Why do people not like Discovery?

thecrusaderx

Judging by the recent thread regarding the STO roadmap.

People seem to be very much against Star Trek Discovery. Just an honest and curious question I would like to ask people. Granted I had hoped for more DS9 but it can't be helped and despite my issues with the Klingons. I am generally curious as to current discourse with Discovery. That's all.


Edited vague thread title and moved to correct forum section. -- StarSword-C

thegrandnagus1

**edit**: since this thread has now been moved to Ten Forward, my post doesn't apply.

discojer

For one, it suffers from the basic problem of prequels. There's a lot of stuff that is a big deal during the prequels, but somehow no longer exists/matters later on. Or there is stuff on the original shows that was a new discovery at the time (like the Mirror Universe) but apparently is so incredibly common in the past that people run into it all the time (yet somehow this never was known later).

With Enterprise this was bad enough, but at least it was set a long time before TOS. Discovery is literally set during the TOS era, albeit the Pilot/The Cage era and yet looks nothing like Star Trek of that era.

In STO specifically, we have spent the last 7 years advancing the time line. Very slowly, ridiculously slowly, somehow fitting what, a dozen galactic wars in the space of 2 years of supposed chronological time. But it's annoying to have that progression, albeit a flawed one, now ignored to fill in details of the distant past (relative to the game).

vegeta50024

discojer wrote: »

For one, it suffers from the basic problem of prequels. There's a lot of stuff that is a big deal during the prequels, but somehow no longer exists/matters later on. Or there is stuff on the original shows that was a new discovery at the time (like the Mirror Universe) but apparently is so incredibly common in the past that people run into it all the time (yet somehow this never was known later).

With Enterprise this was bad enough, but at least it was set a long time before TOS. Discovery is literally set during the TOS era, albeit the Pilot/The Cage era and yet looks nothing like Star Trek of that era.

In STO specifically, we have spent the last 7 years advancing the time line. Very slowly, ridiculously slowly, somehow fitting what, a dozen galactic wars in the space of 2 years of supposed chronological time. But it's annoying to have that progression, albeit a flawed one, now ignored to fill in details of the distant past (relative to the game).

WIth Enterprise, none of the events of the mirror universe became known to the prime universe while Enterprise was still airing. At the time, the writers were preserving the canon we knew about regarding knowledge of the mirror universe.

With Discovery, the events are uncovered by the crew of the Discovery, but in order to keep up canon, all knowledge of the mirror universe gets classified and the discovery crew literally have to keep their mouths shut about what went down, thus leading to Kirk and his away team staying surprised about the mirror universe.

On the subject of Discovery not resembling the look of TOS, that was mostly a call for an aesthetic look that doesn't look like things from the 1960s (which TOS obviously does).

Almost all the so called "wars" that are in STO are not really wars but more of skirmishes or conflicts. The only big wars that we had were against the Klingons (for years) and the Iconians (which had been building up for years).

szim

My main issue with Discovery isn't the new Klingorcs or that certain events rewrite Star Trek canon. It's that Discovery abandons the core philosophy of Star Trek. Instead of Roddenberry's optimistic view of our future in which a united humanity has finally grown up, we get that same gritty, dark, pessimistic universe that so many other Scify franchises chose to portray. With Discovery, Star Trek has lost what made it unique.

The trailer for season 2 looks promising though. I hope it's gonna be less like Star Wars and more like Star Trek.

garaks31

the much vocal minority have many issues with disco, some are even logical and understandable.

however, disco will be and must be in sto. like any other trek.

for example, many don't like Kelvin timeline but its ships and weapons in the game are most sellers ...

luminaire

Because it's a completely unnecessary prequel that doesn't even really bother to pretend that it's a prequel for any other purpose than farming nostalgia for TOS, outside of "LOOK, ITS SPOCK! YOU IDIOTS LOVED HIM, RIGHT? GIVE US YOUR MONEY!" it doesn't even attempt to retain any kind of coherent aesthetic or story cohesion with the original series or anything else in Trek.

Hence lumpy play-doh monster Klingons and a brutal war that devastated the Federation and Starfleet just a few years before TOS...neither of which will ever be seen or heard of again.

Credit @phoenixc#0738 I'll quote his post from the other Disco prequel thread where he raises what i think are a lot of good points about how Discovery could have done a lot of the same changes without actively alienating old school Trek fans and actually coming across as a prequel rather than an outright reboot. Which they didn't of course, because they simply don't care.

