They don't. Inconsistencies with previous productions don't imply deliberate internal narrative divergence.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x10 - "Hegemony"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
They don't. Inconsistencies with previous productions don't imply deliberate internal narrative divergence.
It's actually the "Prime" universe (with quotes), as "prime" is just a buzzword these days that means "we're gonna make everything look different and have the characters look and act nothing like what they looked and acted like before, and have lots and lots of continuity problems which we are very much aware of but we're making them anyway, while at the same time saying that it's all exactly the same. But don't you dare call it a reboot! It takes place in the same universe! Really, it does!"
ENT and TOS at times lined up poorly but they're still in the same continuity and the NX-01 is the technological and design forerunner to the NCC-1701. It rarely lines up ideally when two different centuries or eras of history are being connected through the shared narrative.
Nope.It's actually the "Prime" universe (with quotes), as "prime" is just a buzzword these days that means "we're gonna make everything look different and have the characters look and act nothing like what they looked and acted like before, and have lots and lots of continuity problems which we are very much aware of but we're making them anyway, while at the same time saying that it's all exactly the same. But don't you dare call it a reboot! It takes place in the same universe! Really, it does!"
Yup.
We can do without these one-word taunts. They serve no useful purpose.
Same timeline. Different producers' artistic approaches to the era. I mean, I don't like a LOT of things about how DSC in the mid-23rd century looked but it's the same timeline and the looks of the phasers, tricorders and food synthesizer slots in the galley demonstrate that. Bryan Fuller and the Kurtzman team just tried a different visual approach from TOS and its two pilots.
That's cool. I choose not to interpret things that way. And that's ok, because there are no real rules on how to interpret a fictional universe.
Exactly so.
I don't agree with all the choices made but treating it as an alternate universe essentially allows all Trek productions go be disconnected. Why value a shared universe if it can be discarded by audience whim?
ENT is in the same timeline as DSC which is in the same timeline as TOS which is in the same timeline as all the series and films that follow in the chronology.
I disagree. But I still like you anyway.
Last edited:
No, because you're simply stating your preference and personal opinion. Someone can contradict it with confidence that they are just as correct.
Which is why we’re not doing the back and forth nonsense that the moderator asked us not to do. Please try to keep up with the conversation.
It's actually the "Prime" universe (with quotes), as "prime" is just a buzzword these days that means "we're gonna make everything look different and have the characters look and act nothing like what they looked and acted like before, and have lots and lots of continuity problems which we are very much aware of but we're making them anyway, while at the same time saying that it's all exactly the same. But don't you dare call it a reboot! It takes place in the same universe! Really, it does!"
AKA, what Star Trek has ALWAYS DONE with its discontinuities EXCEPT with the Bad Robot Productions films.
Actually, it's done the opposite. TMP, TWOK, and TNG were all meant to be reboots by the people who created them, or at the least were meant to ignore what directly came before them.
TMP: meant to invalidate TOS.
TWOK: meant to ignore TMP.
TNG: meant to ignore/invalidate TOS & TMP-TVH.
Except none of those things actually happened. Both the fanbase and the producers of Star Trek through the Berman years have treated all of these things as the same continuity, despite the intent of their creators. But CBSTrek is saying that DSC is also part of that same continuity (instead of intending it to be a reboot/reimagining) while going out of their way to make the show look and feel as little as possible like what came before. That's the opposite.
And yet, it all feels the same.
This is word salad, isn't it?
Was TNG supposed to invalidate TOS? I thought the intent was just to ignore it. TNG had McCoy in its first episode and referenced Kirk's Enterprise in "The Naked Now", its second ever episode, but as far as I'm aware the idea was something along the lines of "TOS kind of happened, but it was a long time ago and we're not really going to bring it up".
...Although it's just occurred to me that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country really ignores the other movies too, apart from The Wrath of Khan and bits of The Search for Spock (Spock mentions that he's been dead before). It treats the Enterprise-A like it's the original Enterprise on her final mission. Which is fine. Tell the story you want to tell, not everything has to be a memberberries-fest. But I do think at the same time it's important to not deliberately contradict what's gone before; you just don't have to slavishly or explicitly reference it.
...Although it's just occurred to me that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country really ignores the other movies too, apart from The Wrath of Khan and bits of The Search for Spock (Spock mentions that he's been dead before). It treats the Enterprise-A like it's the original Enterprise on her final mission. Which is fine. Tell the story you want to tell, not everything has to be a memberberries-fest. But I do think at the same time it's important to not deliberately contradict what's gone before; you just don't have to slavishly or explicitly reference it.
Every bit of this.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll