What Has Discovery Added To Star Trek Lore?

[MakeshiftPython]

The proof is there. But if I point it out you'll explain it away as circumstantial evidence and then claim it's not proof.

TOS "The Day of The Dove"

and they do it a bunch of times in discovery.

Cloaking technology was considered "theoretical" by Spock in "Balance of Terror", yet we saw Archer encounter species with such technology from the very first episode, and eventually the Romulans a season later. Which therefore retcons the notion of cloaking being new in the 23rd century no longer valid.

Mudd acting like the technology doesn't exist to catch the enteprise (spore drive)

Likely because spore drives are not in service by "I, Mudd". Have you considered that?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Which therefore retcons the notion of cloaking being new in the 23rd century no longer valid.

How? It just means Enterprise is guilty of the same that Disco is.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

technically that is a simple fact. Gotta do this

Yeah, but you're the one not willing to suspend your disbelief, so how does you posting that in response to me make any sense?

When I'm watching the show and the holograms look more crisp or interactive than what was on TNG, I just use my imagination to figure the ones in TNG were actually more advanced than what we saw and keep it all relative. I don't sweat the small stuff, because I don't expect 1980s production technology to measure up to 2019, and I don't expect 2019 to have to visually dumb it down to fit some rigid fan rules about maintaining visual continuity.

 

[Lord Garth]

The '60s, '80s, and '90s are over. They're not coming back.

To put it another way: John Wayne westerns and Clint Eastwood westerns both take place during the same time and place. The 19th Century West. But they look completely different. It's the same deal with TOS and Discovery.

"But it looks more advanced than TNG too!" And the computers in Prometheus look more advanced than the computers in Alien. You project from the future of the time you're making something and do the best you can. But computer technology advances so rapidly, it's just one of those things you have to resign yourself to.

In TOS, they use floppy-disks. Should DSC use them? No. In TNG, they have static monitors with interfaces that have no windows. Should DSC use them? No.

 

[marsh8472]

Yeah, but you're the one not willing to suspend your disbelief, so how does you posting that in response to me make any sense?

When I'm watching the show and the holograms look more crisp or interactive than what was on TNG, I just use my imagination to figure the ones in TNG were actually more advanced than what we saw and keep it all relative. I don't sweat the small stuff, because I don't expect 1980s production technology to measure up to 2019, and I don't expect 2019 to have to visually dumb it down to fit some rigid fan rules about maintaining visual continuity.

Because you have to use a lot of suspension of disbelief. Why not just watch orville and pretend it's star trek at that point? They did not have to make another backstory then there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

We have rudimentary interactive free-floating 3d volumetric images now, so not expecting them to show up on Discovery because TOS didn't have it is ridiculous.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lord Garth]

Because you have to use a lot of suspension of disbelief. Why not just watch orville and pretend it's star trek at that point? They did not have to make another backstory then there wouldn't be an issue.

I hope you're aware that people complaining about DSC looking more advanced than TNG is the same as people complaining about ENT looking more advanced than TOS.

But you seem to accept ENT.

 

[XCV330]

Because you have to use a lot of suspension of disbelief. Why not just watch orville and pretend it's star trek at that point? They did not have to make another backstory then there wouldn't be an issue.

Congratulations! You are the 11,000,000 Bringer Upper Of The Orville!

 

[Dukhat]

I hope you're aware that people complaining about DSC looking more advanced than TNG is the same as people complaining about ENT looking more advanced than TOS.

But you seem to accept ENT.

Speaking for myself, I had a hard time accepting ENT as a prequel to TOS for many of the same reasons that I have a hard time accepting DSC as a prequel to TOS.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

How? It just means Enterprise is guilty of the same that Disco is.

My point is that as far as canon is concerned, since 2001, cloaking tech has existed since Archer's time. The idea of cloaking being new in "Balance of Terror" can now be filed under Early Installment Weirdness, same as the implication of light speed travel being new in "The Cage" was retconned with Cochrane's inventing it 200 years earlier.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Because you have to use a lot of suspension of disbelief. Why not just watch orville and pretend it's star trek at that point? They did not have to make another backstory then there wouldn't be an issue.

