My problems with TRIBBLE

talonxv

Yes I'm going to tackle this. And you guys are free to list your comments and concerns with the show.

Starting with the Klingons.
1. Their Klingon sounds HORRIBLE. Just use it here and there then use the universal translator. My god it hurts my ears.
2. Ships. You're trying to tell me those...things....are set in between Ent and TOS? Yeah no.
3. However I could of bought it if those Klingons were an offshoot of the mutagenic virus that swept the Empire during Ent and left for the fringes of the empire to be alone and find their own way and now are back to fix the spineless pah'taq and lead the empire back to glory. Not a cheap shot at conservatism that has been sweeping the western world lately as a backlash to progressivism.

Now the Federation.
1. Technology. Specifically the spore drive and holographic communications. The former, because that tech simply does not fit. WAY too advanced for the day. This is something I'd expect to find in STO years after the Dominion war. Not 10 years before STO. And holographic coms? Ummm NO. That was JUST beginning to be toyed with in DS9 around 2371. Not 2254. Just NO.
2. Burnham. I abhor her character. All of it. Supplanting Spock as a HUMAN in the eyes of Sarek? Umm who wrote that mess? Mutiny? Wanting to shoot the Klingons without provocation flying in the face of Logic? Just a never ending message of badly written female empowerment of saying "hey you can break every rule in the book. But still be the hero." Make Burnham a male, yeah he'd if gone to prison and never seen the light of day.
3. Ship design. Felt like a retooled JJ verse show. Sizing was upscaled for no reason while trying to be prime timeline. Had this been it's own separate line, most of my issues disappear. Except for Burnham.
4. How I'd fix tech issues:
A. Scale correctly!!!
B. Replace spore drive with Transwarp. Now before we slip a gear. Excelsior was not stated in the movie to be the first ship ever to have it. Could of been the first ship to see if the tech could be used and massed produced while Discovery could be the first ship to actually be proof of concept. But at the time the federation didn't have the resources to mass produce the tech needed to fully outfit the fleet. And the holo communications, DITCH THEM. Use a damn screen like everyone else!!!
5. Aesthetics. Hey I get that if Gene had the tech of today, TOS would look WAY different. But stop going overboard and stop creeping ideas over from JJ verse. I get a lot of the production crew worked on those movies, but pull your heads out of your 6 if you want to be in the prime timeline for God's sake!

What didn't bother me.
1. Lorca. Too bad though he didn't get long enough screen time.
2. TRIBBLE on screen relationship in a show. Didn't feel forced and felt organic to the show.
3. Holly wasn't bad but at times a bit too comical.
4. Re imagined Enterprise looked good. Almost like the second flight Enterprise the producers had in mind until they went with the TMP refit style. Someone said it best, JJ should of used a design like that in his movies.

Those are my biggest bones of contention with the show. TRIBBLE is a major victim of the times we live in. Yes Star Trek many times pushed social issues into the show. Many times it felt organic to the story. Sometimes it was a bit too on the nose like the TNG episode that warp drive was hurting the universe. Biggest issue with the show it's almost ALL completely on the nose with its message and feels like they are beating me over the head with what they want to say rather than creatively sliding it into the story.

Just my thoughts and views. Take them as you will.

starkaos

The aesthetics of Discovery being more advanced than TOS was never my problem with it. Only the most fanatical of TOS fans would watch Discovery if they used the TOS aesthetics. My problem with it is that it is far too easy to set Discovery in the 25th Century by removing the name drops and renaming the Klingons to some new alien race. Enterprise is how you are supposed to do a prequel if the Temporal Cold War was removed with one of the major benefits is that it is set 100 years before TOS not 10 years before TOS.

talonxv

> @starkaos said:
> The aesthetics of Discovery being more advanced than TOS was never my problem with it. Only the most fanatical of TOS fans would watch Discovery if they used the TOS aesthetics. My problem with it is that it is far too easy to set Discovery in the 25th Century by removing the name drops and renaming the Klingons to some new alien race. Enterprise is how you are supposed to do a prequel if the Temporal Cold War was removed with one of the major benefits is that it is set 100 years before TOS not 10 years before TOS.

And honestly you hit one of the main changes I'd make to make this more believable.

Trade Sarek for Tuvok, place this around what 2395 or 2400. Hell at the end of season 1, replace the Reimaged Enterprise with the Enterprise E with Data in command.

