All the things mentioned above plus Disco Klingon skin for Klingon playable race.
Those nasty mines seen in Project Daedalus
An appearance by Number One with Rebecca Romijn or Majel Barret archival VO. What was her fate at least in STO canon?
And also, albeit non Disco:
Pah Wraith Dukat versus the Emissary!!!!!!!!!!
Return of Data!!!!!
TNG/DS9/VGR crossovers!
An Enterprise based story! Dr Phlox might still be alive!
How about the Romulan War of 2161 as a time travel event?
There was never anything strictly canon about what happened to Number One after The Cage, but it was one of the questions that Roddenberry was always asked at conventions and whatnot. His answer was that not long after the Talos incident she was given her own command (he usually said it was a destroyer btw).
I very much would have liked to see a Discovery flavoured recruit event along the lines of AoY, and the Delta and Gamma recruits. Perhaps next big update?
Resident TOS, G.I. Joe, Transformers and hair metal fangirl.
Recruitment events also usually coincide with major EXPANSIONS, such as the Gamma Recruits we got with ViL. All the Discovery stuff is not considered a proper expansion. Its really just a bigger season update.
> @captaincelestial said:
> azrael605 wrote: »
>
> Discovery jumped 950 years into the future, not 2000, nothing anywhere has ever put anything 2000 years in the future, and Georgiou will be bringing it back to the 23rd century by the end of season 3 to hide it in a nebula so she can get to her Section 31 show, and the crew can retrieve it after its AI has had time to evolve, which for them will be right after Georgiou left.
>
> By the way, my Discovery predictions are still 100 percent, I haven't been wrong on anything I've called yet.
>
>
>
>
> Unless there's another major shakeup, like what happened during the production of part one and two of Season One and again for Season Two.
The shakeups in production staff did not change anything that happened on the show and further changes won't either. Discovery has also had much less changes in production staff than TNG did in their early seasons.
Considering the amount of obfuscation CBS employs about the rather sore subject that is rather difficult to prove one way or the other.
On the other hand nothing but a total absolute disaster is going to prevent DSC from being picked up each season until CBSAA has another show that can draw the numbers of subscribers that DSC does, and there is nothing like that on the horizon. It is especially true since they have quelled a lot of the controversy first season made with their second season so they can expect more Trek fans to watch it.
Well the TNG problems are well documented now. For example, Chaos on the Bridge, the documentary about the first three seasons. During the first 2 seasons Showrunners changed 3 times, the same as Discovery. They had writers coming and going daily, some quitting after finding Gene's lawyer breaking into their desk and rewriting their script, some fired, some leaving for other reasons. Discovery has had a reletively small but consistent writing staff. Overall nothing known about Discovery's first two seasons even suggests at the level of stuff TNG went through.
The comparison is apt as well as both shows represented Trek's return to TV after a long absence.
That is not too surprising since TNG was supposed to be a far different show than it turned out to be in the final form in first season, and it was experimental enough that the writers were having an extremely difficult time with the original concept. It did not help that Paramount wanted the old traditional cruiser scripts from the Phase II series (which they cancelled in favor of making movies) to be used up and they did not fit the Macross-like cobra-and-saucer setup of the original TNG concept at all well.
> @captaincelestial said:
> azrael605 wrote: »
>
> Discovery jumped 950 years into the future, not 2000, nothing anywhere has ever put anything 2000 years in the future, and Georgiou will be bringing it back to the 23rd century by the end of season 3 to hide it in a nebula so she can get to her Section 31 show, and the crew can retrieve it after its AI has had time to evolve, which for them will be right after Georgiou left.
>
> By the way, my Discovery predictions are still 100 percent, I haven't been wrong on anything I've called yet.
>
>
>
>
> Unless there's another major shakeup, like what happened during the production of part one and two of Season One and again for Season Two.
The shakeups in production staff did not change anything that happened on the show and further changes won't either. Discovery has also had much less changes in production staff than TNG did in their early seasons.
Kind of like how the Klingons and their ships were supposed to be ancient Klingons, while Bryan Fuller was still showrunner, but they scrapped that idea and made them 'modern Klingons'.
Which meant that the new showrunners had to crack the whip to get to make the necessary course correction (i.e. scrapping older set designs and building from scratch, order new costumes and special effects/makeup, and get production up and running) in time for the pushed back release date.
Kevin Smith had noted, in a review video after seeing the first episode, how much money it would have costed just to created enough of those costumes (rather than refit the old one that would have been appropriate for that time period) let alone the head and hand prosthetics. How many hours spent in the chair to get ready, which would have been lost production time, only to have to wear hot and heavy head and hand pieces....
It's a good thing CGI's used as much as it is today, imagine how much more the production would have cost if all of the ships designed for the first season alone had to be practical effects/models they used to be made for Star Trek?
After the cost overrun and complaints built up, they made Alex Kurtzman the new showrunner midseason. When you consider the three of them were Executive Producers, this should have been kept in check in the first place.
Truth to tell, I wouldn't doubt that Alex and Co. pushed out Bryan Fuller in the creative process like they did to Roberto Orci in the last Kelvin Timeline movie, Star Trek Beyond. 'It was too Star Trekkie' - Simon Pegg of Orci's Star Trek Beyond script.
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
I would like all the Georgiou's stuff, she is my favorite character + she is really badass. And Tilly shouldn't have the possibility to speak; what a boring and irritating character!!
Maybe a fix to the discovery ship phasers? They still look aweful.
No matter what they do with those things they are going to look awful, they look so bad in the show itself with theater grade CGI that the STO version, with the limitations of the game rendering engine, is just short of amazing that they could make them look as good as they do now.
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
I would like all the Georgiou's stuff, she is my favorite character + she is really badass. And Tilly shouldn't have the possibility to speak; what a boring and irritating character!!
AoD is not time travel (except for the one forward jump to get to the game era from the 2250s), it is all "holodeck simulations" which is much worse from a story standpoint. I would very much rather they had done it as a crosstime thing instead, but CBS insists that it is "prime" so that was never going to happen.
A better alternative that might have appeased CBS somewhat would have been to bring in Daniels and actually do it as a temporal "season". It would have made a lot more sense than the "holographic study" rubbish.
Still, it was not bad at all so far overall, the Pahvo thing is one of the few ground TFOs I actually like, their space TFOs are good enough (and better than many others), and the new episodes are good (with a few hiccups like the moron yelling "Klingons are happening!" and a very few other occasional bits of immersion breaking silliness.
Yes, having a KDF branch and tutorial would be a good thing, and the show has revealed enough information to actually do something like that (especially since consistency does not seem to be much of a thing anymore on TV shows like DSC).
They could even do it as a reskin of the normal one like the Fed side DSC tutorial and it would work well enough with a few minor changes, though they would have to come up with a new starter ship out of the mess, the DSC ship that replaces the B'rel that normal KDF start with is a T6 z-store ship in STO which would not work out unless they are shifting to all T6 scaling ships for the tutorials (which is highly unlikely).
I want to see the Mission journal fixed. THAT is what I want. I know it won't happen. But I can dream. Nope. Nevermind. It's just a nightmare ever since they fixed what wasn't broken and broke so much.
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
FTL is impossible, so no more warp drive. Phasers are impossible (it can either vaporize something or merely stun someone???), so everybody gets a .45. Oh, and let's not even mention transporters - that one isn't even a theoretical possibility.
The best science fiction allows certain violations of the currently-known laws of physics - and then either ignores it as window-dressing needed for the tale (Jump drive in Asimov's Foundation series, for instance) or explores some of the implications (Timothy Zahn's Cascade Point, Larry Niven's "All the Myriad Ways" and the Svetz stories). While there are some tales that adhere strictly to physics as we know them, they tend to be dry and unreadable except in the hands of a true master. And intending no slight toward our gracious hosts, I really don't have the feeling that we've got Hugo-caliber talent writing for this game.
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.
Quantum entanglement is not teleportation. The actual physical photon was not transported; its information was transferred to another photon. Transporters as shown in Star Trek are, according to our current knowledge of physics, flatly impossible. So if we're not going to allow anything that isn't already hard science, transporters and warp drive and phasers and energy shields are right out.
Or we can relax, find the rules of the pretend tech as laid out in the fiction, and look into some of the implications (for instance, replicators are a clear implication of transporter technology - just use the transporter pattern of the item in question, and an input of whatever matter you have handy).
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
So... basically just 2001? Because I'm pretty sure most Sci-fi has things that don't follow modern science. Hell... you just excluded Stargate as well because "its impossible".
But here's the thing. What was impossible in the 60s when TOS came out and look at what we have today?
PADDs? *points at modern tablets*
Flip open Communicators? *points at the older flip phones*
Isolinear Chips in TNG? *points at flash drives*
In many cases, Sci-fi inspires innovation. Many of the things that were fictional in the 60s are commonplace today. Hell... people are trying to make a real world Tricorder!
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
So... basically just 2001? Because I'm pretty sure most Sci-fi has things that don't follow modern science. Hell... you just excluded Stargate as well because "its impossible".
But here's the thing. What was impossible in the 60s when TOS came out and look at what we have today?
PADDs? *points at modern tablets*
Flip open Communicators? *points at the older flip phones*
Isolinear Chips in TNG? *points at flash drives*
In many cases, Sci-fi inspires innovation. Many of the things that were fictional in the 60s are commonplace today. Hell... people are trying to make a real world Tricorder!
True, and in the case of the flash drives, TOS had them as well though they changed the name from "data module" (or datapack or whatever, I forget the exact word at the moment) to "tape" to make it easier for audiences to grasp the idea of them being storage media without having to explain it. In one episode they even show one of them broken, and there was no tape inside.
Roddenberry would tell writers to "show, not tell" and use a cop show example about how they do not stop the action in those shows in order for the hero to field-strip his pistol to point to the parts and explain to the audience how it worked, so he did not want to see anyone pulling long winded technological explanation nonsense in scripts for Star Trek.
Anyway, they also had portable computers (they were voice-command desktop mainframe computers with analysis and chemical synthesis units built in, but still they were similar in concept to early portables like the Osborne), laser scalpels, and a number of other things like that.
the end of the time travel. time travel is impossible, the best scifi shows respect the rules of the science. + in game it is just boring and confusing.
So... basically just 2001? Because I'm pretty sure most Sci-fi has things that don't follow modern science. Hell... you just excluded Stargate as well because "its impossible".
But here's the thing. What was impossible in the 60s when TOS came out and look at what we have today?
PADDs? *points at modern tablets*
Flip open Communicators? *points at the older flip phones*
Isolinear Chips in TNG? *points at flash drives*
In many cases, Sci-fi inspires innovation. Many of the things that were fictional in the 60s are commonplace today. Hell... people are trying to make a real world Tricorder!
I think there are some fine distinctions to be considered.
Flip open communicators or PADDs were more a question of "we don't know how, but there aren't any known laws of physics that would make it impossible." The ability to do or not do them is more related to the challenges of engineering.
But you couldn't find a physical law that would state you can't put a radio inside something that flips open. A PADD might be difficult because we couldn't make radio tubes small enough yet. But there isn't a law in physics stating that having something that can store an on and an off state, or that a logic gate can't can't be made small enough to create a hand-held device for data storage and retrieval. We just didn't have the material for that yet. (And since nature clearly allowed storing information inside our brains, there must be some way to mimic that. Worst case was that logic gates were a red herring in our pursuit of such technology.)
However, the relativity theory disallows FTL on a far more fundamental level. It says no matter how efficient you build your rocket engine, or how light your starship is, you can't go faster than light, because the energy requirement steadily climb up to infinity. As long as you try to accelerate something to FTL, you have a problem. The specific method doesn't matter.
Time Travel is more complicated - the current rules of physics are unclear wheter it is possible in our real universe, applied to hypothetical universes that have properties different from ours, time travel can be possible. Though I'd argue there is another fundemental problems - we have no ability to really reason about effects preceding their cause. It becomes nonsensical in some matter. The easist way out might require us to accept that there is no free will and the universe is wholly determinstic. I think we're not ready to accept that.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The theory of reletivity is just that, a theory, its not a fact, its a theory.
