Sometimes I wonder whether the Inquisition had 'fun' chasing heretics, too, or getting all worked up about the muslims conquering Jerusalem in the late 11th century, a city about 2500 km away.
Timeline proof.
- Thread starter JcarlA
- Start date
Sometimes I wonder whether the Inquisition had 'fun' chasing heretics, too, or getting all worked up about the muslims conquering Jerusalem in the late 11th century, a city about 2500 km away.
It could be argued that those events also occured (in the DSC timeline) albeit slightly different i.e., the stated Star date in the episode is WAY OFF from the TNG episode.
I take the footage from THE CAGE used in IF MEMORY SERVES the same way I view the " last time on Star trek ( insert series name)......" usually used in the second part of two partners. To bring the viewer up to speed.
I have a hard time imagining you beholding some evidence from one of us, and then saying, "Oh wow, you're right! DSC is in the Prime timeline!" Aren't we just going through the motions here with yet another canon argument where everybody's already made up their minds?
I would describe it as more of a cheap thrill, a kind of endorphin rush or something like that from the heightened level of emotion, similar to thriving on conflict and argument. To me, there are more important things in life to get worked up about... on occasion. Being constantly outraged over a TV show week after week is bad for the blood pressure.
Kor
I have a hard time imagining you beholding some evidence from one of us, and then saying, "Oh wow, you're right! DSC is in the Prime timeline!" Aren't we just going through the motions here with yet another canon argument where everybody's already made up their minds?
To me, this has always been a purely 'head-canon' issue. People fight like cats and dogs over this issue, but really, what difference does it make in the end?
If you think what you are watching is the Prime timeline, then for you, it is.
If not, it's not.
BTW- it's not.
If you think what you are watching is the Prime timeline, then for you, it is.
If not, it's not.
BTW- it's not.
I doubt CBS cares what any of us thinks as long as we’re paying for a monthly subscription.
This is true. What I find puzzlng is their stubborn adherence to the idea that nu-Trek is the prime timeline. Because if they would just let that go, they could do whatever the hell they want with their characters and storylines, and there would be no basis for cries of 'canon!' and shrieks of 'continuity!', and the fan-favorite: 'WRONG FONT!' But, whatever.
Last edited:
This is where I'm at. Enjoy on whatever level you want to enjoy it. If you can make it all make sense as one timeline, go for it. If you can't make the pieces fit together, treated it as an alternate timeline/multiverse. Broad strokes are the same, details are different.
I think we're at a point, where disgruntlement and outrage sells. As long as CBS can string people along, they will, then they will make bank because people get curious after watching YouTubers rage.
Yah. No such thing as bad publicity, eh? Especially when someone else is generating it at no cost to you.
Agree with you 100%. That's the basis for my starting this thread. The whole going into the future would have had alot more impact if the show had looked more like the original series or SNW to begin with. I'll have to do another re-watch but I'm betting the overall look of DSC doesn't look that different from the beginning to where they are at the end of S4. Visually and technology speaking.
Teh City of Jerusalem was part of a region conquered by Muslims in the 7th century, not the 11th. And the first inquisiiton organization was founded in the 13th century if I remember correctly.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do agree they should have gone with a SNW look from the start. But it is what it is.
That way you can deny any proof in front of you. At some point, you have to accept it's a TV show and the intent of the producers.
I think at least then contextualising things should be the work of the viewer and recognised as subjective.
By which I mean, any person should be able to enjoy anything on their own terms. If someone has to recognise a given show as occurring in a different timeline to enjoy it, I say all power to them. It doesn’t negate authorial intent, hence subjective, but if it helps… why not?
It’s the measuring and weighing of ‘proof’, as in the need to be right and backed by some authority that’s silly. Dismissing proof as it occurs is sillier.
As I said, people should just enjoy things, or if they don’t, they should do other things. It’s an old aphorism, but life really is too short.
I should point out that my opinion is that of course SNW is a reboot rather than a straight prequel. Or as I prefer to think, a modern adaptation of prime-universe Trek.
But of course it's just a TV show, hence the SNW Enterprise appearing in Picard season 1, which already showed the classic version exactly as-was in TNG which PIC is a direct sequel to. It can be either/or. They showed Ethan Peck's Spock in a flashback seconds before Nimoy's Spock appeared on the holo. The "If Memory Serves" previously on used footage from "The Cage" and cut from Jeffrey Hunter's Pike on the TOS bridge to Anson Mount's on the modern Discovery bridge, yet expects viewers to know Pike is no longer quite the same sexist man.
Maybe I’m just a simple man, but to me SNW is a new Star Trek show and that’s it.
Reboot or reimagining or straight prequel… It’s just not important to me at all.
I like Star Trek, basically.
Similar threads
