G
Gonzo
Guest
Yeah, must admit I literally laughed out loud when holo Sarek leaned back on that table though.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
IMO that hasn't happened... yet. Though it's borderline, and everything regarding the klingons arguibly crossed well over that line.
As soon as they regularly interact with Romulans, go on holodeck adventures, fight the Borg and have Ferengi comedy episodes, then we will have reached full Gotham territory. With the current set of people at the helm, I'm not sure we can completely rule out this will happen... but so far, DIS and the prime universe are mostly compatible.
Last edited:
Is Sherlock in the same universe as the Basil Rathbone film The Hound of the Baskervilles?
Yes and no. There's a point in fiction where questions like this are so meaningless as to have no right or wrong answers.
STD is not the same, in so many ways and in so many respects, as the pre-Abrams Star Trek productions that were created between 1964 and 2005. They are not of a piece with them.
That does not mean that STD doesn't make use of the same rough continuity as previous Star Trek - and it's always been pretty rough.
Yes and no. There's a point in fiction where questions like this are so meaningless as to have no right or wrong answers.
STD is not the same, in so many ways and in so many respects, as the pre-Abrams Star Trek productions that were created between 1964 and 2005. They are not of a piece with them.
That does not mean that STD doesn't make use of the same rough continuity as previous Star Trek - and it's always been pretty rough.
Is Enterprise in a different universe from TOS because it used flat-panel touchscreen displays instead of CRTs, and T'pol didn't get paper printouts from the science station computer? Enterprise made an effort to remain consistent where possible, but there are limits to how much you can expect a show set in modern times to adhere to 1960s technological limits and aesthetics.
You, as an audience member can either choose to just accept it as a necessary aspect of storytelling in a franchise that spans decades, you can pretend that TOS always had the updated tech and aesthetics (and as mentioned, there was already a holodeck in TAS), or you can try and come up with an in-universe explanation for it.
I've just always wondered from a writer's perspsctive why do a prequel where you need to work within the boundaries of previously established canon? You have much more creative freedom to do a show that just continues the existing story line. Everything about Discovery can stay the same and there would be absolutely no question about if it's in the Prime universe if it took place after the last Trek movie.
For me personally with any prequel it's not about the look of it, but when they contradict previously established canon.If one can pretend any of this is "real", I don't get what's so difficult about pretending it sometimes looks slightly different?
I think in the minds of the writers it made perfect sense. I mean, they certainly approached it from the "visual reboot" perspective and wether you think that's a legitamte argument or not, the producers certainly think so. So, the vast majority of discrapencies pretty much goes and stuff like the record of Burnham's mutiny can be dealt with. I think the reason for the timeline placement is that they wanted Burnham to be Spock's sister and Sarek's "ward", so setting the show post-Nemesis with a 200 year old Burnham would kinda not work. For what it's worth one of my favorite things about Discovery is Sarek and the way the choice he had to make,as revealed in Lethe makes him a lot more interesting for me and that would not have been possible in a post-Nemesis show. Well, I guess you could fabricate a similiar situation but that would be kinda cheap.
Also, "modern audiences" are probably more familiar with the 23rd century, seeing that every big Trek thing in the last ten years was in the 23rd century.
The last Trek movie (Beyond) was set two years before the start of TOS (2265), so it would still be a prequel.
And they chose to do a prequel set ten years before TOS because they obviously wanted to use elements from or alluded to in TOS like characters and events.
G
Gonzo
Guest
You forgot to mention the 3rd option, explode messily in righteous indignation, then flounce exit, stage left.
I see what you did there.
Unless they want to explore previously unexplored eras.
I am gonna ask ‘why?’ To the first part, when anachronistic stuff like Dark Matter and Killjoys exist, and steampunk is a thing.
Realism, suspension of disbelief, audience buy in. Regardless of how it has "always been" in Star Trek, audiences have different perspectives on technology and what is advanced and what is not.
I mean, as much as I like Star Wars, the whole scene in Rogue One were they are trying to get a single copy of a digital file to another ship, rather than multiple copies, is largely laughable to me.
You HAVE to watch more than one episode! Jessica Jones gets much much better very quickly. It's definitely on par with Daredevil (They trade places one and two, depending on episode, Luke Cage distant third. And Iron Fist just needs to be shot out of an airlock)
I did. Nearly threw up and called it done. It's just too unpleasant for me, and that's saying something.
I think I got 3 episodes in before I felt so sick to my stomach that I had to back out. I'll try Luke Cage and Iron Fist, but Jessica Jones is likely not for me.
Opening scene with him sold me forever. Plus Charlie Cox's performance is just incredible.I love Jessica Jones and I like Luke Cage but I never really got into Daredevil. I think that movie just tainted my view of him forever
Every Star Trek series has "contradicted previously established Canon", so why is Discovery the "last straw"?
Discovery is not the "last straw" for me. I still enjoyed it. It doesn't make it a bad show for me, just one set in an alternate universe.
So every other Trek series is set in an alternate universe too?
Similar threads