Make the Shenzhou a Luna or Akira class. And hell. Change out the Klingons for the Na'Kul. 85% of my problems solved.

Only other thing is Burnham and just do better writing. Make her endearing star trek has done with female characters. Hell Tasha Yar was more endearing to me then Burnham.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

talonxv

> @valoreah said:
> You're not parroting anything new here that has not been said ad nauseam about every incarnation of Star Trek post TOS.
>
> Ultimately this boils down to the individual. Don't watch the show anymore if you didn't care for the first season.

I am sure it is. But I felt I had to speak up with the new expansion coming.

I like new stuff, but this coming up. No. HELL NO.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

It's DSC not TRIBBLE.

talonxv

> @valoreah said:
> Then don't play any of the content.

Trust me I'm probably not and anything I can skip I will.

And dont read this as I can't find fault or criticize other shows. I can.

And hell up till this expansion, all the others with some minor critiques were enjoyable. This monster incoming.....nope.

markhawkman

I love Discovery... So much so I not only made one of my crews wear Discovery themed outfits, but I recreated some of that crew in the Foundry!

https://twitter.com/marhawkman/status/1022218040862289921

angrytarg

> @artan42 said:
> It's DSC not TRIBBLE.

Could of be true? O.o

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

mustrumridcully0

I was confused for a moment? I thought TRIBBLE stood for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

Use DIS or DSC. (I think DSC is the official version, DIS is the one that Memory Alpha prefers. True fans, of course, prefer DISCO).


Of course you can change visuals.

Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:

There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well, and he had the right chemistry..

Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.

talonxv

> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> I was confused for a moment? I thought TRIBBLE stood for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
>
> Use DIS or DSC. (I think DSC is the official version, DIS is the one that Memory Alpha prefers. True fans, of course, prefer DISCO).
>
>
> Of course you can change visuals.
>
> Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
>
> There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well, and he had the right chemistry..
>
> Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.

> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> I was confused for a moment? I thought TRIBBLE stood for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
>
> Use DIS or DSC. (I think DSC is the official version, DIS is the one that Memory Alpha prefers. True fans, of course, prefer DISCO).
>
>
> Of course you can change visuals.
>
> Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
>
> There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well, and he had the right chemistry..
>
> Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.

Nope most people use DS9 to denote well DS9. Call it whatever ya want. I find it a disease.

> @azrael605 said:
> None of the things listed are actual concerns. The Klingon language used is the exact same one that has always been used in all previous incarnations of Trek. Aside from adding a few more words (just as ST6 added the word for to) they have made no changes in the Klingon language it sounds the same as it always has. That was the only thing in the OP's rant even worth answering

Maybe from your POV they are not. From mine they are and you've done absolutely zero besides belittle those who have concerns so that means from my PoV your words are worthless.

Unless you'd like to change my mind.

talonxv

> @somtaawkhar said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> 1. Technology. Specifically the spore drive and holographic communications. The former, because that tech simply does not fit. WAY too advanced for the day. This is something I'd expect to find in STO years after the Dominion war. Not 10 years before STO. And holographic coms? Ummm NO. That was JUST beginning to be toyed with in DS9 around 2371. Not 2254. Just NO.
>
>
>
> Acvtually, hologrpahic communications like those used in Discovery was mentioned as being a thing in the Motion Picture Novel adaption written by Gene himself.
>
> They just never did it in-show because it was too expensive at the time.

Wrong. It's a continuity error. Becausr in DS9 the episode where Sisko with the Defiant is hunting Eddington, Sisko uses the holographic coms to speak to the captain of the Malenche. Hell the skipper of the Malenche even says "going to take a while to get used to this new system".

Which makes holographic communications BRAND NEW in what 2371? Or 2372? Either way DIS just recommend or IMHO gaffed with that one.

Can't say in 2371 holo coms are brand new, then in a show 120 years previous use them just like it's an every day thing?