Discovery would have worked well as a prequel to TOS if they had done it in an additive, inclusive way instead of a contempt-filled only-the-handheld-props-were-any-good reboot they way they did.

That contempt even blinded them to the fact that the first season TOS uniforms are currently the closest thing to modern fashion of any of the Trek shows since the sixties. All it would take would be some minor changes to cut and using real full-knap velvet in richer shades (instead of the cheap lifeless velour TOS used) to be trendy and break out of the stale androgynous clown suit rut Trek has been wallowing in since TMP.

Of course, being stale '80s style fashion casualties is not in itself a problem (beyond missed opportunity) had they used the DSC uniforms along side updated soft velvet TOS uniforms in at least SOME other divisions to establish some continuity. In fact, different uniforms in different divisions would imply Starfleet was not the monolithic organization that it was by TNG yet and set up the right feel for the kind of internal strife Discovery was trying (clumsily) to portray. If it is in enough flux it would even make good humor points like the one in an episode of the fan made Star Trek Continues series where an admiral on main screen in TMP uniform signs off and someone on the bridge says "what the hell was he wearing?" and everyone breaks up.


The same thing is true of the ship designs and sets. There is nothing particularly wrong with thin skinned science vessels with windows all over and bad lighting, but they did not handle it very well and they made a big mistake in implying that ALL Starfleet ships were built the same way. For instance they go to all the trouble to introduce two radically different transporter styles and then just drop the idea of variety of tech altogether.

It would not have offended the core fans to find out that the windowless (just look at the internal sets: no windows) heavily armored TOS era Constitution with its advanced (if somewhat psychedelic) sourceless lighting and ergonomic sit-down bridge with mostly solid-state touch-jewel controls was an unusual design for instance.


Even the incredibly rotten gunnery and weak-sauce sensors could have been made to fit if they took the trouble to add ECM-style warfare dialog instead of just using faux Star Wars "WWII aircraft" combat jammed onto the original naval surface ship-to-ship style in space dialog Trek traditionally uses.

The Klingons are the worst departure, but even that could have been smoothed over by using the 'Klingons as Empire' instead of 'Klingons as race' concept that Hetrick has been talking about a lot lately. We have only seen six out of twenty four types of Klingons, and including a few of the familiar ones from the past in that 24 would have fit right in. In fact, it could have been the augment virus debacle in ENT that threw the TNG style Klingons into disfavor and triggered the infighting that kept them occupied for so long they only engaged in "brush wars" with the Federation and others instead of a full onslaught. In the same vein, their poor showing in the war against the tricky and clever humans could have pried the 'rubber suit monster' Klingons out of the drivers seat for nearly a decade as their augment-derived (relatively) tricky house took over grappling with the Feds). In fact, the tag-team effect between highly alien Klingons and the TOS era ones could have led sloppy intelligence to conclude that the ones seen in ENT were extinct (with all survivors transformed into the TOS type) by the augment virus and neglected to remind K7 security that the type that looked like Worf existed in the past.


Likewise, Spock having a sister is not really an issue considering the way he avoided talking about family in TOS and the movies, especially if she was as much under a cloud as Sybok. The only real continuity problem is that she is a "heroes journey" style character who would not have blended into the background and who would have realistically have been mentioned in the other shows. It would have been more realistic to have had her less in the foreground of events and involved more in the shadows instead. In fact, the whole show would have worked much better as a Section 31 intelligence warfare style of show than the flashy romp trying to be grim style they used. Unfortunately, after a good start in the third episode they let the plot go rambling into "the only ship of heroes" mode Paramount turned Trek into ad nauseum.


The first season was set up in an unsteady, tentative "bold moves and back doors" plotting style where you can sense that behind the changes-for-changes-sake veneer they left escape hatches to back out if the fans hated them too much, and it detracts from the overall story. The show took an unusually long time to actually start as CBS painted by the market numbers and at each major decision point "leaked" photos or plot points to gauge viewer reaction to decide which parts to use the escape hatches on and the result was a sub-par uneven metaplot propped up with pretty visual effects. With more thought and less contempt they could have used practically everything they did and actually make it fit as a natural prequel.

starkaos

Because Discovery doesn't feel like a prequel. Remove the name drops and call the Klingons as some new alien race and it would easily be set in the late 24th Century to early 25th Century. It should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel. Enterprise felt like a prequel when it was not doing its Temporal Cold War episodes.

rattler2

garaks31 wrote: »

the much vocal minority have many issues with disco, some are even logical and understandable.

