

[KennyB]

I feel like I’m talking to flat Earthers at this point.

 

[fireproof78]

I feel like I’m taking to flat Earthers at this point.

Where are you taking them?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I share your frustration.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Here's a better look at those "Cage"ish/Kelvin-y baby blue uniforms among the DSC tracksuits

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think it's about time to just remove the word "reboot" from the pop culture lexicon. The word has only existed in the English language for about four decades. And was only semi-recently applied to fictional media - probably by some mogul who had no real understanding of its meaning and only used it because it sounded trendy and hip.

The egregious thing is it's such a simple word with a very simple etymology used in as a very simple appliance. And yet somehow the trendy version has all these extra definitive layers of connotation.

It shouldn't mean anything more than its literal interpretation: To boot [start] again.

Discovery is a reboot.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's a better look at those "Cage"ish/Kelvin-y baby blue uniforms among the DSC tracksuits

*weeps for joy*