It fits fine.
how do you account for all of the numerous canon violations in this show?
- Thread starter crashchaos
- Start date
I'm actually amazed how good it fits
enlighten me, what in your opinion, does not fit?
I don't need someone to insult me thank you.
So far EVERYTHING fits.
Everything fits, canon so far. It simply does not look cheap or old, but the events fit.
Dude, why are you using leading zeroes?Number 15 is wrong as we see a mutiny or two in TOS it's self. I guess Spock forgot, which is amazing since he was the central figure in the mutinies.
Number 14 is disproved by it's own information.
Number 13 is also not a canon violation. Adding a relative to a characters backstory only violates continuity if continuity has previously established the relative doesn't exist. Spock's notorious for relatives popping up out of the blue: Sarek, Amanda and Sybok. Even Saavik to some extent.
Number 12. Has this writer ever seen a Klingon or watched Star Trek? Klingon honor is a joke. The make works with how the Klingon look has evolved since TMP. The baldness is the only radical departure.
Number 11 We see one type of Starfleet ship in TOS. but I doubt that's the only starship design in the entire fleet. By the movies we see addition designs. So no, the Connies aren't the only "starships" out there.
Number 10 Nope, We see the insigna on non-Enterprise personnel in TOS. The other insignia were a production error.
Number 09. We don't know anything about PIke's career outside the Cage/Menagerie. So who knows what things he's done. The writer's really grasping to hit the magic 15.
Number 08. No it's not been "said time and again that the Klingons didn’t acquire cloaking technology until after the Romulans." At least not by anyone writing the show.
Number 07. Nope. Kirk and Spock are well aware of Organia at the start of "Errand of Mercy". What they don't know is the Organians are godlike non-corporeal beings.
Number 06. Is the tribble alive? I don't recall it moving.
Number 05. More grasping at straws. Why is this so high on the list?
Number 04. Yeah, I think Stamets and Lorca know they did a "bad thing". No really a canon violation. One of the reason we know about the ban is from characters defying the ban.
Number 03. Haha, They even mention the holodeck in all but name from TAS. It's pretty obvious the DISCO version is not the "can't be distinguished from reality type" introduced in TNG.
Number 02. Another grasp. The Andorians and the Tellerites are barely present in TOS-VOY, why is this an issue?
Number 01. The Spore Drive. As discussed ad nauseam here and probably elsewhere, it's another in a long list of tech buried and forgotten in Star Trek. The whole "never mention in future shows" is disingenuous. Well duh, it's being written decades later!
The D-7 would like a word.
No reason
Maybe they're from the Kelvin Timeline
Design =/= lore.
Also for all we know D7 could be the designation for different vessels the preform the same role.
Kor's ship, the Klothos looked exactly like a D7 but was called a D5 by himself in a DS9 episode. Who knows how those designations work? For all we know D7 might be more like a 'function' than a class
Possibly a weight class designation. I believe the Romulan Warbird received a "B Class Warbird" designation at some point.
There are no canon violations. There never has been in all of Trek's history. There might have been some question about the canonicity of TAS at one point, but now that series stands besides all the others as something that can be licensed from CBS and can be used as source material in future productions.
Now as far as how well things fit together, that has always been another matter but that doesn't have anything to do with canon. You can have stuff in conflict with each other as far as continuity (like two different versions of the same thing), but both still be considered canon.
Now as far as how well things fit together, that has always been another matter but that doesn't have anything to do with canon. You can have stuff in conflict with each other as far as continuity (like two different versions of the same thing), but both still be considered canon.
In response to those repeating the tired claim about canon restricting storytelling there is not a blessed thing in the generally accepted canon, which would preclude the story these clowns are evidently attempting to tell, So the funky Kelvinverse "Klingons" were an unnecessary change as was the wholesale junking of spacecraft architectures across the board Burnham, is out of the same box from which Sybok came, labelled "Stuff Spock don't talk about" the spore drive, a failed experiment which Starfleet buried on the planet of misfit toys. Stylistically and tonally DSC is much more a sequel to ENT than it is a contemporary of TOS
Unlikely. The D4 class "bird of prey" is basically the size of a runabout, while the D5 from the 22nd century is similar in size to the Enterprise. But then there's the D12 class Lursa and Be'tor were using that is basically a standard-sized bird of prey.
It's actually more likely the designations are Starfleet classifications used internally, like the Nato nicknames for Russian aircraft and naval vessels during the Cold War. This would also explain the whole D7/K'tinga thing; it's like how Nato observers tagged the 971 class submarine as the "Akula" class despite the fact that the Soviets used "Akula" to refer to what NATO came to call the "Typhoon" class.
There are probably multiple starships designated "D7" class by Starfleet but are known to the Klingons as something else entirely.
This is most likely the case.
hmmm... but D7 sounds so Klingon...
Similar threads
