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.
Oh, I have. It was basicly another 'it's not TOS enough/TOS is being forgotten' thing.
OMG! New preview! And it's great!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
Oh, I have. It was basicly another 'it's not TOS enough/TOS is being forgotten' thing.
It's the generic term for TNG, DS, and VOY style Trek. Is there another one?
The point being the people tend to build their world view on the perception of things, rather than what those things actually are. I've been totally guilty of applying TNG to ST.
True, they weren't referred to at all. Though my interpretation of what scant evidence there is is that those domes are where the matter/anti-matter reaction is taking place. We know that there was probably a reactor in each nacelle so it seems like a good place. Additionally, they're glowing to show the huge energies being handled. They perched way out there on the nacelles. Also the Constellation nacelle domes were both blown up when it was discovered a drift. Could they have been shot off by the Planet Killer? Sure. But both of them? They could have easily exploded from the reaction within. Lastly, they are missing from the refit Enterprise. Which just so happens to coincide with the first time we see the glowy chamber near the impulse engines and the vertical glowy intermix shaft within the ship. Why does the engineering crew suddenly need to wear radiation suits? Probably because a new design moved the reaction from out in the nacelles to inside the ship.
There's no absolute 100% solid evidence. But the nacelle-domes-are-NOT-bussards theory strings things together quite nicely. they could be something else. But having them be bussards seems like a very weak use of an awesome feature.
That really depends. For example I can over look some production errors, like flipped footage. But I rationalize that use of stock exterior ship footage as the ability of the Enterprise transform(raising and lowering the bridge dome, extending nacelle spikes, expanding the dish size, and opening and closing shutters to extend the rear nacelle domes).
The only other long term series I actually watch constantly is "I Love Lucy." Most others are usually only three or four seasons. But even in I love Lucy when they wanted to change their set, they had the switch apartments. When they wanted new furniture they had stories about Lucy getting new furniture. But there still are some things that drive me nuts. Like when Ethel was able to drive, then when they go to California suddenly she doesn't know. Or when the exterior of the building suddenly changes.
I think it's a stretch to equate kissing with womanizing.
I understand that this is a prequel to TOS, but the terminology and technology from the 24th Century shows is much more well established, so I think it makes sense that we'd see a lot of it popping up in DSC. It might be a TOS prequel, but it also exists in the same universe as the other 4 shows, so we can't expect it to ignore them.
It was Uniderth, not you, who made the biggest deal out of the use of the term "warp core". I agree with what you said for the most part, but I think you didn't really understand what Tuskin said. No one's saying TOS should be discounted, just that it's not worth getting angry that the new series uses the term "warp core". Like I said, I have seen novelists "get it wrong" by having TOS characters refer to the "warp core" so I don't see this as that big a problem. Or a problem at all.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.
But when you ignore the look, the style of storytelling, terminology created by the writers of that show, it becomes a death by a thousand cuts.
It was always about the story.....as Shatner said, it is not about the correct tech or what ever!
And if you wanna be a nitpicking nitpicker....then do not watch anything that has a long and varied history as Trek....
There is no such thing as "canon" or much consistency in the various setups it had over the years!
And if you wanna be a nitpicking nitpicker....then do not watch anything that has a long and varied history as Trek....
There is no such thing as "canon" or much consistency in the various setups it had over the years!
Then why is it so important that it be in the Prime universe?
I'm just looking for some reasonable effort at making it consistent with the fictional time period established. If I'm going to be yelling at my TV every episode, "Those aren't bussards", "They don't have a warp core in this time," "The uniforms don't look like that," The design doesn't fit in the context", why should I watch the thing?
Now, they've said that they've come up with some way to make it fit. So, sure, I'll give it a chance. But, if end up just nitpicking the thing to death, then I'm not going enjoy it, and I'm not going to watch it.
There is when you think you can accurately extrapolate from 4 minutes to 900!! There are serious problems with that.
Does that also apply to the people who think it is going to be great based on those same four minutes?
Don't watch it then. It's very simple. If you can't get past the modernized window dressing, this show isn't for you. Your Trek is in the past.
I'd say yes to be honest. We really can't tell what it'll be like. I have a good feeling, but that's based more on the comments by those making the show than previews. And, I've said it multiple times, the proof is always in the pudding.
Then don't nitpick it! Just enjoy it for what it is, not what you want or need it to be. These shows aren't made to be nitpicked, that's just something fans decide to do. You can also decide NOT to do that.
I always just refer to them as the 24th Century shows. TNG, DS9, and most of Voyager are not Berman & Braga Trek, I don't think either of them were ever the showrunner on TNG, Micheal Piller and Ira Steven Behr were the showrunners for DS9, and I believe Jeri Taylor was showrunner for the first 4 or 5 Seasons of TNG. Braga does not have a single credit for DS9, and while Berman was Executive Producer of DS9 he only has 3 story credits (all of which were one or two other writers), and the were all within the first three season. It's really not fair to all of the other people who were involved with the 24th Century shows to only recognize Berman and Braga.
Wow, so with almost a century's worth of TV, that is the only non-Trek show that lasted more than three or four seasons, that you watch?
Last edited:
Speeds have always been inconsistent. The NX-01 is faster than Voyager.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll