The Cloud planet in TOS had a rigid caste system and were Federation members.
Canon: How many times is enough?
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
Vulcans have duels to the death for the possession of women. Federation members since 2161!
More and more this convinces me that the Kelvinverse should have been considered a hard reboot with no attempt to reconcile with the original continuity at all. I basically consider it to be that in my headcanon anyway, and I'm just as happy interpreting Discovery as part of that continuity, if anything.
They also have arranged marriages for children and so do Andorians in the novelverse, the Federation is not meant to be the 51st state.
By definition? I don't understand that at all. A story with just minor changes in the real world puts one in a fictional universe, so right there I see no requirement for circles that can't be squared in fiction in the trivial case, or any definition that requires it. It's harder for larger and more complex fictional universes to remain consistent on all fronts, particularly when hundreds of writers are contributing, but there's nothing about them that makes them inconsistent with themselves by definition. In actual practice, then yeah. And they may go beyond the real world with their premises, but internal consistency isn't looking for consistency with the real world on all points, but just consistency with the premises and what has gone on before in that fictional universe.
But if you're beyond caring about it, that's fine. I just think when one cares longer and tries to address "apparent" inconsistencies longer, however initially glaring they may seem, one more often may yet devise explanations that would reconcile seeming inconsistencies. I think it's actually part of the fun of discussing fictional universes and fictional worlds with other fans, though admittedly it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Indeed, if you don't care, listening to or reading about others who are still hashing it out can drive one to distraction, and it may even seem like that's all they care about as they deal with that one issue, but I'm pretty sure they care about more than that.
Anyway, caring about that stuff is not a requirement for enjoyment of some fictional work, so whatever works for you isn't by any means wrong so much as it is certainly right, for you.
Last edited:
Betazed too.
Which, truth be told is a lot closer to Roddenberry's ideals and beliefs than all this utopian horseshit that gets touted as "Gene's Vision."
Fiction by definition requires a lie, the scale and complexity of that lie will set a ball park for the amount of mental gymnastics required, nonetheless all fiction will at some point produce something that can't be made to add up precisely because of that premise.
Sci fi just tends to require bigger lies, you cannot deviate from reality to the extent star trek does and still maintain complete consistency, the question is how much does it matter to us when the inconsistencies stand out. For me, not much at all.
Trek was never really intended to be about world building to the extent much of the fan base expect, it was more in line with a series of morality plays which utilise the same basic background in order to facilitate the practical questions of making a TV show and to engage the viewer with a familiar set of characters and basic setting. What primarily mattered, however, was what happened next, what the actions of those characters and the events they found themselves part of meant to the viewer, how they resonated with the real world of racism, sexism hot and cold wars.
All this insistence on canon and consistency is largely external in that sense, a burden the original creators never really foresaw the show having to bear fifty years later. TOS wasn't even remotely consistent from episode to episode, yet for some reason people insist on tearing holes in later shows for sitting shakily on those foundations.
If that's done for fun, great, more power to you, but where I think it becomes a problem is the extent to which people become invested in it, become angry about later inconsistencies to the point they will consider a show worthless or personalise that criticism against an individual in the creative team. You don't have to look far even within these boards to find people who seemingly spit bile at any mention of the people making Disc. In some cases it's not hard to imagine their wishing them harm. Writers and producers have in the past faced torrents of abuse and even threats from "fans" because of this stuff, fans who ironically didn't seem to realise the fault lay with them, they had missed the point.
First of all, have you seen the Internet? One of my favorite things is finding illustrations from books with no illustrations.
Secondly, and with due respect, Klingons had scientists and engineers and lawyers. As much as I don't like the species (DSC might change that) your point that "everyone is a 'WARRIOR!'" is hyperbolic on its face. I think we got too much of the warrior class, but we also rarely saw Klingon culture outside of war situations.
As much as the Homeworld would love to see a suicidal charge of lawyers against the Dominion lines, let's be realistic.
Now, before I get the push back, Klingons were presented as very monolithic as DS9 wore on, and TNG and VOY added to the problem. Kurn threatening to kill Riker, Riker throwing a Klingon officer through a console, and the like, but we also see Colonel Worf, Colonel Chang, and even Ch'Pok. Not saying its great, or that there can't be more, but I'll not pretend we didn't get glimpses of other facets of Klingon culture.
Finally. A show about a Klingon fisherman.something like this would be good for an updated Standard Klingon
I don't hold that to be true, problem is there was never a grand plan ("Gene's Vision") as to what the Star Trek universe was going to be, the writers made it up as they went.
If the writers/directors guides (bibles) had been more extensive and detailed then I think it would have been possible to have had a high degree of consistency.
Roddenberry tried to change the general theme of the show going into TNG, after Roddenberry was gone, the new leadership changed it again (DS9).
Could what world building took place in TOS, with a expansion of the general themes, have worked through to the end of ENT? I think so, but it's hard to say definitely.
Obviously you don't recognize Klingon Aquaman.
Exactly.
Higher, but not absolute. That however, was never really the intent, that's my point. It was primarily fans that initially placed the emphasis on canon, not the creative team, a trend which has held ever since. Hence our infamy as a picky fandom, impossible to please and obsessed with petty details.
C
C57D
Guest
Hyperbolic?? We saw the inner workings of the capital several times in TNG and nothing other than "honour" growling tantrum throwing "warriors" was ever presented. And so your comment about armies of lawyers and the only situations being war focused is a bit disingenuous.
However all I originally just wished for was we could have Ford's Klingons back since I think they beat the canon version in portrayal, intrigue, realism and atmosphere 1000%. But YMMV!
