And that's a creative interpretation. I roll with the multiple earth theory that major events changed but a little bit create alternate realities which by extent a whole different universe because said universe ia now not the same as we know it.
Example, by some miracle the Germans win WW1. That completely changes the landscape of how our world would progress would it not?
And that would be a parallel universe if Germans won WW1 in some other reality. Now if someone went back in time to 1914 so German won, then it would be an alternate timeline. The last 100 years of our history would be completely erased and a new 100 years of history would be created. Of course, that is completely different from someone travelling to a parallel universe that looks like 1914 and helping the Germans win which keeps our universe's history intact and changes the parallel universe's future.
I know, we're nerds and all and love to discuss such things to the deepest extent.
I am not sure that Star Trek has really ever been good at making the distinctions between timelines and parallel universes.
In Parallels however they clearly adopted the Many Worlds Theorem and allowed alternate parallel universes. The distinction in these universes always going back to all the different decisions that could be made. However, once you add time travel, these decision points multiply basically, as you can also decide to time travel to any point in the past and make "new" decisions there. Which really leads to a very crazy growth of possibilities. For every universe where Kirk travelled back in time to collect some whales for the whale probe, there is also a universe where he did not. For every universe were Kirk traveled to the past and let Edith Keeler die, there is also one where he didn't let that happen. For every universe where Picard traveled through the Nexus to the past to stop Soran from destroying that star, there is also one where he doesn't. For every universe where Spock and Nero traveled to the past and created the events of the Kelvin Timeline, there is also one where they don't. So, at some point, doesn't every "timeline" continue to exist in the form of one of the parallel universes of the many worlds theorem?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
That's the sound of me not giving a deification about how you refer to STE, or ST:TOS, or TRIBBLE.
I will refer to it as I please, whether you like it or not.
Hear that? That's the sound of me correcting you anyway. Which I will continue to do because I don't care if it causes you to get defecation in your ears or not.
"Cannon" is for religion and therefore means nothing to me. Official is the only thing that matters and that is anything licensed over the last 50-years by Paramount, NBC or CBS.
No. 'Cannon' is for frying large metal balls at the sides of enemy ships. 'Canon' is a term for the officially decided continuity of all forms of fiction not just religions. It's the only thing that matters as it's determined by the licence holders not by you.
The TRIBBLE ships do not follow the Jefferies aesthetic and thus to many Classical Star Trek fans do not view them as fitting into the timeline of ST:TOS as they were designed by John Eaves and thus fit better into a post-STV (Star Trek Voyager) time frame.
Well considering Matt Jefferies only worked on TOS it doesn't matter what 'Classical Star Trek fans' say because DSC is not TOS. And yes it's still DSC and TOS.
That's how it works in case you don't know. Company makes a product, consumers decide if they want it, and product will sink or swim based on whether consumers want it or not. I for one will not buy TRIBBLE products, just like I didn't buy STE products. I watched the first three episodes of TRIBBLE, and decided this is not for me since I've already seen Lord of the Rings and Riddick so Necromonger-Uruk-Hai masquerading as Klingons didn't appeal to me.
I don't remember making any comment on merchandising at all. Are you thinking of somebody else? And it's DSC, ENT, and DSC again.
As far as the chronology of a fantasy/fictional fleet of spaceships, truth be told anybody can link anything they want between STE and ST:TOS (and totally skip/ignore TRIBBLE if they so chose) within the official material and derivatives of said official material.
No they can't. The reason is that that would be inserting non canon material or ignoring canon material which defeats the object of following a franchise in the first place. You're shown what happens, you don't need to go making things up to have fun. And the acronyms you're looking for are ENT, TOS, and DSC.
Many people prefer Masao Okazaki's designs over those of official material. Some like Madkoifish's designs (I'm one of those). There are many others who stick to the Space Flight Chronology Book as what they view the history of Star Trek as being. (flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
I don't believe I did. I think if you look really hard at my posts (still nicely broken down into easily digestible chunks for direct quoting) you wouldn't be able to quote me saying so.
Saying somebody is wrong when they make a statement on a canonical work that is not accurate isn't saying they can't pull random bollocks out of their ars.e, it's saying that those bollocks are wrong and that it was pointless pulling them out.
Like I've said here before, TRIBBLE isn't as bad as some of its fans. Some of you really know how to help amp up the hatred of the show due to YOUR behavior more than the show itself.
nah, but we're also not trying to claim CVN-65 fought the HMS Serapis during the war of 1812...
THIS^
Who is though? I've Ctrl+F'd HMS Serapis and come up with one result, this quote (I didn't get the first for obvious reasons) so unless it's a claim made by someone I've blocked I can't find it. It's also not really related to star Trek is it?
Post edited by darkbladejk on
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
As for your deification of Star Trek fantasy/fiction into "canon", again, I don't care about it as it does not cause me to spend money or entice me to do so.
However, it is a good example of TRIBBLE-fans inability to handle criticism of this show or the fact that others dislike it.
And here is another prime example of this. I said I'm not making my own points. I've not defended DSC at all. I've criticised your lazy criticism of it. Hell, I've not even said if I am a fan of DSC. Still, why bother asking when you can just creat strawmen eh?
Diversity is clearly not a value you hold otherwise you would have taken the hint to "live and let live" and just accepted that others here dislike TRIBBLE and will criticize it,
It seems you're 'triggered' by your inability to post something on a public forum and not accept that sometimes people may want to respond. Maybe you'd be better off opening a blog and locking the comments sections so you don't get infected by all the nasty counter criticism the world and their dog may wish to employ.
(flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
Post edited by darkbladejk on
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
> @kabutotokugawa said: > somtaawkhar wrote: » > > kabutotokugawa wrote: » > > and defend the indefensible. > > > > The problem with this argument is that its based around the incorrect assumptions that your position is somehow divinely right, and anything else is just wrong, which isn't true. > > In a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as the insensible. > > > > > I never said it was divinely correct, or infallible please do not read deeper into my posts than is necessary, I made it clear it was opinion. > What is indefensible is trying to tell people they cannot dislike or even hate TRIBBLE, and trying to tell them they cannot express their displeasure with it.
Indeed. It's like I'm not at all allowed to have any issues with DSC(I'll be diplomatic here) and should just take it hook line and sinker just because the Star Trek name is attached to it.
Same deal with Star Wars The Last Jedi(and I abhor that movie).
Where is it written I MUST like it just because of the name attached to it.
Hell DS9 is my fav series and there are episodes I skip or do not like at all.
Though most of the counter arguments are simply made from a certain point of view.
I acknowledge people liked it. I'm glad they did. I'm glad they have the suspension of disbelief necessary. I simply can't do it.
Just too many inconsistencies, retconns and a few other issues I simply can't resolve because they are trying to inject it into the prime timeline.
Take USS Shenzhou for example. Had that ship been the size of a Miranda class or maybe slightly bigger, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Instead the ship is bigger than an Excelsior class.
Just one of the things for me that do not compute.
If you don't believe me(not you exactly but other people), look up trekyards. They did a size comparison between TOS and DSC with officially licensed models from CBS.
It's not quite the upscaling that KT did, but getting up there.
Just one of the problems for me that does not compute, reimagined or not. If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
> @kabutotokugawa said: > patrickngo wrote: » > > Relax, Kabutotokugawa, Som is a rabid defender of official orthodoxy, if CBS came out tomorrow and said "We were only kidding! it's a different universe!" he'd shift right along with it. If CBS introduced CGI "My Little Pony" characters, he'd defend that, too, rabidly, as he would if they turned it into a game-show/quiz-show or cop drama. > > point being, don't get upset with him, it does no good and he likes it. > > > > > Thank you for the heads-up. > I understand. > Code Geass fans were like that back in 2008 (the issue over whether Lelouch as alive or dead was viscous. ) > I imagine all fan-bases have their rabid defenders.
I got 5 minutes in and couldn't watch it. I never knew there was something worse than Gundam Seed/Destiny. I was so wrong.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
The problem with this argument is that its based around the incorrect assumptions that your position is somehow divinely right, and anything else is just wrong, which isn't true.
In a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as the insensible.
I never said it was divinely correct, or infallible please do not read deeper into my posts than is necessary, I made it clear it was opinion.
What is indefensible is trying to tell people they cannot dislike or even hate TRIBBLE, and trying to tell them they cannot express their displeasure with it.
Relax, Kabutotokugawa, Som is a rabid defender of official orthodoxy, if CBS came out tomorrow and said "We were only kidding! it's a different universe!" he'd shift right along with it. If CBS introduced CGI "My Little Pony" characters, he'd defend that, too, rabidly, as he would if they turned it into a game-show/quiz-show or cop drama.
point being, don't get upset with him, it does no good and he likes it.
Speaking of adding My Little Pony characters to some popular TV series:
(response to redacted comment removed) - darkbladejk
Post edited by darkbladejk on
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
[mod sword in hand] okay guys some of you need to dial it WAYYY back and you know who you are. If you can't discuss things in a civil manor then this thread will be locked. This is the only warning I'm going to give. The next issue out of this thread will result in a lock. [sheathing of mod sword]
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
It's okay and all, but the times the "Trek had to change" is repeated like gospel start to really tire me. Trek's messages were time less (sadly) and the visuals didn't need a radical change, save for the people that repeatedly INSIST that keeping the original visuals also means you absolutely had to build computers from wood an string in 2018 - which of course is a "straw man" I think they call it.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
> @theraven2378 said: > Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
If it was ok to good sure. To me it's not.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
> @theraven2378 said:
> Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
If it was ok to good sure. To me it's not.
And season 1 of TNG was an absolute bag of nails too. It's generally accepted that TNG didn't truly find it's feet until season 3.
And yet TNG as a whole is generally very fondly remembered, with some even wearing rose-tinted spectacles where it is concerned.
DS9 was weak for the first couple of seasons but then after season 3 and 4, it comes into it's own. Give Discovery a chance
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
It's okay and all, but the times the "Trek had to change" is repeated like gospel start to really tire me. Trek's messages were time less (sadly) and the visuals didn't need a radical change, save for the people that repeatedly INSIST that keeping the original visuals also means you absolutely had to build computers from wood an string in 2018 - which of course is a "straw man" I think they call it.
I disagree. Star Trek has to change. The question is what you change and what you keep.
Old visuals and the like are things that you can throw out. The idea of single episode arcs with no real connecting elements other than the characters (which never really get to change) is something that we don't need to retain either. "Modern Storytelling" just works differently.
That doesn't mean we change Star Trek's message about an enlightened and hopeful future. But even in there, we can make changes in how we present that message - we allow our heroes to fail, but in the end they pick themselves up, save the day, and find a better solution than destruction and murder. DS9 had the Federation willing to stand by to murder an entire species, but in the end our heroes found a way to save this species and end the conflict. In STO, we're contemplating altering the timeline to ensure the Iconians really die out, and in the end we find a different solution.
I think particularly for that reason, a prequel is well-suited. People claim that one could have easily redone the Discovery story as a post-Voyager series with a different race playing the Klingons. But I think that's not true. Because that would imply that there is yet another nasty war ahead for the Federation, where the Federation again forgets its moral values so they can survive.
But by going back to the past, we have a better excuse, we show a different part of the Federation and Starfleet growing into what they will become, and we retain a positive trajectory overall.
(That doesn't mean that sequels to the Star Trek story are fundamentally bad. I just think the ones where the Federation is thrown into yet another war isn't something for a continuation of Star Trek's ideals. The Federation ending a big conflict between different parties could perhaps work, if you need some war arcs for SFX purposes.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
> @kabutotokugawa said:
> somtaawkhar wrote: »
>
> kabutotokugawa wrote: »
>
> and defend the indefensible.
>
>
>
> The problem with this argument is that its based around the incorrect assumptions that your position is somehow divinely right, and anything else is just wrong, which isn't true.
>
> In a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as the insensible.
>
>
>
>
> I never said it was divinely correct, or infallible please do not read deeper into my posts than is necessary, I made it clear it was opinion.
> What is indefensible is trying to tell people they cannot dislike or even hate TRIBBLE, and trying to tell them they cannot express their displeasure with it.
Indeed. It's like I'm not at all allowed to have any issues with DSC(I'll be diplomatic here) and should just take it hook line and sinker just because the Star Trek name is attached to it.
Same deal with Star Wars The Last Jedi(and I abhor that movie).
Where is it written I MUST like it just because of the name attached to it.
Hell DS9 is my fav series and there are episodes I skip or do not like at all.
Though most of the counter arguments are simply made from a certain point of view.
I acknowledge people liked it. I'm glad they did. I'm glad they have the suspension of disbelief necessary. I simply can't do it.
Just too many inconsistencies, retconns and a few other issues I simply can't resolve because they are trying to inject it into the prime timeline.
Take USS Shenzhou for example. Had that ship been the size of a Miranda class or maybe slightly bigger, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Instead the ship is bigger than an Excelsior class.
Just one of the things for me that do not compute.
If you don't believe me(not you exactly but other people), look up trekyards. They did a size comparison between TOS and DSC with officially licensed models from CBS.
It's not quite the upscaling that KT did, but getting up there.
Just one of the problems for me that does not compute, reimagined or not. If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Agreed.
Plus the series is just too dark and gloomy for me.
Comments
I know, we're nerds and all and love to discuss such things to the deepest extent.
I am not sure that Star Trek has really ever been good at making the distinctions between timelines and parallel universes.
In Parallels however they clearly adopted the Many Worlds Theorem and allowed alternate parallel universes. The distinction in these universes always going back to all the different decisions that could be made. However, once you add time travel, these decision points multiply basically, as you can also decide to time travel to any point in the past and make "new" decisions there. Which really leads to a very crazy growth of possibilities. For every universe where Kirk travelled back in time to collect some whales for the whale probe, there is also a universe where he did not. For every universe were Kirk traveled to the past and let Edith Keeler die, there is also one where he didn't let that happen. For every universe where Picard traveled through the Nexus to the past to stop Soran from destroying that star, there is also one where he doesn't. For every universe where Spock and Nero traveled to the past and created the events of the Kelvin Timeline, there is also one where they don't. So, at some point, doesn't every "timeline" continue to exist in the form of one of the parallel universes of the many worlds theorem?
Hear that? That's the sound of me correcting you anyway. Which I will continue to do because I don't care if it causes you to get defecation in your ears or not.
No. 'Cannon' is for frying large metal balls at the sides of enemy ships. 'Canon' is a term for the officially decided continuity of all forms of fiction not just religions. It's the only thing that matters as it's determined by the licence holders not by you.
Well considering Matt Jefferies only worked on TOS it doesn't matter what 'Classical Star Trek fans' say because DSC is not TOS. And yes it's still DSC and TOS.
But...
Does it matter or not? Oh, and it's DSC.
I don't remember making any comment on merchandising at all. Are you thinking of somebody else? And it's DSC, ENT, and DSC again.
No they can't. The reason is that that would be inserting non canon material or ignoring canon material which defeats the object of following a franchise in the first place. You're shown what happens, you don't need to go making things up to have fun. And the acronyms you're looking for are ENT, TOS, and DSC.
I don't believe I did. I think if you look really hard at my posts (still nicely broken down into easily digestible chunks for direct quoting) you wouldn't be able to quote me saying so.
Saying somebody is wrong when they make a statement on a canonical work that is not accurate isn't saying they can't pull random bollocks out of their ars.e, it's saying that those bollocks are wrong and that it was pointless pulling them out.
(flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
(flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
Who is though? I've Ctrl+F'd HMS Serapis and come up with one result, this quote (I didn't get the first for obvious reasons) so unless it's a claim made by someone I've blocked I can't find it. It's also not really related to star Trek is it?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You do like that word don't you?
It's DSC and TOS and then DSC again. And If you're wishing for good things from that hack then you're in for a world of disappointment.
(flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
And here is another prime example of this. I said I'm not making my own points. I've not defended DSC at all. I've criticised your lazy criticism of it. Hell, I've not even said if I am a fan of DSC. Still, why bother asking when you can just creat strawmen eh?
It seems you're 'triggered' by your inability to post something on a public forum and not accept that sometimes people may want to respond. Maybe you'd be better off opening a blog and locking the comments sections so you don't get infected by all the nasty counter criticism the world and their dog may wish to employ.
(flame/troll comment removed) - darkbladejk
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> somtaawkhar wrote: »
>
> kabutotokugawa wrote: »
>
> and defend the indefensible.
>
>
>
> The problem with this argument is that its based around the incorrect assumptions that your position is somehow divinely right, and anything else is just wrong, which isn't true.
>
> In a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as the insensible.
>
>
>
>
> I never said it was divinely correct, or infallible please do not read deeper into my posts than is necessary, I made it clear it was opinion.
> What is indefensible is trying to tell people they cannot dislike or even hate TRIBBLE, and trying to tell them they cannot express their displeasure with it.
Indeed. It's like I'm not at all allowed to have any issues with DSC(I'll be diplomatic here) and should just take it hook line and sinker just because the Star Trek name is attached to it.
Same deal with Star Wars The Last Jedi(and I abhor that movie).
Where is it written I MUST like it just because of the name attached to it.
Hell DS9 is my fav series and there are episodes I skip or do not like at all.
Though most of the counter arguments are simply made from a certain point of view.
I acknowledge people liked it. I'm glad they did. I'm glad they have the suspension of disbelief necessary. I simply can't do it.
Just too many inconsistencies, retconns and a few other issues I simply can't resolve because they are trying to inject it into the prime timeline.
Take USS Shenzhou for example. Had that ship been the size of a Miranda class or maybe slightly bigger, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Instead the ship is bigger than an Excelsior class.
Just one of the things for me that do not compute.
If you don't believe me(not you exactly but other people), look up trekyards. They did a size comparison between TOS and DSC with officially licensed models from CBS.
It's not quite the upscaling that KT did, but getting up there.
Just one of the problems for me that does not compute, reimagined or not. If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
> patrickngo wrote: »
>
> Relax, Kabutotokugawa, Som is a rabid defender of official orthodoxy, if CBS came out tomorrow and said "We were only kidding! it's a different universe!" he'd shift right along with it. If CBS introduced CGI "My Little Pony" characters, he'd defend that, too, rabidly, as he would if they turned it into a game-show/quiz-show or cop drama.
>
> point being, don't get upset with him, it does no good and he likes it.
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for the heads-up.
> I understand.
> Code Geass fans were like that back in 2008 (the issue over whether Lelouch as alive or dead was viscous.
> I imagine all fan-bases have their rabid defenders.
I got 5 minutes in and couldn't watch it. I never knew there was something worse than Gundam Seed/Destiny. I was so wrong.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Speaking of adding My Little Pony characters to some popular TV series:
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
My character Tsin'xing
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
It's okay and all, but the times the "Trek had to change" is repeated like gospel start to really tire me. Trek's messages were time less (sadly) and the visuals didn't need a radical change, save for the people that repeatedly INSIST that keeping the original visuals also means you absolutely had to build computers from wood an string in 2018 - which of course is a "straw man" I think they call it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> Can't we just enjoy Discovery? It's the first Trek series in 17 years so that's better than nothing at all. Trek had to change for a modern audience, that is fair enough and I'll happily watch it because it's still Trek at end of the day.
If it was ok to good sure. To me it's not.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
DS9 was weak for the first couple of seasons but then after season 3 and 4, it comes into it's own. Give Discovery a chance
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Old visuals and the like are things that you can throw out. The idea of single episode arcs with no real connecting elements other than the characters (which never really get to change) is something that we don't need to retain either. "Modern Storytelling" just works differently.
That doesn't mean we change Star Trek's message about an enlightened and hopeful future. But even in there, we can make changes in how we present that message - we allow our heroes to fail, but in the end they pick themselves up, save the day, and find a better solution than destruction and murder. DS9 had the Federation willing to stand by to murder an entire species, but in the end our heroes found a way to save this species and end the conflict. In STO, we're contemplating altering the timeline to ensure the Iconians really die out, and in the end we find a different solution.
I think particularly for that reason, a prequel is well-suited. People claim that one could have easily redone the Discovery story as a post-Voyager series with a different race playing the Klingons. But I think that's not true. Because that would imply that there is yet another nasty war ahead for the Federation, where the Federation again forgets its moral values so they can survive.
But by going back to the past, we have a better excuse, we show a different part of the Federation and Starfleet growing into what they will become, and we retain a positive trajectory overall.
(That doesn't mean that sequels to the Star Trek story are fundamentally bad. I just think the ones where the Federation is thrown into yet another war isn't something for a continuation of Star Trek's ideals. The Federation ending a big conflict between different parties could perhaps work, if you need some war arcs for SFX purposes.)
Plus the series is just too dark and gloomy for me.