Wrong, the majority of fans who dislike TRIBBLE are those that would like to see the story line of Star Trek move forward instead of the older timelines being revisited since that distorts the continuity of the show with designs that don't fit into the era. We don't need another pre-TOS show, we would like to see something beyond Voyager, or even beyond STO. Star Trek online is quite popular, why not a show set within its time frame using ship designs from this game?
Prove you are in personal contact with the "majority of fans who dislike TRIBBLE" and on familiar enough terms to know their feelings, or retract.
I made no claim of PERSONAL contact, my statement was from observation (as I stated previously) of comments on various forums, and comment sections of articles on this subject. Nice strawman.
It's not a strawman. Personal contact is the only way you would know for sure how they feel. Your observations do not amount to any significant portion of the "majority of fans who dislike TRIBBLE". What you're doing there is exaggerating an imagined consensus to grant your self-important opinions more weight. Go with "myself and the few people who've personally discussed it with me," and leave it at that.
Except they were, which is why they constantly pulled the "invisible ship" BS, or made many of their opponents energy beings, so they could get out of making ships, since making ships was difficult, very expensive, and they were highly limited in terms of what they could design visually by the resources they had, as well as what looked decent on a camera from that era.
The problem for Star Trek is that without rebooting the original series and replacing the original aesthetics you get a continuity discrepancy that is likely to turn-off many fans of Star Trek.
The only fans turned off by this are the small, vocal minority, of Trek fans that hold TOS's aesthetic to a god-like standard that can NEVER EVER EVER be touched because its sacred.
And given that TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the JJverse, and now DIS, don't use that aesthetic, that just makes that portions of Trek fans an even SMALLER minority then they were already.
Most Trek fans don't care enough to be bothered by it.
Except I don't as you put it hold TOS' aesthetics to a "god-like" standard...but I hold established canon with high standards.
TRIBBLE just completely flips the bird to established canon, they easily had multiple options they could have done...they could have based TRIBBLE in the JJVerse and it would've been okay...or they could have chosen a different time...farther in the past post-ENT or maybe sometime after the TMP but pre-TNG era.
But no...they chose an established TOS era...just years before events that took place in the original series. Only two reasons I can think of to do this...one is to pawn on nostalgia...they want to bring in younger versions of the grew in if the show takes off...like maybe a young Kirk or Spock or maybe even Scotty off on some random station. (Could even have Pine, Qunito, or Pegg guest star)
Or they just want to flat out see how much they can get away with, they basically want to change Trek to their vision of it and seeing if they can get away with it, going even further than JJ did.
No, what I'm doing is sharing my observations, go back and read my previous posts, you'll find where I said it was my observations and to take it for what it is worth. If you just went off of one post of mine here for your attempt at attacking me, then that is your deficiency not mine.
Backpedaling now. You didn't qualify it. You said "the majority of fans," not "the majority of fans I have observed."
People pretending to represent more than their own individual opinions because they think that imagined consensus will make it carry more weight is a pet peeve of mine. You don't speak for anyone else, and it is dishonest to insinuate otherwise.
If Gene Roddenberry approved it, then it was part of the official timeline.
That isn't how canon works you monkey.
Gene Roddenberry doesn't determine canon, he never really did, CBS does, since they are the ones who own the series.
Canon does not work in any series the way you describe it.
Get over it.
Actually it does work that way since he owned part of Star Trek, or are you saying that only a corporation can determine what is and is not official?
it's the owner who says what is "is". creators are hired and unless they are part owners in the legal sense... it doesnt mean jack. also once you sell your ownership, you no longer get to call the shots. creators always have input but the owners can always ignore em.
ST movies/NG never had to explain why klingons had ridges all of a sudden. DS9 and all that augment and not talking about it nonsense was TRIBBLE... by the time the 2nd movie was made and NG was on air... it was no longer feasible or acceptable for blackface & other sterotypes to be used. The 60s had a mongol/darkskin look that could not be used.
as for canon... canon is always what is shown on screen, small and large with a big we can ignore and or revise it at anytime. books comics etc are supplemental, approved but not 100% binding. just look at the size of the ship (enterprise) and the timeline displacement for the shows/movies... they keep getting revised.
I am confused. I remember watching Star Trek on NBC, with Desilu as the production company for the start. Maybe a seance with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez can settle this 'how many Angels can fit on the edge of a pin' arguments?
'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.'
For the record thanks to the episode parrells, everything is canon, STO, the books, the comics, but they aren't Prime, so it's not canon vs. none canon, its Prime vs Not Prime.
I agree with those who are saying this should never have been in the TOS era, but in the future, its would gotten less critism, that being said at this point its beating a dead horse.
Its weird we actually don't see the Discovery itself, but the ship we do see looks really cool, although not every TOS, although honestly I expected that, I think anyone who went in expected it too look like TOS, even given the era, was setting themselves up for disappointment.
If these are like Neandthal Klingons or some other ancient Klingon race that is fine, as long as it's not supposed to be Klingons as we know them.
The trekyards video pointed out the Klingon Mummification connection which would hint at that, so I feel a little better about that if these aren't supposed to be modern Klingons.
The special effects are nice, like the ringed planet that could be seen closely on the Desert (I'm guessing they are on a class M moon).
I'm left wonder how they transitioned from the more professional looking uniforms seen in the trailer to TOS, but I guess that is what happens when you let Risians design your military uniforms.
TOS aesthetics were the result of being made in the 60's, they are not canon by any measure.
TNG aesthetics were the result of being made in the 80's, they are not canon by any measure.
DS9 aesthetics were the result of being made in the 90's, they are not canon by any measure.
Voyager aesthetics were the result of being made in the 90's, they are not canon by any measure.
Enterprise aesthetics were the result of being made in the 00's, they are not canon by any measure.
Discovery aesthetics will be the result of being made in the 10's, they are not canon by any measure.
Too much use of "canon" as a blunt instrument to justify one's personal aesthetic preference. It stands to reason that such a vast and diverse organization as the Federation would try out any number of different design schemes over time, even within individual hull types. I doubt every Galaxy/Defiant/Intrepid left the shipyards with the exact same dealer options checked on the invoice, and there would surely be one-off "test bed" vessels deploying technology that may or may not ever be seen on the standard ships of the line. Repairs, upgrades, and mission-specific modifications made over time as well. I say the best you could expect is maybe being able to navigate the corridors on a ship of the same class as yours, and maybe venture an educated guess as to the basic hull type, role and capabilities based on a casual glance from outside. But to assume every ship is identical and all conceivable variations have already appeared on screen is just narrow thinking that benefits no one.
Too much use of "canon" as a blunt instrument to justify one's personal aesthetic preference. It stands to reason that such a vast and diverse organization as the Federation would try out any number of different design schemes over time, even within individual hull types. I doubt every Galaxy/Defiant/Intrepid left the shipyards with the exact same dealer options checked on the invoice, and there would surely be one-off "test bed" vessels deploying technology that may or may not ever be seen on the standard ships of the line. Repairs, upgrades, and mission-specific modifications made over time as well. I say the best you could expect is maybe being able to navigate the corridors on a ship of the same class as yours, and maybe venture an educated guess as to the basic hull type, role and capabilities based on a casual glance from outside. But to assume every ship is identical and all conceivable variations have already appeared on screen is just narrow thinking that benefits no one.
Sure. They made this one-off "test bed" ship that's completely different from all other ships and technology they already have so they have to train a crew from scratch just for that ship...for whatever reason. Totally plausible. What do you expect are the odds that any of the normal, non-testbed ships and technology of the time period that we have already seen on screen will show up, or have any resemblance to their previously seen design or function?
And I suppose the klingons also made "test bed" lizard heads for themselves?
Then rationalize it as an undisclosed alternate timeline. Or someone's fever dreams after a late night snack of expired gagh and Romulan ale. Do you want to enjoy the show, or be the pedantic uber-nerd who ****s on other people for enjoying things the "wrong" way?
> @hanover2 said: > kabutotokugawa wrote: » > > You didn't read that did you? > > > > > If I have to re-read every word you have typed to get your "intended" meaning for one post, you are a poor communicator. > > But I don't believe that for a second. You attempted an appeal to consensus. Hahaha, who's backpeddling now?? Your comment acknowledges that you didn't read kabutotokugawa's post attentively enough to see that they clearly said 'so take that for what it is worth (which is not much I concede)' and are now trying to deflect your failing by accusing them of failing to be clear.
Of the comments I've read here and on facebook, many have been critical of Discovery to some extent, and if I had to estimate, I would say it is more like 70% critical, rather than a 50/50 split. Of course, just my observation, but it's certainly safe to say that Discovery has not been universally welcomed, and for reasonable concerns.
