If a museum doesn't occasionally have a display of Vigo the Carpathian then it doesn't truly contain art.
What are your opinions regarding Star Trek that are, shall we say, unorthodox?
Today isn't Tuesday.
I like Star Trek 09 and even I wouldn't put it against those. And I only seen like 3 on the list.
Weren't there recruitment posters, war bonds, various propaganda and newsreels at like all times all over the place though. If you were on the streets you would know full well WW2 was happening.
Exactly. And in 1996 a tech leader like Henry Starling would be fully invested in wartime technologies (or post-war recovery efforts) because that's where the money would be and that's who Henry Starling was.
Last edited:
Not to mention when monitoring all the TV channels it'd be on a fair few of them.
We have (thankfully) not had another world war since World War II, however the US has been engaged in military conflict all over the world quite frequently. Since the draft ended, the trend has really been for wars to be almost unnoticeable within the United States.
Heck, at this moment right now, we are engaged in a war with Iran. Other than gas prices being high, would an average person in the United States have any indication that we are at war? Even if you turn on the news, it's not like Iran is dominating the coverage anymore. The top stories on the CNN and Fox News web sites are about jobs added in May and the Seattle mayor's comments about Starbucks, respectively.
Now, yes, you don't have to tell me that this is a very different kind of situation than a war of the scope that the Eugenics Wars would have been. Of course. I'm just saying that society is very different than it was during World War II and, for better or worse, we've tended to lean really hard on "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to military conflicts in more recent times.
Heck, at this moment right now, we are engaged in a war with Iran. Other than gas prices being high, would an average person in the United States have any indication that we are at war? Even if you turn on the news, it's not like Iran is dominating the coverage anymore. The top stories on the CNN and Fox News web sites are about jobs added in May and the Seattle mayor's comments about Starbucks, respectively.
Now, yes, you don't have to tell me that this is a very different kind of situation than a war of the scope that the Eugenics Wars would have been. Of course. I'm just saying that society is very different than it was during World War II and, for better or worse, we've tended to lean really hard on "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to military conflicts in more recent times.
It still strains credulity that a devastating war with while populations bombed out and resulting in a post atomic horror didn't warrant a tacit mention or reference?
Especially when you monitor every news broadcast, traverse several streets, interact with the most prominent tech mogul there is, interact with law enforcement and interact with a citizen under the guise of being a government agent discussing spies and invasions.
None of us are strangers to suspension of disbelief with this franchise but revealing that the Eugenics Wars and WW3 didn't happen until 2026 just makes a lot more sense. And you can see the sociopolitical tensions with the sanctuary districts and all that in 2024 leading to the second american civil war that also took place then.
At least Ireland was unified.
None of us are strangers to suspension of disbelief with this franchise but revealing that the Eugenics Wars and WW3 didn't happen until 2026 just makes a lot more sense. And you can see the sociopolitical tensions with the sanctuary districts and all that in 2024 leading to the second american civil war that also took place then.
At least Ireland was unified.
The approach taken in "Future's End" of just ignoring the Eugenics Wars was the right one IMO - no need to let a line written for a different story 30 years earlier dictate what you're doing today.
I really wish the Kurtzman era had taken the same approach rather than getting increasingly tied up on trying to make sixty years of disparate material by different writers cohere (while inevitably failing because it just doesn't join up). Honestly I'd be fine with them even ignoring WW3; I never liked it as an addition to the setting anyway, and even TNG seemed to ignore it for 99% of its run.
I really wish the Kurtzman era had taken the same approach rather than getting increasingly tied up on trying to make sixty years of disparate material by different writers cohere (while inevitably failing because it just doesn't join up). Honestly I'd be fine with them even ignoring WW3; I never liked it as an addition to the setting anyway, and even TNG seemed to ignore it for 99% of its run.
I must agree. Star Trek just starts too soon for comfort. A lot of this could have been handled by having it take place even farther from now and not pinning down specific dates so soon. But no one imagined how long this show would stay alive in new guises or how hell-bent on canon accuracy we've become, over itme.
ENT managed to not discuss the Kzin during its entire run so that whole 3 wars thing seems dead and buried. Until someone brings it up again.
Remember, though, that by this time the Eugenics Wars had been retconned to be a different event than World War III.
Which is humorous considering how much has changed that was purely the choice of show runners who continue to say it is all the same.
Hell, ENT barely made reference to World War III, and it was a horrible historical event that had laid waste to much of human civilization barely 100 years earlier. Even Berman and Braga didn't know how to handle the subject in a prequel series set before the Federation even existed.
Ok. So selectively bred superman taking over governments don't warrant comment?
Indeed. But now the strong expectation is one of consistency to canon.
Similar threads
