Can you imagine how the French took it? There’s probably Vulcan Parkour going on in the Andorian Slums.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Can you imagine how the French took it? There’s probably Vulcan Parkour going on in the Andorian Slums.
Maybe they all left and went to live in Toulouse..the French version of White flight
The Andorians live in Northern Canada and Antartica, and commute by shuttle lol
The Vulcans live in Nevada, Sahara desert and the Outback of Australia and commute by shuttle
Last edited:
And I bet they get a better service than the betazoids commuting from London, and cheaper ticket prices...
That’s in next years second episode. Toulouse Lê Trek. They paint the discovery saucer red, and Tilly’s parties get out of hand with a musical number. Fortunately at that point, A narcoleptic Andorian falls onto the bridge.
I guess the "prime debate", at least regarding visuals, boils down to whether one views filmed entertainment as of a piece with live theatre and graphic novels/comics, or as some sort of pseudo-documentary of "reality".
Wayne Boring, Curt Swan, Jose-Luis Garcia-Lopez--these were the three main artists of Superman comics during my "formative" years reading them. Jim Aparo, Neil Adams and Irv Novick for Batman. Steve Ditko, John Romita, Sr., John Bucema for Spider-Man. (I could go on, but that's sufficient for my point.) In their respective runs, "continuity" was the same--but visually, each had his own, distinct style. Later on, the variety increased with various artists on each (some within the same "continuity", some within a new "continuity", some in non-continuity). And then there were the cross-over, team-up, or "fill-in artist" artist variations. Yet it was always Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, (fill in hero of choice). Now, most artists could sufficiently mimic another's style if that degree of consistency had been demanded (I've seen numerous examples). But, thankfully, in my view, such consistency was NOT demanded.
Making allowances for the different medium of filmed entertainment, I don't expect quite the degree of deviation seen in comics for TV shows (especially within seasons of a show). However, from one series to another, with different production teams? Why not? Dick Dillon drew both Superman and Batman regularly, but Jim Aparo's Superman (in guest appearances) looked very different from Curt Swan's Superman (and vice versa, re: Batman). Yet each was easily recognized as Superman and Batman. So too with the Enterprise in TOS, in Kelvinverse movies and now in DSC. Identical? Certainly not. Recognizable? Beyond a doubt. Given that all Trek is fiction and art, I see no reason why deviations (and, in the overall scheme of things, rather minor--even the Klingons [still bipedal hominids, who look closer to each other TMP-ENT and DSC, than either looks to TOS]) cause such outbreaks of apoplexy. I understand favouring one particular version over another (I prefer Garcia-Lopez' Superman to Aparo's, for example, but I don't have conniption fits when I see the latter)--that's entirely reasonable. I can even understand strong disappointment in a particular version (not a fan of much of John Byrne's artwork, on any title). But some of the vitriol is downright perplexing.
As always, YMMV.
Wayne Boring, Curt Swan, Jose-Luis Garcia-Lopez--these were the three main artists of Superman comics during my "formative" years reading them. Jim Aparo, Neil Adams and Irv Novick for Batman. Steve Ditko, John Romita, Sr., John Bucema for Spider-Man. (I could go on, but that's sufficient for my point.) In their respective runs, "continuity" was the same--but visually, each had his own, distinct style. Later on, the variety increased with various artists on each (some within the same "continuity", some within a new "continuity", some in non-continuity). And then there were the cross-over, team-up, or "fill-in artist" artist variations. Yet it was always Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, (fill in hero of choice). Now, most artists could sufficiently mimic another's style if that degree of consistency had been demanded (I've seen numerous examples). But, thankfully, in my view, such consistency was NOT demanded.
Making allowances for the different medium of filmed entertainment, I don't expect quite the degree of deviation seen in comics for TV shows (especially within seasons of a show). However, from one series to another, with different production teams? Why not? Dick Dillon drew both Superman and Batman regularly, but Jim Aparo's Superman (in guest appearances) looked very different from Curt Swan's Superman (and vice versa, re: Batman). Yet each was easily recognized as Superman and Batman. So too with the Enterprise in TOS, in Kelvinverse movies and now in DSC. Identical? Certainly not. Recognizable? Beyond a doubt. Given that all Trek is fiction and art, I see no reason why deviations (and, in the overall scheme of things, rather minor--even the Klingons [still bipedal hominids, who look closer to each other TMP-ENT and DSC, than either looks to TOS]) cause such outbreaks of apoplexy. I understand favouring one particular version over another (I prefer Garcia-Lopez' Superman to Aparo's, for example, but I don't have conniption fits when I see the latter)--that's entirely reasonable. I can even understand strong disappointment in a particular version (not a fan of much of John Byrne's artwork, on any title). But some of the vitriol is downright perplexing.
