And turn pasty and British.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
And this is where I'm out again. I bowed out of debating you once before, and somehow got pulled back in.
But I don't want to have a hairsplitting argument about semantics. That's not what I come here for. Unfortunately, no matter how much I try to offer reasonable statements and build an argument based on them, you keep obsessively returning the focus to semantics.
If we can't agree on the definition of the word "rules"... or of "simulation," or of "narrative," or of "visuals," or of "contract," or of any number of other words you've picked at in this discussion, because you have some specific quixotic definition in your head (or make one up on the fly to support your position), then we really can't have a meaningful discussion.
You really seem obstinately incapable of thinking of distinctions between things as matters of degree rather than of kind, of taking context into account. You seem actually to believe that either all the visual elements of a show must be taken completely literally, or none of them can be.
Go on liking whatever you like, and for chrissake leave me alone to do the same. You obviously think the whole discussion in this thread is pointless anyway, so I can't imagine why you keep returning to it obsessively, much less ascribing to me positions I haven't actually taken just so you can keep arguing. I'm done.
Then stop using words incorrectly.
That's just special pleading on your part. If you're attempting to judge something by a consistent and measurable standard, then the standard should be applicable to a broad variety of similar things. It's clear you want to judge Discovery by the broadest standard possible, something that applies to a great many things so you can then argue that Discovery is inferior to all of those things. Thus far, however, you have not shown that you have any idea what that standard might actually be and you keep trying to make one up as you go along.
You're assuming a contradiction where none exists (again). I made it very clear that all visual elements CAN be taken literally if someone (like you) chose to see it that way. That is a very different thing from saying they MUST be taken literally.
You are selectively claiming that CERTAIN visuals -- e.g. uniforms, props, the designs of the ships, the interior sets, the color balance of the overall film, etc -- must be taken literally from TOS and then reproduced in its prequel, but you don't seem to have any consistent standard for how we determine which elements must be literally unchanged and which ones are just representative.
There are, I'm sure, things you would prefer did not get changed between TOS and Discovery. But if you're trying to make the claim your preferences are derived from a universally accepted rule, it would be nice if you could figure out what that rule actually WAS.
G
Gonzo
Guest
When you bow out of a discussion its best to stay that way, even if something is said you don't agree with there is no need to jump back in, the thread is not territory that needs to be defended and there are no points awarded for having the last word.
Most of the time the original issue has long been forgotten as each side keeps moving the goalposts in an attempt to outmanoeuvre the other side and score a point.
Its like watching two drunk people trying to dance at a wedding, it never gets old.
I do miss the diagrams though.
Most of the time the original issue has long been forgotten as each side keeps moving the goalposts in an attempt to outmanoeuvre the other side and score a point.
Its like watching two drunk people trying to dance at a wedding, it never gets old.
I do miss the diagrams though.
If it was assumed that both TOS and DSC were exactly as they are presented on-screen (not represenational or a visual update), and it is assumed that both TOS and DSC are Prime universe Canon, can we speculate on what would need to be true to make that happen?
What could the explanation be for two different looking Enterprises to exist in the same universe, in the same place, at the exact same time?
What could the explanation be for two different looking Enterprises to exist in the same universe, in the same place, at the exact same time?
We've never seen the Enterprise (nor indeed anything) from the year 2256/2257 before this series.
Thankfully, it's not the exact same time. By October 2257 the events of "The Cage" are four years in the past, give or take, and the events of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" are roughly eight years in the future.
I'm not partial to the argument from some that the DSC Enterprise is larger than the original; the window placements seem to indicate the same number of decks (except in the neck). That means the differences are mostly cosmetic.
The most obvious differences involve the bridge, the impulse engines, the nacelles, and the nacelle struts. Some of those things (the bridge and the nacelles) we know were already different between the "Cage" version of the ship and Kirk's version. It's long been commonplace headcanon to assume a refit.
Long story short, the simplest thing is still to assume a refit. If we want to avoid multiplying refits and assume only one in the relevant timeframe (between captains), then if I have to squint and pretend that Pike's ship looked different from how it appears in "The Cage"—a single episode that was never even broadcast originally, after all, except in mentally projected clips during "The Menagerie" — I could live with that.
However, I really can't accept the notion that the Enterprise during Kirk's FYM looked any different from the way we've seen it in not just TOS but literally every previous appearance in any Trek series.
Hmmm.... Okay, True... True... Perhaps some kind of configuration change then?
I'm also wondering about some kind of phased reality or existence maybe?
I'm also wondering about some kind of phased reality or existence maybe?
It was confirmed at Wonder-Con that the new Enterprise is bigger, but they didn't say by how much.
From a solely lore point of view and not visually, it didn't.
Two words: Temporal Cold War.
Yes. Lore/Story wise it's still the same ship it has ever been.
Interesting theory, and even more broadly, I'm generally partial to the proposition that the version of Trek's timeline that includes ENT is not the same version of the timeline that was originally seen in TOS. However, it's complicated by the fact that "In A Mirror Darkly" (to which DSC made direct callbacks) came fairly late in ENT's run, postdating all of the Temporal Cold War craziness, and yet in that story the Connie-class Defiant was still an absolute dead ringer for the Connie-class Enterprise in TOS.
Unless that Connie crossed over from TOS Prime, prior to Temporal Cold War impacts upon design. Minor variations that impacted more largely over time.
There were what, 76 people on Khan's sleeper ship? Yeeeeeah, totally unreasonable to see some new faces.
The problem with your joke is not only that it's erronous in every conceivable way (you made a comparison that was completely inapt - compared a clothing-make-over under new environment conditions in a sequel to an actual visual reboot), but it also aggressively violated the very first rule of jokes:
To be funny.
Similar threads
