Aside from casual mentions of "Space Central" in "Miri" and "Space Command" in "Court Martial," the only other one (and the only one mentioned more than once) was UESPA, in "Charlie X" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday." That can be explained away fairly easily (and has been, by Trek novelists). After that, the show settled on Starfleet Command.
There were undeniably a handful of other inconsistencies (though certainly not "a million"), but there's a big difference between a show ironing out its "early episode weirdness" in the first dozen or so episodes, which is understandable, and introducing brand-new easily avoidable inconsistencies after there are already hundreds of hours of established continuity.
That's what I and others are complaining about here... not "blowing a gasket," just offering reasonable criticisms and questioning the way the DSC producers appear to be trying to have their cake and eat it too, continuity-wise.
The highlighted sections get to my point though that you're more willing to forgive or explain such inconsistencies or deliberate changes in a show that you love versus one that you don't or merely tolerate.
Which is perfectly fine and we all do it. In another current thread, I'm less willing to make excuses or explain things away for the latest
Jurassic Park film than I am for the earlier ones since the new one didn't do much for me. I still do come up with explanations that undercut my own criticisms, because I'm weird like that, but I digress.
It's just strange to me to act (not you personally, just in general) like the keepers of the Holy Scripture of the Lord R. Goddenberry which is unerring and internally consistent with itself and across multiple iterations and additions, except for all those times where it wasn't. Just admit that it comes down to personal preference of which show you like better rather than declaring heresy against doctrine, because that just invites questions about how you could be so forgiving about all the other changes and inconsistencies of the past, but now consider it a total dealbreaker.
DSC only had fifteen episodes so far itself. It seems odd to give the inconsistencies caused by the growing pains in the first twelve episodes of TOS a pass, but not extend the same courtesy to Discovery for its first batch of eps, especially given all the behind-the-scenes drama with departing and chaotic showrunners (Fuller and the others) and so forth.
And yes, it does have decades of established Trek lore to build upon, but as this thread demonstrates, that's a double-edged sword, because that means it also has decades of established lore it has to slavishly adhere to lest it draw the ire of certain fans.
No condescension intended, seriously. You asked "why is it such a big deal?", in so many words, and it seemed apparent that you and some other posters here sincerely don't understand why it's a big deal. I don't know how anyone else might have responded, but I know why it matters to me, so I explained, as clearly as I could, in the hopes of avoiding potential misunderstandings. That's all.
Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification. It's appreciated. And I apologize for assuming it was condescension on your part.
I enjoy finding creative and logical ways to reconcile apparent continuity glitches and make things "fit," too. That doesn't mean I appreciate having the writers and producers add to the supply of those glitches.
But it really is almost unavoidable in a franchise this large and complex and spread out over time, even with assets like the ST Encyclopedia and Memory Alpha at your fingertips now. As is demonstrated by the numerous inconsistencies and changes in previous shows and films. Nor should they be required to hold so tight to the past if the writers, makeup artists, VFX artists or others want to stretch their legs a bit and try something new.
And UESPA was canonized on screen in the graphics on the Friendship One warp probe from 2067 in VOY and in the Starfleet Command seal seen on the floor of the conference chamber on Earth in the Terra Prime arc on ENT (set in 2155). We know UESPA existed as early as four years after Zefram Cochrane's first warp flight and will still exist in some capacity as late as 2267, a lifespan of at least two hundred years. It's no longer an internal error or inconsistency.
Yes,
Eddie, I'm aware of all that. It was a rhetorical question about TOS designed to get people to think about why some internal inconsistencies and changes are okay and others are not, and how it mostly comes down to personal preference about which shows you like more rather than being totally objective and consistent in the treatment of the continuity issues of all the shows and films across the board (no pun intended).
I've never really gotten a good answer to this: if nothing about Prime is important and can be changed on a whim, why is CBS' declaration about the show being Prime so important?
I'm pretty sure I did address this in my earlier response to you.
It's not that nothing in the Prime Universe setting is important or should be intentionally changed on a whim for no purpose whatsoever, it's just that I don't mind if the writers or production staff want to make some alterations within that framework to reflect new science and technology, changing social mores, updated fashion and design trends, or to comment on current events, as Trek has always done.
As to why it matters to call it the Prime Universe, as said, it's to differentiate it from the ongoing Kelvinverse films so there's no expectation that the storylines need to match up, and it's to provide a framework for fans to know that this takes place in the same general continuity as TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the first ten movies. Which doesn't mean no inconsistencies or changes will ever take place, as they have in every previous series and film, it just means it will try to be faithful to the spirit of the law if not always the letter of it. It will be "inspired by in-universe events" like a Hollywood historical drama but not a documentary account.
Roddenberry himself addressed this in the TMP novelization, where Kirk said the events of the first five year mission as the Federation populace knew them were a somewhat idealized or dramatized retelling for public consumption rather than a completely accurate account.
It runs a bit deeper than that. Details have constantly been evolving. People here think its okay to move the Eugenics Wars if it is ever brought up again.
Would that be the Eugenics Wars that Khan dated back to both 1996 and "200 years before you were born" (which would be the 2040s or so if Terrell was around 45) in the same monologue in TWOK?
The one that either was or wasn't the era of humanity's last world war according to Spock in
Space Seed?
The one with wildly varying death tolls from each retelling that also conflates it with WW3?
The one that the admiral in
DS9 - Dr. Bashir, I Presume said took place in the 22nd century, complete with Khan (and yes, I know Ron Moore acknowledged this was a simple mistake).
The one that was the result of selective breeding or the one that was the result of genetic engineering?
The one started by the Latino guy from Mexico playing a South Asian or the white guy from Britain playing a South Asian?
The one that Archer's great-grandfather fought in against genetically engineered killer gazelles in Africa in 2079?
Yes, Goddenberry forbid we make any changes to that rigidly set in stone historical event.
And before any nerdlingers start fansplaining the above inconsistencies and missing the point, I
already went full nerd on it years ago, as have many others, so there's no need. The point is that pretending these things are all totally consistent and beyond making any changes is a farce.
Stay flexible, my friends.
