Spoilers New Picard TV Series and Litverse Continuity (may contain TV show spoilers)

[Christopher]

Bottom line, the creators of DSC are making it with the assumption that it's in the same reality as TOS. So wondering whether the show's events can possibly lead to the events of TOS is an intellectual dead end, like wondering whether we landed on the Moon or whether Elvis is really dead. It's designed to lead into the events of TOS. It can be validly argued that it doesn't do so very convincingly, that it takes things further than it should given that intention, but the intention is still a given nonetheless.

 

[Mysterion]

Out of all commissioned officers, about a third are lieutenants, and only a fifth are commanders or higher. There are half as many captains as commanders, and a fifth as many captains as lieutenants. And there are only about 7% as many admirals (of all ranks combined) as there are captains. Which means that 4 out of 5 lieutenants will never make it to captain and 13 out of 14 captains will never get to be admirals, because there just aren't enough openings.

And then you've got the portion of the officer corps who are in specialty fields (medicine, engineering, ordnance, etc.) where command of a vessel or unit really would not really be a natural progression for them. There are exceptions, of course. For example, US law requires the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier be a qualified naval aviator - but even there are only about a dozen aircraft carriers in the US fleet, and a whole lot more aviators,

 

[DEWLine]

There are several different categories of people that are all called executive producers for various reasons.

How does Frank Siracusa fit? I remember his work on various "made in Canada" shows across the decades, most notable in my own mind being Due South...

 

[Christopher]

How does Frank Siracusa fit? I remember his work on various "made in Canada" shows across the decades, most notable in my own mind being Due South...

Looking at his IMDb page, it looks like he rose through the ranks as an assistant director and production manager before becoming a producer (albeit with a little dabbling in writing here and there). That puts him on the logistical side, the kind of producer in charge of the actual work of turning scripts into episodes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of course they do. Kironide telekinesis alone should've radically transformed all of civilization from the late 2260s onward. Discovering immortality and cures for all disease and injury in DS9's first season should've radically transformed all subsequent storytelling (think how easy it would've been to prevent Jadzia's death or grow Nog's leg back, for instance).

And then there are the unexplored potentials in technologies they already have. Transporters should render all other surgical techniques obsolete. The use of transporters to de-age people as seen in "The Lorelei Signal" and "Unnatural Selection" (or re-age them in "Rascals") could be adapted as a form of immortality in itself, or a way to instantly cure any disease or injury by merely resetting someone's transporter pattern to a healthy version. On the flipside, the transporter is a devastating disintegrator ray if you just leave out the rematerialization stage. We've seen that it's far easier to dematerialize an entire shuttlecraft (Voyager often casually beamed shuttles into the shuttlebay) than it is to disintegrate one with a phaser, so why even bother with phasers?

So as much as we want the Trek universe to be plausible and consistent, the fact is that we can't expect any kind of logical progression of technology in the franchise. We never could.

While yes, the transporter alone could fix 99% of problems in Trek up to and including death, none of those are quite as directly in your face as the spore drive making the distance-based premises of Deep Space Nine and Voyager into a complete joke.

 

[Damian]

Bottom line, the creators of DSC are making it with the assumption that it's in the same reality as TOS. So wondering whether the show's events can possibly lead to the events of TOS is an intellectual dead end, like wondering whether we landed on the Moon or whether Elvis is really dead. It's designed to lead into the events of TOS. It can be validly argued that it doesn't do so very convincingly, that it takes things further than it should given that intention, but the intention is still a given nonetheless.

But if I enjoy the show more if I personally view it as a reboot, isn't it worth it for me to view it through that lens? I agree with your argument, the show runners will do what they want. I've got no say in the matter, and I know that. And I'm sure the showrunners could care less how I view it. And it's my opinion, others decide for themselves how they want to watch it.

But I get sort of annoyed when I try to force it in a narrative and design that for me, just doesn't work. And it's entertainment. I don't want to get annoyed watching it. So I find I can like it more and get more into it if I just don't bother thinking of it as a prequel to the original series and successor to Enterprise. If I simply view it as its own entity.

 

[Tuskin38]

I've noticed the Trek novel writers on this forum have a lot more clam approach towards Discovery's visual changes.
At least the ones who've commented on the show.

While yes, the transporter alone could fix 99% of problems in Trek up to and including death, none of those are quite as directly in your face as the spore drive making the distance-based premises of Deep Space Nine and Voyager into a complete joke.

Since the Spore Dive isn't used in those series one can assume something happens to it that prevents them from using it. We just don't know what it is yet.

Have patience.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've noticed the Trek novel writers on this forum have a lot more clam approach towards Discovery's visual changes.
At least the ones who've commented on the show.

Even if they passionately hated it or elements of it, their jobs are tied to it.

Since the Spore Dive isn't used in those series one can assume something happens to it that prevents them from using it. We just don't know what it is yet.

Have patience.

Fair enough, but the how will have to be something quite special.

 

[Tuskin38]

Even if they passionately hated it or elements of it, their jobs are tied to it.

Pretty sure they can still say they dislike parts of it.

 

[Damian]

Pretty sure they can still say they dislike parts of it.

I think you can tell from Christopher's comments that he hasn't shied away from speaking his mind. If you read earlier comments he doesn't sound like a fan of all the new design elements for instance.

But I do think being in the business changes your perspective a bit. I don't think it's anything like, ooh, I better not say that or I'm going to get in trouble sort of thing (though obviously if you thought your boss was a jerk, I probably wouldn't say that here). More that you have a different awareness, for instance, as to just how little our complaints really matter to the PTB as long as the show pulls in viewers (the only way they might care is if viewership dropped due to a wide reaching problem viewers saw, but otherwise basically suck it up buttercup). And I'm sure there are other reasons as well that writers/authors may not think things are as big of a deal as we may.

I'll admit, there are times I sit back and think to myself, it's just entertainment. It's fun debating all these little things, or I wouldn't do it. And as my wife would tell you if you said the sky was blue I'd probably argue with you. Maybe she's right.

But there are times I think, gee, why am I arguing about a show. It's fun to watch, it's entertaining. Who cares? Does it really matter if the Klingons looked like something that sneaked out of HR Giger's closet? Spore drives, intraship beaming. So what?

 

[Christopher]

While yes, the transporter alone could fix 99% of problems in Trek up to and including death, none of those are quite as directly in your face as the spore drive making the distance-based premises of Deep Space Nine and Voyager into a complete joke.

I don't see that at all. What I have seen over the decades is that some fans always react as if the problems with the newest incarnation of Trek are unprecedentedly huge and insoluble even when they're no worse than the problems of previous incarnations. Which is simply because they've had more time to rationalize and gloss over the older problems in their minds. Basically, we're more bothered by annoyances that we haven't had time to get used to.

But if I enjoy the show more if I personally view it as a reboot, isn't it worth it for me to view it through that lens?

In the short term, maybe, but then you're stuck assuming the same thing about all future Trek productions for the rest of your life, because what DSC adds to the canon will be acknowledged and built on going forward (just as Beyond and DSC have built on ideas from Enterprise despite all the complainers insisting during its run that it had to be an alternate universe or a reboot). It seems self-defeating. If you just wanted to give up Trek altogether, then you could walk away and be done with it, sure. But if you want to continue being a viewer in the future, then you'll have to face the fact that DSC will be treated as part of the whole.

Heck, I wish DSC were a reboot. I think it'd be much less constrained in its storytelling and create far fewer continuity issues if it were. But wishing doesn't make it so.

Frankly, I think fans today are far too rigid in their thinking about continuity -- that something has to either fit perfectly or be a separate reality altogether, with no middle ground. That's not how serial fiction has historically worked. Many ongoing series have changed their realities all the time while pretending to be consistent. Marvel Comics fans have gotten used to the perpetual sliding timescale, the constant rewriting of the time setting and details of the heroes' backstories. If Iron Man fans can go along with the pretense that the modern comics saying that Tony Stark was captured in Afghanistan are in the same reality as the '60s comics saying he was captured in Vietnam, or if James Bond fans can go along with the pretense that the Bond Pierce Brosnan played in the '90s was the same one Sean Connery played in the '60s despite not being 30 years older, then why are Trek fans so rigid that we can't play along with the conceit that a changed reality is actually the same one? I mean, sure, my own preference would be for a totally consistent reality, but I'm used to the fact that the longest-running franchises pretty much have to rewrite themselves in order to endure.

I think you can tell from Christopher's comments that he hasn't shied away from speaking his mind. If you read earlier comments he doesn't sound like a fan of all the new design elements for instance.

Indeed. I don't care for DSC's set or ship design style that much, and I think its CGI work is garish, cluttered, and un-Trekkish. And I don't like their Klingon designs much either. But what I like and what I acknowledge as part of the continuity are two separate questions. There have been plenty of things in prior Trek shows that I didn't like.

