A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
He is fantastically correct. Awesome guy, well on the nail.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I very seriously doubt you have any actual proof that they were "box checking" when creating the characters since to have any such information you would have needed to be involved in the production. Likewise you have no information which even lends the slightest weight to your ridiculous assertions.
You're replying to silverlobes. He dosn't need proof. Unfounded rumours from some bloke who heard from some other bloke who pulled it from his exhaust pipe are all he needs to fly off the handle with accusations. And for the first time in a while he's not alone. There's plenty of reactionary morons with no concept of critical thinking in this thread. I wonder where they've all slithered in from? I haven't seen them around much.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I have no interest in watching Discovery even back when it was originally announced. I am certainly not going to pay for CBS All Access just to watch Discovery even if I were interested.
> @silverlobes#2676 said:
> evilmark444 wrote: »
>
> lapprenticel wrote: »
>
> So of the 9 listed Federation characters we have 4 females - 1 of whom is the lead, to 5 guys, only 3 of the 9 characters are White, and 3 of the characters are homosexual.
>
>
>
>
> I don't see the problem.
>
>
>
> The problem is two-fold:
> - That it's being done as part of the creative process as 'box checking': Must include a ... must include a ... Must include a ... So much for the idea of just organically creating characters, and having those secondary characteristics as an afterthought. But this is a problem with SJWs: They see secondary characteristics as primary characteristics, and the way with which they let determine how they have to interact with and treat others, and by extension, the way which they then demand others to also interact with and treat others. These are characters, not Pokemon or boffs: Don't need to have them all
>
> -They have used these secondary characteristics which are irrelevant outside of specific plot points, as marketing lures, rather than something genuinely interesting about the character as a lure instead. How long did we have to wait to find out that Michael Burnham is part of the House of Sarek? Compared to how quickly did the producers announce that they were going to have a non-white female lead?
>
> That's the problem
I very seriously doubt you have any actual proof that they were "box checking" when creating the characters since to have any such information you would have needed to be involved in the production.
Sorry, but that statement's a logical fallacy: Just because someone lacks proof of something, does not invalidate their point, because proof of said thing can still exist. My level of involvement in the the creative process, has nothing to do with the fact that rolled out characterms secondary characteristics as marketing points. That, is a very strong indicator that they created those characters specifically so they could do just that.
Likewise you have no information which even lends the slightest weight to your ridiculous assertions.
Which was released first? Number One/Burnham's color, or her family ties?
Search your feelings; you know it to be true...
But I understand that attempting to discredit someone rather than actually providing a valid counter-argument against what they say, is the Murican Way
*Evenmoreextratextbecause
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
But I will put it this way: Based on all the promotional material, the early-release information deliberately spotlighting a homosexual character,
What's wrong with that!? Never seen Torchwood, have ya? Seriously, there's probably going to be a lot wrong with Discovery, but having a **** person it in is totally fine by me.
The token g*y on Discovery is what? a fungal expert lab tech whose introduction wasn't his job, or his position related to the main character, but that he digs dudes. "Tokenism". checking off a box instead of writing a good character.
Yet in a recent interview the producers said that he would be a Starfleet officer who happens to be TRIBBLE and who's long-term relationship to the doctor would be introduced and developped slowly over time. Everything I've read so far points in the direction that his sexual orientation won't play a major part in his role - or at least no bigger part than with any heterosexual member of the cast. Why don't we just watch the first episodes and judge then?
But I will put it this way: Based on all the promotional material, the early-release information deliberately spotlighting a homosexual character,
What's wrong with that!? Never seen Torchwood, have ya? Seriously, there's probably going to be a lot wrong with Discovery, but having a **** person it in is totally fine by me.
it's not spotlighting the character's sexuality so much as emphasizing it in a way that gives the impression that that's the ONLY INTERESTING thing about them. It's "Tokenism", not inclusion. Capt. Jack's sexuality was tertiary until the end of series 1, and still tertiary into series 2, children of men, and the other feature they did later. instead, he's intersting for being immortal, indestructible, and tortured by BEING immortal and indestructible. (also funny, charming, witty, a certified grade-A badass without and before the immortality, clever, cunning, did I mention charming?)
