Spoilers Robert Meyer Burnett: "Terra Firma" will ruin Trek canon

[NCC-73515]

The only thing real in Star Trek is the set and props.

And even those are fabrications. XD

STD basically set in Another Universe based off the Abrams universe. Federation is also still at its peak, at least in the actual universe regardless of the time period.

The real Federation is a large collection of Worlds that came together, and are still together, and never had any dumb ass fuckng dilithium explosion bulshit. Also, actual Star Trek does not take place in 3189, and if it did the Federation would have probably over a thousand worlds, along with as much fucking dilithium is they could use.

Now I'm curious: What's your canon source that the Federation is at its peak in 3189? When did it reach this peak? It had 150 in the 2370s, IIRC, so please tell me how it developed between 2370 and 3189.
"Regardless of the time period" means it always is at its peak, right? Then it always existed and always will, and with the very same number of members? Please explain cause I don't understand. It never grew and never shrank? It never was founded? No new members were ever added, and none ever left?
What year does "actual Star Trek" take place in? I'd really like to know your answer to that.

 

[ScottJ85]

The real Federation is a large collection of Worlds that came together, and are still together, and never had any dumb ass fuckng dilithium explosion bulshit. Also, actual Star Trek does not take place in 3189, and if it did the Federation would have probably over a thousand worlds, along with as much fucking dilithium is they could use.

Wow, you’re really genuinely angry about this aren’t you?

I hate to see how you’d deal with any real problems.

 

[kirk55555]

And even those are fabrications. XD

Now I'm curious: What's your canon source that the Federation is at its peak in 3189? When did it reach this peak? It had 150 in the 2370s, IIRC, so please tell me how it developed between 2370 and 3189.
"Regardless of the time period" means it always is at its peak, right? Then it always existed and always will, and with the very same number of members? Please explain cause I don't understand. It never grew and never shrank? It never was founded? No new members were ever added, and none ever left?
What year does "actual Star Trek" take place in? I'd really like to know your answer to that.

I'm not going to bother arguing anymore with someone who worships kurtzman so much, especially since you're just mocking me at this point. Like your in name only series all you want, it's still a giant fuck you to over 50 years of a franchise.

Wow, you’re really genuinely angry about this aren’t you?

I hate to see how you’d deal with any real problems.

I don't think your definition of real problems is one worth thinking about. Regardless, having passion and caring about something might be frowned upon by some people on this forum, but those of us who actually give a shit and enjoy the franchise can get passionate when we think that things are getting fucked over. Ive always thought the attitude of "it's just a show or just the franchise was pretty sad, it must suck to not actually care very much about things, or to be so obnoxiously serious as to not take anything you enjoy seriously.

 

[Court_Vince]

so by your logic there should be no iconic aliens, everyone needsto just switch every time some asshole producer comes along. So youd be fine with Vulcan that are blue-skinned, with four eyes, and three Tails coming out of their ass because that's different. I can't wait to see a Gorn but it's actually a mammal with fur, or bajorans that are all cyclops.

Come on!, This isn't what they meant and you know it! Saying that designs should change over time is not the same as making radical changes everytime a new producer or writer comes along

 

[TheMadCloner]

If you look in the dictionary for the definition of the word "relitigation," you'll find this thread.

 

[Ovation]

everyone working from TNG to Enterprise all made their mark while staying generally consistant and without fucking over the franchise. Why does kurtzman get to just radically destroy everything and get a pass for it? If Voyager had introduced Klingons that look like shit and then destroyed the Federation, Bremen and Braga would have been thrown off the top of a building by a mob. But kurtzman, the guy who is the dictionary definition of failing upward in Hollywood, gets praised for doing it.

Everyone likes what they like, but it comes off as some kind of cult thinking with the people that praise kurtzman's original series that stole the Star Trek name

yes it did. After all the dilithium exploded, which is literally impossible and the biggest piece of bullshit in the franchise, surpassing even the evolve into salamander ship from Voyager, the Federation collapsed. That was stated in the one episode of season 3 I watched before I had to stop or give ino my urge to physically destroy my TV. All that's left is a small group of probably evil people that still call themselves The Federation, but it's obvious that super special Burnham is going to be recreating the Federation as time goes by, either in the future or sometime travel bullshit.

