You're weird.
You're weird.
Much like my job in government.Then this place is a full-time career with few benefits.
That's why I said it was just strange.I find the angle mildly amusing at best.
Only if you treat TOS as an entity independent of what came after, which is not the official view of the franchise, or we wouldn’t have all-encompassing reference books like the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Shows like DSC inform the official vision of TOS, by placing constraints on it that favor some interpretations over others.
If it weren’t like that, then to use a different example, you could have a different thread discussing whether or not TOS is set in the 2260s or even the 23rd century. Still another thread could debate circumstances surrounding Cochrane’s invention of space warp, totally disregarding the events in FC.
It’s not explicitly a behind-the-scenes thread, hence the suggestion to use a different title.
Well four posts into this thread I gave on screen evidence of the same:I recall proposing the rotating bridge many moons ago.
To some yes, yes it is.Please, no. Is stuff lining up so important that people are willing to overwrite the work people did 50+ years ago?
To some yes, yes it is.
When you have years and years of building up verisimilitude and maintaining the appearance of a contiguous world, either by production teams, or ancillary information, there is a huge amount of emotional investment.It is pretty sad.
When you have years and years of building up verisimilitude and maintaining the appearance of a contiguous world, either by production teams, or ancillary information, there is a huge amount of emotional investment.
Par for the course of what I am reading around with Trek fans on various places. The need for this world to look and feel consistent pretty much ignores any real world realities. Star Trek is to feel good and that's it.Still pretty sad.
Same here. I am always amazed at the, shall we say, intensity that the technical discussions spark.I like to poke fun in these discussions because I am very much of the "repeat to yourself 'It's a just a show, I should really just relax" camp. Personally, I think it's blatantly obvious the nub was meant to be the turbolift, and as to whether the viewer points straight ahead or not is entirely inconsequential.
Heh. I think how seriously I take this is ably demonstrated by my post saying I'd found proof that the bridge was set at a 35.5° angle.Same here. I am always amazed at the, shall we say, intensity that the technical discussions spark.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.