Probably too many combinations to make producing them like that economical.
Spoilers marsh8472's Consolidated Continuity Thread
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
Probably too many combinations to make producing them like that economical.
INAPPROPRIATE! HEADS MUST ROLL!
It's new Trek for a new generation. Lighten up, Francis.
It's new Trek for a new generation. Lighten up, Francis.
It sure has a lot of novelty, familiarity not so much
OK.
The badges are perfect. In fact an easteregg of sorts that I’ve noticed is that the badges in StarTrek Discovery are the exact “footprint” of the gold field of an actual TOS Starship Duty Insignia (Fleet personnel emblem). In fact if you lay a Discovery era badge on top of an accurate patch it looks perfect with the addition of the Starship Duty Insignia’s black border going around it.
As for the delta being used in Discovery’s era as Starfleet’s Starship Duty Insignia this is perfectly appropriate. Please read:
http://www.startrek.com/article/starfleet-insignia-explained
Finally, to produce badges that encompas all divisions and ranks (not including SfA Cadets and the occasional Black Badge or Prision System Brown Badge) would require no less than 24 separate badges.
John
The badges are perfect. In fact an easteregg of sorts that I’ve noticed is that the badges in StarTrek Discovery are the exact “footprint” of the gold field of an actual TOS Starship Duty Insignia (Fleet personnel emblem). In fact if you lay a Discovery era badge on top of an accurate patch it looks perfect with the addition of the Starship Duty Insignia’s black border going around it.
As for the delta being used in Discovery’s era as Starfleet’s Starship Duty Insignia this is perfectly appropriate. Please read:
http://www.startrek.com/article/starfleet-insignia-explained
Finally, to produce badges that encompas all divisions and ranks (not including SfA Cadets and the occasional Black Badge or Prision System Brown Badge) would require no less than 24 separate badges.
John
Badges are fine, indeed it seems these badges double as filling in the role of dog tags, as evidenced by Georgiou's name and serial number being seen on the back of her badge this week. Which makes it even more odd Michael doesn't have a badge, even one without rank insignia. Shouldn't the convicted mutineer on a work release have some sort of identification on her?
In this series we see Harry Mudd wearing metallic rings around several of his fingers. I'm not sure if they were detachable or not, if anyone knows the answer to that. In TOS his fingers were bare. Do you think Discovery went a little too far ahead of its time there?
na Harry Mudd was only in a handful of episodes. But when we go through ENT, TOS, TAS, and even in star trek 2009 without seeing starfleet crew members wearing metallic pin badges it doesn't really fit in too well does it. This pretty much normalizes anything futuristic that was never seen anywhere during that era. But as you would probably say "it doesn't technically violate continuity because of the black swan fallacy"
Last edited:
Not to derail the conversation but there are other means to feed people than the government.Much like Spock strove to be the "idealized" Vulcan. Just because they say something, doesn't mean they really mean it. Jesus says love the children, many Christians have no problems taking food and medical care away from them for a tax cut. And Roy Moore completely misunderstands "love the children".
And "canon" (which is an illusion) is not set in stone.
It depends which definition of canon you're using.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/canon.htm
With the way they were using the word they do not need to be corrected.
Don't care what EAS says.It depends which definition of canon you're using.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/canon.htm
With the way they were using the word they do not need to be corrected.
I put more stock in to SF Debris, who at least admits its just his opinion.
I've been corrected on this point before. I'm glad you brought it up. Even if saying "canon" is incorrect, if it becomes common enough it becomes a standard then it becomes correct. Given how often I've seen "canon" used to describe continuity I think it's acceptable now.
Some of us have standards.
Yeah undocumented standards. It's just english. We'll just add it to the standard. First do the standard entry dance...Some of us have standards.
Canon = short for "canonical" - there it's added
Keep it 2 dimensional!
Similar threads