Between the horrible writing, the specific fuck yous to the franchise, and the vomit inducing alien redesigns (those fake andorian design should be eligable for criminal prosecution, its almost as bad as the STD Klingons and tellerites), you couldnt pay me to watch another episode.

the Klingons did not look like Klingons, period. the change between TOS Klingons to TNG and later klingons is less jarring them TNG to STD, and we eventually got an explanation as to why the TOs Klingons look different. the fact that all of the STD Klingons sound like they have marbles in their mouth because of their terrible teeth Prosthetics is bad enough, but they don't look anything like any other Klingon outside of both designs having spiky foreheads.

As for destroying the Federation, that is a reference to season 3 of STD, not season 1.

There is no reason to ever redesign any of the established Star Trek aliens at this point. All of the designs were excellent by ENT, and species don't fucking change their look every decade. They might as well redesign the humans if that's the logic. we've been looking at ourselves for thousands of years, so why not add a thirdnear or a hand where the left foot should be just to mix things up.

so by your logic there should be no iconic aliens, everyone needsto just switch every time some asshole producer comes along. So youd be fine with Vulcan that are blue-skinned, with four eyes, and three Tails coming out of their ass because that's different. I can't wait to see a Gorn but it's actually a mammal with fur, or bajorans that are all cyclops.



the real the real Federation has a lot more than 38 fucking worlds, it also has ships whose engines are powered by dilithium. It also doesn't have random mercenary assholes tell people that they're gone because they're too massive for anyone to deny they exist, they're the main power in the alpha quadrant.

So yeah, like was plainly stated in the first episode of this rancid STD, the Federation was destroyed. That's why the moron who meets Burnham says it's been gone since before he was born. He is a moron, but if the Federation existed it would be literally impossible to not notice it because you'd probably be a part of it if you lived in the alpha quadrant.

But in actual Star Trek also has dilthium that doesn't magically stopped working, along with klingons, andorians, onions and tellarites that don't look like absolute shitthen . in the end this STD is no more canon then the Abrams movies, the only difference being that the Abrams movies didn't pretend that they weren't to reboot. Also, the reboot movies kicked kurtzman off and actually made a good movie, so maybe when this asshole leaves Star Trek TV we'll get a good series from the STD universe, although i doubt it..

If it wasn't for Picard and Lower Decks, this would be the worst period in the franchises history, and STD is definitely the worst thing to ever have the Star Trek name

acting like this universe shouldn't have consistency, or doesn't have a past is the delusional thinking. The show doesn't get to just get rid of everything and pretend like that's how it's always been.

The past matters. they either and need to acknowledge this is a new universe, or follow the rules and history that actually talented people made up long before these assholes got their hands on it.



STD basically set in Another Universe based off the Abrams universe. Federation is also still at its peak, at least in the actual universe regardless of the time period.

The real Federation is a large collection of Worlds that came together, and are still together, and never had any dumb ass fuckng dilithium explosion bulshit. Also, actual Star Trek does not take place in 3189, and if it did the Federation would have probably over a thousand worlds, along with as much fucking dilithium is they could use.



Then why even watch the damn show with that attitude?

I'm not going to bother arguing anymore with someone who worships kurtzman so much, especially since you're just mocking me at this point. Like your in name only series all you want, it's still a giant fuck you to over 50 years of a franchise.



I don't think your definition of real problems is one worth thinking about. Regardless, having passion and caring about something might be frowned upon by some people on this forum, but those of us who actually give a shit and enjoy the franchise can get passionate when we think that things are getting fucked over. Ive always thought the attitude of "it's just a show or just the franchise was pretty sad, it must suck to not actually care very much about things, or to be so obnoxiously serious as to not take anything you enjoy seriously.

Epic. Yawning. INTENSIFIES! Threatens to swallow the galaxy whole!

 

[ScottJ85]

I'm not going to bother arguing anymore with someone who worships kurtzman so much, especially since you're just mocking me at this point. Like your in name only series all you want, it's still a giant fuck you to over 50 years of a franchise.



I don't think your definition of real problems is one worth thinking about. Regardless, having passion and caring about something might be frowned upon by some people on this forum, but those of us who actually give a shit and enjoy the franchise can get passionate when we think that things are getting fucked over. Ive always thought the attitude of "it's just a show or just the franchise was pretty sad, it must suck to not actually care very much about things, or to be so obnoxiously serious as to not take anything you enjoy seriously.

