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

[Kol-Ut-Shan]

Well, it seems like a Klingon War almost was canon.

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/birthm...ginal-star-trek-the-next-generation-pitch/amp

https://trekmovie.com/2018/02/13/un...-generation-pith-was-a-wildly-different-show/

 

[Mirror Mirror]

TOS did not ever state such a thing. That impression stems from a deliberate misreading of one line of dialogue in "Turnabout Intruder."

Oh its only canon if you say it is? Really?

 

[Kol-Ut-Shan]

Oh its only canon if you say it is? Really?

Well, he is the Law. Especially, if he’s Karl Urban.

 

[lawman]

I didn't say anything wasn't canon. The line of dialogue is in the episode. I just said you were misinterpreting it.

Not that this hasn't been discussed at length on these forums before, but here's the entire exchange from that scene...

JANICE: I hoped I wouldn't see you again.
KIRK: I don't blame you.
JANICE: The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
JANICE: I loved you. We could've roamed among the stars.
KIRK: We'd have killed each other.
JANICE: It might have been better.​

Sure sounds to me like she's talking about Kirk's world, not Starfleet's. Her goal was to be with him, not to command a ship of her own.

For you to insist otherwise is basically to insist on a less-plausible reading of an ambiguity, just so you can call it "stupid" and say it was retconned away later. Alternately, of course, there's the approach I described a few posts ago, where we simply interpret the scene in a way that makes the most sense for the characters and setting in the first place.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I didn't say anything wasn't canon. The line of dialogue is in the episode. I just said you were misinterpreting it.

Not my view, this has been the fan view for 50 years. It gets brought up all the time, youand you alone seem to think it means something else.

 

[fireproof78]

Sure sounds to me like she's talking about Kirk's world, not Starfleet's. Her goal was to be with him, not to command a ship of her own.

Um, no. She swaps bodies with Kirk to become "captain."

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Um, no. She swaps bodies with Kirk to become "captain."

He has to be the only person I have ever seen who has read this any other way.

 

[Jesse1066]

Not my view, this has been the fan view for 50 years. It gets brought up all the time, youand you alone seem to think it means something else.

He's not alone, I posted the same interpretation earlier today in another thread (and I think I first saw it from Bernd Schneider). Why would you resist interpreting it in a way that allows the Federation not to have been totally ass-backwards in the mid 23rd century? Just go with the retcon.

 

[fireproof78]

He has to be the only person I have ever seen who has read this any other way.

Because it looks like it is just a reading of that line, rather than the larger context of the episode. If she wanted to be with Kirk, then her goal should have been to destroy the Enterprise, the one thing that "kept" Kirk from her, rather than trying to take his place as captain. Lester's mad ravings included "better to be dead than be trapped in the body of a woman" and whimpering about "never getting to be captain."

The Star Trek Encyclopedia states that Lester "...bitterly resented the fact that she was not able to attain command of a starship." According to the Concordance, Lester felt that captaincy was "due her" and Kirk was "in her way" to obtain it.

Kirk's closing line also leaves little in the way of interpretation:
KIRK: Her life could have been as rich as any woman's, if only. If only.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

He's not alone, I posted the same interpretation earlier today in another thread (and I think I first saw it from Bernd Schneider). Why would you resist interpreting it in a way that allows the Federation not to have been totally ass-backwards in the mid 23rd century? Just go with the retcon.

I have zero issue with the retcon, but be honest at what it is. A retcon because the show was written in the 1960's/

Because it looks like it is just a reading of that line, rather than the larger context of the episode. If she wanted to be with Kirk, then her goal should have been to destroy the Enterprise, the one thing that "kept" Kirk from her, rather than trying to take his place as captain. Lester's mad ravings included "better to be dead than be trapped in the body of a woman" and whimpering about "never getting to be captain."

Context is for kings

 

[Jesse1066]

I have zero issue with the retcon, but be honest at what it is. A retcon because the show was written in the 1960's/

I'm willing to do that.

 

[Lord Garth]

Ironically (because I think they never thought of it), in the context of 1969, the Romulans were more socially advanced than the Federation.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I'm willing to do that.

Same, I have seen some folks who want it kept, ugh you know the type. But for the most part most fans are 100% okay with a retcon here.

 

[lawman]

Not my view, this has been the fan view for 50 years. It gets brought up all the time, youand you alone seem to think it means something else.

He has to be the only person I have ever seen who has read this any other way.

Hardly just me. Here, have a few links from these forums, spread across the past eight years, with several prominent members weighing in on this oft-discussed topic:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/women-in-star-trek.122136/page-3#post-4121343
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/number-one.139933/page-3#post-4871156
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/fun...ans-misunderstand.282598/page-6#post-11693531
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/turnabout-intruder.283209/page-2#post-11728985
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/janice-lester-grievance.290596/#post-12205846

Honestly, did you think I was lying that it was an oft-discussed topic?...

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Hardly just me. Here, have a few links from these forums, spread across the past eight years, with several prominent members weighing in on this oft-discussed topic:

I stand corrected on it was just you. But its not a view the majority share and its a retcon most embrace.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm willing to do that.

As am I, but it also opens the table up for a retcon for numerous reasons. So, what do we retcon away? Just the things that are uncomfortable? Do we take Gene's approach and say "It was always meant to be this way but because of budget it wasn't."? Do we take Nicholas Meyer's view of "craft a great story and not worry as much about canon?"

Do we hand wave away because it was "...the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s?"

What is the perspective on the retcons and where do we draw the line?

I stand corrected on it was just you. But its not a view the majority share and its a retcon most embrace.

Certainly not a well supported argument without some serious re-interpreting of the material.

Honestly, did you think I was lying that it was an oft-discussed topic?...

Honestly, yes.

 

[lawman]

I stand corrected on it was just you. But its not a view the majority share and its a retcon most embrace.

Well, at least you've backed off on calling your view "the fan view for 50 years." But how do you know what view "the majority share"? You have no way to validate that claim. As with your posts about audience tastes in ship design, you're merely assuming that other people see things your way. Based on the admittedly anecdotal evidence of threads around these forums over the years, I would say that the majority of fans don't interpret Janice's line as implying a Starfleet ban on female captains. Because, y'know, that just doesn't make sense.

 

[lawman]

Honestly, did you think I was lying that it was an oft-discussed topic?...

Honestly, yes.

Seriously? I'll do my best not to take that personally, but it's hard. Why would I do that? Agree or disagree with me on any given topic, I think I've at least established a track record of arguing with integrity...

Anyhow, click through and read a few of those links. It is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable and well-supported argument. No retcon required. It's just about reading the scene in context.

 

[fireproof78]

Seriously? I'll do my best not to take that personally, but it's hard. Why would I do that? Agree or disagree with me on any given topic, I think I've at least established a track record of arguing with integrity...

Everyone lies, at some point in time. I try to argue from a place of integrity to, but if it is a topic I'm passionate about, well, I'll admit to lying from time to time, to make my argument look better. I'm not proud of it but it happens.

And I've been accused of lying. Can't tell you how many times I've spoken from personal experience only to be accused of lying about it.

And, why take it personally? No offense, but you don't even have an avatar. I have no way of knowing you, who you are as a person, likes, dislikes, interests, hobbies (outside of Star Trek), hopes, fears and dreams. It is very hard to make it personal when we don't really know each other.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Well, at least you've backed off on calling your view "the fan view for 50 years." But how do you know what view "the majority share"? You have no way to validate that claim. As with your posts about audience tastes in ship design, you're merely assuming that other people see things your way. Based on the admittedly anecdotal evidence of threads around these forums over the years, I would say that the majority of fans don't interpret Janice's line as implying a Starfleet ban on female captains. Because, y'know, that just doesn't make sense.

No I did not back off, I agreed that not you alone held your view. The majority seem to not share your view, nor does the show itself. Lines out of context might. Your view is so uncommon, I had never honestly heard it before.