Here is why canon is important to Trek.

[The Wormhole]

Canon is only a word used in internet arguments. It can be a handy guide post but it should never be the rule. True creativity thrives only when unfettered, and if it's a choice between a good story or the chains of canon, a good story should win all the time.

Diverging from continuity, even in service to plot, sometimes especially in service to plot, can look like a cheat.

Former Doctor Who producer Terrance Dicks, and one of the franchise's more respected writers said it best: "Continuity is only whatever I can remember." I sometimes feel more could learn from this attitude.

Hell, they don't even have a Robin!

Well, there kind of is a Robin, in The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Jayson1]

Continuity should be respected, but not blindly worshiped. Diverging from continuity, even in service to plot, sometimes especially in service to plot, can look like a cheat. "Wait a minute, the engines couldn't do that last week."

I agree but Trek does run into the problem with the fact we don't know how any of tech works for the most part. For me canon and continuity is at it's most important when dealing with a character's backstory,abilities and specific world building moments that feel more important than others. What is deemed a "Important world building moment" I know is subjective so it's usually good to keep things kind of broad unless said moment was a focal point of a episode or movie.
If someone wanted to do a story about the Kitomer attack for example that killed Worf's parents they have tons of freedom because we know so little of it. On the other hand if someone wrote about human's first contact with Vulcans and it veered way off from what we saw in "First Contact" then that would bother me more as a fan.

Jason

 

[MacLeod]

Canon is only a word used in internet arguments. It can be a handy guide post but it should never be the rule. True creativity thrives only when unfettered, and if it's a choice between a good story or the chains of canon, a good story should win all the time.

Former Doctor Who producer Terrance Dicks, and one of the franchise's more respected writers said it best: "Continuity is only whatever I can remember." I sometimes feel more could learn from this attitude.

Well, there kind of is a Robin, in The Dark Knight Rises.

Well with regards to DW, it's a show about a time travelling Alien so it's a little easier to say history has changed and when the show contintued in 2005 we had the "fixed points" that couldn't be changed and when history could be changed.

And a limitation can work as advantage just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. With CGI for example you an do almost anything, doesn't mean it'll be good from a story telling point of view even if the CGI is excellent.

The fictional universe of Trek has rules of how it operates which have been built up over the course of years as soon as a show/episode starts to violate those rules it becomes harder to create the suspesnion of disbelief. You want to change those rules address it in show, don't treat your audiance as idiots who can't remember X episodes ago you said you couldn't to this and now you can without saying why.

 

[The Wormhole]

The fictional universe of Trek has rules of how it operates which have been built up over the course of years as soon as a show/episode starts to violate those rules it becomes harder to create the suspesnion of disbelief. You want to change those rules address it in show, don't treat your audiance as idiots who can't remember X episodes ago you said you couldn't to this and now you can without saying why.

The concept of continuity and canon in Star Trek are already tenuous at best, it's truly perplexing why fans treat them so sacrosanct. Star Trek is replete with retcons and contradictions and stuff that just doesn't make sense. Roddenberry himself didn't even follow his own rules, as evidenced with his writer's guide for TNG stating Starfleet is not a military, and then Starfleet gets described as a military in an early season 1 TNG episode, before becoming non-military again at the end of season 2. Hell, in TOS they spend half the first season with multiple different names for the service the Enterprise belongs to before settling on the name Starfleet, which Enterprise tells us was the name for close to 100 years prior.

A writer's only concern should be serving the plot of their story. If canon can enhance their story, then sure, keep it, work with it. If canon is an obstacle to the story, it becomes the most expendable thing in the room. Star Trek sure didn't care that Spock was previously grinning over vibrating plants and screaming over the disappearance of THE WOMEN when they established he was unemotional. Is Scotty from Linlithgow or Aberdeen?

 

[UnknownSample]

I know the canon debate is a ongoing one and with"Discovery" it seems to have become even more of a issue. To me I think the value of canon is to make the shows feel like they exist in a shared universe, were even if you see alterations, you still feel like it is all taking place in the same universe. To me this adds greater depth to the shows because it helps make your universe feel like a real place. Without it then you basically would just have some 50's style aproach to sci-fi were no real thought is put into the details and everything comes off looking inconsistent. No need to think about the tech or why humans might be on a spaceship. All that matters is the story which in turn also feels unimportant because you don't buy into the premise. A future setting is always going to feel unrealistic no matter what, but things like canon and continuity do help ground the unrealism and make it seem somewhat possible.