Oh, first post. Hey. New player, long-time fan.
"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
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Klingons in this time period should look like this, if I'm not mistaken. (They were going for the Mongolian horde look).
So I wonder how they ended up with this instead:
Random mutation, small Klingon sect that tried to restore their former appearance, Klingons who successfully evaded the mutagenic virus...???
Though I wish the trailer didn't look so much like JJ Trek, I'm curious to see more.
They look like a TNG klingon and a Alien Xenomorph got wild one night after too much blood wine.
Eww.. Sex with a Xenomorph? Concentrated acid for blood, and as seen in Alien Resurrection, saliva too. I wonder what other bodily fluids are acid based? lol
"The Prime Directive is merely a guideline to help make the right choice" -Vn'dor Phail, Capt :: sneezes :: Why is it no-one dusts the bridge on Starfleet vessels?" -Emsil Marat, Glinn "We can not interfere in the progression of one's life" -Richard Lynch, LtCdr
No thanks. You know this franchise is in trouble when the Seth MacFarlane Star Trek parody sitcom on FOX (The Orville) looks more like a real Star Trek series than the new "official" Star Trek series.
Discovery looks like something that was vomited up by the special effects team that worked on the Transformers movies ... and then some idiot executive at CBS said, "Throw the words 'Vulcan' and 'Klingon' into the script and call it 'Star Trek' so we can sell this trash to idiot fanboys."
If this is the future of Star Trek Online then I'll quit playing now while this game still resembles the Star Trek I've loved since I was 6 years old.
^ This except change 6 years old to 9 years old and TOS first run!
But those TRIBBLE "Klingons" need to be erased from existence, not added to STO ... how the frak do you mess something like that up so badly!?
They are from JJ trek thats how and if you think this is Prime Universe CBs has pulled the wool over peoples eyes. "The Orville" is going to stomp this into goo. I have lost all hope for Discovery and after seeing the new teaser I sure as hell am not getting CBS on demand or whatever they are calling that subscriber thing.
Klingons in this time period should look like this, if I'm not mistaken. (They were going for the Mongolian horde look).
So I wonder how they ended up with this instead:
Random mutation, small Klingon sect that tried to restore their former appearance, Klingons who successfully evaded the mutagenic virus...???
Though I wish the trailer didn't look so much like JJ Trek, I'm curious to see more.
I love how CBS back pedeled when that person released that shot "Hanging with my Klingon buddies" ( I may have the exact phrase wrong ) and said "No they aren't Klingons." . Yup CBS lied! Just like the lie they are putting out now "Discovery is in the prime timeline 10 years before Kirk, Spock, etc." . I can buy some of the space suit changes but these sure as heck aren't Prime Klingons in any way or shape but the Rastafrian JJ ones.
Comments
It's not a strawman. Personal contact is the only way you would know for sure how they feel. Your observations do not amount to any significant portion of the "majority of fans who dislike TRIBBLE". What you're doing there is exaggerating an imagined consensus to grant your self-important opinions more weight. Go with "myself and the few people who've personally discussed it with me," and leave it at that.
Trekyards reviews tech in Discovery.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
Except I don't as you put it hold TOS' aesthetics to a "god-like" standard...but I hold established canon with high standards.
TRIBBLE just completely flips the bird to established canon, they easily had multiple options they could have done...they could have based TRIBBLE in the JJVerse and it would've been okay...or they could have chosen a different time...farther in the past post-ENT or maybe sometime after the TMP but pre-TNG era.
But no...they chose an established TOS era...just years before events that took place in the original series. Only two reasons I can think of to do this...one is to pawn on nostalgia...they want to bring in younger versions of the grew in if the show takes off...like maybe a young Kirk or Spock or maybe even Scotty off on some random station. (Could even have Pine, Qunito, or Pegg guest star)
Or they just want to flat out see how much they can get away with, they basically want to change Trek to their vision of it and seeing if they can get away with it, going even further than JJ did.
This coming from the person who pretty much said TOS isn't canon...I don't think you have a grip on what canon is.
Backpedaling now. You didn't qualify it. You said "the majority of fans," not "the majority of fans I have observed."