I do watch The Orville and enjoy it, and I will continue watching Discovery and enjoying it as well, because this is a non-issue. Thanks, though.

They didn't have to make a prequel series, but they wanted to. And you don't get to decide that they have to follow some overly rigid fan rule about appearance continuity. It's their playground. You can decide whether or not to watch, but you can't force everyone to adhere to your personal standards.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My point is that as far as canon is concerned, since 2001, cloaking tech has existed since Archer's time. The idea of cloaking being new in "Balance of Terror" can now be filed under Early Installment Weirdness, same as the implication of light speed travel being new in "The Cage" was retconned with Cochrane's inventing it 200 years earlier.

No, it just means 2 shows can't follow basic continuity. And if they don't want to follow continuity, their show is a de facto reboot.

 

[XCV330]

Speaking for myself, I had a hard time accepting ENT as a prequel to TOS for many of the same reasons that I have a hard time accepting DSC as a prequel to TOS.

It's almost like TOS was filmed in the 60's with the best TV special FX could handle back then.. and those other two shows weren't.

Its like how all those wierd color episode of Lost In Space aren't canon. We know that Lost In Space took place in a black and white universe. Nice try fooling us, television.

 

[Dukhat]

My point is that as far as canon is concerned, since 2001, cloaking tech has existed since Archer's time. The idea of cloaking being new in "Balance of Terror" can now be filed under Early Installment Weirdness...

So what you're saying is, yet again, we have to ignore what we saw in TOS because it's been retconned by another show produced by people who don't really care what TOS showed because it doesn't fit with the story they're trying to tell.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing; I'm just trying to have some clarity.

...same as the implication of light speed travel being new in "The Cage" was retconned with Cochrane's inventing it 200 years earlier.

There's a huge difference in reinterpreting Jose Tyler's line (which was ambiguous anyway) with how warp drive is viewed today, and having a show that has all kinds of technological advances being a prequel to a show that has none of them.

It's almost like TOS was filmed in the 60's with the best TV special FX could handle back then.. and those other two shows weren't.

Its like how all those wierd color episode of Lost In Space aren't canon. We know that Lost In Space took place in a black and white universe. Nice try fooling us, television.

Hey, you made a funny! Congratulations on having such sharp wit!

 

[MakeshiftPython]

No, it just means 2 shows can't follow basic continuity. And if they don't want to follow continuity, their show is a de facto reboot.

Or perhaps Spock was incorrect... which he's capable of. Just like he was incorrect of WWIII and the Eugenics Wars being one and the same.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No, it just means 2 shows can't follow basic continuity. And if they don't want to follow continuity, their show is a de facto reboot.

De facto is you don't get to decide whether it's a reboot or not, so it's time to move on and find something else to make your hobby-horse.

 

[XCV330]

We could all agree that Gold Key Star Trek comics are the only actual truth, almost a historical record, and everything else is just artistic interpretations of what really happened. There.

 

[Dukhat]

Funny, I thought Star Trek was just make-believe.

 

[Noname Given]

My only issue with Discovery's new lore is that the Powers-That-Be insist it's the same world as TOS, and thus it's overwriting and contradicting stuff from the original show instead of blazing it's own path like Gotham, Smallville or any similar pseudo-prequel out there.

Considering (and contrary to many a fans belief that "Star Trek Canon" has ALWAYS been consistent --- it hasn't) EVERY Star Trek show from TNG to ENT has never been afraid of violating established 'Trek canon' when a given story requires it.

I honestly can't see the outrage myself. Trek writers have ALWAYS sacrificed 'canon' for their story if/when it conflicts, prequel or not.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

So what you're saying is, yet again, we have to ignore what we saw in TOS because it's been retconned by another show produced by people who don't really care what TOS showed because it doesn't fit with the story they're trying to tell.

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing; I'm just trying to have some clarity.

Yes. For example, TOS established that women couldn't be starship captains. Obviously this was retconned in ENTERPRISE with Captain Hernandez, and now we can just disregard Lester's comments as incorrect, just as you can disregard Spock's comments as incorrect.