At this point, I just feel sad for you.

 

[kirk55555]

Come on!, This isn't what they meant and you know it! Saying that designs should change over time is not the same as making radical changes everytime a new producer or writer comes along

that's literally what they were talking about. You can't look at those radical designs on discovery, think they're a good thing because of change, and say you don't want literally random changes that happen every time. There is no reason for those Klingons to not look like Worf, just like there's no reason for those andorians to have horn eyebrows or the tellarites to look like some regurgitated monster, it's all just the whim of an idiot in charge changing things that already worked well and looked great.

The original Klingons needed to change because they were mostly white people in black face with fu manchu mustaches. It was a lazy, racist design, that definitely wouldn't have worked even by the time of the motion picture. So there was a reason to redesign the Klingons then, and after the motion picture it was all about refining the look. The tellarites and the andorians were cool designs to begin with and then we're later refined, the basic design from their first appearance was enhanced and made better as makeup technology changed, but if you've seen journey to Babel and then you watch Enterprise, you'll still be able to tell what's an andorian and what's the tellarite.

Sometimes change is needed, but there's nothing about the designs of recurring Star Trek aliens by the time of Enterprise that needed to change. We haven't Advanced all that much since the early 2000s when it comes to makeup, and all the aliens looked really good on Enterprise, it's one thing the show didn't have an issue with. At this point, there is literally no reason that STD makes changes except just to be different, I shudder to think what a STD Ferengi would look like.

At this point, I just feel sad for you.

I feel more sorry for people that don't feel any passion or care for things they say they enjoy, it must be a really boring, sad existence. But to each their own, I guess

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I know it's a contentious argument, but let's avoid the personal remarks, please (general request, not directed at any one person).

 

[ScottJ85]

I know it's a contentious argument, but let's avoid the personal remarks please (general remark, not directed at any one person).

Yeah, I’d better knock it off. There’s not much to be gained.

 

[kirk55555]

Sorry, definitely got too caught up in the argument. I'll be leaving the thread now, everything's probably been said now anyway.

 

[ScottJ85]

Sorry, definitely got too caught up in the argument. I'll be leaving the thread now, everything's probably been said now anyway.

Hey, I’ve been kind of a dick myself and I apologise.

 

[donners22]

Yeah that's what I don't get. There was palpable hatred for Enterprise. I used to see on message boards all the time, from the designs of ships and props to the characters to its effect on canon. I mean viewership dropped and never really recovered. But its held up to some high standard like the TNG era shows which ran the full 7 seasons. Some of those who bemoaned Enterprise are now holding it up like some sort of gold standard when comparing it to JJ-Trek and Discovery. When did the whitewashing begin? The lull between it being cancelled and Star Trek 2009 coming out? And when will the same happen to Discovery, cause I know its gonna happen. Its already happening with JJ-Trek.

Yeah, I remember how vicious people were towards Ent, Voy and the TNG films (and to a lesser extent DS9) online and through fan magazines. I still have a bunch of magazines from that era, and even with the curation by editors there's a lot of negativity.

While some people have genuinely come around on those shows via re-watches, and some liked them in the first place, treating all pre-Kurtzman Trek as one indistinguishable lump makes it a lot easier to contrast it with what came before, rather than recognising that Trek has been many different things (for better and worse) over the years.

Still, it's a different sort of hate. Voy and Ent mostly copped it for just not being very good, though there was plenty of grumbling about canon for the latter. It was only really DS9 which copped the "not real Trek", and even that faded away for the most part.

That leads to a much nastier aspect to the criticism - where once somebody who liked those shows may have been simply attacked as having bad taste, now someone who likes these "in name only" shows (as someone here put it before joining my ignore list) is accused of being not a real Trek fan.

 

[NCC-73515]

I'm not going to bother arguing anymore with someone who worships kurtzman so much, especially since you're just mocking me at this point. Like your in name only series all you want, it's still a giant fuck you to over 50 years of a franchise.

that says it all. as expected, you are unable to explain your lack of logic or even basic common sense. what makes you think I worship anyone? why is addressing the very points you made mocking? they are your arguments.

