I remember that episode.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Which explains the "he'll be fine!" tacked at the very ending. The way the episode plays, it feels obvious that the crewman was going to die, and then the episode pulls the rug under and says "NOPE!"
Which is hilarious given the number of times the transporter screws up and melts or morphs or merges or multiverses someone in the movies or series set afterwards.
UPN was full of idiots. But then, that was obvious even at the time.
I'm starting to think this is what Discovery will be remembered for
Not Klingon genitalia?I'm starting to think this is what Discovery will be remembered for
Not Spock's sister?
Not Spore drive?
Not Fidget spinner class?
Come on, now. Don't be two dicks.
Trust me, when it comes to the inevitable "is series VIII canon?" threads in 2021, people are gonna be talking about Discovery's 25 percent.
Sadly, despite what I say about seeing the 25% as a gift, I think too many people will boil DSC down to nothing but a number when the time comes. Instead of seeing it as a way to give DSC more freedom, they'll use it as an(other) excuse to dismiss it and any other series that would spin off from it.
Well I kind have (personally) felt it's shut me up a bit, lol. They've basically said they're in the timeline but have had to 'tweak' it here and there. They're owning it!
CBS deny this.
The only reason I've dismissed Discovery is because it is boring. Just too many other things that are better deserving of my time out there. The canon debates are fun, but ultimately meaningless (regardless of what side your on).
A gift? Seriously? Spock's half sister who is human? Klingon genitals? The Spore drive? Canon? You must be joking? really?
No, I think in hindsight had the producers decided to go into the future of Trek passed Voyager, they could have rebooted the series with the 25% intact and started off with the Enterprise J, they could have easily have revamped that ship 25% and made changes given how it was to be in the sorta far future of the TNG universe. They could have explored lots of tech and included new alien races on the new Enterprise J, and go on to make a whole new universe. They didn't have to use the historical canon as so much as to reference what Kirk did, or Picard, or janeway.. It's the one thing I felt made their entire endeavor fail in my eyes. I have watched all of STD to date. my overall assessment is it sucks, really sucks. I can't believe this was what they thought at the time was the best they could do. It's just not a series I plan to buy any DVDs or Blurays about either. I already had to pay to watch the damn thing.. I will refuse to buy anything else from the series.
In the annuls of history STD will be as big a let down as ENT was.. Sorry that is just how I feel. I don't want to argue with anyone who loves the series.. I just want to at least express my feelings about the series and why I think that CBS and Paramount could have done better, and with the setting being further out of the time line in the prime universe, they would have the freedom to do what they wanted.. Everyone uses the canard that the historical canon was a ball and chain, when in fact it would just simply be history in a future time line and not a hindrance.
I think the argument that you couldn't have artistic freedom in doing a TREK series set in the future, and instead have to rewrite the past because of the 25% rule, is rubbish. CBS stupidly thought that coming off the Kelvin timeline there was this cross over and the series would blow up. NAh... At this point, after all we've seen. I think it was a failure. Not a complete failure, but it sure does feel like allot of the mistakes made in ENT and The JJ verse.. are present and well accounted for. The writing is akin to melodrama between the crew (which isn't as exciting to me as the whole crew together making bold decisions as a crew supporting each other and being on the right side of the spectrum with a commander who is NOT morally ambiguous and a role model) Instead they make the captain a creep and focus on the 1st officer whose just as morally ambiguous and extremely zealous.
My final assessment is the powers that be with all their excuses for the setting of Discovery are using lame excuses, excuses that don't hold up. Was TNG held down by it's past links to the movies or TOS? Not really.. it built upon it and was able to soar because it was set in the future.. same with the others that came after.
Last edited:
There's an opposite side to this too. You can say TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT don't have these things but that's the part of DSC that's "at least 25% different".
It works both ways and it can work for both us.
Bear in mind I've also said I wouldn't have had a problem with going passed VOY. I've even defended this as an option.
Last edited:
Michael isn’t Spock’s half sister, she’s adopted. A half sister would imply that Amanda was her biological mother.
Now I'm glad I decided to wait a bit until I comment on the 25% thing
Damn. Just when I thought it looked like everything was becoming clear, there's another curveball. So now it's a task of looking at John Eaves' exact words as opposed to what io9 (or anywhere else) said that isn't a direct quote of his.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discoverys-version-of-the-enterprise-had-to-1825276401
John Eaves' words below:
io9's words below, and thus may only be their spin or interpretation as opposed to necessarily being anything John Eaves' directly said:
Back to John Eaves:
What John Eaves says is specific to the Kelvin Timeline Films. It looks like nothing he says in here would have to apply to Discovery.
Without a screen capture of the now-deleted Facebook post (which I'm sure someone here could provide), it looks like the Guideline to design the Enterprise to be at least 25% different can have been an artistic guideline instead of a legal one.
Which is then supported by what CBS said in its statement, in the link Tuskin38 provided:
Last edited:
I posted that news post here the day it was put up (the 17th) but a lot of people seemed to have missed it.
I think John Eaves and Scott were right, it was a legal requirement, but not in the way they thought it was, it wasn't about rights, it was about marketing.
There is a 25% difference so CBS could copyright it and market/merchandise it as a separate ship. You know, for money.
I think John Eaves and Scott were right, it was a legal requirement, but not in the way they thought it was, it wasn't about rights, it was about marketing.
There is a 25% difference so CBS could copyright it and market/merchandise it as a separate ship. You know, for money.
Similar threads
