How "realistic" should STAR TREK be?

[johnnybear]

What civilisation?

Well maybe civilization was not the right word as such but the look of their ship, their technology, their crew is made up of so many alien races compared to TOS where it was all human and one Vulcan and the idea of a multiracial alien ship should be set in the far future rather than before Kirk (even TNG was primarily a human run ship) plus DSC even ignores continuity from ENT regarding the Klingons so it's ridiculous to try to rein this in to established Trek lore!
JB

 

[Spot261]

Well maybe civilization was not the right word as such but the look of their ship, their technology, their crew is made up of so many alien races compared to TOS where it was all human and one Vulcan and the idea of a multiracial alien ship should be set in the far future rather than before Kirk (even TNG was primarily a human run ship) plus DSC even ignores continuity from ENT regarding the Klingons so it's ridiculous to try to rein this in to established Trek lore!
JB

All of which, to me, just says DSC has a larger budget, better (real world) technology and a far richer vein of source material to draw from. YMMV

 

[Delta Vega]

I think that Star Trek should be realistic enough not to show a seemingly self repairing ship as in Voyager.
One of the reasons I liked Enterprise was that they actually showed the damage to the integrity of the ship after getting her arse well and truly kicked in "Azati Prime" and other episodes.
Gaping holes and scars on the hull, visible for days, weeks, after they were blasted in battle.

 

[johnnybear]

All of which, to me, just says DSC has a larger budget, better (real world) technology and a far richer vein of source material to draw from. YMMV

The Special effects may be better although I'm not a fan of it's look and the costumes look too claustrophobic to be honest compared to the TOS uniform! Story wise it's not even that interesting let alone good! I can't really remember any of the shows I've seen from last year or even the last weeks one apart from the odd bit here and there!
JB

 

[Spot261]

The Special effects may be better although I'm not a fan of it's look and the costumes look too claustrophobic to be honest compared to the TOS uniform! Story wise it's not even that interesting let alone good! I can't really remember any of the shows I've seen from last year or even the last weeks one apart from the odd bit here and there!
JB

Sorry to hear that, I was an apologist for last season, but I'll be honest it wasn't great.

This season is shaping up IMHO to be some of the best trek in the franchise, YMMV

 

[uniderth]

Well maybe civilization was not the right word as such but the look of their ship, their technology, their crew is made up of so many alien races compared to TOS where it was all human and one Vulcan and the idea of a multiracial alien ship should be set in the far future rather than before Kirk (even TNG was primarily a human run ship) plus DSC even ignores continuity from ENT regarding the Klingons so it's ridiculous to try to rein this in to established Trek lore!
JB

This ^.

Its ridiculous to believe the the Enterprise looked like the Cage version then was completely refitted to look like the Discovery version and then completely refitted to look like the WNMHGB version. That's just dumb. The ONLY reason people keep insisting that ST and Discovery are in the same universe/timeline is becasue the creators said so. Which I find odd, because that for at least thirty years the definition of canon was "whatever is seen on screen." I know this so well becasue people would beat me over the head with it when I would insist that Enterprise isn't canon. Everyone knew full well that creators intent was always trumped by what was seen one screen. Now suddenly in 2018 this definition changes and nobody can really define canon anymore and it's just sort of whatever CBS says.

No. Sorry, creators intent has NEVER been canon. So I don't care if CBS pees down my back and tells me it's raining. What is seen on screen on Discovery is not visually or narratively consistent with Star Trek. Therefore they CANNOT be in the same universe/timeline.

 

[johnnybear]

This ^.

Its ridiculous to believe the the Enterprise looked like the Cage version then was completely refitted to look like the Discovery version and then completely refitted to look like the WNMHGB version. That's just dumb. The ONLY reason people keep insisting that ST and Discovery are in the same universe/timeline is becasue the creators said so. Which I find odd, because that for at least thirty years the definition of canon was "whatever is seen on screen." I know this so well becasue people would beat me over the head with it when I would insist that Enterprise isn't canon. Everyone knew full well that creators intent was always trumped by what was seen one screen. Now suddenly in 2018 this definition changes and nobody can really define canon anymore and it's just sort of whatever CBS says.

No. Sorry, creators intent has NEVER been canon. So I don't care if CBS pees down my back and tells me it's raining. What is seen on screen on Discovery is not visually or narratively consistent with Star Trek. Therefore they CANNOT be in the same universe/timeline.

This I like!
JB

 

[1001001]

The ONLY reason people keep insisting that ST and Discovery are in the same universe/timeline is becasue the creators said so.

No. Sorry, creators intent has NEVER been canon. So I don't care if CBS pees down my back and tells me it's raining. What is seen on screen on Discovery is not visually or narratively consistent with Star Trek. Therefore they CANNOT be in the same universe/timeline.

And yet, they are.

The visuals are simply updated from 50 years ago. Of course they would be. If they produced a show that looked exactly like TOS, certain fans would be outraged about that (and very few people would watch, I imagine).

 

[Nerys Myk]

What is seen on screen on Discovery is not visually or narratively consistent with Star Trek. Therefore they CANNOT be in the same universe/timeline.

Yeah, that's not how it works.