In science, a "theory" describes a former hypothesis which has been proved to be correct so far as it can be tested. (In fact, relativistic equations are used for purposes as mundane as GPS calculations - one must take into account the difference in rates of time in a 1g field and microgravity.) It's what a non-scientist might refer to as a "fact". (Scientists like to avoid that term, as it describes a thing whose certainty cannot be questioned, and questioning certainties is what science is all about. However, relativistic theory has been proved to the point that in order to question it, you'd need some pretty remarkable and solid data points against it.)
In common speech, the word "theory" is often thrown around to describe what a scientist would call a "hypothesis" (a concept backed by data, but not yet tested properly), or even a "wild-TRIBBLE guess" (the precursor to a hypothesis). That's why people try to denigrate evolution, for example, as "just a theory", even though we've seen it in action among bacteria and insects (the only things with a reproductive cycle short enough that we can actually observe genetic drift). Relativity is "just a theory" in the same sense that evolution or gravity is "just a theory", not in the same sense that you might "have a theory" that your second-grade teacher was becoming senile. (Seriously, the woman was in her 80s, and it was disturbingly easy to avoid getting homework assigned by just starting her reminiscing about her childhood...)
A theory is unproven, it may match available facts, but if new facts become known that do not fit the theory the proper scientific method is to discard the theory or alter it to match proven facts. Until and unless an actual craft is built capable of propulsion approaching lightspeed there will be no concrete proof of reletivity, no argument will change that, and any scientist that says otherwise has betrayed scientific principles.
As long as you understand that in science, "theory" is the highest form of understanding of nature that we can accomplish.
There is really not anything "better" than a theory. Ultimately, nature could always turn into a surprising evnt.
The thing with relativity theory is that its one of the best tested theories we have. It made predictions that were only possible to test decades later and they all proved true.
It is extremely unlikely that we can find a new theory that makes exactly all the same predictions and fits all the same observations as the theory of relativity, but contradicts her in one fundamental aspect and basically predicts the opposite.
It is not like we had theories replacing older theories based on new evidence and observation. Before Einstein, there was Newton, and he made very accurate predictions, too. But in a few areas predictions and observation differed, and that's where Einstein could fill in the gap and create a better theory. However, despite his theory replacing Newtons, it didn't make Newton's theory completely void or disagree with it on fundamental concepts, like masses attracting each other, or objects in motion staying in motion. It basically just added small terms to the existing math that would matter in conditions and environments that Newton himself (and others in his time) couldn't measure or observe yet.
Traveling faster than light is not just some hard to observe area in the theory of relativity, however. The theory makes a lot of prediction what happens near the speed of light (or at the speed of light, for light), and these predictions have been observed, and quite a bit of our technology today actually relies on these predictions - and works quite reliably.
Saying, "it's just a theory" to a scientific theory, particularly to something well-tested like the relativity theory can basically only be said from willful ignorance to satisfy one's wishful thinking.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
There was never anything strictly canon about what happened to Number One after The Cage, but it was one of the questions that Roddenberry was always asked at conventions and whatnot. His answer was that not long after the Talos incident she was given her own command (he usually said it was a destroyer btw).
And knowing is half the battle!
21 'til I die!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Considering the amount of obfuscation CBS employs about the rather sore subject that is rather difficult to prove one way or the other.
On the other hand nothing but a total absolute disaster is going to prevent DSC from being picked up each season until CBSAA has another show that can draw the numbers of subscribers that DSC does, and there is nothing like that on the horizon. It is especially true since they have quelled a lot of the controversy first season made with their second season so they can expect more Trek fans to watch it.
That is not too surprising since TNG was supposed to be a far different show than it turned out to be in the final form in first season, and it was experimental enough that the writers were having an extremely difficult time with the original concept. It did not help that Paramount wanted the old traditional cruiser scripts from the Phase II series (which they cancelled in favor of making movies) to be used up and they did not fit the Macross-like cobra-and-saucer setup of the original TNG concept at all well.
Kind of like how the Klingons and their ships were supposed to be ancient Klingons, while Bryan Fuller was still showrunner, but they scrapped that idea and made them 'modern Klingons'.