VERY vocal. The fact of the matter is EVERY new Trek has been bashed. Even TNG. Its just easier to hear those voices now because of the Internet and these people being able to find like minded people to call for ending something before it even gets its feet off the ground.

The visuals I can understand because it looks more futuristic in regards to modern 21st Century tech than what looked futuristic in the 1960s.

The consoles look like a precursor to the consoles we'll see in ST5/6. And they added some push buttons and toggle switches to tie it in more to the TOS time period as well.

What the hardcore purists can't accept is something not looking like the 1960s if set in that time period for more than a tribute episode or two. They want it to have the same visual style as TOS because "that is how it was".

Mostly its just complaining that "its not the same" and aren't even willing to give it a chance to get going. It took TNG 2 seasons to get going, and that show was not only successful, it ran for 7 seasons, vs TOS and its 3. DS9 and Voyager also ran for 7 seasons each, and they were different. Enterprise could have made it to 7, and we were gonna get a major canon event in Trek History, the Earth-Romulan War.

khan5000

I saw this in a video. Star Trek follows Douglas Adams rules for technology (replace technologies with Star Trek)

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

starkaos

rattler2 wrote: »

garaks31 wrote: »

the much vocal minority have many issues with disco, some are even logical and understandable.

VERY vocal. The fact of the matter is EVERY new Trek has been bashed. Even TNG. Its just easier to hear those voices now because of the Internet and these people being able to find like minded people to call for ending something before it even gets its feet off the ground.

The visuals I can understand because it looks more futuristic in regards to modern 21st Century tech than what looked futuristic in the 1960s.

The consoles look like a precursor to the consoles we'll see in ST5/6. And they added some push buttons and toggle switches to tie it in more to the TOS time period as well.

What the hardcore purists can't accept is something not looking like the 1960s if set in that time period for more than a tribute episode or two. They want it to have the same visual style as TOS because "that is how it was".

Mostly its just complaining that "its not the same" and aren't even willing to give it a chance to get going. It took TNG 2 seasons to get going, and that show was not only successful, it ran for 7 seasons, vs TOS and its 3. DS9 and Voyager also ran for 7 seasons each, and they were different. Enterprise could have made it to 7, and we were gonna get a major canon event in Trek History, the Earth-Romulan War.

Except that Enterprise never introduced any 22nd Century technology that wasn't available in TOS. We have Holocommunicators and Holodecks that were in Discovery, but not TOS. The Holodeck could be a prototype that took 20 years to become a standard feature on other Starfleet ships, but the Holocommunicator looks like it is standard Starfleet equipment that somehow vanished for a century. Get rid of the Temporal Cold War episodes and Enterprise is how a Star Trek prequel is done.

Discovery is an example of how prequels are not not supposed to be done by adding new technologies that are never seen again and completely changing the look of a well-known alien race because of some idiotic reason and not due to improvements in cosmetic techniques. At least, Discovery didn't ruin the Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites.

khan5000

Holodecks were in TAS and holocommunications were in Undiscovered Country

ryan218

> @starkaos said:
> Except that Enterprise never introduced any 22nd Century technology that wasn't available in TOS.

Sorry @starkaos but until KT came about ENT was being slammed almost as hard as DSC is because Phasers and Transporters existed when, according to TNG, they weren't developed for decades. We also had photonic torpedoes before a war supposedly fought exclusively with atomic weaponry, cloaks on Romulan ships a century before Spock claimed it as new tech, etc.

So yes, it did.

starkaos

ryan218 wrote: »

> starkaos said:
> Except that Enterprise never introduced any 22nd Century technology that wasn't available in TOS.

Sorry starkaos but until KT came about ENT was being slammed almost as hard as DSC is because Phasers and Transporters existed when, according to TNG, they weren't developed for decades. We also had photonic torpedoes before a war supposedly fought exclusively with atomic weaponry, cloaks on Romulan ships a century before Spock claimed it as new tech, etc.

So yes, it did.

Don't you mean that according to TOS since TOS had Phasers and Transporters. Enterprise had Phase-modulated weapons which are essentially phasers, but not quite. As far as Transporters go, I don't recall TOS talking about it being a new technology. Enterprise originally limited the use of the Transporter to cargo with the odd emergency use of the Transporter to rescue someone, but even in the later seasons I doubt that the crew in Enterprise used it as much as the crews in TOS and TNG. So even in Season 4 of Enterprise there could have been a 0.1% chance of the Transporter failing while TOS' transporters are far safer. Of course, there is always the issue of plot armor protecting the Enterprises from unintentional Transporter accidents.

