Funny how "watch it for yourself and make up your own mind" draws so much scorn. It is almost like people want this stuff spoon fed to them, so as to not have to put any effort in on their end.
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
Funny how "watch it for yourself and make up your own mind" draws so much scorn. It is almost like people want this stuff spoon fed to them, so as to not have to put any effort in on their end.
So DSC and PIC are in a close parallel universe to TOS, or
FC created ENT, DSC and the changes in TOS??
FC created ENT, DSC and the changes in TOS??
My way to explain time travel suits, interstellar beaming and knowledge of mycelial Jump Drive as early as the 2250s is that everything from First Contact and ENT "Regeneration" exists in a changed timeline. Someone in the 2150s went back for those Borg bodies that ENT blew out into space and for the wreckage of that Borgified freighter. After decades of study, reverse engineering and painstaking recovery of data from the Borg...breakthroughs are made in time travel and transporter tech and other areas. Maybe fragments of Borg data on research into an instantaneous Jump Drive system leads to discovery of the mycelial network, etc.
Last edited:
No system is perfect, but this is how I break them down...
1. TOS, TAS, TMP
2. TWoK-TUC, TNG, DS9, VOY, TNG films
3. The Abramsverse
4. Enterprise, Discovery, possible Pike series (spun off the events of First Contact)
Broad strokes are relatively the same, details are different. Picard could go in either 2 or 4, I haven't made up my mind as yet.
Some folks see it all as a whole, other folks break it down in ways it makes sense to them.
This is just my interpretation of what I see on screen.
FC didn’t create shit. Some people think that, but nobody actually in charge of this stuff has mentioned anything of the sort.
Why do they need to? We went decades without a statement on the Klingon changes, that happened in TMP. It didn't stop fandom from coming up with their own.
Fandom comes up with lots of explanations for stuff, from the logical to the outlandish. And that’s fine. But it’s hardly canon.
Since when do the powers that be have a say in fan interpretation? We can't have this both ways were the production team makes a statement, i.e. DSC is Prime, and that's rejected, and then say "Well, the producers haven't said it so no reason to take it seriously."
Fan interpretation is part of Trek and fandom in general. Spock was not the "first Vulcan in Starfleet" but that was fan interpretation for a long time. And on and on it goes.
Except there are 237,000 timelines that feature the Enterprise-D per "Parallels". I have no issue with folks seeing it that way though, just like there is no issue with people seeing it as one big whole.
No one said it was canon.
Yeah. Haven't seen canon come up in the fan interpretation discussion.
I was responding to @Ronald Held.
Still no indication of canon discussion. Just fan interpretation.
One is "fact" until the studio changes its mind and goes in a different direction. Spock was an only child until 1989 (per Dorothy Fontana), the USS Enterprise looked a certain way prior to TOS...
Five years from now, CBS could nuke the whole thing and start over, or decide to do another prequel to TOS that looks and plays nothing like Discovery. So don't get too comfortable with "facts" from a corporation.
And, again, it comes down to personal acceptance. You can argue facts all day long but fan interpretation is usually what people lean on. As I stated upthread, the fact is that CBS has stated that DSC and Picard occur within the same continuity as TOS, TNG, etc. But, fans don't accept that at face value.
Like it or not, facts don't hold much sway in emotional discussions.
Like we've learned over and over in the entertainment industry, facts are often temporary, and only last as long as that production staff is in charge. Dorothy Fontana, a TOS writer and someone who helped shape the Spock character said he had no siblings. Here we are, fifty years later, and he has two.
Which "fact" is the correct one?
Jeri Taylor wrote a book on Janeway's backstory that was supposed to be canon. That lasted as long as she worked on the show, then was ditched.
Fontana's
Fontana's
I think Discovery is a show that people would have a hard time connecting to TOS, if there were no behind-the-scenes proclamations about it taking place ten years prior to it. Which is why so many people lean so hard on those "facts" and writer's intent when discussions about the show pop up.
Do they honestly think that if writers now aren't respecting the intent of what came before, that somehow the new material is going to get that respect down the road?