What did star fleet do? Forget how to do it for over a century? Gimme a break.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

talonxv

> @azrael605 said:
> > @talonxv said:
> > > @mustrumridcully0 said:
> > > I was confused for a moment? I thought TRIBBLE stood for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
> > >
> > > Use DIS or DSC. (I think DSC is the official version, DIS is the one that Memory Alpha prefers. True fans, of course, prefer DISCO).
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course you can change visuals.
> > >
> > > Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
> > >
> > > There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well, and he had the right chemistry..
> > >
> > > Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
> >
> > > @mustrumridcully0 said:
> > > I was confused for a moment? I thought TRIBBLE stood for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
> > >
> > > Use DIS or DSC. (I think DSC is the official version, DIS is the one that Memory Alpha prefers. True fans, of course, prefer DISCO).
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course you can change visuals.
> > >
> > > Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
> > >
> > > There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well, and he had the right chemistry..
> > >
> > > Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
> >
> > Nope most people use DS9 to denote well DS9. Call it whatever ya want. I find it a disease.
> >
> > > @azrael605 said:
> > > None of the things listed are actual concerns. The Klingon language used is the exact same one that has always been used in all previous incarnations of Trek. Aside from adding a few more words (just as ST6 added the word for to) they have made no changes in the Klingon language it sounds the same as it always has. That was the only thing in the OP's rant even worth answering
> >
> > Maybe from your POV they are not. From mine they are and you've done absolutely zero besides belittle those who have concerns so that means from my PoV your words are worthless.
> >
> > Unless you'd like to change my mind.
>
> I feel no need whatsoever to even deign to mention the rest of it as I gave my glat honest opinion. The single best first season in the entire Trek franchise, thats what Discovery gave us, if that makes others feel "denigrated" thats their problem, not mine.

Hey that's your opinion and I'm glad you feel that way. I feel was an absolute dump on Star Trek. And that's the impasse.

markhawkman

talonxv wrote: »

Wrong. It's a continuity error. Becausr in DS9 the episode where Sisko with the Defiant is hunting Eddington, Sisko uses the holographic coms to speak to the captain of the Malenche. Hell the skipper of the Malenche even says "going to take a while to get used to this new system".

Which makes holographic communications BRAND NEW in what 2371? Or 2372? Either way DIS just recommend or IMHO gaffed with that one.

Can't say in 2371 holo coms are brand new, then in a show 120 years previous use them just like it's an every day thing?

What did star fleet do? Forget how to do it for over a century? Gimme a break.

Or maybe it was talking about how that ship previously didn't use it? A lot of the weirder continuity debates I've seen over the years are based on selective interpretations of statements where there are multiple possible meanings and people declare whichever interpretation they like to be canon.

talonxv

> @markhawkman said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> Wrong. It's a continuity error. Becausr in DS9 the episode where Sisko with the Defiant is hunting Eddington, Sisko uses the holographic coms to speak to the captain of the Malenche. Hell the skipper of the Malenche even says "going to take a while to get used to this new system".
>
> Which makes holographic communications BRAND NEW in what 2371? Or 2372? Either way DIS just recommend or IMHO gaffed with that one.
>
> Can't say in 2371 holo coms are brand new, then in a show 120 years previous use them just like it's an every day thing?
>
> What did star fleet do? Forget how to do it for over a century? Gimme a break.
>
>
>
> Or maybe it was talking about how that ship previously didn't use it? A lot of the weirder continuity debates I've seen over the years are based on selective interpretations of statements where there are multiple possible meanings and people declare whichever interpretation they like to be canon.

No. Seemed like new tech to me. From my PoV(take it as ya will) it seemed like No one had ever seen anything like this before and this was something brand new from R&D.

And I looked up this topic on memory alpha and it's just as much of a continuity error there as I'm making it now.

You'd think that the people who write this stuff would get it together?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

markhawkman

talonxv wrote: »

You'd think that the people who write this stuff would get it together?

Have they EVER? TOS didn't even do that.

talonxv

> @markhawkman said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> You'd think that the people who write this stuff would get it together?
>
>
>
> Have they EVER? TOS didn't even do that.

Touche.

ryan218

I will share the one, major, gripe I have with DSC. It is a flaw so irritating, so mind-bogglingly arbitrary, and so completely nonsensical, that it keeps me up at night:

Light. Sensitive. Eyes.

starkaos

ryan218 wrote: »

I will share the one, major, gripe I have with DSC. It is a flaw so irritating, so mind-bogglingly arbitrary, and so completely nonsensical, that it keeps me up at night:

Light. Sensitive. Eyes.

The only ways it would work is only certain Terrans have light sensitive eyes by adapting to an alien world or they developed a cure in 10 years. Mirror Kirk would have been immediately incapacitated if he had light sensitive eyes while on the Enterprise.

ryan218

starkaos wrote: »

ryan218 wrote: »

I will share the one, major, gripe I have with DSC. It is a flaw so irritating, so mind-bogglingly arbitrary, and so completely nonsensical, that it keeps me up at night:

Light. Sensitive. Eyes.