As far as atomic weapons in the Earth-Romulan War goes, Spock says that they fought "with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels." There is absolutely no indication that Starfleet didn't have more advanced weapons like antimatter weapons during the Earth-Romulan War just that there was a lot of primitive atomic weapons used. Also, the technology behind spatial torpedoes is not explained in Enterprise so they could be 'primitive atomic weapons'. Considering the risks of storing antimatter torpedoes, it is likely that only the most advanced Stafleet ships had them since photonic torpedoes need a source of antimatter to be fueled and any transportation of the photonic torpedoes would be done without antimatter until they reached the relevant military ship. Then there is the issue about whether other 22nd Century Starfleet ships even used antimatter for their warp drive. So even if there is only 10% of the Starfleet ships had antimatter and photonic torpedoes, then 90% of the Starfleet ships would have to use 'primitive atomic weapons'.

As far as ENT being slammed almost as hard as DSC, I seriously doubt it. Maybe 25% to 50% as hard, but not almost as hard.

rattler2

Oh there was mega hate for Enterprise. Apparently the NX Class was just a flipped over Akira, and looked more advanced than the Connie. Also apparently Archer was the WORST Captain ever and did things even Kirk wouldn't do (ignoring the fact that Kirk had a book to follow while Archer was WRITING said book). Oh... and all the other things they got WRONG with the time period because of X reason, and headcanon it as being a result of the events of the movie First Contact rather than Prime Timeline.

Then the Kelvin Timeline movies came out, and all the hate shifted to them because "THEY DESTROY EVERYTHING WE KNOW!"

Now Discovery's out and... well... you know the arguments. Funny thing is... if you look at many of the arguments... they're actually THE SAME arguments that were made against Enterprise and the Kelvin movies.

luminaire

rattler2 wrote: »

Oh there was mega hate for Enterprise. Apparently the NX Class was just a flipped over Akira, and looked more advanced than the Connie. Also apparently Archer was the WORST Captain ever and did things even Kirk wouldn't do (ignoring the fact that Kirk had a book to follow while Archer was WRITING said book). Oh... and all the other things they got WRONG with the time period because of X reason, and headcanon it as being a result of the events of the movie First Contact rather than Prime Timeline.

Then the Kelvin Timeline movies came out, and all the hate shifted to them because "THEY DESTROY EVERYTHING WE KNOW!"

Now Discovery's out and... well... you know the arguments. Funny thing is... if you look at many of the arguments... they're actually THE SAME arguments that were made against Enterprise and the Kelvin movies.

"Funny how a bunch of prequels and reboots making unnecessary changes and ignoring established Trek get the same complaints about being a bunch of prequels and reboots making unnecessary changes and ignoring established Trek!"

Not sure what's supposed to be ironic or amusing about that.

The problem with Discovery is not quibbling over when what specific bit of technology came around, it's that the entire aesthetic looks far more technologically advanced than not only TOS, but the rest of Trek as well. If you asked someone who knew nothing at all about the series to decide which was more technologically advanced based just on looks, and had them compare the 23rd century Crossfield to the 24th century Galaxy/Defiant/Intrepid, pretty sure 9 times out of 10 they'd say the Crossfield is more futuristic.

It doesn't take away their problems, but yes Discovery does make Enterprise and JJTREk both look better, Enterprise because it at least attempted to maintain the ideas of optimism and exploration, and JJTrek because it actually went for an aesthetic that looks like a 'modernized' version of TOS. Whereas the Discovery philosophy seems to be "All the rest of STar Trek is stupid and terrible and should be ignored whenever possible, unless there's something we think we can slap on screen that will get the rubes all nostalgic."

brian334

Remember the look on your girlfriend's face when you told her you were getting a new girlfriend?

In this case we're the girlfriend who is hearing that our producers are moving on without us. They have an entirely other audience in mind, and they're taking their furniture to her apartment. Oh, but you'll become best friends with the new girlfriend, just wait and see! She's really cool once you get to know her.

It's like that.

luminaire

brian334 wrote: »

Remember the look on your girlfriend's face when you told her you were getting a new girlfriend?

In this case we're the girlfriend who is hearing that our producers are moving on without us. They have an entirely other audience in mind, and they're taking their furniture to her apartment. Oh, but you'll become best friends with the new girlfriend, just wait and see! She's really cool once you get to know her.

It's like that.