The token g*y on Discovery is what? a fungal expert lab tech whose introduction wasn't his job, or his position related to the main character, but that he digs dudes. "Tokenism". checking off a box instead of writing a good character.
Yes @silverlobes explained that too. Must confess I just cursory watched 1 TRIBBLE trailer, so missed much of the character setup.
> @shadowfang240 said: > he's also completely correct > > most of the 'fans' who bitched about TNG ended up watching it anyway, so this will be no different
I'm not going to comment on TNG, as it was what got me into Star Trek in the first place.
But I feel it is still reasonable to watch a show while still disliking it. After all, how do you expect someone to have an opinion if they haven't seen anything yet? (This doesn't apply to people commenting on trailers and teasers which in fact have been released, I assure you).
Supporting the show, however, is a different matter entirely. I can make an educated assumption that, based on what has been shown of Discovery so far, I'm going to absolutely hate it. But I am still going to watch a few episodes before I write it off, or conversely fall in love with it. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly giving them revenue or positive reviews or anything of the sort. And of course, if I don't like the show, I will indeed stop watching.
I at least want to give it a chance first. I hope and wish that, despite everything we've seen so far, it will actually be a true successor to the absolutely stunning exploration of humanity that The Next Generation was known for. But the evidence is not in line to support this.
And I can definitely see why some people, despite not liking the show, would still give it love and praise. It's Star Trek, something so many, many people have come to love and adore over these long 50 years. If Discovery does well for being Star Trek and not because it's actually a good show, maybe someone higher up in the chain of command will listen and change it. It isn't likely, but it's still undeniably possible.
But hey, I digress. Dunno why I wrote so much in response to a relatively short post.
Maybe it has something to do with that one guy literally stating outright that he "doesn't care about die-hard trek fans," and that he will enjoy watching them be upset by it. That's just not cool, you know? No reason to be happy someone else is upset.
But I will put it this way: Based on all the promotional material, the early-release information deliberately spotlighting a homosexual character,
What's wrong with that!? Never seen Torchwood, have ya? Seriously, there's probably going to be a lot wrong with Discovery, but having a **** person it in is totally fine by me.
it's not spotlighting the character's sexuality so much as emphasizing it in a way that gives the impression that that's the ONLY INTERESTING thing about them. It's "Tokenism", not inclusion. Capt. Jack's sexuality was tertiary until the end of series 1, and still tertiary into series 2, children of men, and the other feature they did later. instead, he's intersting for being immortal, indestructible, and tortured by BEING immortal and indestructible. (also funny, charming, witty, a certified grade-A badass without and before the immortality, clever, cunning, did I mention charming?)
The token g*y on Discovery is what? a fungal expert lab tech whose introduction wasn't his job, or his position related to the main character, but that he digs dudes. "Tokenism". checking off a box instead of writing a good character.
Yes @silverlobes explained that too. Must confess I just cursory watched 1 TRIBBLE trailer, so missed much of the character setup.
Oh I've never even seen the character in the trailer (unless he was in the subsequent trailers) but it was specifically mentioned in several writen press releases. First that they (Fuller) wanted a TRIBBLE character, then, naming the character as indeed being TRIBBLE (and as I mentioned, Fuller also outed Thomas Dekker, when he simply wanted to keep his private life seperate from his acting career )
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> @szim said:
> Well here's what Jason Isaacs said (New York Daily News gossip section):
> "I don't mean to sound irreverent when I say I don't care about the die-hard Trek fans, I only 'don't care' about them in the sense that I know they're all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other."
>
>
>
>
> You could say he takes Star Trek fans for granted, but there's probably some truth in it.
"I don't mean to sound irreverent when I say I don't care about the die-hard Trek fans, I only 'don't care' about them in the sense that I know they're all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other."
You could say he takes Star Trek fans for granted, but there's probably some truth in it.
As a life long Star Trek Fan from back in the TOS days, I have to say I agree with him.
