chyron8472

Bingowings said:

having this […] an F-bomb episode is really a step backwards rather boldly going forwards.

Indeed. Not impressed by the Discovery crew’s swearing in the latest episode. This heralds back to my previous arguments about how just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Why they have to say f*** and sh** just because they don’t have TV broadcast censors is beyond baffling to me. Being gratuitously vulgar is not “hip”. It does not add depth to the characters or the story. This show, while gritty, was still somewhat family friendly on a certain level. Now it is not.

Star Trek is supposed to be family friendly. I want to be able to watch Trek with my young daughter. But I sure as hell can’t watch Discovery with her now until she’s a teenager.

JEDIT: After some thought, that seals it. I’m not purchasing this stupid show when it comes out on disc. Nor am I going to pay CBS monthly for it.

Okay, Dwight Schrute as Harry Mudd. Interesting.

Yes. No, I haven’t seen any Peter Capaldi episodes yet.

Warbler said:

Well we’ll see. I gave my word that I would give the female Doctor a chance, so I will.

And here I haven’t watched Doctor Who since “The Time of the Doctor” (the Matt Smith Christmas Town episode).

I haven’t seen any episodes with whats-his-buckets after Matt Smith.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, I don’t care if it’s “official”. George Lucas would then have officially ruined Star Wars for me. But ever since I found edits that fix his mistakes, I don’t have to put up with him anymore. I don’t have to listen to Anakin whine nor Obi-Wan bicker; and I don’t have to endure CGI Sy Snoodles singing Jedi Rocks without watching Return of the Jedi in what amounts to 240p.

If you can do all that, does that mean I am allowed to pretend that in Doctor Who canon Timelords can not change gender or race?

Yes. Despite it apparently ruffling some feathers rustling some jimmies among the people here, I don’t see why not.

I just finished watching Orville ep.6, and I don’t remember any dick jokes.

Also, the Krill look straight up like Jem’Hadar.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

That stick figure isn’t you, it’s way too flexible.

Fixed.

lol.

But seriously, I’m extremely inflexible on certain views when it comes to the Truth—where I do not believe that interpretation matters whatsoever. Outside of those few absolutely intransigent beliefs, I’m pretty easy about most controversial topics.

You seem to have a more strict opinion of what actually can be considered opinion.

As I said, I don’t care if it’s “official”. George Lucas would then have officially ruined Star Wars for me. But ever since I found edits that fix his mistakes, I don’t have to put up with him anymore. I don’t have to listen to Anakin whine nor Obi-Wan bicker; and I don’t have to endure CGI Sy Snoodles singing Jedi Rocks without watching Return of the Jedi in what amounts to 240p.

You seem very strict on which version of a story can be accepted as valid.

You phrased your disagreement in a way that devalued my interpretation of ROTS. As though your interpretation was more accurate.

I can’t stand the theatrical prequel edits. But I love Star Wars and I choose to find enjoyment in them by accepting an alternate explanation of events. Some people, like my wife, prefer to devalue or dismiss the events of the prequels altogether. I have found a way to not have to do that.

Warbler said:

I disagree. McCoy went back in time and altered history and thereby altered the timeline.

But again, this is fine. You can disagree. But your opinion is not fact, nor is it Truth. It is an interpretation based on available evidence and how you choose to lend weight to different testimonies and exhibits. For example, I do not lend any weight to George Lucas’ revised interpretation of the Original Trilogy (read: Special Edition). I do not lend more weight to the theatrical edits of the Prequels than those made by fans just because they are labelled “official”.

I want to appreciate and enjoy the Prime Universe, and I therefore lend more weight to evidence that it still exists. You don’t have to, but you also don’t have to tell me that I shouldn’t in a manner suggesting that I am otherwise wrong.

Again, my doing so is not contrary to the Truth because this is a work of fiction. I understand that Truth is not actually left up to interpretation (ie. God exists whether I believe in Him or not), but that’s not what we’re dealing with here. There is evidence to support either argument and you’re free to choose what your interpretation is.

When Sisko had to explain the events of “Trials and Tribble-ations” (DS9 characters going back to the “Trouble with Tribbles” TOS episode) to the Department of Temporal Investigations, they asked him which of those types of temporal events he thought had occured. And the Defiant DID go back in time in that episode.

Also, the Voyager episode “Relativity” (Seven and Janeway time-traveling to prevent a bomb on Voyager) has the crew of the USS Relativity combining the different versions of a character that were created by the “temporal incursions” they had caused. In effect, time traveling in that episode created multiple timelines, and the Relativity was able to somehow combine different iterations of a person from separate timelines back together again.

McCoy created a new timeline when he saved her. But Kirk and Spock were stuck in (the 23rd century of) that new timeline, with the only way to get back being to undo the damage caused by McCoy.

Albeit, technically they may not have gone back to their original timeline, but created a new, extremely similar one. In Star Trek, sometimes alternate timelines converge and sometimes predestined timeloops exist, so it’s hard to say which one happened.

Warbler said:

Tell me, in “The City on the Edge of Forever” when Mccoy goes back in time and saves Edith Keeler does he simply change history or somehow create a new timelime?

He created a new timeline.

repost:

Actually, the term used was “alternate quantum realities.”

And Geordi Data had a diagram of the time continuum up on the panel when he was trying to explain Worf’s predicament. Here let me find it…

Done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzUEu7Gb7Cg

DATA: I believe the quantum fissure we discovered is a fixed point across the space time continuum. A keyhole which intersects many other quantum realities.
TROI: What do you mean, quantum realities?
DATA: For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen, do happen in alternate quantum realities.
WORF: And somehow I have been shifting from one reality to another.

LOOK AT THAT DIAGRAM. That is what the multiverse space-time continuum looks like in Trek. They all exist. When a choice is made—when any action takes place that could have had an alternate outcome—one or more new alternate timelines diverge from that event.

Actually, the term used was “alternate quantum realities.”

And Geordi Data had a diagram of the time continuum up on the panel when he was trying to explain Worf’s predicament. Here let me find it…

Done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzUEu7Gb7Cg

DATA: I believe the quantum fissure we discovered is a fixed point across the space time continuum. A keyhole which intersects many other quantum realities.
TROI: What do you mean, quantum realities?
DATA: For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen, do happen in alternate quantum realities.
WORF: And somehow I have been shifting from one reality to another.

Warbler said:

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.

That’s not how time travel in Star Trek works. You should watch the TNG episode “Parallels” again. In that episode, Troi was not worried about being non-existent should Worf fix the space-time continuum; she was worried that her version of Worf, to whom she was married and had children, would not return to be with her after all was said and done.

The timelines that Worf encountered in that episode were “alternate timelines” that existed before that episode and continue to exist afterward. The Trek multiverse does not have a single line of causality in which only one version exists at any one time. I’m certain we do, here, in real life, but Star Trek is fiction. So there doesn’t have to be a real life that-doesn’t-make-sense-from-what-I-know-of-God reasoning for why Trek must have a single timeline.

Warbler said:

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?

Yes. https://www.amazon.com/Superman-II-Richard-Donner-Cut/dp/B000IJ79WU

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.

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.

[snip]

rodneyfaile said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

^ Not helping, Frink.

Sorry. But impscum has contributed nothing but negativity for a long, long time. Celebrating the fact that the forum continues to grow more enjoyable doesn’t seem unreasonable.

I agree.

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.

[snip]