Which meant that the new showrunners had to crack the whip to get to make the necessary course correction (i.e. scrapping older set designs and building from scratch, order new costumes and special effects/makeup, and get production up and running) in time for the pushed back release date.
Kevin Smith had noted, in a review video after seeing the first episode, how much money it would have costed just to created enough of those costumes (rather than refit the old one that would have been appropriate for that time period) let alone the head and hand prosthetics. How many hours spent in the chair to get ready, which would have been lost production time, only to have to wear hot and heavy head and hand pieces....
It's a good thing CGI's used as much as it is today, imagine how much more the production would have cost if all of the ships designed for the first season alone had to be practical effects/models they used to be made for Star Trek?
After the cost overrun and complaints built up, they made Alex Kurtzman the new showrunner midseason. When you consider the three of them were Executive Producers, this should have been kept in check in the first place.
Truth to tell, I wouldn't doubt that Alex and Co. pushed out Bryan Fuller in the creative process like they did to Roberto Orci in the last Kelvin Timeline movie, Star Trek Beyond. 'It was too Star Trekkie' - Simon Pegg of Orci's Star Trek Beyond script.
I would like all the Georgiou's stuff, she is my favorite character + she is really badass. And Tilly shouldn't have the possibility to speak; what a boring and irritating character!!
Yes, please.
[ Still Waiting for a Shiny New T6 Romulan Science Ship to Command ]
No matter what they do with those things they are going to look awful, they look so bad in the show itself with theater grade CGI that the STO version, with the limitations of the game rendering engine, is just short of amazing that they could make them look as good as they do now.
AoD is not time travel (except for the one forward jump to get to the game era from the 2250s), it is all "holodeck simulations" which is much worse from a story standpoint. I would very much rather they had done it as a crosstime thing instead, but CBS insists that it is "prime" so that was never going to happen.
A better alternative that might have appeased CBS somewhat would have been to bring in Daniels and actually do it as a temporal "season". It would have made a lot more sense than the "holographic study" rubbish.
Still, it was not bad at all so far overall, the Pahvo thing is one of the few ground TFOs I actually like, their space TFOs are good enough (and better than many others), and the new episodes are good (with a few hiccups like the moron yelling "Klingons are happening!" and a very few other occasional bits of immersion breaking silliness.
Yes, having a KDF branch and tutorial would be a good thing, and the show has revealed enough information to actually do something like that (especially since consistency does not seem to be much of a thing anymore on TV shows like DSC).
They could even do it as a reskin of the normal one like the Fed side DSC tutorial and it would work well enough with a few minor changes, though they would have to come up with a new starter ship out of the mess, the DSC ship that replaces the B'rel that normal KDF start with is a T6 z-store ship in STO which would not work out unless they are shifting to all T6 scaling ships for the tutorials (which is highly unlikely).
The best science fiction allows certain violations of the currently-known laws of physics - and then either ignores it as window-dressing needed for the tale (Jump drive in Asimov's Foundation series, for instance) or explores some of the implications (Timothy Zahn's Cascade Point, Larry Niven's "All the Myriad Ways" and the Svetz stories). While there are some tales that adhere strictly to physics as we know them, they tend to be dry and unreadable except in the hands of a true master. And intending no slight toward our gracious hosts, I really don't have the feeling that we've got Hugo-caliber talent writing for this game.
granted, they've only been able to transport a single molecule last i heard, but you gotta start somewhere
#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!"
Or we can relax, find the rules of the pretend tech as laid out in the fiction, and look into some of the implications (for instance, replicators are a clear implication of transporter technology - just use the transporter pattern of the item in question, and an input of whatever matter you have handy).
So... basically just 2001? Because I'm pretty sure most Sci-fi has things that don't follow modern science. Hell... you just excluded Stargate as well because "its impossible".
But here's the thing. What was impossible in the 60s when TOS came out and look at what we have today?
PADDs? *points at modern tablets*
Flip open Communicators? *points at the older flip phones*
Isolinear Chips in TNG? *points at flash drives*
In many cases, Sci-fi inspires innovation. Many of the things that were fictional in the 60s are commonplace today. Hell... people are trying to make a real world Tricorder!