More that you have a different awareness, for instance, as to just how little our complaints really matter to the PTB as long as the show pulls in viewers

Also that the tiny fraction of people who comment online is not statistically representative of the opinions of audiences as a whole. The reason pollsters and statisticians call up people randomly rather than relying on people to contact them is that the sample of people who choose to express their opinions is going to be slanted in favor of those with stronger opinions than average -- particularly those with negative opinions, because you're more likely to speak out if you're unsatisfied than if you're content. So the sample of online commenters or letter-writers or whatever is always going to be disproportionately skewed toward negative reactions, rather than accurately representing the whole audience's response.

 

[Greg Cox]

Even if they passionately hated it or elements of it, their jobs are tied to it.

I'll be honest: If I passionately disliked it, I would probably maintain a politic silence. So if I'm eagerly charging into the fray when I don't have to, you can assume that I mean what I say.

If us writer types seem more flexible about this stuff than some of the more rigid fans, it may just be that's because we know in our bones that this stuff is not "real," and that fiction can be revised and edited as needed, because we do it every day when we sit down at a keyboard. We're less invested in pretending that a fictional universe is set in stone.

(Just this afternoon, I changed a human character to a Trill by searching and replacing a few descriptions. Bingo. The "reality" of the story just changed . . . because it's just a story.)

 

[David cgc]

I've noticed the Trek novel writers on this forum have a lot more clam approach towards Discovery's visual changes.
At least the ones who've commented on the show.

The visual changes are largely irrelevant for prose adventures. Notice how "Drastic Measures" and "The Way to the Stars" both mention people wearing "Starfleet uniforms," without actually saying what those uniforms look like, leaving it to you (or the show) to decide if they're the spandex jumpsuits from the Kelvin, the spangly blue numbers from Discovery, or whatever form of the TOS tri-color outfits you prefer. I imagine you get more relaxed about that sort of thing when you see that it's a non-issue. People who are more on the visual side, like myself, probably have more in-depth opinions on things, just because it's our bag (I, for one, choose to take it opportunity, not a burden, that every seam and splotch on every studio model isn't necessarily the gospel truth. I'd already been convinced by the revisionists in the great "The Excelsior (and TOS Enterprise) Should Be Bigger Than the Stats Say" thread).

 

[Greg Cox]

Frankly, I think fans today are far too rigid in their thinking about continuity -- that something has to either fit perfectly or be a separate reality altogether, with no middle ground. .

Amen. It's not necessarily a black/white, either/or question.

When people ask me if I think DISCO is Prime, I like to reply "It's Prime enough for me."

Allowing for artistic license, fudging, whatever.

 

[Damian]

In the short term, maybe, but then you're stuck assuming the same thing about all future Trek productions for the rest of your life, because what DSC adds to the canon will be acknowledged and built on going forward (just as Beyond and DSC have built on ideas from Enterprise despite all the complainers insisting during its run that it had to be an alternate universe or a reboot). It seems self-defeating. If you just wanted to give up Trek altogether, then you could walk away and be done with it, sure. But if you want to continue being a viewer in the future, then you'll have to face the fact that DSC will be treated as part of the whole.

Nah. I can be flexible. If the nu-TNG show referenced something from Discovery so be it. I'm not TOO rigid. I'm not ready to walk away. And maybe when Discovery concludes I'll have a change of heart. I had a few doubts about Enterprise going in about it being consistent and all that (though not as much as Discovery), but now I easily consider it part of the overall story from there to Nemesis.

if James Bond fans can go along with the pretense that the Bond Pierce Brosnan played in the '90s was the same one Sean Connery played in the '60s despite not being 30 years older, then why are Trek fans so rigid that we can't play along with the conceit that a changed reality is actually the same one?

I am a big 007 fan and yes, there is no real continuity except with the recent Daniel Craig films. Oddly enough I feel the opposite there. I prefer standalone stories there. But for the most part Bond films were always separate entities. Sure Spectre reappeared a number of times, and a reference to Dr No was made in From Russia With Love, but other that very minor lines in stories, and characters reappearing in future films, you could watch the Bond films in any order. Star Trek has a much tighter continuity then that.

If us writer types seem more flexible about this stuff than some of the more rigid fans, it may just be that's because we know in our bones that this stuff is not "real," and that fiction can be revised and edited as needed, because we do it every day when we sit down at a keyboard. We're less invested in pretending that a fictional universe is set in stone.

