My point exactly.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Covert Klingon rumor confirmed!
You're both wrong, just like those who insist that Discovery is a reboot of the Trek TV franchise are wrong.
You seem to really enjoy making pronouncements of opinion as if they're unequivocal fact.
You especially seem to enjoy doing it by way of flatly contradicting other people.
Rather frustratingly, you also evidently enjoy doing it without actually providing any explanation or justification for your own contrary views.
If you have an alternate take on the James Bond film franchise, why don't you share it with us? Even better, share whether it supports or undermines the way it was used as an analogy for Trek continuity earlier in this thread, since that's how the topic first came up. And seeing as how there really is no authoritative "truth" to the matter, perhaps you could even explain why you see it whatever way you do.
Otherwise... well, sometimes your posts are just really evocative of the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch...
You especially seem to enjoy doing it by way of flatly contradicting other people.
Rather frustratingly, you also evidently enjoy doing it without actually providing any explanation or justification for your own contrary views.
If you have an alternate take on the James Bond film franchise, why don't you share it with us? Even better, share whether it supports or undermines the way it was used as an analogy for Trek continuity earlier in this thread, since that's how the topic first came up. And seeing as how there really is no authoritative "truth" to the matter, perhaps you could even explain why you see it whatever way you do.
Otherwise... well, sometimes your posts are just really evocative of the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch...
Your conviction that you're particularly well situated to judge such things is wrong.
She was later retconned to have a vertical warp core you just never saw in TOS. She has one. The terminology just didn't yet exist when the series was in production so it was up to later shows and films to create the terms and then inventive writers and graphics designers retconned them into the TOS universe.
MAY THE LIGHT OF KAH-LESH GUIDE YOUR POSTS, EARTHER!
@lawman Here's how I know you're wrong about the Bond franchise:
1) Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned, offhandedly, in The Spy Who Loved Me (a Moore film) and License to Kill (Dalton's only film)
2) Bond - as played by Moore - actually visits Tracy's grave in For Your Eyes Only
3) Bond - as played by Brosnan - physically reacts negatively in GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough when the subject of death/loss is brought up
4) In GoldenEye, M refers to Bond - as played by Brosnan - as a "relic of the Cold War"
The Brocollis have also unequivocally stated that Casino Royale was the only official reboot of the franchise.
1) Bond's marriage to Tracy is mentioned, offhandedly, in The Spy Who Loved Me (a Moore film) and License to Kill (Dalton's only film)
2) Bond - as played by Moore - actually visits Tracy's grave in For Your Eyes Only
3) Bond - as played by Brosnan - physically reacts negatively in GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough when the subject of death/loss is brought up
4) In GoldenEye, M refers to Bond - as played by Brosnan - as a "relic of the Cold War"
The Brocollis have also unequivocally stated that Casino Royale was the only official reboot of the franchise.
Just as well situated as any of us here.
All one has to do to judge the correctness of whether or not the pre-Craig James Bond films make up a shared continuity is to watch them.
It almost immediately reminded me of the space between the two impulse engines on the NX-01 saucer that looked like it contained a docking port or some kind of access hatch. ENT never showed what that area was for but it always looked like it could have been a hatch to dock a small inspection pod or through which to deploy special scientific instruments. I don't think even Doug Drexler was fully decided on what that space was used for and he designed the NX-01!
Don't know this for sure, but based on the look of that detail, I'd guess it's a docking port and not a shuttlebay.OK - Who's working on the 3D render?
Also, has anyone noticed what appears to be a secondary shuttle bay between the impluse engines?
*I now want to see a new series on this Enterprise.
Yes, of course, because all the production team wants to do is make things ugly
That's the thing. When you have poor taste you don't realize when you're making things ugly.
Remember, you're dealing a show where people were holding their nose over the Discovery before the design was even finalized and they still had trouble polishing that turd enough to be marginally acceptable-looking.
In your opinion.
Dalton was in two Bond films Mr. Bond expert... ;-)
Some of us like the First look and some of us like the look we got. But then some folks like the Galaxy class and yesterday I found someone who liked the DS9 Yager kitbash. I mean, they actually liked it.
I forgot about his second film... so sue me.
My point remains the same because the facts remain the same.
Sure, but note that there's a reason why, for instance, some material winds up in a museum (such as the original Connie model being in the Smithsonian) and crap like velvet Elvis paintings are only suitable for a flea market. Whatever appreciation a portion of Trek fans currently have for Kelvin + Discovery designs isn't going to stand the test of time like the others.
And? Why is that a standard? I want to be able to appreciate designs as they appear on screen not in a museum.
Similar threads
