They just had a single shiny armband didn't they?
Then, out of the focus ability of a 1960s camera, are tiny rank pins on the Delta.
#canoned
I'm just quoting the DSC trailer which doesn't give an exact date, it just says 10 years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. That is vague enough to not really mean anything.No, because the divergence occurred 20 years *before* DSC takes place.
Given the types of name badges I work with at work, I don't think it is as bad in person as it is watching it on the screen.It doesn't bother me that the 2254 rank pips are different.
It bothers me that they're too damn SMALL. What's the point of having them, if no one can read them?
Unless it's sweaters and stripes I'm not buying it^ What could "Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" possibly mean, other than TOS? We all know that's what it means.
And here's your "wiggle room": Starfleet just has many different uniform styles, and it's up to the captain which one is worn on any given ship.
Seems easy enough.
(Hey, at least the 2254 uniforms have the same color scheme as 'The Cage' - the DSC unis may be blue, but their "foil" is the same color as the Cage unis had.)
HD isn't canon!!Nice try. But we've all seen them up close and in glorious HD.![]()
No, but if you're designing it in person, then I can see how that might happen.That doesn't help the viewer at home, though.![]()
Exactly!It doesn't bother me that the 2254 rank pips are different.
It bothers me that they're too damn SMALL. What's the point of having them, if no one can read them?
It could mean these three:^ What could "Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" possibly mean, other than TOS? We all know that's what it means.
It doesn't bother me that the 2254 rank pips are different.
It bothers me that they're too damn SMALL. What's the point of having them, if no one can read them?
I can only hope.It could mean these three:
![]()
The construction he's using, "without spoiling anything," is a not uncommon one. He's not obliged to word things they way you might prefer he did.That doesn't sound like what he's saying. If that's what he meant, he would have said something like, "Like Bryan Fuller revealed last year, we are adhering to the Prime-timeline."
I have no preference for how he should have worded it. I'm just noting that if it is Prime then in no way is that a spoiler, but if it isn't Prime then it would be.The construction he's using, "without spoiling anything," is a not uncommon one. He's not obliged to word things they way you might prefer he did.
Precisely. That appears to be precisely why he said "without spoiling anything." Those words reinforce the notion that it is, in fact, Prime, as already revealed and generally understood to be the case.I have no preference for how he should have worded it. I'm just noting that if it is Prime then in no way is that a spoiler, but if it isn't Prime then it would be.
I'll admit that it can be interpreted multiple ways. My interpretation is that he's vague on the timeline because it's some kind of spoiler.Precisely. That appears to be precisely why he said "without spoiling anything." Those words reinforce the notion that it is, in fact, Prime, as already revealed and generally understood to be the case.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.