Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[Annorax849]

I asked this on another forum (though I added the last option for BBS), and it was close between options 1 and 3, with 3 having a slight lead.

I think it's getting tougher to reconcile it, even compared to previous Trek inconsistencies. Keep in mind this is not asking about the quality of the show.

 

[BillJ]

Not even close. But then everyone already knows how I feel.

 

[Vger23]

I don't care about timelines and all that crap. Star Trek was never, ever intended to tell one massive story in one highly continuous and consistent universe. It's amazing it's held up as well as it has, and also fairly coincidental. I think fans got spoiled / had unrealistic expectations set when Star Trek was produced continuously (often with overlap) between 1987 and 2004 by essentially the same people.

If the producers of the show say it's "prime timeline" or whatever, that's good enough for me. They own the property, and they set the rules. It's my / your / our problem if we can't find a way to reconcile that in our minds. My goal isn't to enjoy the franchise as one gigantic story or one intricate universe that someone could actually live it. Don't care about that. We had a whole lot of "continuity" during the mid-to-late 90's, and it was boring and uninspired. So...that data point tells me that "continuity" or "what universe" doesn't mean a damn thing to me with regard to enjoyment of the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I believe they're marketing it as such. I pity Mike Okuda or whoever it is that has to make sense of it all in the next Star Trek Encyclopedia. Because.... no. Its as much the world of TOS as Gotham is the world of Batman V Superman.

 

[Tuskin38]

I believe they're marketing it as such. I pity Mike Okuda or whoever it is that has to make sense of it all in the next Star Trek Encyclopedia.

It makes sense already. They don't need to do a lot of work.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I believe they're marketing it as such. I pity Mike Okuda or whoever it is that has to make sense of it all in the next Star Trek Encyclopedia. Because.... no. Its as much the world of TOS as Gotham is the world of Batman V Superman.

How hard is it to write a description of something?
The Klingon War (2256-2257): A conflict between the Klingon Empire and the United Federation of Planets....

 

[F. King Daniel]

The entry detailing Klingon anatomy should be fun. Do they have hair? Or ridges down their necks? And what picture are they going to have next to "D7 battlecruiser"?

 

[Push The Button]

But it all "always really looked like that", or something.

I don't care at this point, new Trek is new Trek.

 

[ItIsGreen]

I couldn't give a flying flip whether it's Prime, Mirror, Kelvin, any of the universes from Parallels, or the universe that's completely overrun by tribbles. It's new Trek, and it's good new Trek. Bring it on.

 

[Lord Garth]

I refuse to believe that Worf and Torres are bald. They look better with hair. So, hopefully DSC shows some Klingons with hair (besides Voq). Otherwise, for the purpose of this series, I'm calling it the Prime Timeline but am agnostic elsewhere. In Prime Prime, at least some Klingons have hair.

Otherwise, it's going to get hairy (pun intended) talking about Prime Discovery and Mirror Discovery in discussions. So, roll with it. It's Prime.

In DC Comics: no matter how much is changed, the stories always take place on Earth 1. In Star Trek, on Earth 2, there are flashing blinking lights. On Earth 1, we don't have any of that.

If all Klingons everywhere in DSC are bald, then DSC is New 52 Earth... which I believe is still called Earth 1.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Yep, lines up with prime.

 

[Terok Nor]

Pretty much yes.

My one holdout is the Klingons. I'm not sure if it's because of how they look or the simple fact I just hate this iteration of them.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The entry detailing Klingon anatomy should be fun. Do they have hair? Or ridges down their necks? And what picture are they going to have next to "D7 battlecruiser"?

Is there a reason hair should be mentioned? Is hair mentioned in the entries for humans?
They can have a picture of every ship called "D7".

 

[Commander Richard]

I believe they're marketing it as such. I pity Mike Okuda or whoever it is that has to make sense of it all in the next Star Trek Encyclopedia. Because.... no. Its as much the world of TOS as Gotham is the world of Batman V Superman.

I like the "Dark Knight trilogy being a prequel to the 1966 Batman" analogy.

 

[shapeshifter]

To paraphrase McCoy - it's a show, the details aren't important. What's important is you have a good time watching. I have a good time watching Discovery.

Some visual details may not match but I don't care. And they have said they are working towards what is expected so more explanations are probably still forthcoming. They have NINE years left to work with.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Take away the visuals, and DIS fits rather neatly in the Prime Timeline. Add the visuals, and it's a really cool show that reflects the times we currently live in just like TOS did back in the 1960s, TNG in the 1980s, and so on. I can sympathize with those that might have wished DIS be more visually in continuity with TOS, but one show doesn't really cancel out the other. Heck, I think I'd be more comfortable serving on the TOS Enterprise than the Discovery...

 

[cooleddie74]

The entry detailing Klingon anatomy should be fun. Do they have hair? Or ridges down their necks? And what picture are they going to have next to "D7 battlecruiser"?

An actual D7. Not a monstrosity from a video game.

Too soon?

 

[Mudd]

I don't it matters. But no, not in any meaningful way.

 

[Vger23]

People lose their minds over the "D7" Klingon ship designation in DSC. Where in canon sources was the configuration we see in TOS referred to as a D7? A DS9 tribute episode 30 years later? Cmon kids there's more important shit to lose your mind over.

For all we know, the designation is more about a general class of Klingon ship (heavy cruisers, light cruisers, frigates, destroyers, etc) because the different houses all have different hull configurations, so it helps Starfleet put them into buckets based on size, armaments, etc.

Just because fanon sez different, doesn't mean it's a hill to die on when deciding what you're going to get emotional about.

There, see how easy that was?

 

[lawman]

I don't care about timelines and all that crap. Star Trek was never, ever intended to tell one massive story in one highly continuous and consistent universe. It's amazing it's held up as well as it has...

If the producers of the show say it's "prime timeline" or whatever, that's good enough for me. They own the property, and they set the rules. It's my / your / our problem if we can't find a way to reconcile that in our minds...

Conversely, I don't care about who "owns the property" and all that crap. "Word of God" means nothing to me; I think of Star Trek as a creative endeavor that's bigger than the sum of its parts; it's a massive intersubjective construct. The entire shared universe, and the way any particular bit fits into its history and continuity, is a big part of its appeal to me.

Different strokes, I guess. But I do agree with you about one thing: it's on us to reconcile the complexities of it in our minds. That's what makes being a fan so much fun!...

FWIW, I voted "yes, but borderline."

In DC Comics: no matter how much is changed, they stories always take place on Earth 1. In Star Trek, on Earth 2, there are flashing blinking lights. On Earth 1, we don't have any of that.

I see what you're trying to get at, but the analogy's a bit off. After the Crisis on Infinite Earths, the earth of the DC Universe was specifically not called Earth-1. As the only surviving Earth, it was simply the "post-Crisis Earth" for a long time, but eventually creators and fans settled on calling it either "New Earth" or "Earth-Zero." Only after the events of Infinite Crisis created a new multiverse (more limited, with only 52 realities) was there a new Earth-1, but it had no history in common with the original Earth-1. After the reboot in Flashpoint (leading into the "new 52" period) Earth again had a new history, and after Convergence and "Rebirth" made it clear that aspects of the original (infinite) multiverse survived, the primary earth of the current DCU was dubbed Prime Earth (not to be confused with the original Earth-Prime). That's a bit of an oversimplification (amazingly!), but it's how things stand today.

What does this have to do with Star Trek? Nothing in particular. Just sayin', is all.