Wouldn't the "forefathers of Star Trek" be FORBIDDEN PLANET?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
I think that's a very valid point
Wouldn't the "forefathers of Star Trek" be FORBIDDEN PLANET?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
This post should be pinned in each sub-forum dealing with any and all TV shows and movies, here and across the Internet.I'm sorry, this is nonsense. When did we reach the point where we're so obsessive about "canon" that, unless a franchise maintains 100% perfect continuity, plot-wise, visually, whatever, sequels and prequels don't exist "in the same universe" and aren't really sequels and prequels? Even though the obvious intent is that ENT or DISCO are prequels to TOS.
More importantly, why even worry about this? What possible difference does it make? Every movie or TV series since the silent era has its fair share of discrepancies or inconsistencies. Doesn't mean that every third sequel or prequel ever made is actually a reboot set in a different universe just because they changed the sets and costumes or whatever, or because they retconned a plot point from one of the previous movies.
Is THE WRATH OF KHAN not really a sequel to "Space Seed" because Khan's multi-ethnic crew from the TV episode have inexplicably morphed into a bunch of blond Aryan types? Of course not. Are TNG and GENERATIONS set in different universes because Scotty's guest-appearances don't quite match up? Are TNG and DS9 in different universes because Dax bears no resemblance to the Trills on TNG--and has borrowed her look from "The Perfect Mate" instead?
These are movies and TV shows made by dozens of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Of course they're not going to match up perfectly, nor should they be expected to. And not every deviation requires an in-universe explanation, especially when a common sense, real-world explanation is perfectly adequate.
Occam's Razor applies here: which explanation is simplest?
A) They updated the art direction . . because, you know, it's a TV show, not reality.
B) IT'S A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE!!!!
Honestly, Option A is good enough for me. Why not just relax, take the prequels as prequels, as they're intended, and stopping fretting about whether this make-believe universe is 100% consistent all the time.
First of all, yes, absolutely you are correct in that attitude to accept or reject it. However, it doesn't make it less "Star Trek."To each his own. Every single person has the right to accept or not accept any particular form of fiction, including continuity issues and down right re-writing what the forefathers of Star Trek did so well. Many don't have to bend over backwards because of a declining fanbase's desire to ignore what was clearly inconsistent to what was developed - just for everything to fit.
Deep Space 9But which Mirror Universe is the most scary? The TOS one or the DSC one?
That sounds more like the Bizarro World Borg.I think the Borg in the mirror universe are a primitive pre-warp species that live a Amish style lifestyle rejecting all advanced tech.
Precisely so. We would like to believe that such savagery is beyond humanity now, but we are not so far removed from such atrocities in our own species.I do agree the Mirror U is disturbing but I see it as that because Humanity and Human history IS disturbing. I'm a big fan of studying History, especially WW2, and the Roman empire, and that's as far as I have to look to see the worst of Human-kind.
Nowhenever i view the intro of "in a Mirror Darkly" i have to admit, it's too painful to watch for me (I'm not kidding when i say that it gave me nightmares about humanity's future) and for me to think about. even the claims that it shows us who we really are and not how Gene Roddenberry perceived us disturbs me to the point of pretending that the mirror universe had a different origin or is completely non-existent. i sometimes see this claim being brought up. why do people believe that the mirror universe is the most likely future of Humanity or Star trek when not viewed through Gene Roddenberry's lens of an optimistic and progressive future?
Actually i find the entire mirror universe too disturbing for my tastes. I usually pretend or wish that it never existed. it's really disturbing to see the way mirror universe characters act or behave. it's almost as though they are prime universe characters acting out of character.
i want to pretend that the mirror universe wasn't caused by humanity's own primal warlike nature. i really want to pretend that an alien invasion substituting WW3 and preceding vulcan first contact started this. i really wanted to disregard the prologue and intro of "in a mirror Darkly" and deem it non-canon or better, "nonexistent". I gives me anxiety everytime i watch it.
Is there anyone in the fandom who feels disturbed or lacks the gall to tolerate the mirror universe? if so, come out and let's talk
No
It's a freaking TV show grow up.
Andgenes "vision".
I'm sorry, this is nonsense. When did we reach the point where we're so obsessive about "canon" that, unless a franchise maintains 100% perfect continuity, plot-wise, visually, whatever, sequels and prequels don't exist "in the same universe" and aren't really sequels and prequels? Even though the obvious intent is that ENT or DISCO are prequels to TOS.
More importantly, why even worry about this? What possible difference does it make? Every movie or TV series since the silent era has its fair share of discrepancies or inconsistencies. Doesn't mean that every third sequel or prequel ever made is actually a reboot set in a different universe just because they changed the sets and costumes or whatever, or because they retconned a plot point from one of the previous movies.
Is THE WRATH OF KHAN not really a sequel to "Space Seed" because Khan's multi-ethnic crew from the TV episode have inexplicably morphed into a bunch of blond Aryan types? Of course not. Are TNG and GENERATIONS set in different universes because Scotty's guest-appearances don't quite match up? Are TNG and DS9 in different universes because Dax bears no resemblance to the Trills on TNG--and has borrowed her look from "The Perfect Mate" instead?
These are movies and TV shows made by dozens of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Of course they're not going to match up perfectly, nor should they be expected to. And not every deviation requires an in-universe explanation, especially when a common sense, real-world explanation is perfectly adequate.
Occam's Razor applies here: which explanation is simplest?
A) They updated the art direction . . because, you know, it's a TV show, not reality.
B) IT'S A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE!!!!
Honestly, Option A is good enough for me. Why not just relax, take the prequels as prequels, as they're intended, and stopping fretting about whether this make-believe universe is 100% consistent all the time.
This post should be pinned in each sub-forum dealing with any and all TV shows and movies, here and across the Internet.
Wouldn't the "forefathers of Star Trek" be FORBIDDEN PLANET?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
The REALLY scary thing is that there are many divergent points, including those based on real-world historical events, could have created the so-called "Mirror Universe": ...
I think the Borg in the mirror universe are a primitive pre-warp species that live a Amish style lifestyle rejecting all advanced tech.
Jason
Quantum.All good scenarios. My complaint is when there is a breach why is 90% of the time to the same alternate universe? The notion of a multi-verse is a valid scientific theory as well as accepted sci-fi/fantasy fodder.
Quantum.
It's half a joke and half a reference to Stargate, which discusses quantum realities, and the ability to jump from one that was very similar to another, and that if too many people (read the same character) go into one reality it would cause a disruption.Unfortunately I am a simple unfrozen caveman layperson so the vagueness of your response frightens and confuses me.
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.