Jason

What's ridiculous is that it even needs to be defended. It's called doing things right.

 

[fireproof78]

Continuity should be respected, but not blindly worshiped. Diverging from continuity, even in service to plot, sometimes especially in service to plot, can look like a cheat. "Wait a minute, the engines couldn't do that last week."

I agree, it should be respected, especially episode to episode, but there are limits, especially in terms of story telling.

I would rather the characters remain consistent and grow and develop than a particular look be strictly adhered to because of continuity.

 

[MacLeod]

Continuity should be respected, but not blindly worshiped. Diverging from continuity, even in service to plot, sometimes especially in service to plot, can look like a cheat. "Wait a minute, the engines couldn't do that last week."

Wouldn't any half decent writer through a line in about why they could do it this week, they had an upgrade etc... At least doing that treats your audiance as somehwat intelligent.

But isn't it a case we've just got more savvy as viewers, so what we accepted say 50 years ago interms of continuity errors isn't the same as today. When we can binge watch shows instead of having to wait weeks/months/years so in some respeect continuity errors can be easier to spot.

 

[BillJ]

What's ridiculous is that it even needs to be defended. It's called doing things right.

Well, no. It is the stories that are important. TNG and Voyager really can't belong in the same universe (or timeline). The Enterprise can travel 10,000 light-years per year ("Where No One Has Gone Before"), Voyager can only go 1,000 light-years per year even though it is the fastest starship ever built.

The concepts of Voyager (and Deep Space Nine) are based on violating earlier canon.

In Enterprise, the NX-01 can get from Earth to the Klingon homeworld (112 light years away) in 4 days, nine times faster than the supposed "fastest" ship of the 24th century could do it.

We've all tried to squint our eyes and make it fit together, but honestly, very little of it does. Nor should it. Each show should be judged on its entertainment value, not its adherence to fictional minutiae.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The Enterprise can travel 10,000 light-years per year ("Where No One Has Gone Before")

That figure was given for maximum warp, not a sustainable pace.

 

[BillJ]

That figure was given for maximum warp, not a sustainable pace.

Okay. Either way, the "fastest" ship of the 24th century is slower than both a ship built a decade prior, and a ship (which has a top speed of warp five) built two centuries prior. That's all canon.

JANEWAY: But our primary goal is clear. Even at maximum speeds, it would take seventy five years to reach the Federation, but I'm not willing to settle for that.

Not to mention that it has a high sustainable cruise speed...

STADI: Intrepid class. Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor nine point nine seven five.

 

[at Quark's]

I would say it depends on what kind of continuity/canon.

These inconsistent travel times or designs don't bother me. But on the other extreme, suppose they were to launch a series set in the time frame between TOS and TNG that never makes any mention of the prime directive and instead shows the Federation interfering in and manipulating pre-warp cultures, just to extend its own power base, that would bother me. Even though the stories and the entire series might be very good in themselves, I'd rather have seen that it just had played in a separate universe.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Okay. Either way, the "fastest" ship of the 24th century is slower than both a ship built a decade prior, and a ship (which has a top speed of warp five) built two centuries prior. That's all canon.

Granted TOS was all over the place regarding how fast the Enterprise could go, and they disregarded what didn't fit in the TNG era. However, by the time VGR came around, the people working on the show had their technobabble guidelines all laid out and available to fans in licensed reference materials.

TNG was quoting that maximum-warp intergalactic trip a bit too fast. Warp 9.6 is supposed to be 1909c, so it should have been more like 1400 years.

VGR seems to have been assuming a sustainable pace of around Warp 8, which seems more than reasonable considering that they had to see to their own maintenance en route and would have been factoring in weekly stops. Even speeds that are normally quoted as maximum sustainable speed (9.2 for the Ent-D) would be too fast to maintain for decades without stop.

 

[BillJ]

VGR seems to have been assuming a sustainable pace of around Warp 8, which seems more than reasonable considering that they had to see to their own maintenance en route and would have been factoring in weekly stops. Even speeds that are normally quoted as maximum sustainable speed (9.2 for the Ent-D) would be too fast to maintain for decades without stop.

Janeway says "maximum speeds", Stadi gives a cruising speed of "9.975". So I tend to think the implication is that both Data and Janeway are talking about trips without stops. They would have to be, because they have no idea what stops may be needed as both are new ships with little track record to go by, plus neither knows the territory they are in.

