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

I feel aesthetic appearance is just art design. Like you and I could both be in an art class together, and we're both painting the same thing, but yours might look very different than mine, but that doesn't mean you and I painted something different, right?

My feeling is saying one's "kelvin" and one's "prime" because of art style is like saying you believe when Nero (thanks @Jinn!) came back, some sort of space ripple went out both forwards and backwards and changed how everything in the universe looks, and I don't believe that for a moment. I mean things just look different, right? And Kelvin isn't simply "not the same as prime", I totally could be wrong, but I understand Kelvin means "a split timeline caused when Nero came back in time and he changes history, creating a parallel universe", so to be Kelvin you'd specifically have to be in his parallel universe, which looks exactly the same as prime aesthetically, just that in 2009+ our show creators are using different artistic style than in 1960s, right?

 

Agree. ENT does show moon colonies, naturally it would have been much smaller, but of course ENT was filmed after First Contact. I've said before, ENT is a spin-off of First Contact, in many ways. Retcons like that done bother me at all.

People could just enjoy the shows, be glad a bit more detail is added now and then. Visual continuity rarely lasts longer than the current series when its made, and sometimes not even then.

 

DSC showed city lights on the moon.

 

I think all those primitive moon shots in "future" Treks were Section 31, Klingons, or Romulans causing blackouts to mess with the Lunar colonies.

 

Swamp gas

 

Yes, indeed. Even Spock's life was largely similar, and we see him rejecting the Vulcan Science Academy in favor of Starfleet. Now, the outcome is different, but the fact that they branch from a similar trunk would suggest a common visual history, both from a design perspective and an in-universe perspective.

 

Exactly how Simon Pegg explains the Abramsverse, IIRC.

Doesn't this shortchange a lot of talented people who worked on the franchise over the years?

 

https://io9.gizmodo.com/simon-pegg-has-a-canonical-explanation-for-why-sulu-is-1783511576

 

I love how it says "canonical" in the title when it clearly isn't

 

Well, "Mirror, Mirror" is canon.

 

To add: Also, there was really no need to explain Sulu ending up with a man, he could either be bi or gay, as we never saw him with a woman in prime, IIRC. And before someone comes along and says "He can't be gay because he sexually assaulted Uhura in "Mirror Mirror"", that's a whole nother universe, so it's a criticism that by the logic of his theory wouldn't fly anyway.

 

OR IS IT???

*debate starter*

 

Sulu was drooling over Ilia in the extended director's cut of the Motion Picture I believe. Also, TAS had an episode where he expressed interest in women.

I just assume Kelvin timeline Sulu is gay because he's a genetically different person than his prime counterpart, having presumably been born after 2233. Same goes for Chekov being genetically different (Kelvin Chekov was born 2241, Prime in 2245).

Only those with confirmed conception dates before Nero's incursion are genetically the same (Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and Kirk)

 

"Canon to the right of me..."

I think STDsc kind of looks like somebody removed all the light and color from the Kelvinverse.

Kor

 

Well, I'm not sure if I accept extender cuts as canon, but...

Well, I don't remember this, then again I don't remember TAS at all so this is most likely correct. He can still be bi, though.

 

That can be chalk up to the Deltan pheromones. Or maybe Sulu swings both ways?

 

The extended cut of Motion Picture is likely more canon as its depiction of Vulcan with no moons lines up with canon more than the initial cut which had at least 1 moon.

Also, the TAS scene is described here: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Hikaru_Sulu#An_imaginary_girl

 

It is all the same canon. Canon is just the work. Nothing has more weight that anything else.

 

Why don't we ask them? Would it not be appropriate to consider their perspective as to whether or not they consider their designs as part of previously designed work or design continuity in terms of canon?

 

Thanks