As always, YMMV.
While I agree with your underlying point, I always disagree with comics-art comparison. In a cinematography sense, maybe that would work, but overall, it’s much much harder to consciously exactly emulate another artist in the manner you describe (its amusing when you see people really try.) whereas on screen, it’s comparatively easy (STC emulates the sixties set up pretty much perfectly, and while it is an effort, it’s not necessarily more effort than say renegades puts in.) you also do get art changes mid season...TNG changes radically across its years in style of direction, cinematography, effects, music...the lot. It’s fairly gradual, but farpoint next to AGT and you can feel the decade jump that happened, eighties to nineties, stylistically. Voyager too feels very different in general style by the end...the makeup, lighting and general styling of actors changes radically. And then there’s Worf TNG vs Worf DS9.
There's an awful lot of Archie Comics out there where different artists stick to a "house style" (not identical, but quite minor in its deviations--far less variety than even the Boring-Swan transition for Superman). But that's not the main point I was trying to make. And your observations about changes to TNG and VOY only serve to support my point--different artists/art teams bring their own ideas and tastes to bear. When different series, only really tangentially related, and separated by decades, are produced, the differences in art direction should be even easier to live with and accept. Or, at the very least, be understandable from the standpoint of realizing it's fiction, not an historical archive of reality.
Aside from the visuals, there is no reason to say that it doesn't fit.
The story told thus far has no trouble fitting into the Prime Timeline (I mean it has done nothing to NOT fit). Therefore, if the showrunners say it's Prime, and the story does nothing to contradict that, then I have no problem thinking that it's prime.
While some fanwank connection would be cool (as viewed from a my personal fanwank perspective), I don't think those kinds of things are necessary, nor particularly a good idea from a story-telling perspective. They could give us some direct connections to the Prime timeline, but not too many.
The story told thus far has no trouble fitting into the Prime Timeline (I mean it has done nothing to NOT fit). Therefore, if the showrunners say it's Prime, and the story does nothing to contradict that, then I have no problem thinking that it's prime.
While some fanwank connection would be cool (as viewed from a my personal fanwank perspective), I don't think those kinds of things are necessary, nor particularly a good idea from a story-telling perspective. They could give us some direct connections to the Prime timeline, but not too many.
Last edited:
Like I said, I agree with the underlying point, but the comparison to comics comes up in lots of discussions, and it’s one I never quite get with.
Mathesar would be crushed to find that the Historical Documents were only fiction.
Blame the 23rd century RMT... still striking like its 1999
P.S in 2366 the U.K votes to leave the Federation due to sovereignty issues but still wants to trade with the rest of the galaxy....
^^^
Wow - so anyone who disagrees with you is part of a 'sad bunch', eh? Nice.
(Funny thing is what are you as you felt moved enough by comments to engage in a discussion about what you essentially consider as "nothing.")
oh, don't get me wrong, that stupid ass decision angered me back then way more than it should have, I'm absolutely guilty of that. But a month or so later I assumed everyone had forgotten the augments and the universe would live on as if that episodes, that should never have happened, never had happened.^^^
Wow - so anyone who disagrees with you is part of a 'sad bunch', eh? Nice.
(Funny thing is what are you as you felt moved enough by comments to engage in a discussion about what you essentially consider as "nothing.")
It was a bad joke for years, a sad footnote in Trek fandom. A 'jump the shark' moment for many; the Trek eqivalent of Jar Jar Binks.
To read yesterday that there seems to be a cult following of said Jar Jar incident was therefore a little bit disturbing for me.
I know this thread is stick in a temporal causality loop, but here goes...
Then explain to me what O'Brien meant by "The new holo-communicator I installed it works perfectly" in DS9: "For the Uniform" if this is technology they've had all over Starfleet ships for 125 years? And why is that technolgy limited to a pad on the bridge when the Shenzhou and Discovery have projectors all over the ship (which VOY: "Message in a Bottle" only has on the most advanced Federation starship)?
The episode establishes that it's a new technology which O'Brien has been eager to test. That doesn't fit.
as in the last loop:
just because there were black and white TV sets around in the 40s and 50s, it doesn't mean that my shiny, brandnew 8K HD flatscreen is somehow not new technology
IDK - I get a new car every few years. That doesn't mean 'the car' is a brand new technology.
Technology is cyclical.
Similar threads