I love Star Trek, I always have and always will. I absolutely consider myself part of the group he's referring to, but I also know how people in that group usually tend to react to anything new in what they have come to consider 'their world.' I still remember people being outraged about TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of them received tons of flack from 'purists' long before they ever even debuted. The Abrams 'reboot' has generated more angst and division in the Star Trek Community then all of it put together up until now, and Discovery will do the same.
I have learned to approach each new chapter of the Star Trek saga as it's own little 'stand alone' series and base it solely on it's merits as a series. I know not everyone likes that, I get why people seek to protect the lore and franchise that they love so much and I totally get it and respect it. For those people, probably best that they don't watch Discovery, but they should respect the rights of their fellow trek fans who wish to give it a chance.
Personally, I'm going to give it a chance and I'm looking forward to it. Ultimately, if it's a good show that entertains me, then I'll continue to watch it. If it's not a good show, then I won't. If it breaks with Star Trek Lore, I can accept it as long as what they do is cool and not done just for the sake of 'breaking rules.'
Ultimately, it's a silly thing for Trek fans to fight over. If it doesn't interest you then great, don't watch it and don't acknowledge it. Let those who are excited about it give it a fair chance. There is no scenario where everyone is going to be happy and that's unfortunate.
"I don't mean to sound irreverent when I say I don't care about the die-hard Trek fans, I only 'don't care' about them in the sense that I know they're all going to watch anyway. I look forward to having the fun of them being outraged, so they can sit up all night and talk about it with each other."
You could say he takes Star Trek fans for granted, but there's probably some truth in it.
As a life long Star Trek Fan from back in the TOS days, I have to say I agree with him.
I love Star Trek, I always have and always will. I absolutely consider myself part of the group he's referring to, but I also know how people in that group usually tend to react to anything new in what they have come to consider 'their world.' I still remember people being outraged about TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of them received tons of flack from 'purists' long before they ever even debuted. The Abrams 'reboot' has generated more angst and division in the Star Trek Community then all of it put together up until now, and Discovery will do the same.
I have learned to approach each new chapter of the Star Trek saga as it's own little 'stand alone' series and base it solely on it's merits as a series. I know not everyone likes that, I get why people seek to protect the lore and franchise that they love so much and I totally get it and respect it. For those people, probably best that they don't watch Discovery, but they should respect the rights of their fellow trek fans who wish to give it a chance.
Personally, I'm going to give it a chance and I'm looking forward to it. Ultimately, if it's a good show that entertains me, then I'll continue to watch it. If it's not a good show, then I won't. If it breaks with Star Trek Lore, I can accept it as long as what they do is cool and not done just for the sake of 'breaking rules.'
Ultimately, it's a silly thing for Trek fans to fight over. If it doesn't interest you then great, don't watch it and don't acknowledge it. Let those who are excited about it give it a fair chance. There is no scenario where everyone is going to be happy and that's unfortunate.
I had no problem when TNG came out. It's when the go backwards' is when it irks some of us.
But I will put it this way: Based on all the promotional material, the early-release information deliberately spotlighting a homosexual character, the Mary-Sueism, the trailers, the blatant attempt to pass Kelvin Timeline stylings as Prime Timeline, the embargo on reviews, but release of positive tweets from a captive audience, I don't want to watch it...
So challenge accepted, Isaacs; Looking forward to seeing you in Harry Potter and the Old Folkes Home
Homosexuality is the least of this shows problems.
I watched what I could of it.
The Klingons.....no....JUST NO!
Visually it is appealing....if you you're Star Wars fan.
This show's storyline makes Buck Rogers in the 25th Century look respectable.....
How do you know there are any heterosexual members of the cast? That's an assumption. Perhaps the rest of the cast are celibate, or their preferences run to other than men\women. Without proof your statement is pure assumption. By contrast the sexuality of the TRIBBLE homosexuals has been explicitly advanced.
But I will put it this way: Based on all the promotional material, the early-release information deliberately spotlighting a homosexual character,
What's wrong with that!? Never seen Torchwood, have ya? Seriously, there's probably going to be a lot wrong with Discovery, but having a **** person it in is totally fine by me.
