When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Damian]

That's what I always felt. You change everything in terms of looks but then through in lots of pointless canon obstacles that you feel you need to hold yourself back because of them. I mean if your going to make changes for the new fans were it doesn't look like something in the "TOS" time period why stop their? Out of the stuff they have said about this show being in the Prime Universe I don't think they have ever gave a reason why they wanted to set it in the Prime universe. Was it just because they wanted to lure in new fans or where they afraid the casual fans might not understand thing like alternate timelines? Which I can sort of by but I do think most people at least understand what a remake is or even a reboot.

Jason

One of the reasons I felt they would have been better off either setting Discovery in the future, say 100 years post Nemesis (then any inconsistencies are easily explained by the passage of time) or making a reboot of some sort like the Abrams films- thus freeing them to reinterpret anything they wanted and avoid the whole consistency/canon arguments altogether.

Setting it in the prime universe, 10 years pre-original series, was always going to open them up to criticism from folks like me, that prefer greater consistency.

I honestly don't know why they wanted to do it the way they did. That I don't have an answer to. Just to bring along old fans? That doesn't seem likely. Old fans mostly would have checked it out regardless.

 

[Jayson1]

To me I think it would strangley have played very well also 30 or so years before TOS. It would look advanced enough to be seen as a improvements from "Enterprise" which was also pretty modern seeing as how it was made in the 2000's but also with a big enough gap till "TOS" happens where you can just kind of assume lots of strange stuff happened over 30 years to make that era look like it did in the 60's.

Jason

 

[fireproof78]

I honestly don't know why they wanted to do it the way they did. That I don't have an answer to. Just to bring along old fans? That doesn't seem likely. Old fans mostly would have checked it out regardless.

Fear. That's what it comes down to. They know that TOS is the most recognized in terms of greater culture, and they are afraid of changing things too much from what people are familiar with.

No matter what the production team will get push back. They could restart it completely and get yelled out for "not real Star Trek." They can try a prequel and get yelled out. No matter what, the production team cannot win.

In my opinion, a full reboot would be preferred. But, DSC has engaged this fan of TOS from the word "Go" so something is definitely wrong with me

 

[Christopher]

I don't think anyone is arguing they don't have the right to make changes for artistic reasons.

Some people do. Or they mistake surface for substance and assume a cosmetic redesign requires an alternate universe or separate canon.

But moreover, why would you write in a big established universe if you’re just going to ignore what’s established?

We're not talking about writing, we're talking about production design. Changing the way a thing is visually depicted is not the same thing as changing its identity within the story. Robin Curtis's Saavik is the same person as Kirstie Alley's. The Peter Parker drawn by Humberto Ramos is the same one drawn by John Romita Jr. The artistic interpretation differs depending on the artist, but the underlying entity is still meant to be the same.

There’s plenty of room for modernized aesthetics and different perspectives on the universe. But that’s different from ignoring canon completely and openly contradicting it.

Then it's a good thing nobody making these shows is actually doing that.

I'm sort of coming from it from the other end, that so many of the other things have changed that cancel out the otherwise familiar cranial ridges. So a different perspective in my case I guess.

Dude, I was there in 1979, the first time fandom had to cope with a completely changed Klingon appearance. And we didn't get any explanation of that change until 26 years later. But we survived. So don't expect any sympathy from me.

 

[fireproof78]

We're not talking about writing, we're talking about production design. Changing the way a thing is visually depicted is not the same thing as changing its identity within the story. Robin Curtis's Saavik is the same person as Kirstie Alley's. The Peter Parker drawn by Humberto Ramos is the same one drawn by John Romita Jr. The artistic interpretation differs depending on the artist, but the underlying entity is still meant to be the same.

Exactly so. Star Trek is an art, not science.

Dude, I was there in 1979, the first time fandom had to cope with a completely changed Klingon appearance. And we didn't get any explanation of that change until 26 years later. But we survived. So don't expect any sympathy from me.

/thread

 

[Laurora]

Can someone explain how fiction can be Canon or consistent when time travel has been an element of Star Trek since the very beginning? Even the slightest disturbance could create very real consequences.

As to the Klingon appearance I always assume they're different races of the same species.

Star Trek has never been really hard for me to enjoy. Except the theme song for Enterprise. I couldn't explain it away. I could only hit mute.