Given how quickly they've backpedaled on the Klingon look and Spock not appearing it seems like the new girlfriend isn't working out quite as well as they'd hoped.

starkaos

Then there is the problem that The Orville captures the essence of Star Trek far better than Discovery with its social commentary. Majority Rule is one of the better Star Trek episodes that I have ever seen and it is not even from Star Trek. Discovery is trying to capture the nostalgia of TOS by setting it 10 years before TOS and all the name drops, but ignores what made TOS great.

smokebailey

starkaos wrote: »

Then there is the problem that The Orville captures the essence of Star Trek far better than Discovery with its social commentary. Majority Rule is one of the better Star Trek episodes that I have ever seen and it is not even from Star Trek. Discovery is trying to capture the nostalgia of TOS by setting it 10 years before TOS and all the name drops, but ignores what made TOS great.

Also, the visuals don't gel well with TOS, and they even changed the Enterprise....it was fine before.
If the new star wars films can have tie fighters, x wings, star destroyers, astros, storm troopers and even the interiors looking the same as they did in the 70's, Trek can keep its retro style too.....ST Continues and Phase 2 did just that.

Also, the Klingons in Disco are what I call 'the fetish convention klingons'.

The whole series feels dark, grungy and depressing. There's tons of sci fi and other stuff out there for that, leave Trek alone.

Disco is pretty much, "The Michael Burnham Show!" I'd rather it would be about Tilly's stories of graduating Starfleet and her journey to something better. For I just wanna cram Burnham into an airlock and press a few buttons.

Prequel problems...putting stuff in, like SW styled holography based communications, when we never seen that until around Nemesis, and the JJ window view screens, which were never seen again in the prime verse, and using a cover story to explain why no one hears of the Mirror Universe for another decade.

And with exception of Tilly, I really don't care for these characters, and would not want to be with that crew.

jonsills

starkaos wrote: »

As far as atomic weapons in the Earth-Romulan War goes, Spock says that they fought "with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels." There is absolutely no indication that Starfleet didn't have more advanced weapons like antimatter weapons during the Earth-Romulan War just that there was a lot of primitive atomic weapons used. Also, the technology behind spatial torpedoes is not explained in Enterprise so they could be 'primitive atomic weapons'. Considering the risks of storing antimatter torpedoes, it is likely that only the most advanced Stafleet ships had them since photonic torpedoes need a source of antimatter to be fueled and any transportation of the photonic torpedoes would be done without antimatter until they reached the relevant military ship. Then there is the issue about whether other 22nd Century Starfleet ships even used antimatter for their warp drive. So even if there is only 10% of the Starfleet ships had antimatter and photonic torpedoes, then 90% of the Starfleet ships would have to use 'primitive atomic weapons'.

In other words, ENT changed the canon so bad you had to make up a headcanon to explain the difference. Yet for some reason that's okay with ENT, when the actual words said on screen are contradicted, but when DSC makes "changes to canon" that are merely cosmetic (control panels, displays, the appearance of Klingons), that's suddenly "canon-breaking" and too terrible to dismiss.

(The only onscreen words contradicted so far in DSC are those regarding Spock's statement to Chekov in "The Tholian Web" that there had never been a mutiny in Starfleet history - and given that Spock himself had already committed mutiny twice by then, in "The Menagerie" and "This Side of Paradise", well...)

starkaos

jonsills wrote: »

starkaos wrote: »

As far as atomic weapons in the Earth-Romulan War goes, Spock says that they fought "with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels." There is absolutely no indication that Starfleet didn't have more advanced weapons like antimatter weapons during the Earth-Romulan War just that there was a lot of primitive atomic weapons used. Also, the technology behind spatial torpedoes is not explained in Enterprise so they could be 'primitive atomic weapons'. Considering the risks of storing antimatter torpedoes, it is likely that only the most advanced Stafleet ships had them since photonic torpedoes need a source of antimatter to be fueled and any transportation of the photonic torpedoes would be done without antimatter until they reached the relevant military ship. Then there is the issue about whether other 22nd Century Starfleet ships even used antimatter for their warp drive. So even if there is only 10% of the Starfleet ships had antimatter and photonic torpedoes, then 90% of the Starfleet ships would have to use 'primitive atomic weapons'.

In other words, ENT changed the canon so bad you had to make up a headcanon to explain the difference. Yet for some reason that's okay with ENT, when the actual words said on screen are contradicted, but when DSC makes "changes to canon" that are merely cosmetic (control panels, displays, the appearance of Klingons), that's suddenly "canon-breaking" and too terrible to dismiss.