The token g*y on Discovery is what? a fungal expert lab tech whose introduction wasn't his job, or his position related to the main character, but that he digs dudes. "Tokenism". checking off a box instead of writing a good character.
Yet in a recent interview the producers said that he would be a Starfleet officer who happens to be **** and who's long-term relationship to the doctor would be introduced and developped slowly over time. Everything I've read so far points in the direction that his sexual orientation won't play a major part in his role - or at least no bigger part than with any heterosexual member of the cast. Why don't we just watch the first episodes and judge then?
Aww, adorable. More gibbering morons who've snuck onto mummies computer. Don't like it? Pisss off and leave everybody else to it.
Hypocrite much?
Ironic you're okay to talk about how much you like this piece of junk but we can't talk about how much it's trying to turn the Prime universe into the Kelvin.
Canon has never really been my thang (I am the 'Penny' of my group, though, if for nothing else, for knowing the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, LOL); but, to stay focussed, I don't like hearing they're trying to retcon TOS out of existence, and pretend some Kelvin timeline is the real deal. That just feels wrong. Trek is Trek because of TOS: everything stems from TOS: from badly painted Klingons to Kirk trying to mate with everything in the galaxy. To deny TOS should be a violation of the ToS, really. JJ-Trek is allowed to live, far as I'm concerned, and prosper even, but not in lieu of TOS.
Canon has never really been my thang (I am the 'Penny' of my group, though, if for nothing else, for knowing the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, LOL); but, to stay focussed, I don't like hearing they're trying to retcon TOS out of existence, and pretend some Kelvin timeline is the real deal. That just feels wrong. Trek is Trek because of TOS: everything stems from TOS: from badly painted Klingons to Kirk trying to mate with everything in the galaxy. To deny TOS should be a violation of the ToS, really. JJ-Trek is allowed to live, far as I'm concerned, and prosper even, but not in lieu of TOS.
I'm not the biggest JJTrek fan, but at least he tried to stay within canon even in a different universe, TRIBBLE just clearly wants to throw canon out the window to turn Prime into Kelvin.
Canon has never really been my thang (I am the 'Penny' of my group, though, if for nothing else, for knowing the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, LOL); but, to stay focussed, I don't like hearing they're trying to retcon TOS out of existence, and pretend some Kelvin timeline is the real deal. That just feels wrong. Trek is Trek because of TOS: everything stems from TOS: from badly painted Klingons to Kirk trying to mate with everything in the galaxy. To deny TOS should be a violation of the ToS, really. JJ-Trek is allowed to live, far as I'm concerned, and prosper even, but not in lieu of TOS.
I'm not the biggest JJTrek fan, but at least he tried to stay within canon even in a different universe, TRIBBLE just clearly wants to throw canon out the window to turn Prime into Kelvin.
Yes, and that just isn't right. (Shows how much I know: I though TRIBBLE was going to be another JJ deal).
Check out Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Episodes 'Blood and Fire'. Peter Kirk (Kirk's nephew, son of Sam Kirk) who survived in TOS's 'Operation Annihilate' is openly g*y. Denise Crosby plays Dr. Jenna Yar, ancestor of Tasha in that Episode as well.
David Gerrold wrote the Episode.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Comments
most of the 'fans' who bitched about TNG ended up watching it anyway, so this will be no different
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You're replying to silverlobes. He dosn't need proof. Unfounded rumours from some bloke who heard from some other bloke who pulled it from his exhaust pipe are all he needs to fly off the handle with accusations. And for the first time in a while he's not alone. There's plenty of reactionary morons with no concept of critical thinking in this thread. I wonder where they've all slithered in from? I haven't seen them around much.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Which was released first? Number One/Burnham's color, or her family ties?
Search your feelings; you know it to be true...
But I understand that attempting to discredit someone rather than actually providing a valid counter-argument against what they say, is the Murican Way
*Evenmoreextratextbecause
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yet in a recent interview the producers said that he would be a Starfleet officer who happens to be TRIBBLE and who's long-term relationship to the doctor would be introduced and developped slowly over time. Everything I've read so far points in the direction that his sexual orientation won't play a major part in his role - or at least no bigger part than with any heterosexual member of the cast. Why don't we just watch the first episodes and judge then?
