So, would this be a canon error or a continuity error?
Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
Given Kirk has not been a subject of continuity in Discovery I would say references (if any) to him in Discovery would need to fit within canon.
People love to say Star Trek is full of contradictions, but most are complete non-issues, that can be easily explained away, like Gary Mitchell getting Kirk's middle initial wrong or mis-remembering it purposely to take the piss.
The genuinely big stuff is much rarer - Romulans having a cloaking device in ENT being the most grevious.
That is big because it has huge political/strategic implications.
We know how the fanbase felt about that; its nothing to aspire to.
The genuinely big stuff is much rarer - Romulans having a cloaking device in ENT being the most grevious.
That is big because it has huge political/strategic implications.
We know how the fanbase felt about that; its nothing to aspire to.
Yes, but if they would say that Kirk will be a two hundred year olf man by the time he takes command over the Enterprise; would that be a continuity error or a canon error?
In this case it would be both. Not only does contradict everything that has been established with the character but also the very nature of the character's core identity.
Jason
@Jinn
Half the problem with arguments on these forums is the inconsistent use of terms like canon and continuity. You arn't gonna get a definitive answer because the water has become increasingly muddied since the 90s, with people introducing new unorthodox ideas of what canon is all the time. There used to be a very uncontroverisal and accepted standard in the 90s - whatever happens on screen is canon - a historical document, effectively. Now, for the first time ever, people have introduced the Orwellian-double-speak-sounding concept of 'visual continuity', from comic books, when up until recently, visual continuity and actual continuity were one and the same thing.
I accept the 1987-2005 Berman-era definition assumed by all the literature of that period, such as the Star Trek: Encylopedia, Star Trek: Chronology, etc:
The Encylopedia definition: Star Trek is a franchise were visual continuity is identical to general continuity. Whatever happens on screen in a canonical Star Trek show is absolutely a historical record, in-universe. The canonical material is the shows and movies. No game or novel is canonical. If anything is contradictory, a logical explanation can be assumed.
Under this traditional definition:
Half the problem with arguments on these forums is the inconsistent use of terms like canon and continuity. You arn't gonna get a definitive answer because the water has become increasingly muddied since the 90s, with people introducing new unorthodox ideas of what canon is all the time. There used to be a very uncontroverisal and accepted standard in the 90s - whatever happens on screen is canon - a historical document, effectively. Now, for the first time ever, people have introduced the Orwellian-double-speak-sounding concept of 'visual continuity', from comic books, when up until recently, visual continuity and actual continuity were one and the same thing.
I accept the 1987-2005 Berman-era definition assumed by all the literature of that period, such as the Star Trek: Encylopedia, Star Trek: Chronology, etc:
The Encylopedia definition: Star Trek is a franchise were visual continuity is identical to general continuity. Whatever happens on screen in a canonical Star Trek show is absolutely a historical record, in-universe. The canonical material is the shows and movies. No game or novel is canonical. If anything is contradictory, a logical explanation can be assumed.
Under this traditional definition:
- - I now have to assume the USS Enterprise seen in DSC will subsequently be refit into TOS.
- - I have to treat Discovery as a new timeline of Star Trek, the way Japanese shows like Gundam, or western comics like Marvel have different parallel settings.
Last edited:
Not really, no.
A portion of the fanbase use the word that way and interact with each other a lot leading to selection bias. The original meaning is the correct one and people not understanding that is the cause of ridiculous amount of wailing and teeth gnashing over the most inane details.
Good luck with that.
Spock: "Canon is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Canon is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." 
The events that happen onscreen are canon, but not always in the exact way they are depicted.
1. The universal translator clearly doesn't alter the lips of humanoids to match the "English" translation. That's a show contrivance.
2. Characters have been occasionally recast, and everyone has ignored it.
3. There's not really soundtrack music playing in the background.
4. Some of the very stylized lighting (like Burnham's in her court martial scene at the end of episode 2) is obviously a show contrivance.
The way I choose to headcanon it is Trek is a depiction of actual historic events that happen in the Trekverse. It is not, however, a documentary.
1. The universal translator clearly doesn't alter the lips of humanoids to match the "English" translation. That's a show contrivance.
