Does canon really matter?

[BillJ]

They're within the story continuity. They're not going to contradict anything from TOS story wise. Visual wise, sure, but they're not going to kill off Kirk or anything.

I can only speak for myself, but the look is part of the story and more important than minutiae like the Eugenics Wars starting in 1992 or the 2161 being the birth of the Federation.

Plus, it'll be quite a trick not to contradict TOS as it contradicted itself sometimes.

 

[Tuskin38]

I can only speak for myself, but the look is part of the story and more important than minutiae like the Eugenics Wars starting in 1992 or the 2161 being the birth of the Federation.

That is your perspective, but that doesn't change the fact they're not going to contradict TOS outside of visuals.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Life would have continued?

I don't object to the idea of individuals wanting resolution to a story. I object to the idea that such resolution is owed them. It isn't. Moreover, the 50+ years of Trek guarantees it cannot be fully resolved (barring a depiction of the universe dying, thus killing every unresolved plot simultaneously).

The Preservers? Sargon? An incredibly tiny number of viewers would know who they were and fewer would care. I'd much rather know more about the fate of the Romulan commander from the Enterprise Incident, or how Bailey fared after Corbomite. Others no doubt have their own preferences. There's no way to "bottle cap" it to majority satisfaction--not worth the effort.

Personally I think the books have done a great job in tying up loose threads and inconsistency

I'm not interested in canon - I'm interested in consistency across a shared universe. If a series isn't going to be mostly consistent with previous trek series, why should I pay any attention to it vs any other sci-fi show?

 

[BillJ]

I'm interested in consistency across a shared universe. If a series isn't going to be mostly consistent with previous trek series, why should I pay any attention to it vs any other sci-fi show?

If it isn't good, then you shouldn't be paying attention to it anyway. It is a bit disturbing to see how many people are more interested in the show meshing with what came before than rather or not the story is actually good.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One of Trek's weirdest messages is its thing about the human touch being better than computer control (see Booby Trap for an explicit example. Stop giggling at the back.). There's no way at all that a manual pilot is better than a computer in the future the show presents, none at all. But the show consistently presents a sort of 'man over machine', 'don't rely on technology' moral. I find that odd.

Interestingly, while not the earliest, putting the ship under computer control was nevertheless among the earliest ways of executing space combat that was explored in Star Trek, in "Arena." That was the episode that first mentioned, and used, photon torpedoes. They devoted a few lines in the episode to establishing that computers would control the attack on the Gorn ship, only to have the Metrons intervene before it gets carried out.

 

[fireproof78]

I can only speak for myself, but the look is part of the story and more important than minutiae like the Eugenics Wars starting in 1992 or the 2161 being the birth of the Federation.

Plus, it'll be quite a trick not to contradict TOS as it contradicted itself sometimes.

I always see it in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise. I'm trusting like that ) but see the actual Trek timeline being moved forward, and technology reflecting that change. So, the Eugenics Wars didn't happen in the 90s but possibly later, which means tech adjusted accordingly.

Look, don't question it! It just works

 

[BillJ]

I always see it in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise. I'm trusting like that ) but see the actual Trek timeline being moved forward, and technology reflecting that change. So, the Eugenics Wars didn't happen in the 90s but possibly later, which means tech adjusted accordingly.

Look, don't question it! It just works

I guess my question is this: is it actually important for stuff to line up or is them saying that it lines up enough? I think there are a lot of people out there committed to the idea of "Prime" but not necessarily the execution.

 

[Sci]

Canon is not important. Quality is important. The two are not the same.

If being canon were important, Christopher Nolan's 2008 The Dark Knight would be universally reviled for contradicting Batman canon in numerous ways -- from there being no Robin, to the Joker essentially creating Two-Face, to Batman being in love with a character who had never appeared in the canon, to the Joker being an anarchist with makeup and a Glasgow smile rather than a insane mass murderer whose skin is bleached white and hair turned green.

But of course, The Dark Knight is one of the greatest Batman stories ever told.

If being canon were important, Nick Spencer's current run on Captain America: Steve Rogers would be widely respected over the current Captain America film series -- since, of course, these films are just adaptations of the comic canon. But in reality, Spencer's run has been widely controversial, and more than a few people have argued that it utterly betrays the ethos of the Captain America canon while non-canonical films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier capture that ethos perfectly.

Continuity can be important -- to a point. Continuity is mostly important insofar as it creates a sense of internal consistency and verisimilitude and therefore assists the audience in suspending disbelief and in accepting that there are real stakes in what is happening.

On that level, no, it does not matter if Star Trek: Discovery redesigns the Klingons or the warp drive effect or the design aesthetic for Federation starships, anymore than it mattered when Star Trek: The Motion Picture redesigned the Klingons, or Star Trek: The Next Generation redesigned the warp drive effect, or Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home redesigned the design aesthetic of Federation starships.

In fact, it would not particularly matter if Star Trek: Discovery made a clean break with all of Star Trek canon and decided to pick and choose what it wanted to keep and contradict whatever it wanted to. (This has been the MCU's approach to Marvel canon.)

All that really matters is quality.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

That is your perspective, but that doesn't change the fact they're not going to contradict TOS outside of visuals.

But I bet they stay silent on such things as the Eugenics war taking place in the 1990s. That would be the best way to avoid any contradiction.

The easiest way for DSC to avoid looking silly by mentioning something that never happened in real life -- OR avoid pissing off a portion of fans by contradicting the TOS-established date of the Eugenic Wars and change it to be a late-21st century thing -- is to simply not bring it up at all.

 

[Skellington]

Seriously, they should just locate Vulcan at the centre of the galaxy and then everyone would be happy. Sticklers would just throw up their arms as it were and just accept that any concordance with TOS is a bonus.

 

[Jax]

but that doesn't change the fact they're not going to contradict TOS outside of visuals.

Tell that to Spock's family tree.

 

[BillJ]

Tell that to Spock's family tree.

Unless you can find somewhere where they state Spock didn't have an adopted sister, it wouldn't really violate anything.

 

[{ Emilia }]

It feels a little "small universe" to me to have this connection to Sarek but I don't see it as an actual continuity issue.

 

[BillJ]

It feels a little "small universe" to me to have this connection to Sarek but I don't see it as an actual continuity issue.

Yeah. Whether or not it is a good choice is debatable, but I don't see it violating anything we know.

 

[Jax]

Unless you can find somewhere where they state Spock didn't have an adopted sister, it wouldn't really violate anything.

That's not so much willing to look the other way but ripping your head off your shoulders and burying it in the ground

I guess with that rule, we can make Sarek the father of half of Spock's academy class

 

[Tuskin38]

Tell that to Spock's family tree.

Sybok. We didn't know he existed until ST5.

 

[Jax]

Which was and remains a stupid piece of writing from a stupid movie (though it does a certain charm to it with some nice character driven scenes).

 

[fireproof78]

Tell that to Spock's family tree.

Since we know little of Spokc's extended family, including Sarek's own family, and Sybok (as others have pointed out) as well as Amanda's family, there is no contradiction to known history.

 

[Jax]

Sam Beckett Quantum Leaped into Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway but funnily enough not Archer

The Enterprise was built by 7 Dwarfs

Sarek is actually a Romulan

Kirk is Spock's 4th cousin removed

Chekov faked his accent.

because there is no contradiction to known history.

 

[fireproof78]

Sam Beckett Quantum Leaped into Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway but funnily enough not Archer

The Enterprise was built by 7 Dwarfs

Sarek is actually a Romulan

Kirk is Spock's 4th cousin removed

Chekov faked his accent.

because there is no contradiction to known history.

If that floats your boat