Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Hoity Toity, Mar 14, 2019.
And yet... they aren't.
Where did I say I am not pleased with discovery?
I rather enjoy it.
I have a few niggles,like hairless Klingons (which they are fixing) and think Michael's a little dull, but over all I like it.
Can we get back to Inside Info now?
Lay in a course, Mister Moe. I suspect our future is there waiting for us.
Do ya wanna stop calling me Mister Moe?
There is no prime timeline. If any of us are still alive for First Contact day, we're going to be sorely disappointed. Congratulations on surviving the Eugenics War and World War III, though.
If I didn't know better I'd think you're saying every Star Trek show is entirely fictional.
They can change whatever they want to....and it can be called 'fixional'.
But...the historical documents!
I think we can agree now the TCW has rendered "Prime" meaningless as I said weeks ago. The portion of the multiverse "Star Trek" as we knew has been nuked hard by it into something mangled and unrecognisable.
I’m of the opinion that there are multiple Star Trek universes, per the books and the shows and the movies, and this particular one can be whatever the viewers prefer it to be. I think the original timeline was probably significantly altered around the time Jonathan Archer met Future Guy and maybe again when Archer’s Enterprise traveled back in time and the ship’s descendants met the crew, or when Archer and T’Pol traveled back in time to 21st century Earth, and then again when Jim Kirk, Spock and McCoy traveled in time and met Edith Keeler and again when they met some 20th century astronaut and again when they went back in time and met that whale. Or how about the time Picard and his crew met Zefram Cochrane or Sisco and his crew intervened in the Klingon masquerading as a human’s attempt to change the episode with the Tribbles? No, I don’t think there has ever been a perfect reset back to the original Prime universe. The time travelers return to a timeline just enough like the other one that everything seems all right to them. In reality, the altered timeline goes on without them or with alternate versions of them.
Sisko. With a k.
Maybe it’s Sisco in the alternate universe. Whatever.
The best universe is where he's cisQo and instead of Emissary of the Prophets, he's Q.
My understanding is that just because changes in the timeline occur it doesn't make it a new universe. Something major has to happen to split reality and create a new quantum reality like the Abramsverse.
Is it their intent to have this as a different timeline? Publicly they say it is all the same, I'm not sure that's how they feel privately.
Airiam looks to be completely rebuilt from her human form. Pike, in a few years, will only be able to beep. Delta radiation might be able to fuck you up badly, but to the point that only nerve ending left in place is the one that allows you to flip a switch? Even now, Stephen Hawking was able to communicate via technology even though he had a disease that ravaged his body.
I think as we get closer in the timeline to TOS, it will be tougher and tougher to look at the two shows as being in the same continuity. The original was never meant to be the basis of an entire ongoing universe, it was just as TV show trying to stay on the air from week-to-week, season-to-season. So I'll go with what I've went with since we learned Discovery was in the 23rd century, the broad strokes are relatively the same, the details are different.
It seems that Star Trek has become a bible. One story, thousand interpretation. Don't you think that we have over analyst this franchise?
We need to hold a synod to determine what's canon and what isn't. Then the group who doesn't agree with this interpretation TrueCanonTM would just go full schismatic, we'd hold a new synod, and so on... and in the end we'd have dozens of Churches of Trek who have mutually excommunicated each other.
Wait, now that I think of it, didn't that basically happen already?
Of course we've over analyzed it. Kinda what being a fan is.
Separate names with a comma.