 

[Captain Crow]

Why are we suppose to care about the ramblings of some "TEH CANON!!1!1!" whinger from Twitter?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Discovery's development was really complicated and messy. Personally, I believe the show was conceived as something of a reboot but when they decided to expand Trek with a bunch of new series' they decided that just the 23rd century part gets semi-rebooted and the rest of the Trek universe stays as-is. Note Disco S2 trying to reconcile the Klingon look (and shrinking L'Rell's head) and S3 using unchanged alien designs from TNG, DS9 and ENT.

At the end of the day they own Trek and can do whatever they like, regardless of what we wish they did differently.

And I say that as a fan of Kurtzman-era Trek.

 

[KennyB]

Discovery's development was really complicated and messy. Personally, I believe the show was conceived as something of a reboot but when they decided to expand Trek with a bunch of new series' they decided that just the 23rd century part gets semi-rebooted and the rest of the Trek universe stays as-is. Note Disco S2 trying to reconcile the Klingon look (and shrinking L'Rell's head) and S3 using unchanged alien designs from TNG, DS9 and ENT.

At the end of the day they own Trek and can do whatever they like, regardless of what we wish they did differently.

And I say that as a fan of Kurtzman-era Trek.

Kurtzman gets the blame for a LOT of what FULLER built into the show's DNA..........2 seasons and a jump 1000 years to attempt to get away from it. While I am not a fan of the continuing buck authority Burnham storyline a do like some of the season 3 stuff so far and I'm willing to wait for the whole story to unfold before passing judgment. I definitely don't want people spoiling things IF they do have info (which I'm not convinced of). LIke I said upthread there has been rumor of a COTEOF tie in for almost a year now and it was the last episode shown on Star Trek Day stream back in September before the panel started. I was told in August all the episodes in that stream were chosen for a reason........so take that as you will.

 

[ananta]

Talking about canon, I’m thinking this headache of a thread needs to be stuffed into a cannon, aimed somewhere far away and lit!

 

[Hythlodeus]

so by your logic there should be no iconic aliens, everyone needsto just switch every time some asshole producer comes along. So youd be fine with Vulcan that are blue-skinned, with four eyes, and three Tails coming out of their ass because that's different. I can't wait to see a Gorn but it's actually a mammal with fur, or bajorans that are all cyclops.

FFS, please stop putting words in my mouth. (or my fingertips in this case). Yes, I'm all for drastical redisigns, reflecting over 50 years of advancements in both make up and cameras. but, just like with the Klingons, the core of the designs should still reflect the past. DSC S1 Klingons did that beutifully

the real the real Federation has a lot more than 38 fucking worlds, it also has ships whose engines are powered by dilithium. It also doesn't have random mercenary assholes tell people that they're gone because they're too massive for anyone to deny they exist, they're the main power in the alpha quadrant.

you realize of course, that the 32st century is terra incognito for us and we do not know how the UFP would develop to that point? Empires rise and fall, they grow, split, expand again, vanish...and 1000 years is whole lot of time for everything to happen.

STD basically set in Another Universe based off the Abrams universe. Federation is also still at its peak, at least in the actual universe regardless of the time period.

what do you base that assumption on? there's nothing in canon that states that.

Also, actual Star Trek does not take place in 3189, and if it did the Federation would have probably over a thousand worlds, along with as much fucking dilithium is they could use.

I does now. because DSC decided to go there.
Baywatch did not take place in Hawaii...until it did. And the world was blessed with Jason Momoa

We haven't Advanced all that much since the early 2000s when it comes to makeup, and all the aliens looked really good on Enterprise,

they also all looked like the same old, boring monolithic monocultures Star Trerk is infamous for. Also, you're wrong if you think there weren't any big advancements in make up since them. 3D printing alone gave the designers so many opportunities they simply did not have in 2005. And then there's the point that ultra high definition 4k cameras or whatever the standard is today simply picks up more details than the standard of 2005 and the old make up designs simply would not fly in 2017

 

[Jayson1]

As Trek fans it is our honor and curse to forever debate canon until we all die someday. It is in our nature and we must just accept it and embrace the truth and learn to love it! New fans don't get it just yet. Someday they will. No turning back now. They are now in the fandom.


Jason