OMG! New preview! And it's great!

[Tuskin38]

Inconsistencies in the world building can completely throw me out of the story.

Except, TOS is the odd one out here.

"Of course Kirk was a womanizer, everyone knows that." Eeeexcept he wasn't.

TBF I never thought he was.

"Of course the glowy domes on the nacelles were bussard collectors." Eeeexcept they weren't.

And you're right, nothing in canon ever said the Connie's were.

They never called the ones on the NX-01 Bussard Collectors either

The term was only used in TNG, DS9 and VOY

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I don't think this show will be for you if these tiny insignificant details will turn you off.
The last line in your sig is kind of ironic based on the content of your posts.

Personally I don't understand how people get so hung up on tiny, insignificant details. I might understand it if Trek had been uniform and consistent from day one, but it hasn't. At all.

 

[uniderth]

Except, TOS is the odd one out here.

However, it's the first, the foundation. Generally speaking it should take precedence. At the very least it should take precedence during the time period it depicts.

 

[Tuskin38]

However, it's the first, the foundation. Generally speaking it should take precedence. At the very least it should take precedence during the time period it depicts.

It shouldn't be taken literally, a stepping stone yes.

 

[Noname Given]

Except, TOS is the odd one out here..

^^^
Um, it was the ONE show who's popularity (for 21 years in 1987) LEAD to the creation of all the other 'Star Trek' shows (3 set a century after TOS, and one set a century before.) I think it deserves a little respect, AND if you're going to set it in that timeframe - and ALL this 'technobabble' is made up BS - which it is, even if some of it has some basis in hard science) - you would stick to said made up technobabble terminology OF the fictional era you as a production team tried to set it in.
^^^
And like I said, it's a minor nitpick, it really is - BUT - when you have all these writers saying (and they have) oh, we're BIG fans of TOS and are paying attention to that era; but the results show otherwise - yeah, as a TOS fan who still thinks that's the best era and version of Star Trek, I'll call them out on it.

 

[Tuskin38]

Its called world building.

Just because they didn't use it in TOS doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

That's probably because we've all been indoctrinated by B&B style Trek. We fail to look at what the content of Star Trek actually is and instead look at what we think it is.

Not sure why you're talking about B&B-style Trek. B&B weren't really running things together until the last few seasons of Voyager.

It's the same with Kirk -drift. "Of course Kirk was a womanizer, everyone knows that." Eeeexcept he wasn't.

This is more about pop culture perception than portrayal. Even B&B didn't try to claim he was a womanizer. Most fans today acknowledge that he was not.

"Of course the glowy domes on the nacelles were bussard collectors." Eeeexcept they weren't. (Yes, I'm going to belabor this point until it becomes acknowledged in fandom or the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first.)

Then what were they? They might not have been called that, but they weren't called anything at all. They were simply never referred to. You keep acting like because a certain term wasn't heard on screen for a brief early period that this means it was never a thing.

Inconsistencies in the world building can completely throw me out of the story.

If that includes miniscule, barely noticeable prop inconsistencies, I can't believe you don't go freakin' nuts over every episode ever made of this stuff. Ever see those "nitpicker's guides?" They catalogued little errors like this into thick books for each show. TNG got two volumes, each as thick. How did that not drive you to turn Trek off for good? In fact, if you're that focused on minutiae, how do you watch or read ANY longterm franchise/series?

 

[BillJ]

Its called world building.

Yes, and TOS built its own world. So they can use the terminology there. Or decanonize TOS. Which I think is the end game in all of this.

 

[Mudd]

Its called world building.

Just because they didn't use it in TOS doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It's called a ridiculous bugaboo.

Here's how media "world building" and continuity really work: nine times out of ten a good part of it is made up on the fly, is only partially consistent and pretty easy to pull apart on a weekly basis.

If people like a show they fill in and make up stuff to paper over the continuity holes. If they don't like it, they tear it apart.

All the foolish consistency and "world building" in the, uh, world can't make all the Star Trek sequels equal to the original series upon which they all draw for their basic appeal, any more than the supposedly tight continuity of a niche show like Babylon 5 could turn it into anything that 999 people out of 1000 give a fuck about.

 

[starmike]

t's the same with Kirk -drift. "Of course Kirk was a womanizer, everyone knows that." Eeeexcept he wasn't.

Eeeeexcept he was. 19 women kissed out of 79 episodes is a hefty chunk of the show. That's 25%.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mage]

Wait, what?

Did I understand something right a few posts up? People don't wanna watch the show because they use the word 'warpcore'? A show set in a fictional future, with fictional tech and fictional terminology, and you get upset about it?

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Yes, and TOS built its own world. So they can use the terminology there. Or decanonize TOS. Which I think is the end game in all of this.

And you want to say you haven't written this off.

 

[BillJ]

And you want to say you haven't written this off.

No I haven't. Guess you've missed where I'm already subscribed and own Discovery merchandise?

 

[starmike]

Wait, what?

Did I understand something right a few posts up? People don't wanna watch the show because they use the word 'warpcore'? A show set in a fictional future, with fictional tech and fictional terminology, and you get upset about it?

Yes, you read that correctly.

 

[Mage]

Yes, you read that correctly.

Wow......

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

No I haven't. Guess you've missed where I'm already subscribed and own Discovery merchandise?

You seem to waffle back and forth a lot. But I guess you've said you already consider this a reboot and that's how you will be able to enjoy it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Same.

 

[BillJ]

You seem to waffle back and forth a lot.

I haven't waffled a bit. In a nutshell: I plan on watching, I want to like it, am leery about some things I've seen (or not seen) in the trailers and interviews. Life usually never comes down to loving or hating something completely.

 

[Noname Given]

Wait, what?

Did I understand something right a few posts up? People don't wanna watch the show because they use the word 'warpcore'? A show set in a fictional future, with fictional tech and fictional terminology, and you get upset about it?

Again I never said that AT ALL. If you're going to talk about my posts on the subject - at least you could actually READ what they actually say first.

 

[BillJ]

...at least you could actually READ what they actually say first.

You're just asking for too much there.