So if I decide to go with their explanation and accept the change, I'm not using my brain? Or can I use my brain and come to that conclusion?
Such as?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
So if I decide to go with their explanation and accept the change, I'm not using my brain? Or can I use my brain and come to that conclusion?
Such as?
DC Fontana saying that Spock has no siblings and STV and DSC showing Spock having siblings, for example.
I think that's covered in "no longer running the show". Technically, he has no sibblings, anyway.
It baffles me whenever I see someone post something like this, and makes me wonder how long they've been part of Trek fandom. I clearly remember people wondering how to explain the change from 1979 forward, all the way through until 2005. And as I've posted before, people made attempts to do so, in all kinds of fanzine articles and even in licensed material, from novels to comics to RPGs. All those publications are still out there as evidence: it was the "elephant in the room" for Trek continuity for 26 years.
If you feel that your point has been misinterpreted, then perhaps you should try to reiterate and clarify rather than accuse others of dishonesty. Yelling READ AGAIN does not help; if your original wording would have been sufficient to convey your intended meaning accurately we would not be in this situation to begin with.
Sure he does. He has a half-brother, and now an adopted sister.
Er, no? The definition of sibling is "one of two or more individuals having one common parent" which fits on him and Sybok. A half-brother is no less of a sibling than a full one.
Okay, that's a fair point. And how would you deal with the designers of DSC saying that the Klingons don't have hair because they have extra sensory receptors running from the top of their heads to their backs (which clearly contradicts previous non-bald prime timeline Klingons) and other producers saying that the show is in the prime timeline?
I'll take your word for it. In 79 I was 3, so my Trek experience starts in the late 80s. It didn't pop up in my circles before DS9 flatly pointed it out.
Vulcans embrace technicalities.
Retcon. Silly retcon, but retcon nonetheless. I personally don't understand why they redesigned them to that degree.
Deep down, I want things to be consistent and free of contradiction, and if I ran Star Trek you sure wouldn't see much of those. But I don't, and I have to accept that the people who do run the show make mistakes, forget, don't know, change, or consider that serving the story is more important. In the end, why would I wrack my brain trying to invent convoluted and contrived explanations when I have one right here: they changed it. Frankly I've got other things to do with my time and energy, and if that attitude allows me to enjoy Star Trek more, and there's no compelling reason to do otherwise, isn't that a positive?
Because trying to solve a mystery is stimulating and fun, whereas resigning oneself to it is frustrating? Explaining something in a fictional universe by saying "because the writers did it" is the logical equivalent of explaining something in the real universe by saying "because God did it." It doesn't actually explain anything, and just fosters irritation and confusion.
Er, no. Trying to solve an impossible contradiction is frustrating. Enjoying the ride is stimulating and fun.
It has no parallel to "god did it" at all. Saying "god did it" IS the convoluted explanation that requires an unknown entity. Here we're simply noting the change, which is a fact, and going with it, rather than seeking an explanation.
Not for everyone.
Plus, there's no mystery here. Just a change made at the whims of people making the show. I suppose we could attribute it to demiurges playing around with reality. Maybe it's Trelane's fault.
Well until someone 20 years down the line decides to make a story reason for it.
There's a built-in reason for visual incongruities right from the very first episode, "The Cage". Everything we're seeing on-screen is an illusion produced by the Talosians. "The Menagerie" builds on this by showing they can manipulate what people see, including the audience, from far, far beyond Talos IV. In this way, Star Trek is as flexible as the Constitution.
Fin.
Fin.
Last edited:
These canon discussions are usually resolved by the Talos IV expedition. Clearly, Tommy Westphal was a Talosian.
Illusion:reality=pleasant.
Been a part of the fandom since 1995 and I never heard it
My first exercise ever, personally, in freeze-framing and analyzing screenshots of TOS (or any Star Trek for that matter, and I'm pretty sure anything ever) *was* the James R. Kirk tombstone, back in the pre-Internet days in a now legendary time of pre-remastered VHS. One day as I was watching the final act of WNM (again), I thought to myself, "Oh, the tombstone! Maybe I can read the whole thing? I have the technology, surely!" Even on pause and frame-by-frame slow play on a better-than-average TV, the R could only just barely be made out. It must have taken me several minutes, going forward and backward until I found just the right sequence of frames, to convince myself positively that it was an R. After a fleeting moment of nerd-rage, I laughed. It was clear what had happened, production-wise.
Sorry to bring this up again since it seems the discussion has moved on but, one important fact missing from the 'transwarp didn't work' argument is that it did work.
Captain Stile's said, paraphrased, If they try to get away with warp drive they're really in for a shock. We see the transwarp systems come online and the computer even audible confirms it is ready to go.*
The only reason it didn't work in ST3 is because Scotty sabotaged that circuit by simply removing some chips. (*which if we really want to pick at something - what about the Excelsior computer not discovering the missing chips during start up???)
So what about after that, was TWD completely scrapped simply because someone removing some chips renders it useless? I doubt it. Future ships clearly somehow managed to achieve greater warp factors and TWD is probably the reason why.
Oh, and what about the Vengeance... in my head canon Khan gave that ship TWD.
Captain Stile's said, paraphrased, If they try to get away with warp drive they're really in for a shock. We see the transwarp systems come online and the computer even audible confirms it is ready to go.*
The only reason it didn't work in ST3 is because Scotty sabotaged that circuit by simply removing some chips. (*which if we really want to pick at something - what about the Excelsior computer not discovering the missing chips during start up???)
So what about after that, was TWD completely scrapped simply because someone removing some chips renders it useless? I doubt it. Future ships clearly somehow managed to achieve greater warp factors and TWD is probably the reason why.
Oh, and what about the Vengeance... in my head canon Khan gave that ship TWD.
That's sort of ironic(or fitting?) Star Wars has rebooted the Lore, but not the look, and it's mostly not being considered a reboot. Maybe the look does have a primary importance.
Similar threads
