USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[CorporalClegg]

There are two options here:

1: Everything happened as they were chronologically presented on screen. And remember, both No and Georgiou Never Dies perfectly place the stories in time, as No could have only happened during the space race and TND could have only happened during the media blitz of the late 90s/early 2000s.

I'll even concede DAD was his last mission and he retired in his late 60s (however improbable that is) That means he would have had to have joined MI6 in his late 20s. Or 30 at the very latest. That means he would have had to become a prominent submariner and worked his way up through RN intelligence and the SIS before that - only to spend the next four decades embarking on one crazy adventure after another (at a pace of almost two a year).

2: They're all reboots.

 

[BillJ]

2: They're all reboots.

How I've started treating Star Trek. If the writers and production designers don't care about it being consistent, why should I?

 

[fireproof78]

2: They're all reboots.

3. TOS is a dramatic recreation for Federation citizens who are bored Hence the stylized uniforms and such.

 

[Spot261]

There are two options here:

1: Everything happened as they were chronologically presented on screen. And remember, both No and Georgiou Never Dies perfectly place the stories in time, as No could have only happened during the space race and TND could have only happened during the media blitz of the late 90s/early 2000s.

I'll even concede DAD was his last mission and he retired in his late 60s (however improbable that is) That means he would have had to have joined MI6 in his late 20s. Or 30 at the very latest. That means he would have had to become a prominent submariner and worked his way up through RN intelligence and the SIS before that - only to spend the next four decades embarking on one crazy adventure after another (at a pace of almost two a year).

2: They're all reboots.

Which works better do you think?

How I've started treating Star Trek. If the writers and production designers don't care about it being consistent, why should I?

Works a lot better that way. Enjoy each episode and film for what it is and enjoy the nuggets and nods for what they are.

Seems pretty impressive how angry people can get over this stuff.

 

[BillJ]

Seems pretty impressive how angry people can get over this stuff.

I think there's a lot of discussion over this stuff simply because what Discovery gave us was so completely uninspiring. It had its moments and I think the acting across the board was pretty strong, but the writing never really rose above TOS season three quality.

 

[Longinus]

Well, I'd prefer Star Trek to be one consistent continuity as I like that sort of world building, but at this point it is probably easier to admit that it isn't.

 

[BillJ]

Well, I'd prefer Star Trek to be one consistent continuity as I like that sort of world building, but at this point it is probably easier to admit that it isn't.

It doesn't even have to be a consistent continuity for world building though. Many of the staples would still be staples even if they rebooted every series.

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn't even have to be a consistent continuity for world building though. Many of the staples would still be staples even if they rebooted every series.

Foundation of concrete but different building materials? To strain an analogy to its breaking point

 

[BillJ]

Foundation of concrete but different building materials? To strain an analogy to its breaking point

How different are the basics in the various versions of say Superman or Batman, or Hell even something like Battlestar Galactica?

People mistake continuity for substance when it really isn't. The substance is in the building blocks.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

It doesn't even have to be a consistent continuity for world building though. Many of the staples would still be staples even if they rebooted every series.

I don't use staples to keep my boots on.

 

[CorporalClegg]

How I've started treating Star Trek. If the writers and production designers don't care about it being consistent, why should I?

Of course.

 

[fireproof78]

How different are the basics in the various versions of say Superman or Batman, or Hell even something like Battlestar Galactica?

Depends on the writer.

I see a far greater disparity between versions of Battlestar or even Batmans than in Star Trek.

 

[Mage]

Sometimes I really think I'm one of the few fans that just likes the show and doesn't overanalyze every frigging microsecond of it to make sure it frigging fits...... My God......

 

[Spot261]

Sometimes I really think I'm one of the few fans that just likes the show and doesn't overanalyze every frigging microsecond of it to make sure it frigging fits...... My God......

No, I'm happy just to roll with it and accept there's no reason for a made up universe we see glimpses of to make perfect sense.

 

[Spot261]

I don't use staples to keep my boots on.

There are websites devoted to that sort of thing.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Sometimes I really think I'm one of the few fans that just likes the show and doesn't overanalyze every frigging microsecond of it to make sure it frigging fits...... My God......

I'm with you! Life's too short to be having rage or anger at something looking, sounding or fitting wrong. I watch Star Trek because it's part of my life and always has been. I love it in all its incarnations.

It takes me away from reality for a while, and helps me center myself. I could care less whether the Enterprise looks different now, or whether the uniforms aren't like ones in "The Cage". If I enjoy watching it, I don't care.

 

[Mage]

No, I'm happy just to roll with it and accept there's no reason for a made up universe we see glimpses of to make perfect sense.

I'm with you! Life's too short to be having rage or anger at something looking, sounding or fitting wrong. I watch Star Trek because it's part of my life and always has been. I love it in all its incarnations.

It takes me away from reality for a while, and helps me center myself. I could care less whether the Enterprise looks different now, or whether the uniforms aren't like ones in "The Cage". If I enjoy watching it, I don't care.

Both of you, quoted for friggin truth!!! So say we all!!

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Damn, Brosnan looked pretty good for a guy who was like 90.

It's funny you should mention that because in his series The Son he's playing a man who is supposed to be in his 80's. He ages well for any character he plays.

 

[Longinus]

How different are the basics in the various versions of say Superman or Batman, or Hell even something like Battlestar Galactica?

 

[lawman]

There are two options here...

Ah, but you're forgetting about hybrid theories. Like, for instance, the notion that "James Bond, 007" is a code name that the British Secret Service hands out to a succession of agents over the years. This would explain a lot of things. (Although it's undermined by the reversion to Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, and later by the Bond famliy history related in Skyfall. Like I said, no theory really accounts for everything.)

Works a lot better that way [treating each Trek as an implicit reboot]. Enjoy each episode and film for what it is and enjoy the nuggets and nods for what they are.

That really doesn't work for me. It drains a lot of enjoyment out of the whole experience. When I read or watch stories set in a shared/ongoing universe, a big part of the satisfaction is from seeing how all the pieces fit together — the worldbuilding and continuity that's bigger than any single story or character.

In a sense, that bigger-picture perspective makes it easier to see any particular story or series as sharing the level of the best aspects of the fictional reality, rather than lowered to (or averaged with) its worst. You know what I mean? With Trek, for instance, I like being able to think of it as the fictional milieu that gave us "The Naked Time" and "Yesterday's Enterprise," and to forget about things like "Spock's Brain" and "Thresholds." If every story is just its own thing, free to contradict the others, you don't get to build that kind of headcanon.

How different are the basics in the various versions of say Superman or Batman?...

Quite a bit, sometimes. But what's more important (to me) is consistency within any given version.

With Trek, for instance, the Kelvinverse is explicitly a different reality, and that makes it much easier for me not to give a hoot in hell what happens there. The "Prime Universe" is far broader and deeper and more interesting, and defines Star Trek for me, and I care about its continuity.

With Superman and Batman... on the one hand, I don't care much about what happens, say, on screen in the "DC Extended Universe"... I want to feel affection for the characters there, but Zack Snyder has pretty much beaten that out of me. On the other hand, in the comics, if a story concerns (say) the post-Crisis version of Superman, I very much want and expect it to be internally consistent with all the other stories of the post-Crisis version of Superman. When the comics did things like, say, an unexplained "soft reboot" of what Krypton looked like, that annoyed the hell out of me.