2. Characters have been occasionally recast, and everyone has ignored it.
3. There's not really soundtrack music playing in the background.
4. Some of the very stylized lighting (like Burnham's in her court martial scene at the end of episode 2) is obviously a show contrivance.
The way I choose to headcanon it is Trek is a depiction of actual historic events that happen in the Trekverse. It is not, however, a documentary.
You're correct. The books don't mean anything to audience expectations.
No, that's not what I mean. There will be audience expectations (or a small portion) that will expect the books or STO to be carried in to a post NEM show.
Now, before I get waylaid for it, I am not arguing to pander to that segment. I personally would hope that CBS would go and do its own thing and not worry about ancillary materials in their writings. But, that won't stop the complaints or expectations of what a show set in that era should be.
I suspect that most book readers know that the books are only loosely connected to the live action series. The shows won't strive to be consistent with what has been published. It's been that way for decades.
Again, missing the point, but I'll not belabor it. Suffice to say, no I don't think the shows will attempt to connect to the books or adapt them.
There is more cohesion so far, with the Discovery books. Hopefully the script writers will continue to be able to continue that dialogue with the novelists.
There's an article in the Best Of Trek books that addresses this, and explains why the "disappearing bum" could be the reason why some parts of the timeline are different (the guy who accidentally phasers himself out of existence when McCoy arrives, still out of his mind on cordrazine). What would have happened to this man if McCoy hadn't been there?
As the most recent series, Discovery has the benefit of decades of past knowledge about the show. There's no real excuse for mistakes.
That seems a rather superficial reason for not watching something. There's a website that's been showing the Classic Doctor Who series, from the beginning, for the past while. I watched a lot of the First Doctor, and realized just how cheaply-made it was, how fake the special effects were... yet I enjoyed them very much. It's the characters and how they deal with the situations presented to them that matters.
I can't think of any reason why calling women "chicks" is a positive thing.
Just attach a warp nacelle to your bookcase, and you're good to go. Picard is into archaeology and Kirk is into Hornblower.Good lord, I just realised the last Trek novel I read was "Vendetta". I think it's in a box in the basement. My bookcases long ago got overtaken by tomes on archaeology and the Golden Ages of piracy & fighting sail.
I guess I should turn in my phaser and comm badge...
It's been several years since I last read any pro novels. It's been a couple of weeks since I last checked my favorite fanfic authors for story updates.
Anything they make and release is within canon, there is no "need to fit"
That's an interesting idea. I like that.
There are degrees of cheapness. It's understandable in the 1960's Doctor Who. it's a little quaint by the 1970's, but it's horrible by McCoy's run. Bad stories combined with sets make something like Paradise Towers unwatchable.
A good story and compelling characters can make up for a world of cheapness. Primer was filmed on on a $7000 budget and it's one of the best science fiction movies of 2004. Birdemic was filmed on a similar scale and it's.. NOT.
Expectations for a good looking presentation are just higher than they used to be.
To be specific, the article was written to address why "Star Trek" isn't part of Star Trek, ie. why Kirk et. al aren't immediately surrounded by fans when they get off the ship in 1986.
The idea in the article was that the man who accidentally killed himself had a wife and kids, whose lives became even worse after his disappearance. The oldest son had to step up as the 'man of the family' and fell into a life of crime. Fast-forward several decades, and he ends up killing a certain cop who happened to moonlight as a scriptwriter... and thus Star Trek was never created.
So that's one take on it. But the "disappearing bum" could have had many other influences on history, whether deliberate or accidental... even whether or not the incident with Gary Seven happened, or if World War III happened as Spock stated. Who knows what he or any possible children could have done to influence events decades later?
I actually like Paradise Towers.
I give the Hartnell era a pass because the budget they had to work with wasn't great by any stretch. During the episodes streamed a few weeks ago, I found that I still like Ian Chesterton as much as ever and who cares about the sets?
One thing modern audiences forget is that older shows were more like televised stage plays in a lot of respects. And since I have a theatre background (in musical theatre), it all seems perfectly normal to me.
as long as we can agree that Red Kangs are best