People pretending to represent more than their own individual opinions because they think that imagined consensus will make it carry more weight is a pet peeve of mine. You don't speak for anyone else, and it is dishonest to insinuate otherwise.
it's the owner who says what is "is". creators are hired and unless they are part owners in the legal sense... it doesnt mean jack. also once you sell your ownership, you no longer get to call the shots. creators always have input but the owners can always ignore em.
ST movies/NG never had to explain why klingons had ridges all of a sudden. DS9 and all that augment and not talking about it nonsense was TRIBBLE... by the time the 2nd movie was made and NG was on air... it was no longer feasible or acceptable for blackface & other sterotypes to be used. The 60s had a mongol/darkskin look that could not be used.
as for canon... canon is always what is shown on screen, small and large with a big we can ignore and or revise it at anytime. books comics etc are supplemental, approved but not 100% binding. just look at the size of the ship (enterprise) and the timeline displacement for the shows/movies... they keep getting revised.
If I have to re-read every word you have typed to get your "intended" meaning for one post, you are a poor communicator.
But I don't believe that for a second. You attempted an appeal to consensus.
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.'
I agree with those who are saying this should never have been in the TOS era, but in the future, its would gotten less critism, that being said at this point its beating a dead horse.
Its weird we actually don't see the Discovery itself, but the ship we do see looks really cool, although not every TOS, although honestly I expected that, I think anyone who went in expected it too look like TOS, even given the era, was setting themselves up for disappointment.
If these are like Neandthal Klingons or some other ancient Klingon race that is fine, as long as it's not supposed to be Klingons as we know them.
The trekyards video pointed out the Klingon Mummification connection which would hint at that, so I feel a little better about that if these aren't supposed to be modern Klingons.
The special effects are nice, like the ringed planet that could be seen closely on the Desert (I'm guessing they are on a class M moon).
I'm left wonder how they transitioned from the more professional looking uniforms seen in the trailer to TOS, but I guess that is what happens when you let Risians design your military uniforms.
DS9 aesthetics were the result of being made in the 90's, they are not canon by any measure.
Voyager aesthetics were the result of being made in the 90's, they are not canon by any measure.
Enterprise aesthetics were the result of being made in the 00's, they are not canon by any measure.
Discovery aesthetics will be the result of being made in the 10's, they are not canon by any measure.
...
Well, I meant both, really.
As for "canon", let's be realistic here, EVERY SODDING EPISODE canon changed.
Well, almost every episode.
Question, what is canon, if canon is not canon?
Since all these changes?
They just get less sober.
And I suppose the klingons also made "test bed" lizard heads for themselves?
> kabutotokugawa wrote: »
>
> You didn't read that did you?
>
>
>
>
> If I have to re-read every word you have typed to get your "intended" meaning for one post, you are a poor communicator.
>
> But I don't believe that for a second. You attempted an appeal to consensus.
Hahaha, who's backpeddling now?? Your comment acknowledges that you didn't read kabutotokugawa's post attentively enough to see that they clearly said 'so take that for what it is worth (which is not much I concede)' and are now trying to deflect your failing by accusing them of failing to be clear.
Of the comments I've read here and on facebook, many have been critical of Discovery to some extent, and if I had to estimate, I would say it is more like 70% critical, rather than a 50/50 split. Of course, just my observation, but it's certainly safe to say that Discovery has not been universally welcomed, and for reasonable concerns.
Oh, first post. Hey. New player, long-time fan.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Eww.. Sex with a Xenomorph? Concentrated acid for blood, and as seen in Alien Resurrection, saliva too. I wonder what other bodily fluids are acid based? lol
:: sneezes :: Why is it no-one dusts the bridge on Starfleet vessels?" -Emsil Marat, Glinn
"We can not interfere in the progression of one's life" -Richard Lynch, LtCdr
They are from JJ trek thats how and if you think this is Prime Universe CBs has pulled the wool over peoples eyes. "The Orville" is going to stomp this into goo. I have lost all hope for Discovery and after seeing the new teaser I sure as hell am not getting CBS on demand or whatever they are calling that subscriber thing.
I love how CBS back pedeled when that person released that shot "Hanging with my Klingon buddies" ( I may have the exact phrase wrong ) and said "No they aren't Klingons." . Yup CBS lied! Just like the lie they are putting out now "Discovery is in the prime timeline 10 years before Kirk, Spock, etc." . I can buy some of the space suit changes but these sure as heck aren't Prime Klingons in any way or shape but the Rastafrian JJ ones.