Yes @silverlobes explained that too. Must confess I just cursory watched 1 TRIBBLE trailer, so missed much of the character setup.
> he's also completely correct
>
> most of the 'fans' who bitched about TNG ended up watching it anyway, so this will be no different
I'm not going to comment on TNG, as it was what got me into Star Trek in the first place.
But I feel it is still reasonable to watch a show while still disliking it. After all, how do you expect someone to have an opinion if they haven't seen anything yet? (This doesn't apply to people commenting on trailers and teasers which in fact have been released, I assure you).
Supporting the show, however, is a different matter entirely. I can make an educated assumption that, based on what has been shown of Discovery so far, I'm going to absolutely hate it. But I am still going to watch a few episodes before I write it off, or conversely fall in love with it. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly giving them revenue or positive reviews or anything of the sort. And of course, if I don't like the show, I will indeed stop watching.
I at least want to give it a chance first. I hope and wish that, despite everything we've seen so far, it will actually be a true successor to the absolutely stunning exploration of humanity that The Next Generation was known for. But the evidence is not in line to support this.
And I can definitely see why some people, despite not liking the show, would still give it love and praise. It's Star Trek, something so many, many people have come to love and adore over these long 50 years. If Discovery does well for being Star Trek and not because it's actually a good show, maybe someone higher up in the chain of command will listen and change it. It isn't likely, but it's still undeniably possible.
But hey, I digress. Dunno why I wrote so much in response to a relatively short post.
Maybe it has something to do with that one guy literally stating outright that he "doesn't care about die-hard trek fans," and that he will enjoy watching them be upset by it. That's just not cool, you know? No reason to be happy someone else is upset.
But hey, I digress. I'm a moron, apparently.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Gotta agree with yas.
Now that was funny
As a life long Star Trek Fan from back in the TOS days, I have to say I agree with him.
I love Star Trek, I always have and always will. I absolutely consider myself part of the group he's referring to, but I also know how people in that group usually tend to react to anything new in what they have come to consider 'their world.' I still remember people being outraged about TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of them received tons of flack from 'purists' long before they ever even debuted. The Abrams 'reboot' has generated more angst and division in the Star Trek Community then all of it put together up until now, and Discovery will do the same.
I have learned to approach each new chapter of the Star Trek saga as it's own little 'stand alone' series and base it solely on it's merits as a series. I know not everyone likes that, I get why people seek to protect the lore and franchise that they love so much and I totally get it and respect it. For those people, probably best that they don't watch Discovery, but they should respect the rights of their fellow trek fans who wish to give it a chance.
Personally, I'm going to give it a chance and I'm looking forward to it. Ultimately, if it's a good show that entertains me, then I'll continue to watch it. If it's not a good show, then I won't. If it breaks with Star Trek Lore, I can accept it as long as what they do is cool and not done just for the sake of 'breaking rules.'
Ultimately, it's a silly thing for Trek fans to fight over. If it doesn't interest you then great, don't watch it and don't acknowledge it. Let those who are excited about it give it a fair chance. There is no scenario where everyone is going to be happy and that's unfortunate.
I had no problem when TNG came out. It's when the go backwards' is when it irks some of us.
I rather enjoyed Buck Rogers, but sorry to hear that Discovery isn't living up to expectations
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
That she was the actress from "The Walking Dead."
Marketing 101
Hypocrite much?
Ironic you're okay to talk about how much you like this piece of junk but we can't talk about how much it's trying to turn the Prime universe into the Kelvin.
I'm not the biggest JJTrek fan, but at least he tried to stay within canon even in a different universe, TRIBBLE just clearly wants to throw canon out the window to turn Prime into Kelvin.
Yes, and that just isn't right. (Shows how much I know: I though TRIBBLE was going to be another JJ deal).
Literally none of the stuff you're complaining about happened.
David Gerrold wrote the Episode.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'