True, and in the case of the flash drives, TOS had them as well though they changed the name from "data module" (or datapack or whatever, I forget the exact word at the moment) to "tape" to make it easier for audiences to grasp the idea of them being storage media without having to explain it. In one episode they even show one of them broken, and there was no tape inside.
Roddenberry would tell writers to "show, not tell" and use a cop show example about how they do not stop the action in those shows in order for the hero to field-strip his pistol to point to the parts and explain to the audience how it worked, so he did not want to see anyone pulling long winded technological explanation nonsense in scripts for Star Trek.
Anyway, they also had portable computers (they were voice-command desktop mainframe computers with analysis and chemical synthesis units built in, but still they were similar in concept to early portables like the Osborne), laser scalpels, and a number of other things like that.
Flip open communicators or PADDs were more a question of "we don't know how, but there aren't any known laws of physics that would make it impossible." The ability to do or not do them is more related to the challenges of engineering.
But you couldn't find a physical law that would state you can't put a radio inside something that flips open. A PADD might be difficult because we couldn't make radio tubes small enough yet. But there isn't a law in physics stating that having something that can store an on and an off state, or that a logic gate can't can't be made small enough to create a hand-held device for data storage and retrieval. We just didn't have the material for that yet. (And since nature clearly allowed storing information inside our brains, there must be some way to mimic that. Worst case was that logic gates were a red herring in our pursuit of such technology.)
However, the relativity theory disallows FTL on a far more fundamental level. It says no matter how efficient you build your rocket engine, or how light your starship is, you can't go faster than light, because the energy requirement steadily climb up to infinity. As long as you try to accelerate something to FTL, you have a problem. The specific method doesn't matter.
Time Travel is more complicated - the current rules of physics are unclear wheter it is possible in our real universe, applied to hypothetical universes that have properties different from ours, time travel can be possible. Though I'd argue there is another fundemental problems - we have no ability to really reason about effects preceding their cause. It becomes nonsensical in some matter. The easist way out might require us to accept that there is no free will and the universe is wholly determinstic. I think we're not ready to accept that.
In common speech, the word "theory" is often thrown around to describe what a scientist would call a "hypothesis" (a concept backed by data, but not yet tested properly), or even a "wild-TRIBBLE guess" (the precursor to a hypothesis). That's why people try to denigrate evolution, for example, as "just a theory", even though we've seen it in action among bacteria and insects (the only things with a reproductive cycle short enough that we can actually observe genetic drift). Relativity is "just a theory" in the same sense that evolution or gravity is "just a theory", not in the same sense that you might "have a theory" that your second-grade teacher was becoming senile. (Seriously, the woman was in her 80s, and it was disturbingly easy to avoid getting homework assigned by just starting her reminiscing about her childhood...)
There is really not anything "better" than a theory. Ultimately, nature could always turn into a surprising evnt.
The thing with relativity theory is that its one of the best tested theories we have. It made predictions that were only possible to test decades later and they all proved true.
It is extremely unlikely that we can find a new theory that makes exactly all the same predictions and fits all the same observations as the theory of relativity, but contradicts her in one fundamental aspect and basically predicts the opposite.
It is not like we had theories replacing older theories based on new evidence and observation. Before Einstein, there was Newton, and he made very accurate predictions, too. But in a few areas predictions and observation differed, and that's where Einstein could fill in the gap and create a better theory. However, despite his theory replacing Newtons, it didn't make Newton's theory completely void or disagree with it on fundamental concepts, like masses attracting each other, or objects in motion staying in motion. It basically just added small terms to the existing math that would matter in conditions and environments that Newton himself (and others in his time) couldn't measure or observe yet.
Traveling faster than light is not just some hard to observe area in the theory of relativity, however. The theory makes a lot of prediction what happens near the speed of light (or at the speed of light, for light), and these predictions have been observed, and quite a bit of our technology today actually relies on these predictions - and works quite reliably.
Saying, "it's just a theory" to a scientific theory, particularly to something well-tested like the relativity theory can basically only be said from willful ignorance to satisfy one's wishful thinking.