Must have been true for decades, considering the flashbacks we see of T'Kuvma as a boy also have bald Klingons.
Spoilers Season 2 Trailer
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Must have been true for decades, considering the flashbacks we see of T'Kuvma as a boy also have bald Klingons.
Which meant that the multiverse will be destroyed with absolute certainty and in fact should have been destroyed a long time ago already. If events in one universe can collapse the entire multiverse then it will inevitably happen. Discovery stopped Charon in one universe, but there must be countless others where it didn't happen. And of course during the entire history of multiverse someone somewhere must have developed this catastrophic technology before already.
Oddly, it seems like there weren't enough people who understood sci-fi writing in the writer's room.
It's really a shame that some folks take this shit so serious, that it seems to destroy their enjoyment of a TV Show that has been a staple of Sci-Fi Entertainment for 50 years.
Rigid Consistency has NEVER been a hallmark of Star Trek through the years, and anybody who complains about that now with DISCOVERY, seems to have forgotten this.
IMO, half the fun of being a super-fan of TREK, is making it all fit in ones own head.
There's no need to actually convince other's that one way is better or worse, as long as what you believe makes it FUN for you.
If it doesn't, then perhaps it's time to do a reality check of your entertainment choices, cause what we got in Season-1 is now canon and there's no changing that.
(until the next Trek Series that comes along decides to alter things... again)
Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
You must not have been old enough when Encounter at Farpoint, The Naked Now, and several other early episodes of TNG came out. Of course there was no social media back then, but people did still find ways to show their displeasure for TNG back in 1987 and early 1988.
So, to summarize the last few pages, Discovery cannot break Trek continuity, because no one ever said what they are doing didn't happen, and even when they did it was just some one-off line and the Discovery writers shouldn't be beholden to it, and even if they should they can just change it anyway.
In other words, STD is sacrosanct and completely unfalsifiable.
Frankly, if you don't have any point at which Discovery can be said to have broken continuity in your mind, you are not discussing it in good faith because your argument *literally is* one of faith and infallibility. That's why you're so quick to attack and disregard old Trek, because it has dared to oppose your new favorite thing through no fault of its own. Even the old writers and production staff get trashed, a la the Twitter guy recently who decried the errors of "harried writers" from decades past, as if the current crop of writers lounge about being fed ambrosia. It's nuts.
Can Spock die and stay dead? Can the Discoprise be destroyed? I think some of you know your answer is "yes". You'd simply decide Spock was resurrected somehow off screen, because, after all, no one ever explicitly stated that he had not been a rotting corpse before. And the Enterprise being destroyed is easy! After all, Admiral Morrow didn't do his math right in Star Trek III and Kirk didn't correct him, so by golly the TOS Enterprise must have been new!
Et cetera. It's like debating creationists.
In other words, STD is sacrosanct and completely unfalsifiable.
Frankly, if you don't have any point at which Discovery can be said to have broken continuity in your mind, you are not discussing it in good faith because your argument *literally is* one of faith and infallibility. That's why you're so quick to attack and disregard old Trek, because it has dared to oppose your new favorite thing through no fault of its own. Even the old writers and production staff get trashed, a la the Twitter guy recently who decried the errors of "harried writers" from decades past, as if the current crop of writers lounge about being fed ambrosia. It's nuts.
Can Spock die and stay dead? Can the Discoprise be destroyed? I think some of you know your answer is "yes". You'd simply decide Spock was resurrected somehow off screen, because, after all, no one ever explicitly stated that he had not been a rotting corpse before. And the Enterprise being destroyed is easy! After all, Admiral Morrow didn't do his math right in Star Trek III and Kirk didn't correct him, so by golly the TOS Enterprise must have been new!
Et cetera. It's like debating creationists.
Or Number One is promoted to captain and takes over a certain science vessel for season three...
I just treat it as a reboot. My beefs aren't with it breaking with what came before, I think the style is uninspired and the writing unimaginative. Though it is a YMMV kinda thing.
No. Some folks just have different opinions about entertainment. Entertainment can mean different things to different people.
Respectfully, it is preposterous to make explicit denial (and with a date-stamp, no less) the standard. I don't need to deny monkeys flying out of my butt in 1989 to make it obviously untrue.
Surely the disputed Donatu V had a bit more than the 23 year old fight to be noted by Spock in the "...Tribbles" history briefing. In Discovery Donatu V was so important it was a rallying cry to all the houses. What, the war happened and they just skipped it or gave it back, none of which was important to Spock later?
No, that's ridiculous.
No. Your continued nonsensical over-exaggeration and misrepresentation is ridiculous.
Yes! Break what came before! There is so much amazing tech that's real out there and yet they're stuck fixated on iPhones and handhelds and so on. The old show "Continuum" shows a higher tech level than Star Trek half the time.
If you're going to visually reboot Trek then you should go for it, not just put more LEDs and doodads on the phaser pistol.
