Your first point is true but that’s true of all Star Trek. Something new comes in that shakes things up and requires some backsplanation to explain. Or they just outright ignore things and move along (see that temp Warp 5 speed restriction in TNG as an example). Considering we’ve gotten some already ridiculous shit throughout Star Trek, I’m with your second point just as strongly. Who cares. We already have ships that have whales on them to have with three-dimensional course plotting. Is ‘the ship being bigger and having classified tech’ that much more of a stretch?
Comment on Just some fun size comparisons
Basilisk@mtgzone.com 6 months agoI mean, I do like so-called “Nu-Trek”, but at the end of the day this is kind of a tail-wagging-the-dog response. You can explain just about anything in lore after the fact, but when the rubber hits the road the real explanation is that someone in a Hollywood design team said “We want it to be BIGGER,” and then left it to the people who cared enough to find a reason why it would be justified.
Far easier to just suspend your disbelief a bit further, I think. Yeah, Discovery is weirdly big. It also flies through space by a man infused with a giant tardigrade’s DNA sending the whole ship from place to place through willpower and a mushroom trip. If you can accept the second one, it kind of feels like the fact that the ship is a larj boye isn’t that much of a stretch.
Stamets@startrek.website 6 months ago
Basilisk@mtgzone.com 6 months ago
I guess I just fundamentally don’t agree with the need for a “backsplanation”. I am of the camp that I’m totally OK with the Klingons looking different in TMP than in TOS because it wasn’t a 1960s TV show anymore and they wanted the aliens to look more alien, and that’s all the explanation that I need. The Enterprise is different between SNW and its appearance in Discovery because it’s a different show and they wanted to tweak its appearance some to make it more of a “hero” set. Spock and Sarek never mentioned his having an adoptive daughter/sister in spite of being in two series and a half dozen movies because Michael didn’t exist until Discovery and the writers thought it would make for an interesting tie-in.
I have enjoyed the series since TNG in the 80s, and I’d love for it to come true some time in the future. But it’s a TV show, it’s not a history book. It’s fine if there are inconsistencies, none of it is real anyway.
VE3MAL@lemmy.radio 6 months ago
God the Klingon thing was silly. Do we need an explanation as to why the TOS ship had plastic, 1960s themed furniture? Do we need an explanation for improved camera resolution over the years? Why did we need a silly explanation for the improvement in makeup artistry so many decades later? And the explanation doesn’t even work. Genetics don’t work like that. It’s taking themselves too seriously. Either ignore it, or hang a lantern on it with an inside joke once, and be done with it.
Tavarin@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Is this… is this Dune?
I have not yet watched Star Trek Discovery, so this description just reads like Dune and the good old spice.