By "lie" I assume you mean a departure from the true or real world. But this could be quite minor, like a simple name change. In this trivial example of fiction, squaring the circle (a euphemism for "impossible task," I assume, and not some more transcendental requirement) isn't a necessity, and so there is no "definition" of fiction that requires accepting impossibilities. But at this point, this seems more a semantic argument and probably isn’t an actual disagreement. I agree the more complex the fiction is, the more departures from the real world it will have, and therefore the greater the likelihood unseen or unforeseen elements are or might become inconsistent with one another, or in some other ways, inconsistent with the fictional universe's premises (which are givens, but allowed to be inconsistent with the real world without violating "internal" consistency - like the existence of warp drive and FTL travel is a given, and inconsistent with the Real World, AFAIK, but not inconsistent wit the Trek Universe).
I'm not sure it can't be done at all, bearing in mind the huge difference between consistency with the real world, and internal consistency with itself and its stated or later accepted premises. I do agree, however, Trek failed in many regards, but that's not by definition, IMO, or a requirement of fiction, science fiction or fiction in general, but more a natural product of lax oversight and numerous contributing authors and even budget and time constraints producing the product in a manner that would not allow one to "properly" depict something as intended, but only as the budget or time allowed, which might depict some inconsistencies. But even there, the creators did strive for consistency on core matters wherever possible, and this was by design, lest one wouldn't be playing in the same sandbox. Also, writing it as they went in the beginning didn't help.
Regardless of how they arise, many inconsistencies matter a great deal to me when I perceive them to be a product of laziness or ignorance, or when the logical ramifications that would naturally follow from them would become quite problematic for future episodes. There are many other inconsistencies, however, that are virtually meaningless and certainly hardly worth consideration beyond a moment's thought, if that.
And not to discount those important contributions to modernity, but the reason Trek (and many other fictional universes) have or develop such followings is because these worlds capture the imagination, not just what they did, but what else might happen there, or here, given those possibilites. And by discussing it, fans find they can increase their enjoyment and entertainment value and maybe even the social worth in the real world by playing in the same playground with others or taking to heart some lessons they saw. But like most games, things run better when everyone knows and obeys the rules.
Otherwise, without such a fan following and appeal to something greater than perhaps intended, it would likely just be a good show from the late 60's but hardly have such a huge following today, or the topic of conversation here, let alone the inspiration for the entire social media board.
I'd say it did a fairly good job at being consistent in most areas where it mattered, allowing for inconsistencies due to budget and time constraints and simple mistakes to be retroactively reconciled where necessary, or explained where possible. The original creators may not have foreseen this show's popularity 50 years later, but what you claim is a burden is also largely the reason anyone is still talking about it to this degree 5 decades on.
There are many ways to love Trek, and it takes them all to support the Trek Phenomenon. Luckily, it is never a requirement individuals must love all aspects of Trek to partake in the parts they care about it, but hopefully nobody would make the mistake of thinking if another doesn't love Trek in the same way they love Trek, then those others are not loving it correctly or in the only meaningful way.
This is doubtlessly true, and the bane of many things other than Trek, as well. I swear, I see it everywhere in social media today.
I like this. Yeah? Well then you suck, you idiot. I love that for this reason. You're kidding me. I mean, yeah, love that, but for THAT reason? What are you, some loser?
It has all the charm and relevance of an argument that if somebody's favorite flavor of ice cream isn't the same as your favorite flavor, then they are in some way a defective human being or they don't know what they're talking about. It makes no sense. So I would never support another's claim their personal preferences are the only true or correct or proper ways, and I try to avoid giving anyone that impression if I feel passionately enough about some aspect of a fictional work to talk about it that they should, too, lest they be of questionable intelligence or of lesser moral fortitude or their opinion only holds relatively minor social worth.
But most of that problem is about the maturity of the individuals, or even the way social e-media allows anonymous people to be far less social and polite than they would in real life and in person, and should never be blamed on the particular subject matter, IMO.
Last edited:
But what's the alternative?
Shut our mouths and just accept whatever is tossed to our feet. ?
We love Star Trek as no one else does, the fans have made Star Trek a major part of our live, many have been expose to shame and ridicule because of our passion. Are we demanding, hell yes.
We credit ourselves with being the driving force that has kept Star Trek live for all these years.
But we also saw "The House of Quark" where the inner working of a Klingon great house was described, in one scene detailing the house's finances.
The method to negate the Breen weapon was discovered not by a Starfleet engineer, but a Klingon one.
The Klingons were depicted as a high technology species who could stand toe to toe with both the Federation and the Romulan Empire.
It's not like the Klingons were standing on the hull of their ships throwing rocks.
The Klingons were a reverse image of the Federation and Starfleet, they openly have a passion for life and for death, they throw themselves into battle, their style of lovemaking destroys rooms.
But they love opera and poetry.
Last edited:
It was also a bit tongue in cheek about lawyers, but that's fair.
And that's fair too, and I appreciate the suggestion. I just think that there is a lot of material within the canon portrayals that could be unpacked rather than just discarding the whole of canon.
Even the old woman in "Sins of the Father"?
C
C57D
Guest
True, but she wasn't exactly in a leadership position?
All the Klingon PTB are "WARRIORS!" not a politician, scientist or engineer in sight.
How they actually run a empire between all the growling macho posturing and bumping heads amazes me.
Same could be asked of the Terran Empire.
C
C57D
Guest
Yeah maybe, but didnt mirror Spock say something about how the empire was soon going to collapse under its own inefficient weight (or something similar )??
Same shit, different empire.
It is all canon, even the stuff that contradicts other stuff (James R. Kirk). A reboot does nothing to "canon", it is simply a new continuity. Reshaping of people and events to make sense within a modern context.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
