USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

It Tuvixes the whole thing. Not pretty.

 

You cant please everyone, as soon as it is decided that there are two possible paths to take someone always comes along and fudges it by only going halfway and achieving neither goal.

They could have either gone full ToS and kept all the ships, Klingons and tech the same using it as a bridge between Enterprise and ToS or full reimagined reboot without being held to what has gone before or since.

The Kelvin films are a great example of the latter done well using time travel, they slapped a "This is a reboot" label on it and problem solved.

 

I suppose CBS didn't think of the implications not scaling the 1701 scales up all of the other ships we have seen?

 

Ugh, did you have to remind me of that?

Third option: they could've redesigned without touching the tech/continuity.

 

Well, no. Whatever they put on screen is canon. Of course, that means that canon is entirely capable of containing logically contradictory elements. Continuity, on the other hand, is not. Which is why what we're really discussing here is the latter (which is interesting), not the former (which isn't really disputable).

(Consider the Sherlock Holmes analogy. Pretty much everyone agrees that the 56 short stories and four novels comprise the entire Holmes canon, no more and no less. That doesn't mean people haven't been enjoying spirited debates about the details of Holmes continuity for over a century now!...)

Oh, now you're pulling out the "fanboys" slur? Why so antagonistic?

And how exactly is it "obsessive" or overly "detailed" to be concerned that elements of the story you're telling might contradict established facts or events in the setting you have explicitly chosen to use? Seems to me like that's just basic creative integrity.

How the hell do you figure that? The prospect of ignoring the TOS designs is the problem.

So far, my impression is that you really don't care about continuity at all, and you seem intent on impugning the choices, motives, priorities, and mental health of those who do. If continuity actually does matter to you, by all means explain how.

You persist in disregarding those of us who argue patiently that it is DSC that "sticks out like a sore thumb," whereas the visual continuity of all previous Trek series fits together reasonably well.

It's not a needlessly narrow definition, it is the definition. Using the word to cover a broader range of narrative activities does nothing to aid clarity. A retcon does not necessarily "change things already established." It can be completely innocuous. The kind of continuity disruptions you're talking about, though, aren't.

Please. I've been dealing with retcons in my entertainment for as long as the concept has existed, and studying and writing about continuity for almost as long. I personally remember reading that A-SS lettercol where the concept was first discussed. I linked you to a TV Tropes page with a detailed discussion of the nuances of the term. It's utterly ridiculous to claim I don't know what the word means.

 

I've always figured that anybody who was in a Star Trek Forum, talking about Star Trek...
IS a "Fanboy".
SO, tossing that term around so liberally, insults the user just as much as their intended target.
It also denigrates the conversation to the lowest common denominator and at that point it's no longer a conversation as much as an insulting match game.

 

Disagree. When you completely alter the technology of a sci-fi universe, that's "major lore"

 

Fine, replace "canon" with "official". The point is that CBS has the only word you can trust. If they say it's prime, it's prime, regardless of how one individually feels.

Find me a better term to describe die-hard fans who obsess about the franchise and I'll use it.

And please don't act all offended. You'll find I have little care for what offends people.

Because they're details; far less important than the actual story being told right now. Are site-to-site transporters obnoxious? Yes. But they're really not that important compared to the actual storytelling.

It's only a problem if you refuse to accept that they can change it retroactively at will. Once they do, the TOS designs no longer exist in continuity. So where's the problem then?

Because it's not true. It fits quite well with ENT and TNG. I've said this already more than once. You keep telling me that I ignore or disregard things but in doing so you are yourself disregarding things I've already told you that tell you exactly why.

See what I mean? Regardless of what I say, you will continue to pretend like I mean something else. Why do you keep doing that?

Well, not the definitions I've seen, which mention that it's typically events but word is rather broadly. But you're quibbling over semantics. Anyone who writes fiction has the option of making any retroactive change to anything they wish. Call it retdes instead if you want, but it doesn't change anything I've said, which you've failed to address.

 

Except they haven’t

 

Ah yes, because the holograms are less advanced despite zero on-screen evidence to support that belief.

 

Yep. Noticed.

 

Nope.

But if it helps we could distinguish instead between fans and trufans. Or just between the TV audience in general and Trek fans.

I'll stick with "fanboy" for now.

 

Yeah, pretty much...
As I said, when it get tossed around so much as an INSULT, then one is just showing one's own ignorance and total lack of respect for oneself and others.
IMO

 

They're closer to the fuzzy blue holograms of Star Wars than to the 100% lifelike ones of TNG, and we haven't seen any with advanced AI or forcefields allowing them to touch and manipulate objects (and aren't likely to). Nor have we seen holograms create huge open spaces within a room we know to be a finite size. It's only zero evidence if you ignore the evidence.

 

A Sarek hologram leant on a desk, so they can have mass.

The holograms are only fuzzy when communicating with the outside. Mirror mode and the I Can't Believe it's Not a Holodeck were solid and 100% indistinguishable from reality.

We haven't seen AI beyond Klingon soldiers yet.

We saw that in the "not" holodeck, remember? That room was tiny, but also an entire Klingon battlecruiser.

 

I would say Sarek had the illusion of mass. He sat down so his hologram was placed somewhere he could sit. If it sagged under his weight, that would be evidence of mass.

The mirror hologram is completely photorealistic, but it could be too high bandwidth to broadcast. Otherwise surely the same level of fidelity would be used for communication.

The battlecruiser is big, but still not really an open space. A true holodeck can form an entire town, with players at various locations within it. They can see each other at distances that should be impossible within a small room.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I wouldn't say there's zero evidence to support the idea that Discovery's holograms are less advanced than TNG holograms.

 

Don't understand what is the problem. Sarek hologram is just 3d object projected on real surface. It is simple software problem even now to properly display 3d object on real surface like in this video[1]. Only difference is they have better virtual reality technology but with special equipment even now virtual Sarek could lean on the desk. Judging by today technological advancement holograms in DSC are too simplistic and one of those things (padds, feature phone like communicators as well) which deserve retcon in Trek continuity asap.

1.

 

The visual cues tell us that the Sarek holograms does not have mass. He flips suddenly as he moves, suggesting that he's leaning against something in his own space, and the computer compensates within Michael's space to make his movement believable.

 

I guess you didn't notice the rest of my post. Did you find it satisfying to avoid the discussion by focusing on the least relevant part of my post?

 

It's all supposition. I could equally say that the fuzzy subspace communication holograms are like that intentionally not to confuse crew members as to who is actually in the room or not.

It's likely someone brought up all these continuity issues when they were planning the show, but they were dismissed. Deliberate choices have been made to alter Trek visually, technologically and plot-wise. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but to pretend all is exactly as it was and that everything fits perfectly (looking at you, selected producers) strikes me as silly.