You are perfectly at liberty to engage in actual debate instead of whining and trying to disparage my viewpoint from a distance by pointing at it and calling it names.
I think it's transparently obvious from an outside-the-show perspective that they are retconning parts of Season 1 which didn't work. Fuller came on and developed a god complex about being able to reinvent Trek from the ground up. He completely redesigned everything about the Klingons, even though it was unneeded from a story perspective, just because he could, wasting tons of time and money on elaborate sets and costumes seen for 30 seconds. Every Klingon is shown to be bald, from the teenage T'Kuvma in flashback to members of the Great Houses who don't support his religious revival. After Fuller was fired, they started walking this back. They didn't have time it seems for a correction mid season 1, since we even see all bald Klingons all the way through to the season finale. But the public statements from the producers right from the beginning were hedging. Now that he's gone, and they had some time to breathe, they're going to basically ignore it and come up with a flimsy excuse why they are bald. This is IMHO okay.
The thing I find frustrating about these discussions is that - personally - I don't give a crap about within canon/continuity discussions. I mean, I would like Trek to make logical sense. But ultimately I'm much more interested in the show from a production/writerly standpoint than from a "universe" standpoint. I loved the 50 year mission books, but I don't give a crap about those books out there that try to explain how warp drive works, or provide background on the Bolians not seen on screen, or whatever. The setting exists for the stories, not the other way around.
The thing I find frustrating about these discussions is that - personally - I don't give a crap about within canon/continuity discussions. I mean, I would like Trek to make logical sense. But ultimately I'm much more interested in the show from a production/writerly standpoint than from a "universe" standpoint. I loved the 50 year mission books, but I don't give a crap about those books out there that try to explain how warp drive works, or provide background on the Bolians not seen on screen, or whatever. The setting exists for the stories, not the other way around.
Save for the fact that the story isn't complete. So, it is a rather large leap to jump to the conclusion that obviously the spore drive must continue to function in to TOS era and beyond. There are plenty of ways around to deal with it, including the idea that the mycelium network is sentient and limits access, the spore drive itself is destroyed, damaging access, the spores themselves go extinct, Stamets goes made and shuts down the whole project across the multi-verse, the "Red Angel" interferes and prevents access and on and on. It isn't stupid to create a limit and than explore the story telling possibilities. I believe that's fiction.
And I'm not even a scifi writer. Good grief I did not realize that this was hard.
I really don't get why y'all are so worked up about it. Even in 2016 Bryan Fuller called it a "reimagine" of Trek and noted it was a story for either universe (they didn't really care), only considering it Prime in the end to avoid having to deal with changes from the ongoing movie series (a false dichotomy, to be sure).
And yet if someone dares point out how Discovery runs roughshod over existing Trek canon and should be considered a total reimagining and separate universe (rather than just a visual reimagining, as if you can separate them in this format), it's suddenly time to burn the infidels.
And yet if someone dares point out how Discovery runs roughshod over existing Trek canon and should be considered a total reimagining and separate universe (rather than just a visual reimagining, as if you can separate them in this format), it's suddenly time to burn the infidels.
If you didn't constantly express your OPINIONS as if they were "SACROSANCT" (to use your word), you might actually see that a few folks would agree with you.
As it is, you seem to just flail around insisting that it's your way or space highway.
When so many disagree with your postulations, perhaps it's time to slightly reevaluate your thoughts on the matter.
Either that or continue, and just expect to be continually told your OPINIONS are your own, but they don't represent a large majority of folks that post around here.
Last edited:
Save for the fact that the story isn't complete. So, it is a rather large leap to jump to the conclusion that obviously the spore drive must continue to function in to TOS era and beyond. There are plenty of ways around to deal with it, including the idea that the mycelium network is sentient and limits access, the spore drive itself is destroyed, damaging access, the spores themselves go extinct, Stamets goes made and shuts down the whole project across the multi-verse, the "Red Angel" interferes and prevents access and on and on. It isn't stupid to create a limit and than explore the story telling possibilities. I believe that's fiction.
And I'm not even a scifi writer. Good grief I did not realize that this was hard.
I've found a lack of imagination to be a problem with some fans. Lots of the problems can be solved with imagination.
These arguments are extending in to absurd levels. Period. There is a reason why they are not treated with any seriousness. They are not being presented in a serious fashion.
If people want to debate the places that Discovery has violated continuity, by all means do so. But this hyperbolic absurdity is not doing anything but making the claim more absurd, as well as crafting strawmen of posters to shout down in the hypothetical.
Good faith? There is no good faith in this discussion.
This is what I call "getting worked up about it"...
You're the one acting as if the world is coming down on you.
Not the rest of us.
Or...
Nature itself somehow made sure that that never happened.
And if it did, it was somehow contained within the one Universe where it did happened.
Similar threads