As far as them lining things up, that doesn't explain the discrepancy between Voyager and the NX-01. Nor does it make the references in TOS and early-TNG non-canon.

 

[MacLeod]

Granted TOS was all over the place regarding how fast the Enterprise could go, and they disregarded what didn't fit in the TNG era. However, by the time VGR came around, the people working on the show had their technobabble guidelines all laid out and available to fans in licensed reference materials.

TNG was quoting that maximum-warp intergalactic trip a bit too fast. Warp 9.6 is supposed to be 1909c, so it should have been more like 1400 years.

VGR seems to have been assuming a sustainable pace of around Warp 8, which seems more than reasonable considering that they had to see to their own maintenance en route and would have been factoring in weekly stops. Even speeds that are normally quoted as maximum sustainable speed (9.2 for the Ent-D) would be too fast to maintain for decades without stop.

Even if you disregard WNOHGB that leaves us with TMP where the ENT can reach Vulcan in four days on a shakedown cruise. Vulcan being 16ly from Earth. So an average of 4ly per day whilst we don't know if that was cruisng speed or Maximum speed it would be unreasnable to think that what was maximum speed in TMP would be nearering cruisng speed in TNG/DSN/VOY.

But I suspect the writers of vOY didn't really pay too much beyond dumbing it down for the audiance ~70 000 will take 70 years to get home or 1000ly per year.

But Warp Speed in Trek has virtually always been what ever the plot needed it to be.

 

[Greg Cox]

But isn't it a case we've just got more savvy as viewers, so what we accepted say 50 years ago interms of continuity errors isn't the same as today. When we can binge watch shows instead of having to wait weeks/months/years so in some respeect continuity errors can be easier to spot.

Or, just to channel my inner curmudgeon, one could argue that modern audiences have possibly gotten too literal-minded and nit-picky about this stuff, to the extent that that, at times, people seem more worried about whether something is "canon" than whether it's fun, entertaining, well-acted, whatever.

I confess: there are times I wish the internet had never learned the word "canon."

Then again, maybe this is a generational thing. I can't say I ever worried overmuch about "canon" when I was a kid, watching Tarzan and Godzilla and Frankenstein movies over and over on TV or at the drive-in. Maybe that means we were less "savvy" in my day, but we weren't endlessly fretting over "canon" either.

To be fair, I now recall that there was a time--in my youth--when I would get worked up over comic-book continuity errors. "They completely ignored Morbius's last appearance in that one SPIDER-MAN issue!" But eventually I came to realize that "continuity" and "quality" often had very little to do with each other. Did the new HAWKWORLD mini-series wreak havoc on Hawkman's previous continuity? Absolutely. Was it a great read? You bet.

Same with STAR TREK. I just want DISCOVERY to be good. Splitting hairs over whether it's in the Prime Timeline or just the "Prime" Timeline doesn't interest me.

 

[MacLeod]

Or, just to channel my inner curmudgeon, one could argue that modern audiences have possibly gotten too literal-minded and nit-picky about this stuff, to the extent that that, at times, people seem more worried about whether something is "canon" than whether it's fun, entertaining, well-acted, whatever.

I confess: there are times I wish the internet had never learned the word "canon."

Then again, maybe this is a generational thing. I can't say I ever worried overmuch about "canon" when I was a kid, watching Tarzan and Godzilla and Frankenstein movies over and over.. Maybe that means we were less "savvy" in my day, but we weren't endlessly fretting over "canon" either.

To be fair, I now recall that there was a time--in my youth--when I would get worked up over comic-book continuity errors. "They completely ignored Morbius's last appearance in SPIDER-MAN!" But eventually I came to realize that "continuity" and "quality" often had very little to do with each other. Did the new HAWKWORLD mini-series wreak havoc on Hawkman's previous continuity? Absolutely. Was it a great read? You bet.

Same with STAR TREK. I just want DISCOVERY to be good. Splitting hairs over whether it's in the Prime Timeline or just the "Prime" Timeline doesn't interest me.

I too want Discovery to be good, as for which universe it's set on we shall see. But I would hope it would be internally consistant within itself.

 

[BillJ]

But I would hope it would be internally consistent within itself.

This, and being entertaining is all I ask for.

