NOTE: The post below is not meant to be antagonistic, even though tone is often hard to read.
YOU CAN tell the difference at a casual glance. That was what I said. What I also said was that it's hard to explain what they are off the top of my head, which is not the same thing, and I also asked what relevance it had to the discussion.
No, that was _my_ point. SW is different because it's not dated in the same way as TOS was, and it was never meant to look futuristic to begin with. It was retro-sci-fi whereas TOS was squarely of its time. I love the TOS designs, but they are dated. There's no issue with having both of those thoughts at once.
NO ONE said anything about it being mandatory, or natural, or automatic, or any other word you can dream up to make me say something I didn't say. I said expected. See further down.
Who's "they"? It's set ten years before TOS, so it's not a side story to it. It's a prequel.
What does that mean? It looks the way Starfleet looked ten years before Kirk. Discovery is an older ship, as indicated by its registry. And what does writing have to do with it?
Well, I can't disagree with you there. I would've prefered a post-Nemesis show, as I stated before. But I don't mind visual retcons.
Because it's not TOS. It's a different series with different characters set at a different time in a different place in a different situation.
As for why you'd be expected to, because as I've already explained at least twice today, designers and writers tend to do that: make the series their own both visually and narratively. Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, and it wouldn't be the first time, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand it. You seem to want to take issue with DSC.
I absolutely expect to read people's opinions. You should, however, expect me to disagree with them. In this case, as I said, I think you're focusing on trivia which is costing you enjoyment for no reason.
As a sidenote, you could do better than to both misrepresent what I post, add to my posts and respond to things I didn't say. It's annoying and adds nothing to the discussion. Please address what I actually write.
There's nothing condescending about it; I'm telling you from personal experience that if you focus on pointless minutiae you're doing yourself a disservice. But if what you want is to complain about every iteration of Star Trek and make yourself feel bad about it for the rest of your life, that's your call. I'd rather enjoy myself while watching the show, which is why I ignore the fanboy, obsessive-compulsive side of me when I do.
It's a retcon. About a fictional TV show. You'll get over it. If you can watch Star Wars and not mind the fact that they made a new suit for Vader in Empire, or a new Star Destroyer model in the same movie, etc. you can accept larger changes that have no narrative impact.
YOU CAN tell the difference at a casual glance. That was what I said. What I also said was that it's hard to explain what they are off the top of my head, which is not the same thing, and I also asked what relevance it had to the discussion.
No, that was _my_ point. SW is different because it's not dated in the same way as TOS was, and it was never meant to look futuristic to begin with. It was retro-sci-fi whereas TOS was squarely of its time. I love the TOS designs, but they are dated. There's no issue with having both of those thoughts at once.
NO ONE said anything about it being mandatory, or natural, or automatic, or any other word you can dream up to make me say something I didn't say. I said expected. See further down.
Who's "they"? It's set ten years before TOS, so it's not a side story to it. It's a prequel.
What does that mean? It looks the way Starfleet looked ten years before Kirk. Discovery is an older ship, as indicated by its registry. And what does writing have to do with it?
Well, I can't disagree with you there. I would've prefered a post-Nemesis show, as I stated before. But I don't mind visual retcons.
Because it's not TOS. It's a different series with different characters set at a different time in a different place in a different situation.
As for why you'd be expected to, because as I've already explained at least twice today, designers and writers tend to do that: make the series their own both visually and narratively. Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, and it wouldn't be the first time, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand it. You seem to want to take issue with DSC.
I absolutely expect to read people's opinions. You should, however, expect me to disagree with them. In this case, as I said, I think you're focusing on trivia which is costing you enjoyment for no reason.
As a sidenote, you could do better than to both misrepresent what I post, add to my posts and respond to things I didn't say. It's annoying and adds nothing to the discussion. Please address what I actually write.
There's nothing condescending about it; I'm telling you from personal experience that if you focus on pointless minutiae you're doing yourself a disservice. But if what you want is to complain about every iteration of Star Trek and make yourself feel bad about it for the rest of your life, that's your call. I'd rather enjoy myself while watching the show, which is why I ignore the fanboy, obsessive-compulsive side of me when I do.
It's a retcon. About a fictional TV show. You'll get over it. If you can watch Star Wars and not mind the fact that they made a new suit for Vader in Empire, or a new Star Destroyer model in the same movie, etc. you can accept larger changes that have no narrative impact.
