News Spock has already been cast

[DigificWriter]

Discovery's prime-ness is open to interpretation, as is every other show's prime-ness.

This is not correct.

 

[Lord Garth]

If we're being truly forward-compatible then TPTB are saying it's Prime, but then later on some other creative team on a future series or film will say their Star Trek is Prime. And they'll retcon whatever doesn't fit if they have to. Including Disco if necessary.

So, in the grand scheme of things, this argument is coming to a definite middle.

 

[Noname Given]

I really hate being negative about new trek, as I am so happy we have some, but I don't like how every franchise now seems to be a bit of a slave to their pop culture reference points. First another show looking back instead of forward, then the Enterprise, now Spock. I of course loved seeing the Enterprise done so well (I liked the subtle changes) and I'm sure the new Spock actor will do a fine job, but this kind of stuff makes a universe seem smaller instead of bigger. Hopefully he will be well used and serve an original worthy story.

I'm so tired of the: "Anything not post TNG at this point = 'looking back...' <--- because that's a load of BS.

Star Trek has always been set in the future - and ST is 240 years in the future. From today, that's 'looking ahead' no matter how you slice it.

 

[johnnybear]

In your opinion, but not in fact.

It isn't! If you believe it is then it's fine for you!
JB

 

[johnnybear]

Nah, I wouldn't go as far as saying that. Discovery's prime-ness is open to interpretation, as is every other show's prime-ness.

Thanks, Jinn! I knew I could rely on you!
JB

 

[StarMan]

I'm so tired of the: "Anything not post TNG at this point = 'looking back...' <--- because that's a load of BS.

Star Trek has always been set in the future - and ST is 240 years in the future. From today, that's 'looking ahead' no matter how you slice it.

For me, the key issue is that by staying rooted in Star Trek's "past", it always has to consider future canon. I'd favor post-TNG because it provides a blank canvas to take a series in any direction without having to ask if it will conflict with events to come. And frankly, the stories they've told in Trek's past haven't made the trade off worth it, IMO.

I love TOS crew - I like Spock (the original, at least), but I don't need to keep exploring various iterations of him.

 

[Lord Garth]

DSC doesn't really feel like a prequel to me (someone's going to twist this into something else, I just know it). It feels more like a spin-off that happens to take place earlier. Sort of like Prometheus (we won't go into the piece of shit that's Alien: Covenant).

 

[Red Panda]

This is not correct.

Well yes it is. If you're debating Discovery's "Prime-ness", then you also should question the Prime movies and Enterprise.

 

[Jinn]

This is not correct.

Why?

Thanks, Jinn! I knew I could rely on you!
JB

I got your back JB!

 

[Mudd]

Well yes it is. If you're debating Discovery's "Prime-ness", then you also should question the Prime movies and Enterprise.

Question what?

The TOSVerse continuity: TOS and the TOS-based movies.

The TNGVerse continuity: TNG, DS9, Voyager, the TNG-based movies, Enterprise, STD.

The AbramsVerse continuity: Three movies, so far.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The AbramsVerse continuity: Four movies, so far.

There. Are. Four. Lights. Movies?

 

[Lord Garth]

There. Are. Four. Lights. Movies?

"No. There are five."

Can't forget about Quentin Tarantino.

 

[Mudd]

Three. I'm from the future.*

Thanks.

*Star Trek 4 pissed a lot of long-time fans off, particularly the treatment of Uhura and the alternate universe Edith Keeler (personally I thought Kate MacKinnon was great). The movie topped out internationally at less than half a billion, and some guy named Doug Fitz insisted that it was such a bomb it was going to take down half the industry.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Question what?

The TOSVerse continuity: TOS and the TOS-based movies.

The TNGVerse continuity: TNG, DS9, Voyager, the TNG-based movies, Enterprise, STD.

The AbramsVerse continuity: Three movies, so far.

The argument can be made for the TOS movies being a separate universe and TMP being the start of the TNGverse.

 

[DigificWriter]

Some people are endlessly disputing that global warming and climate change exist (in spite of it being settled fact that they do) but that doesn't mean their beliefs that those things don't exist are valid.

It is settled fact that DSC is set in the "Prime Continuity" alongside ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VGR, and no ampunt of "debate" is going to change that.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Nope.

 

[Tuskin38]

Some people are endlessly disputing that global warming and climate change exist (in spite of it being settled fact that they do) but that doesn't mean their beliefs that those things don't exist are valid.

It is settled fact that DSC is set in the "Prime Continuity" alongside ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VGR, and no ampunt of "debate" is going to change that.

Let people have their own opinion.

 

[Mudd]

The argument can be made for the TOS movies being a separate universe and TMP being the start of the TNGverse.

It can be, yeah. Or it could be split off into its own micro-verse. I'm trying to keep it a little simple - every series does introduce at least a few inconsistencies with its forebears.

It is settled fact that DSC is set in the "Prime Continuity" alongside ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VGR, and no ampunt of "debate" is going to change that.

Nothing about the internal continuies of Trek stories is a fact.

The only fact to be dealt with here is that the producers of this show have said certain things.

The history of the Franchise tells us what that means: just about nothing.

 

[Jinn]

Some people are endlessly disputing that global warming and climate change exist (in spite of it being settled fact that they do) but that doesn't mean their beliefs that those things don't exist are valid.

It is settled fact that DSC is set in the "Prime Continuity" alongside ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VGR, and no ampunt of "debate" is going to change that.

Uhm, there is this minor difference between Star Trek and global warming. The one is a real world phenomenon, the other is a science fiction show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It can be, yeah. Or it could be split off into its own micro-verse. I'm trying to keep it a little simple - every series does introduce at least a few inconsistencies with its forebears.

This is Star Trek, sir. We don't do simple!