Yeah. It's a reality check I do for myself now and again. It's just a show, or story. It's my favorite show yes, and I hope I continue to love each new version that comes out. So far, despite my complaints about Discovery I haven't turned away. And I don't want to. I hope I consider it a worthy successor to all the prior shows.

But if someday a Star Trek show comes on that I just can't enjoy, I'll be disappointed, but I'll move on. Luckily no matter what I have what hundreds, even thousands of hours to enjoy, and hundreds of books that I have. And even there, there will always be new original series books, even if the other spin-offs I enjoy drift off into history, at least that will continue.

 

[Christopher]

If us writer types seem more flexible about this stuff than some of the more rigid fans, it may just be that's because we know in our bones that this stuff is not "real," and that fiction can be revised and edited as needed, because we do it every day when we sit down at a keyboard. We're less invested in pretending that a fictional universe is set in stone.

Right. Fans see a work of fiction as a single, fixed thing, and they see the idea of changing it as an affront. But writers see their work as the end result of a lengthy process of trial and error and revision and replacement and rethinking, and the point at which it gets released is usually not the point when it's absolutely perfect, but just the point when we ran out of time to make more changes. Which is why many creators do make more changes when given the chance to reissue their works (e.g. the Star Wars Special Editions, directors' cuts of movies, various novelists' revised new editions of their books, etc.). We recognize that as long as the process of creation is still going on, the work being created is in flux.

Which puts series fiction in a complicated place, because parts of it are finished while the whole is unfinished. So necessary changes can't be retroactively superimposed on previous installments; you just have to pretend it was that way all along and gloss over the inconsistency.

When people ask me if I think DISCO is Prime, I like to reply "It's Prime enough for me."

Allowing for artistic license, fudging, whatever.

Right. The "Prime Universe" is a hodgepodge of different works from different creators with different interpretations of the Trek universe. They've never fit together perfectly; they've only pretended to, and we've chosen to play along with that pretense and suspend our disbelief about the inconsistencies. That's why so many fans have the illusion that everything before fit together smoothly and only the new stuff doesn't fit -- because they've had time to reconcile the older stuff in their minds and have forgotten what a poor fit it seemed when it was new.

 

[Damian]

Right. The "Prime Universe" is a hodgepodge of different works from different creators with different interpretations of the Trek universe. They've never fit together perfectly; they've only pretended to, and we've chosen to play along with that pretense and suspend our disbelief about the inconsistencies. That's why so many fans have the illusion that everything before fit together smoothly and only the new stuff doesn't fit -- because they've had time to reconcile the older stuff in their minds and have forgotten what a poor fit it seemed when it was new.

Well, as a novel reader part of that might because those of use who read novels are spoiled. Many of you guys go to the trouble of explaining some of those inconsistencies. For instance I remember in one of the Romulan War books Michael Martin explained why later ships may have 'appeared' more primitive (when they were not) because of the Romulan tele-computer program (I forget the exact name). Starfleet decided it wasn't such a good idea to have all their systems so integrated as a result. And it's true, over time we just get used to it if the show is internally consistent. And we were probably spoiled by the Berman years. As much as people may complain about his regime, there was a certain consistency you could rely on that was like a security blanket.

 

[Damian]

And in that vein maybe the Discovery novels can help me come around a bit too. I noticed in the first Discovery novel David Mack at one point in the book noted the Enterprise was the more advanced ship (then the older Shenzou) in a way that in story made some sense, and he described the Enterprise in such a way that made it seem it was from the Cage era at the same time (one of the characters, Saru I believe, mentioned how they liked they paler and less vibrant colors of the Enterprise). There are other examples as well. So maybe as I read the novels further that put some of that in context, that may help in my evolving view of Discovery.

 

[Christopher]

Well, as a novel reader part of that might because those of use who read novels are spoiled. Many of you guys go to the trouble of explaining some of those inconsistencies.

Sure, but that's just why I don't understand the assumption that it's impossible to do the same with the new inconsistencies.

 

[Greg Cox]

Right. Fans see a work of fiction as a single, fixed thing, and they see the idea of changing it as an affront. But writers see their work as the end result of a lengthy process of trial and error and revision and replacement and rethinking, and the point at which it gets released is usually not the point when it's absolutely perfect, but just the point when we ran out of time to make more changes..

Heck, I'm also an editor. Asking authors to change their fictions is what I do.

"Does this character really need to have three kids? Maybe just one is enough? And can you make this character a woman instead?"

Mind you, some authors are more flexible about this kind of thing than others.