 

[captainkirk]

Then again, maybe this is a generational thing. I can't say I ever worried overmuch about "canon" when I was a kid, watching Tarzan and Godzilla and Frankenstein movies. Maybe that means we were less "savvy" in my day, but we weren't endlessly fretting over "canon" either.

Perhaps part of it is that older shows and movies weren't usually made with the idea that they'd be rewatched endlessly, and certainly not with the idea that people would binge an entire season in a day.
Personally, I don't think the writers should adhere to canon 100%. If they have a great story idea but it will contradict some minor element from an old episode then they should go right ahead. But on the other hand they have to keep things coherent. If Deep Space Nine did an episode in season six where Voyager showed up at the station to pick up supplies with absolutely no explanation it would be ridiculous and cause confusion for the audience. Basically the continuity problems shouldn't be huge glaring errors that take you out of the story.

 

[Sci]

I know what you are saying about "broad strokes" but ask yourself this? If the show was to do a crossover with any old show would it really feel like the same universe with new people playing KIrk,Spock and McCoy and the Enterprise looks modern and updated?

To be honest, I don't think DSC is going to cross over with any of the old shows. TNG is older today than TOS was when TNG started. DS9 and VOY are both relics of the Clinton administration. A child born the day ENT went off the air is in puberty today and will be old enough to drive a car in four years. The only Star Trek production DSC could plausibly cross over with would be Kelvin Trek, and of course they're set in a different timeline (although I suppose there is the possibility Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and co. might be persuaded to make an appearance as their characters' Prime Timeline counterparts).

Basically, like it or not, Star Trek is now so old that DSC is going to be de facto more or less on its own, I suspect, in a way that no Star Trek spinoff since TNG Season Five has been.

I some point these changes are so big that it's hard to see these changes as all happening in the same universe. It's one thing to change the Trill

Is it? Because if the Trill go from being bumpy forehaders to being spotted and Trill symbionts go from taking over their hosts' bodies to forming a new gestalt personality with their hosts, that means that millions of years of Trill evolution have to be pretended by the audience to have gone completely different. That's a pretty damn big retcon there -- at least as big as finding out that in the 2250s, they really did have holographic interfaces and heads-up displays and touch-screens instead of paper print-outs and analogue clocks and jelly-bean switches.

Unless your going to a time period that is undefined. "Discovery" I think would have fit better with it's look being 20 to 25 years till "TOS" as oposed to just 10.

You don't even know the story DSC will tell; it's ridiculous to make that assertion yet. You're just reacting to production design aesthetics, not to the actual story.

Continuity should be respected, but not blindly worshiped. Diverging from continuity, even in service to plot, sometimes especially in service to plot, can look like a cheat. "Wait a minute, the engines couldn't do that last week."

I think that's totally fair. Internal continuity within DSC should be respected -- Burnham shouldn't be African American one week and then Ethiopian next week, for instance. But I also think there needs to be some wiggle room if discontinuity makes for a better story.

Canon is only a word used in internet arguments. It can be a handy guide post but it should never be the rule. True creativity thrives only when unfettered, and if it's a choice between a good story or the chains of canon, a good story should win all the time.

Former Doctor Who producer Terrance Dicks, and one of the franchise's more respected writers said it best: "Continuity is only whatever I can remember." I sometimes feel more could learn from this attitude.

And Doctor Who has a pretty good attitude towards continuity, I think. It matters when they want it helps the story they're telling, and they don't worry about it if it doesn't.

Well, there kind of is a Robin, in The Dark Knight Rises.

Doesn't count!

What's ridiculous is that it even needs to be defended. It's called doing things right.

"Doing things right" depends upon what your creative goals are. That is subjective, not objective.

 

[Jayson1]

The Trill issue for me doesn't seem like a big change because they were basically a alien of the week until the creators choose to make one of them a series regular.
I think canon and continuity usually is a bigger deal when only dealing with your more established aliens or your series regulars or important reacurring guest stars. Once they did change the Trill they stayed pretty consistent with the new aproach.
As for "Discovery" it's true it's to early to know what the show will be like so we are just speculating at this point.
I would also add that character crossover's are also a added strength to canon. It's nice that O'Brien can come from TNG to DS9 or Barclay can do Voyager. Not only that but you see familiar ships and props be used not to mention references to other episodes from other shows. I think this stuff makes the universe feel more real and gives it texture which is hard to do since the show is so far in the future that we have no way of understanding what life is like in that world.

Jason