The only ways it would work is only certain Terrans have light sensitive eyes by adapting to an alien world or they developed a cure in 10 years. Mirror Kirk would have been immediately incapacitated if he had light sensitive eyes while on the Enterprise.

Worse than that, the lighting on the ISS Enterprise in 'Mirror Mirror' was exactly the same as on the USS Enterprise! The Mirror Defiant had the same lighting as its prime counterpart as well, as did certain rooms on Terok Nor. Literally Enterprise and DSC are the only shows to portray the MU as 'darker' than Prime, and even 'In a Mirror Darkly' is sensible about it. It was a gimmick to reveal Lorca's nature, even though it had basically been obvious about 5 seconds before that fact was mentioned! You could have taken that stupid plot point out and the reveal would have worked just as well!

That to me is the worst plot point in the show: the others were at least to some extent necessary to the plot. The eye rubbish added precisely nothing. You know what the worst part is? I like Discovery. It's just this stupid plot device that gets my blood boiling.

markhawkman

It's not that weird really... photosensitivity is a very real thing.

starkaos

markhawkman wrote: »

It's not that weird really... photosensitivity is a very real thing.

But racial photosensitivity in a race that has never exhibited it before or after Discovery just so Burnham can figure out that Lorca is part of the Terran Empire is weird and stupid. I expect that there would be some differences between humans that live on Earth compared humans that lived on another planet for a 100 years like Mars or the Moon. So humans that lived on Titan for 100 years might develop photosensitivity. So it makes sense for Lorca and Empress Georgiou to be from the same human colony in order to have the same affliction, but not every Terran have the same affliction.

markhawkman

Was it the whole race or just some of them? my initial read was that it was some sort of damage to his eyes.

ryan218

markhawkman wrote: »

It's not that weird really... photosensitivity is a very real thing.

Except Geourgeoi specifically refers to it as a biological difference between humans and terrans, which is preposterous. In order for that little feature to occur, it would take Earth being in relative darkness (such as from a nuclear winter), plus at least about a century of evolution. There is no indication of such an environment in 'In a Mirror Darkly' and every other portrayal of the Terran Empire (including one set just 10 years after this episode) feature Terrans without that photosensitivity.

My theory: DSC's writers wanted to explain why the Terran Empire always seemed darker than their Prime counterparts, so they came up with racial photosensitive eyes as an explanation. Except the Terran environments being darker was a misconception. I.S.S. Enterprise in 'Mirror, Mirror' is just as light as its prime counterpart. Terok Nor is dark because its a mining station and was always dark under the Cardassians in the prime timeline as well; and even then the recreational rooms were always well-lit (and those scenes included humans inside). Hell, the Mirror Defiant was also well-lit! As for ENT, I suspect that was done for atmospherics (dark=evil), and even then, it was no where near as dark as DSC's MU, except for the scenes on the U.S.S. Defiant, which was critically damaged!

starkaos

markhawkman wrote: »

Was it the whole race or just some of them? my initial read was that it was some sort of damage to his eyes.

Damage to his eyes was used as an excuse to fool Starfleet that he was their Lorca. It was only revealed after Discovery went to the Mirror Universe that Lorca's photosensitivity was not due to an accident, but a racial trait.

artan42

talonxv wrote: »

Starting with the Klingons.
1. Their Klingon sounds HORRIBLE. Just use it here and there then use the universal translator. My god it hurts my ears.

It sounds exactly as it always has done. There's only two differences. Firstly there's far more of it and not occasional phrases, secondally all of the actors are wearing prosthetic teeth (only the Klingons from late TNG and onwards had those, the film versions did not) and the DSC actors are also wearing cheek prosthetics.

talonxv wrote: »

3. Ships. You're trying to tell me those...things....are set in between Ent and TOS? Yeah no.

No. Those ships are set between the Kelvin era and TOS. With their interesting shapes they follow right on from the ENT and Kelvin era ships and their blocky nacelles and overall shape they follow right into the TMP era ships.