(The only onscreen words contradicted so far in DSC are those regarding Spock's statement to Chekov in "The Tholian Web" that there had never been a mutiny in Starfleet history - and given that Spock himself had already committed mutiny twice by then, in "The Menagerie" and "This Side of Paradise", well...)

What headcanon? All that was said in Balance of Terror was that the Earth-Romulan War was fought with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels. Spock didn't say that the Earth-Romulan War was fought with only primitive atomic weapons. Also, using only primitive atomic weapons in a war just seems extremely unlikely. That would mean that energy weapons and particle beams were somehow ignored. So is there any proof that the Earth-Romulan War was fought with only primitive atomic weapons? One simple sentence doesn't provide the complexities of war or what weapons were used. Just that primitive atomic weapons played a major part in the war.

I have never had a problem with the cosmetic changes to the technology in Discovery. I have said numerous times that Enterprise is how a Star Trek prequel should be done. If I hated the cosmetic changes to technology in Discovery, then I would have to hate it in Enterprise. I have a slight problem with the USS Defiant with its 1960s look and the ISS Enterprise with its 2000s look, but that is just a problem with a 22nd Century ship looking more advanced than a 23rd Century ship. At least Discovery updated the look of the USS Enterprise while still keeping it recognizable.

What I have a problem with is Discovery introducing new technology that is not seen until decades or a century later and turning a well-known alien race into something completely unrecognizable. Most of my problems with Discovery would disappear if it was set in the late 24th or early 25th Century and the Discovery Klingons were a completely new alien race.

jonsills

Spock said that the Earth-Romulan War was fought without warp drive and with "primitive atomic weapons". If that means that it could have been fought with something more than that and he just didn't mention it, then by the same token these technologies you complain of might well have been commonplace a decade later, and just never spoken of.

Don't you see how the argument defeats itself? It's like the one about Burnham never being mentioned later - just because they didn't talk about her, doesn't mean they didn't know about her. Just because TOS didn't show you a holodeck doesn't mean they didn't have one - they didn't show you a toilet either, but I'm pretty sure we all understand they had them. And if we're limiting it to "just what they showed or talked about in TOS", then no photonic torpedoes or phase arrays (or Warp 5-capable ships!) during the Earth-Romulan War.

starkaos

Where is the proof that Spock said the Earth-Romulan War was fought without warp drives? All we know about the Earth-Romulan War in TOS is from the Balance of Terror.

SPOCK: Referring to the map on your screens, you will note beyond the moving position of our vessel, a line of Earth outpost stations. Constructed on asteroids, they monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflict a century ago.

[Sickbay]

SPOCK [OC]: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought,

[Engineering]

SPOCK [OC]: By our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels

[Bridge]

SPOCK: Which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time. Captain.
KIRK: What you do not know and must be told is that my command orders on this subject are precise and inviolable. No act, no provocation.

It is possible that TOS had a Holodeck, but never used it, but Holocommunicators didn't exist in TOS or even most of the other Star Trek series.



There is a huge difference between Spock not mentioning technology that the 23rd Century currently uses and might have been around in the 22nd Century and common place technology like Holocommunicators that vanished in 10 years. Although, I suspect that communications in 200 years would not be holographic, but based on implants or the 23rd Century equivalent of Augmented Reality glasses.

brian334

No toilets in Trek. They use Transporter Briefs: The Go Anywhere Underwear. (Now available in fashionable women's styles and sizes, for when you want to feel as pretty as you are fresh!)

angrytarg

> @brian334 said:
> No toilets in Trek. They use Transporter Briefs: The Go Anywhere Underwear. (Now available in fashionable women's styles and sizes, for when you want to feel as pretty as you are fresh!)

I get the point, but this is a often repeated falsehood: There are various toilets or bathrooms on-screen in all incarnations of Trek, except for TOS and TAS methinks. 😜

jonsills

angrytarg wrote: »

> @brian334 said:
> No toilets in Trek. They use Transporter Briefs: The Go Anywhere Underwear. (Now available in fashionable women's styles and sizes, for when you want to feel as pretty as you are fresh!)

I get the point, but this is a often repeated falsehood: There are various toilets or bathrooms on-screen in all incarnations of Trek, except for TOS and TAS methinks. 😜

And there are holocommunications, and other so-called "vanished technologies", in every incarnation except TOS (and ENT, of course). If their not being mentioned or shown means they didn't exist, then toilets didn't exist either.