Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[FederationHistorian]

ENT showed us Romulan cloaking technology and more than once, even if TOS seemed to think it was a shocking new development and nobody on Kirk's Enterprise had ever seen such an invisibility screen. There are ways both can exist and not violate canon, in part labeling the Romulan minefield of 2152 as different technology than the Bird-of-Prey cloak in 2266, even if both use roughly the same principles to achieve their intended results.

Or maybe, it’s a shock that the Romulans use cloaking technology on their vessels in the 23rd century, since they never used them in the war. And disguising their ships with holoprojectors was more the Romulan style back then.

Maybe that cloaked BoP in ENT was an outlier from what actual BoPs were actually like during that era.

 

[cooleddie74]

And also the United Earth Alliance/Coalition of Planets and later the Federation classified Romulan cloaks from all but those who had to see the information. Since Kirk and his crew were never on a need-to-know-basis they never knew it existed.

 

[fireproof78]

I always kinda-sorta figured Marrow was being somewhat gracious with Kirk about the ships age.
He knew she was a lot older, but dropped a decade off so as not to offhand indicate that it might be time for Kirk to be put out to pasture as well.

That's a good point. The use of the word "over" is pretty indicative that the age is up there and considered past the retirement age. Don't you agree, Jim? *nudge-nudge*

 

[Mudd]

His comments about how the Enterprise is a beautiful lady and she'll always bring you home etc. have always made me wonder if the cameo was originally written for Scotty and they had to improvise because Doohan was unavailable.

No. That's like saying someone signed Dwayne Johnson to do an action flick because Dave Bautista was too expensive.

 

[DaveyNY]

With SNW, you've already got that kind of link pre-baked into things with Pike, Spock, and Una; you don't need to add more legacy characters solely because they have a history of association with the original Enterprise.

Actually, it seems that YOU don't need more legacy characters added to the mix.

Most of the rest of us are fine with it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Fine. If mentioning cameos was a poor example to use in clarifying why I see a difference between DSC's nods to the past and what SNW is doing, how about my bringing up the inclusion of Miles and Keiko O'Brien, or, outside of Star Trek, the inclusion of Cordelia and Wesley in ANGEL?

When did you bring that up? I just did a search, and this post is the only time you have posted anything in the Future of Trek forum using the terms Miles, Keiko, Cordelia, Wesley or Angel. So I'm not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say right now.

If you're trying to make an issue of such characters moving from one show to another, so what? Spin-offs port characters from the parent show all the time.

 

[DaveyNY]

That's a good point. The use of the word "over" is pretty indicative that the age is up there and considered past the retirement age. Don't you agree, Jim? *nudge-nudge*

If ya really think about it, by benching the Enterprise (without offering Kirk another ship), Star Fleet WAS essentially putting him out to pasture.

 

[cooleddie74]

And then there's Worf, who many fans both in 1995 and even now say was brought onto DS9 to help invigorate the show and improve its ratings as a cheap stunt.

 

[DaveyNY]

And then there's Worf, who many fans both in 1995 and even now say was brought onto DS9 to help invigorate the show and improve its ratings as a cheap stunt.

I knew it was a ratings stunt, but I never thought it was cheap.
I was cool with it at the time cause DS-9 was kinda-sorta in a slump.

 

[fireproof78]

If ya really think about it, by benching the Enterprise (without offering Kirk another ship), Star Fleet WAS essentially putting him out to pasture.

Honestly, they should have given him a starbase command.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Maybe they didn't take the metallic reflective shine off the bridge but it's smaller, they got rid of the service walkways behind the stations and there's a lot more bright TOS-style color. I love it.

Yes, but does the bridge face forward or is it offset by 35 degrees? Damnit, the other thread needs to know!

 

[cooleddie74]

I'm popping the corn and breaking out the cold drinks as we speak!

 

[BillJ]

Burnham was at least interesting.

I think that is up for debate.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I think that is up for debate.

Debate! That's what this board is for... it's why we're here!

 

[cooleddie74]

THAT'S WHY WE ARE BORED WITH HER.

 

[BillJ]

Debate! That's what this board is for... it's why we're here!

I think they had a good actor in the role, but the writers always seemed more interested in how Burnham connected to the rest of the Star Trek universe than actually building the character up in her own right.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Debate! That's what this board is for... it's why we're here!

FIGHT!

 

[fireproof78]

I think that is up for debate.

Naturally.

 

[Nerys Myk]

FIGHT!

Who pissed off Sulu?

 

[Mudd]

Someone on FB noticed revisions to the bridge set - outer corridors gone - and old-school boots: