I agree. Nimoy's quote is condescending and dismissive of the fans. Probably came from his "I am not Spock" phase. Canon isn't the result of fans who need to "cling" to "minutia." Canon is the creators crafting a coherent story with consistent internal logic and ground rules. Abandoning canon invalidates what came before. As much as I hate to admit it, it's "canon" that Hicks & Newt died off-screen at the beginning of Alien 3. I despise Alien 3 for that reason. But knowing what happens in Alien 3 does impact the ability to enjoy Aliens and take satisfaction in Ripley's heroic efforts to save Newt & Hicks.
Out of curiosity, whom (besides yourself, of course) do you consider to be authorities on All Things Trek?
No one. Why would I consider anyone else? While there are some people with opinions about some elements of Star Trek that I'm probably in complete agreement with. And I'll be honest. Aside from considering them colossal wastes of time, there are parts of Star Trek I don't bother thinking about much like most of Voyager, most of Enterprise, the Abramsverse movies, about 200 Star Trek novels........
So what makes you the authority? I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to understand your rationale.
Years of study. I'll concede fully that there are other people with more knowledge of certain aspects of Star Trek than I have. For example I will agree that you know far, far, more than I do about how to launch and sustain a successful writing career.
If there’d been no Star Trek, I’d still have been a writer, so that’s at best tangential to the conversation. In my view, Trek exists in the eye of the beholder – that is, it’s what you make of it. You can imagine it to be whatever you want; you simply can’t violate the concept of intellectual property by trying to sell your own version of it. You (generic "you") also can't argue "my Star Trek is better than your Star Trek" without looking foolish. Aw, look who's hitting the button again...
That's specifically a Klan invented term, btw. No one accidentally absorbs that from a work buddy, or school chum, and regurgitates it like a kid saying a swear they heard from their dad on the playground. Nope, if you toss that around, you're a hood wearer.
Wow. It's almost like El Chup posting claiming the diversity in Star Trek was why it was so popular and why he liked it.
While we are on the subject of Trek knowledge, neither TNG nor DS9 featured a female captain. I have NEVER met a single Trek or sci-fi fan with that attitude. Not one.
1.Dayton, you fucked up your quote tag, I fixed it for this post. 2. You don't even have to go that far. There's at least one poster here, who doesn't like the idea of women on a ship that could see combat....
1) I didn't quote anyone in my last post. How could I "f--k" it up then? 2) I don't like women in combat situations either. Real life or fictional. But that is one thing I realized I'm going to have to accept in both.
I was saying that Dicky had pulled a "you," not claiming that you had done anything. Well, that puts you above certain folks.
Right. Female admirals imply female captains. Or slutty commanders willing to fuck their way to skip ranks.
I've over the past few years grown into watching SciFi as having visuals indicative of what is "real" rather than taking every on screen pixel literally. Watch a show like TOS and to modern eyes many of the effects are laughable and clearly nothing like they would look like in reality. Treat it like a stage play and those issues vanish. The same applies to things like sets. While it looks very different I think the Kelvin timeline Enterprise bridge is a perfect representation of the originals version. Clean lines and surfaces, easy to read controls. The original lack of clutter on the ship models and interior sets wasn't to make things look basic, but to make them look advanced with technology seamlessly integrated into the hull and bulkheads. As we headed into the TOS movies the changing aesthetic isn't so much literal as showing us what it would look like to eyes of that period. The sets start looking more clunky, more lived in, just like a ship that is no longer state of the art, showing its age and where it has been patched up.
Admiral Norah Satie from The Drumhead. And Admiral Hayes. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Hayes_(Female_Admiral) And Admiral Rossa! http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Connaught_Rossa
I thought one of the reasons for the "uncluttered look" both in the original series and to an extent later in TNG was to make it easier to film. Of course thats also a key reason all the crew quarters pretty much look the same rather than being packed with personal stuff unique to each person. The same set has to represent each persons quarters and it would be a major hassle just hauling personal items in and out.
I've mentioned it on this site several times, but I've never seen it discussed in any "official" sense. It's the natural implication of "Regeneration"
Nope. The GoF specifically says "everything is as it was" Also, "Time's Arrow" precedes COTEoF and while I don't remember the details, there was no "corrective plot device" which would have cleaned up any messes. I THINK that was the earliest time incursion that involved civilized human civilizations of the past. I've already referenced all this earlier in the thread.