logo Sign In

All Things Star Trek — Page 156

Author
Time
Post link

Tobar said:

You guys are starting to sound like the prequel apologist crowd coming up with your own head canon (ring theory) justifications for awful decisions.

We’re not trying to justify writing here, we’re justifying why some ships are different colors.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Tobar said:

You guys are starting to sound like the prequel apologist crowd coming up with your own head canon (ring theory) justifications for awful decisions.

How does adding a Questarian spin on the (supposedly in-universe) production of the Trek franchise apologisticly justify bad decisions?

doubleofive said:

Tobar said:

You guys are starting to sound like the prequel apologist crowd coming up with your own head canon (ring theory) justifications for awful decisions.

We’re not trying to justify writing here, we’re justifying why some ships are different colors.

Or why the Trill have spots and not forehead ridges. Or why the Cardassians don’t have headgear or silly beards. Or why specific recurring Klingon characters like Kor, Kang and Koloth have forehead ridges in DS9 but not in TOS.

I don’t see Trill having spots as a bad decision. It just doesn’t make sense on its face. There is nothing wrong with finding a reasonable in-universe explanation to increase enjoyment of ones favorite fiction. If people want to like the Prequels, I say let them. Because otherwise, I wouldn’t go to the trouble of finding a decent Prequel edit.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
Post link

I just don’t care much about those little things. They can be fun to nitpick when the plot and characters are bad. No one should’ve cared if Slave 1 were blue in AOTC if the movie was good, but since it wasn’t, we might as well complain about that. If STD is good, then I no reason to complain about the little things. If it isn’t good, then why not. I haven’t seen Discovery yet but I have high hopes. I’ll just watch it as its own thing.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Like Bortus (and his mate), from The Orville, who is neither flamboyant nor sassy.

I’m not really bothered by men who are gay, per se, but I really am not fond of men in general who are effeminate, especially flamboyantly so. It weirds me out.

You should work on that prejudice. I have no problem at all with depictions of flamboyant males. But in my experience straight men are as likely to be fabulousa as gay men and there are lots more straight men. That in this day and age having this old chestnut being Star Treks first gay characters in an F-bomb episode is really a step backwards rather boldly going forwards. Galactica did this so much better. The reboot I mean. In the original show Lucifer and gold Cylon were beyond disco.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

um, I’ve watched that film mulple times. Including when it first came out in the theaters. I am sorry to say that she did die. I agree it would have made more sense if she hadn’t. But she did. They even held a funeral for her, where her dead body is visible. I don’t know how you get around that.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Star Trek and Stargate both go by the premise that “anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum realities.” It’s just that the characters from those realities assert that their version of reality is the only one that matters (which is an actual quote from Teal’c.)

The Prime Universe does still exist. As does the universe in Yesterday’s Enterprise and the Mirror Universe. To say that Prime does not exist is to say Mirror does not exist; and the Mirror Universe’s timeline, which is wholly separate from Prime, was accessed repeatedly by Prime characters (and vice versa) during the events of Deep Space Nine, not to mention TOS and Enterprise.

Star Trek 2009 nine makes it clear that the Narada when back in time, altered history and thereby turned the prime universe into the Kelvin universe. There may be an alternate universe that is exactly the same at the prime universe, but it would only be a duplicate universe and not the prime universe. As far as I know, Discovery does not take place in an alternate universe that is a duplicate of the prime universe, it takes place in the prime universe itself.

Author
Time
Post link

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

These are not Klingons.

These are Klingons.

FTFY

I knew someone was going to bring that up. Clearly when they were doing TOS they didn’t have the capability to make Klingons look like they do in the movies and nextgen and the rest of the tv series’. They eventually explained the difference in appearance in Enterprise. They have not as far as I know explained the appearance of Klingons in Discovery. With the history of the change in the appearance in the cannon already, any attempt to explain this new change in appearance will be far fetched. The change was unnecessary. One could argue the appear of Klingons in TOS looked cheap and clearly they did not have the budget or the capabilities to make Klingons look how the should. The same is not so of the movies and nextgen and the rest of the series’ If they had wanted, they could have make the Klingons look like they do in Discovery. The look of Klingons in the movies and nextgen and the other series’s has become iconic. There was no need to change them. What is next? Giving Vulcans and Romulans square ears instead of the iconic pointed ones? Finally in my opinion, the nextgen Klingons just look better.

Too long, didn’t read.

sheesh! it wasn’t that long! Anyway, if you’re not going to read my posts, don’t respond to them, and certainly don’t expect me to read such a response.

Point is – aside from the Klingons in The Undiscovered Country – all TNG+ Klingons have sucked. And that’s all due to their characterization, not their makeup.

I refuse to read this response.

Author
Time
Post link

SilverWook said:

I’d love to see some documentation from the '60’s where making the Klingons look more alien was actually discussed. A lot of production memos and such still exist. It’s not that the capability wasn’t there, (look at the Tellarites or the Andorians) but the expense of doing a large group of Klingons would have wreaked havoc with the budget.

I don’t know if such a discussion actually occurred. But you know they did not have much budget for TOS. You also know there is no way back in the 1960s they could have made the Klingons look as they do in nextgen.

TNG tweaked the Romulan look enough that you have to wonder how Spock can walk around on Romulus unnoticed. 😉

I thought it was stupid to do. Long before the tweak, it was established that Vulcans and Romulans looked alike and had a shared ancestry. Therefore, it makes no sense to tweak the look of the Romulans without tweaking the look of the Vulcans. The look of the Romulans and Vulcans were fine, no need to tweak them.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

um, I’ve watched that film mulple times. Including when it first came out in the theaters. I am sorry to say that she did die. I agree it would have made more sense if she hadn’t. But she did. They even held a funeral for her, where her dead body is visible. I don’t know how you get around that.

Because I have two different edits of the film that splice in a scene after the Blockade Runner lands on Alderaan, where Natalie Portman is seen crying and cradling a newborn baby (Q2’s Fall of the Jedi Ep3; and Hal’s Labyrinth of Evil). Then, in Return of the Jedi, Luke asks Leia “Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?” and she responds “She was… very beautiful. Kind…but, sad.”

I do not accept the lame excuse that her Force abilities allowed her to gain this imagery from within the womb or from a few seconds of eye contact. And I do not watch ROTS edits, official or otherwise, that don’t have the aforementioned scene included. Not since I discovered it exists.

This is not about unequivocal Truth. This is not the Bible or the message of the cross. This is fiction, and in my desired interpretation of events, the OT supersedes the PT when they conflict. Therefore, it makes no sense for Leia’s birth mother to have died in childbirth given Leia’s response.

And finally, there actually are movies that have different official cuts. Superman II has the theatrical (Lester) cut, and the director’s (Donner) cut. In the Lester cut, Superman kisses Lois to erase her memory. In the Donner cut, he reverses time again to undo all of the events of the film. In a “Superman II Redux” edit I have, he lets her remember everything (meaning the quip about Clark being “super” at the end was an intentional joke on her part). So which is correct? Why does it matter which one the studio says is correct? Why can’t we, as fans, make up our own minds?

Why can’t I decide, given the evidence with which I’m presented, that Discovery is logically not a part of the Prime Timeline? You certainly seem fine with asserting that the Prime Universe does not exist anymore, given evidence the franchise itself presents to the contrary. So again, it’s not about Truth. It’s about how you choose to enjoy the fiction that you consume.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

um, I’ve watched that film mulple times. Including when it first came out in the theaters. I am sorry to say that she did die. I agree it would have made more sense if she hadn’t. But she did. They even held a funeral for her, where her dead body is visible. I don’t know how you get around that.

Because I have two different fanedits that splice in a scene after the Blockade Runner lands on Alderaan, where Natalie Portman is seen crying and cradling a newborn baby. Then, in Return of the Jedi, Luke asks Leia “Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?” and she responds “She was… very beautiful. Kind…but, sad.”

As much as I would like pretend that fanedit cannon is the official cannon, I can’t.

I do not accept the lame excuse that her Force abilities allowed her to gain this imagery from within the womb or from a few seconds of eye contact.

I agree it is lame. Of course how would Luke and Leia know that the woman Leia thought of as her Mother was actually her mother? Neither Obiwan or Yoda tell Luke anything about his amd Leia’s real mother or for that matter the woman that Leia thought of as her mother. Remember Leia didn’t know Bail Organa wasn’t her actual father until Luke told her in ROTJ. It is possible she thought that Bail Organa’s wife was actually her real mother and that is who she was referring to when Luke asked her to describe her real mother. Neither one of them would have any idea who their real mother was or what happened to her or if either ever had any interaction with her.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Therefore, it makes no sense for Leia’s birth mother to have died in childbirth given Leia’s response.

It is possible. She was a bady. She wouldn’t remember her mother dying(do you remember events that went on around you immediately after you exited the womb?). Some other women could pretend to be her real mother, just like Bail Organa pretended to be her real father and she would never know it.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Star Trek and Stargate both go by the premise that “anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum realities.” It’s just that the characters from those realities assert that their version of reality is the only one that matters (which is an actual quote from Teal’c.)

The Prime Universe does still exist. As does the universe in Yesterday’s Enterprise and the Mirror Universe. To say that Prime does not exist is to say Mirror does not exist; and the Mirror Universe’s timeline, which is wholly separate from Prime, was accessed repeatedly by Prime characters (and vice versa) during the events of Deep Space Nine, not to mention TOS and Enterprise.

Star Trek 2009 nine makes it clear that the Narada when back in time, altered history and thereby turned the prime universe into the Kelvin universe. There may be an alternate universe that is exactly the same at the prime universe, but it would only be a duplicate universe and not the prime universe. As far as I know, Discovery does not take place in an alternate universe that is a duplicate of the prime universe, it takes place in the prime universe itself.

It actually specifically makes the opposite clear. The Narada created a divergent timeline that they call “an alternate reality”. The Prime universe is still there, untouched (just without Romulus). See also: Star Trek Online, which continues in a post-Romulus Prime timeline.

As for Discovery, it takes place in the Prime timeline. Nothing about the content of the plot has contradicted anything in the timeline that I can see. The visual changes should not be explained away in-universe, like Enterprise tried to do with the Augment Virus. This is how it looks in a show made in 2017, just as it should. As fun as the fan films are with their 100% accurate sets and makeup, that isn’t want a modern trek should be. It SHOULD be pushing the envelope for effects and prosthetics and telling stories that are relevant to today, and you know what, Discovery is doing exactly that.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

um, I’ve watched that film mulple times. Including when it first came out in the theaters. I am sorry to say that she did die. I agree it would have made more sense if she hadn’t. But she did. They even held a funeral for her, where her dead body is visible. I don’t know how you get around that.

Because I have two different fanedits that splice in a scene after the Blockade Runner lands on Alderaan, where Natalie Portman is seen crying and cradling a newborn baby. Then, in Return of the Jedi, Luke asks Leia “Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?” and she responds “She was… very beautiful. Kind…but, sad.”

As much as I would like pretend that fanedit cannon is the official cannon, I can’t.

Why? Why do you have to be so rigid that you can’t accept something that isn’t “official.” Especially if it makes more sense and/or you like it better?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

AGAIN, Which version of events in Superman II is canon? The official theatrical edit, or the official director’s edit? Why does it matter what the studio says?

And ultimately, I say let me enjoy it. I do not enjoy the concept of Padme’s death. It’s stupid. It’s pointless. It cheapens her character. And it doesn’t make sense with the OT in my opinion.

Besides, Adywan once pointed out that there are many, many, MANY cuts of a film that exist before the studio actually decides on the final product. There is a lot of footage on the cutting room floor.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
Post link

doubleofive said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Star Trek and Stargate both go by the premise that “anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum realities.” It’s just that the characters from those realities assert that their version of reality is the only one that matters (which is an actual quote from Teal’c.)

The Prime Universe does still exist. As does the universe in Yesterday’s Enterprise and the Mirror Universe. To say that Prime does not exist is to say Mirror does not exist; and the Mirror Universe’s timeline, which is wholly separate from Prime, was accessed repeatedly by Prime characters (and vice versa) during the events of Deep Space Nine, not to mention TOS and Enterprise.

Star Trek 2009 nine makes it clear that the Narada when back in time, altered history and thereby turned the prime universe into the Kelvin universe. There may be an alternate universe that is exactly the same at the prime universe, but it would only be a duplicate universe and not the prime universe. As far as I know, Discovery does not take place in an alternate universe that is a duplicate of the prime universe, it takes place in the prime universe itself.

It actually specifically makes the opposite clear. The Narada created a divergent timeline that they call “an alternate reality”. The Prime universe is still there, untouched (just without Romulus). See also: Star Trek Online, which continues in a post-Romulus Prime timeline.

No where in Star Trek 2009 does it say that the Narada went to a different universe, it just went back in time and changed history.

As for Discovery, it takes place in the Prime timeline. Nothing about the content of the plot has contradicted anything in the timeline that I can see. The visual changes should not be explained away in-universe, like Enterprise tried to do with the Augment Virus. This is how it looks in a show made in 2017, just as it should. As fun as the fan films are with their 100% accurate sets and makeup, that isn’t want a modern trek should be. It SHOULD be pushing the envelope for effects and prosthetics and telling stories that are relevant to today, and you know what, Discovery is doing exactly that.

I disagree. If you want it to be “how it looks in a show made in 2017”, then call it a total reboot, totally having nothing to do with the original cannon. But if you are going to put it in the original cannon, it should look like it.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

AGAIN, Which version of events in Superman II is canon? The official theatrical edit, or the official director’s edit?

Is the Donner edit considered an official director’s edit?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

but it is not.

It’s called “headcanon.”

As far as I’m concerned, Padme Amidala does not die during the events of Revenge of the Sith. And I have two different cuts of that film and a quote from Leia in ROTJ to back it up.

George’s “official” explanation can stick it.

um, I’ve watched that film mulple times. Including when it first came out in the theaters. I am sorry to say that she did die. I agree it would have made more sense if she hadn’t. But she did. They even held a funeral for her, where her dead body is visible. I don’t know how you get around that.

Because I have two different fanedits that splice in a scene after the Blockade Runner lands on Alderaan, where Natalie Portman is seen crying and cradling a newborn baby. Then, in Return of the Jedi, Luke asks Leia “Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?” and she responds “She was… very beautiful. Kind…but, sad.”

As much as I would like pretend that fanedit cannon is the official cannon, I can’t.

Why? Why do you have to be so rigid that you can’t accept something that isn’t “official.” Especially if it makes more sense and/or you like it better?

Because I am me, and official canon is official canon and pretend canon is pretend. Also I can’t complain when something new doesn’t agree with my pretend canon, but I can complain when it doesn’t agree with official canon.

Author
Time
Post link

Ah so you just like to complain. 😉

Also it’s “canon.”

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Why can’t I decide, given the evidence with which I’m presented, that Discovery is logically not a part of the Prime Timeline?

Well what are you going to do if/when other characters from the Prime Timeline appear in new episodes of Discovery? Pretend those episodes don’t exist?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

chyron8472 said:

doubleofive said:

This week’s episode had a fancy new Klingon ship identified as a D7, which is the classic TOS model. This goes with my friend’s headcanon that Star Trek has been like a historical record for future people who live in the Trek universe, so the effects are limited by the budget in-universe. Each visual change in more recent series are more representative of how they actually looked, or the recreation of this particular series took an artistic choice.

Adding this layer of fiction within the fiction helps smooth over any changes for me.

I never thought of it that way. That’s a really cool concept.

Umm… wait. So Star Trek is basically a series of historical holonovels. So, there is apparently an historical holonovel of Riker visiting an historical holonovel to help him decide what to do about the events of The Pegasus?

I still refuse to believe Trip Tucker would have died how that episode said he did. As Connor Trinneer has said, Trip had been in far worse situations before and come out of them alive. That is one of the reasons I will never watch that episode, ever again.

Historical documents you say? 😛

There is a novel that undoes that damage inflicted by These Are The Voyages. (Trip’s death is not what it appears.) The title escapes me at the moment.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?