If you want to get picky about how much they don't match the TOS ships, name me a canon TOS Starship Class that isn't the Constitution that we can compare them to please.

talonxv wrote: »

4. However I could of bought it

Could have.

talonxv wrote: »

if those Klingons were an offshoot of the mutagenic virus that swept the Empire during Ent and left for the fringes of the empire to be alone and find their own way and now are back to fix the spineless pah'taq and lead the empire back to glory. Not a cheap shot at conservatism that has been sweeping the western world lately as a backlash to progressivism.

T'Kuvma is a religious fanatic and Kol is a generic (if fun) warmonger. The inter Klingon conflict is between rival houses and T'Kuvma, and later L'rell's, efforts to unite them in a theocracy. So despite writers assertions for advertising purposes there is no shots at conservatism, cheap or otherwise. Religious conservatism excluded. And Conservatism is the opposite to liberalism not whatever the hell 'progressivism' is and exists in any culture and is not a recent backlash at all.

talonxv wrote: »

3. Technology. Specifically the spore drive and holographic communications. The former, because that tech simply does not fit. WAY too advanced for the day. This is something I'd expect to find in STO years after the Dominion war. Not 10 years before STO. And holographic coms? Ummm NO. That was JUST beginning to be toyed with in DS9 around 2371. Not 2254. Just NO.

The former does fit. you know why? Because it's space magic. You know what else is space magic? Transporters. Replicators. Warp Drive. Have you seen Star Trek before? And DS9 never said the holo-communication was new. Just NO.

talonxv wrote: »

5. Burnham. I abhor her character. All of it. Supplanting Spock as a HUMAN in the eyes of Sarek? Umm who wrote that mess? Mutiny? Wanting to shoot the Klingons without provocation flying in the face of Logic? Just a never ending message of badly written female empowerment of saying "hey you can break every rule in the book. But still be the hero." Make Burnham a male, yeah he'd if gone to prison and never seen the light of day.

She's not written as 'female empowerment' at all. Though I can see from your post why you'd say that. She's operating on the principles of 'protagonist exemption' which applies to all main characters. Or was Archer ever arrested for genocide?

talonxv wrote: »

Ship design. Felt like a retooled JJ verse show. Sizing was upscaled for no reason while trying to be prime timeline. Had this been it's own separate line, most of my issues disappear. Except for Burnham.

Show me the canon size of the TOS Conni.

talonxv wrote: »

A. Scale correctly!!

Done. However the owners of the franchise chose to scale their own fictional material is by definition correct.

talonxv wrote: »

B. Replace spore drive with Transwarp. Now before we slip a gear. Excelsior was not stated in the movie to be the first ship ever to have it. Could of been the first ship to see if the tech could be used and massed produced while Discovery could be the first ship to actually be proof of concept. But at the time the federation didn't have the resources to mass produce the tech needed to fully outfit the fleet. And the holo communications, DITCH THEM. Use a damn screen like everyone else!!!

Sure. Because transwarp is hard science whereas Spore Drive is fictional. And it's still 'could have'.

talonxv wrote: »

10. Aesthetics. Hey I get that if Gene had the tech of today, TOS would look WAY different. But stop going overboard and stop creeping ideas over from JJ verse. I get a lot of the production crew worked on those movies, but pull your heads out of your 6 if you want to be in the prime timeline for God's sake!

They can draw inspiration from where they want. And their aesthetics flow perfectly from ENT to the Franklin to the Kelvin to DSC to TMP and the TOS films. It's only TOS that sticks out so retcon that show.

talonxv wrote: »

6. Lorca. Too bad though he didn't get long enough screen time.

The sexist space fascist didn't bother you? Okay.

talonxv wrote: »

7. **** on screen relationship in a show. Didn't feel forced and felt organic to the show.

Wow. You do surprise me.

talonxv wrote: »

8. Holly wasn't bad but at times a bit too comical.

talonxv wrote: »

9. Re imagined Enterprise looked good. Almost like the second flight Enterprise the producers had in mind until they went with the TMP refit style. Someone said it best, JJ should of used a design like that in his movies.

All four (DSC, TMP, KT, and KT-A) are vastly superior to the TOS version.

talonxv wrote: »

TRIBBLE is a major victim of the times we live in.

No. THe times we live in have seen large numbers of victims of STDs. However you're on about the show which is acronymed DSC. In addition the three films starting from 2009 are acronymed KT (for Kelvin Timeline). You know to be nice and consistent with your use of STO and Roddenberrytrek you've used instead of TOS. Grow up.

talonxv wrote: »

Just my thoughts and views. Take them as you will.

I have.​​