• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Is it?

  • Yes, that's the official word and it still fits

    Votes: 194 44.7%
  • Yes, but it's borderline at this point

    Votes: 44 10.1%
  • No, there's just too many inconsistencies

    Votes: 147 33.9%
  • I don't care about continuity, just the show's quality

    Votes: 49 11.3%

  • Total voters
    434
I posted that news post here the day it was put up (the 17th) but a lot of people seemed to have missed it.

Sheepishly raises hand...

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.

That makes sense.

And squares with John Eaves taking down his post because too many were misinterpreting or misrepresenting it.
 
It's funny. For over 25 years, I knew my talking points when it came to timelines or canon. Now, with DSC, it's like I'm going from one thing to the next. The narrative, the visuals, the marketing, and everything else bring different points to talk about. This is all probably part of what goes into making the Mid-23rd Century an active part of Star Trek again instead of its own version of Throwback Thursday; without the cover of the Kelvin Timeline.

For now, I'm going to take an agnostic approach when it comes to Discovery.

None of this has effected my enjoyment of the show, or will effect it, but it's been an interesting mind-puzzle. And a good debate. Weather's starting to get nice out again. Finally! And I can only speak for myself, but I think this is a good place to leave the puzzle. For a while, anyway. At least for me. I know it's not going anywhere. ;)
 
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.

Fair enough. I mean I can see it's appeal. There has been a drought of good Trek TV and this is a new beginning for some and a small pleasure for those who want some nostalgia. I on the other hand would love to see them Table STD or at least run it's course in 3 seasons, and all the while working behind the scenes on a Star Trek series set in the future and focus on the crew of the Enterprise J. The captain of which should be the great, great, great, great grandson of Captain Archer. It can have the focus on anyone else it wants after those are in place. They could revamp the sphere builders, and make the ones shown in enterprise their puppets.. so the show would avoid the infringement by focusing on the true aliens behind the interdimensional war. We could see the beginning of the temporal division of Star Fleet and see it's beginnings, which could lead to Q like moments with cadets making problems for the Enterprise J crew with their hamfisted antics. Oh the joy to have an Enterprise J show to revel in day after day. It could do so much nostalgia related nods that would reference history, without making legal issues in such ways to satisfy those among us for a concrete connection to the Prime Timeline universe.

Comon Powers that be.. surprise us with something like that and give us 7 seasons of pure Trek Enterprise J! boldy going where no ship has ever traveled before. It would kill the Orville in one blow!
sTdVLbx.jpg

e1nwVwX.png



Is it me, or is the bridge actually closer to the nose of the ship, while the centre of the saucer section not really anything, as far as it looks. But then again Enterprise J could have a perfected ver. of this Spore Drive thing, like a super version, which makes the ship go further and faster then any other ship in the fleet without the side effects into places it shouldn't go.. who knows..But I would love to see it in action and make sense!
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.

That makes me smile to hear that. Good on ya Mate!
 
What can I say? Jonathan Archer will knock you on your ass. We never had a chance. ;)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Truly, Archer's speeches were, if nothing else, very....unique.

In retrospect, it would have actually been pretty funny if they had an otherwise completely competent Captain, that for his life couldn't hold a speech for an audience. It would have been pretty audacious in a Trek show, were speeches is the default mode to summarize what an episode was about. Sadly, this wasn't a feature, this truly was a bug... They really didn't know what they were doing.
 
It's funny. For over 25 years, I knew my talking points when it came to timelines or canon. Now, with DSC, it's like I'm going from one thing to the next. The narrative, the visuals, the marketing, and everything else bring different points to talk about. This is all probably part of what goes into making the Mid-23rd Century an active part of Star Trek again instead of its own version of Throwback Thursday; without the cover of the Kelvin Timeline.

For now, I'm going to take an agnostic approach when it comes to Discovery.

None of this has effected my enjoyment of the show, or will effect it, but it's been an interesting mind-puzzle. And a good debate. Weather's starting to get nice out again. Finally! And I can only speak for myself, but I think this is a good place to leave the puzzle. For a while, anyway. At least for me. I know it's not going anywhere. ;)

That's exactly how i see this, too. Nothing more interesting than a mystery!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top