 

[Damian]

Dude, I was there in 1979, the first time fandom had to cope with a completely changed Klingon appearance. And we didn't get any explanation of that change until 26 years later. But we survived. So don't expect any sympathy from me.

But that was more than 10 years ago. Don't forget the 10 year rule---once 10 years have passed it automatically becomes consistent and we don't worry about it anymore. So you have to give me until 2027 for the Giger-Klingons

 

[Christopher]

Can someone explain how fiction can be Canon or consistent when time travel has been an element of Star Trek since the very beginning? Even the slightest disturbance could create very real consequences.

Because storytellers control what happens in their stories, not the other way around. Time travel doesn't disrupt the continuity unless the writers want it to.

 

[1001001]

We want more Star Trek.

We want it to be exactly the same as it was before.

But we also want it to be different.

And better.

And hurry the fuck up about it, too.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

They can literally explain the DSC Klingons as just a off-shoot of the species.

Kind of like how the Xindi had multiple species, the Klingons could have multiple species as well.

 

[Greg Cox]

Speaking of the Klingon death howl, how comes nobody insists that TNG isn't "Prime" or that it violates canon by inventing that whole death howl thing out of nowhere. There were no howling Klingons on TOS or in the TOS movies, so clearly TNG and everything that followed completely wrecked "canon," right? If they wanted to have howling warrior aliens with ridged heads, why did they have to call them Klingons?

Honestly, that's what a lot of the complaints about DISCO sound like to me.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Does Kor have ridges on his head?

 

[Christopher]

They can literally explain the DSC Klingons as just a off-shoot of the species.

Kind of like how the Xindi had multiple species, the Klingons could have multiple species as well.

Not even the DSC Klingons -- I wish they'd explained the difference between TOS and TMP/later Klingons that way. I wish they'd defined "Klingon" not as a species name but a cultural name -- either the name of the empire and all its subject races, or the term for any follower of the ways of Kahless. Not only would that have dodged decades of annoying arguments over Klingon redesigns, but it would've been a more plausible portrayal of an empire, since a monocultural empire is a contradiction in terms.

Speaking of the Klingon death howl, how comes nobody insists that TNG isn't "Prime" or that it violates canon by inventing that whole death howl thing out of nowhere. There were no howling Klingons on TOS or in the TOS movies, so clearly TNG and everything that followed completely wrecked "canon," right? If they wanted to have howling warrior aliens with ridged heads, why did they have to call them Klingons?

Heck, that's the least of the ways in which TNG Klingons were revisionist. Having them suddenly be a people driven by honor was a fundamental change from the TOS Klingons, which The Making of Star Trek described as living for treachery and deceit and finding honor a disgusting notion. Although "Heart of Glory" did suggest that the Empire had reformed and given up its conquering ways, with Korris and his group being among the last holdouts (an idea that was abandoned later on in the franchise).

 

[Kemaiku]

Does Kor have ridges on his head?

After the popular cosmetic surgery sweeps the Empire.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

@Christopher

Enterprise pretty much openly contradicted things in the first two seasons. Voyager expected us to believe that after all the knowledge gained in Fury the rest of the timeline played out identically.

Discovery was flirting with it but explained away everything at the end of season two. If they had not done away with certain Discovery technologies and explained why they were never discussed it would have been a contradiction.

The Abramsverse movies have people transporting to Kronos directly from Earth.

Having prequels then giving them technology, contact with other races, or knowledge they should not have had at that point in time is a continuity issue and an immersivity problem. I think Discovery has kept it within tolerance (Knowing now some of their stuff disappeared never to be heard of again) but they damn well should be expected to.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

We want more Star Trek.

We want it to be exactly the same as it was before.

But we also want it to be different.

And better.

And hurry the fuck up about it, too.

Frankly, yeah. I know you’re being sarcastic. But if it’s not close enough to be identifiable as Star Trek you should start your own IP. If it’s not a little different, it’s a rehash or Previous Thing Lite.

 

[FormerLurker]

my glasses, my watch, my clothes, etc. still look pretty much the same as the ones I had decades before.

I would recommend going to see your opthalmologist, check out the latest in wrist-borne technology, and my God, man, you look like a tatterdemalion!

 

[Christopher]

Enterprise pretty much openly contradicted things in the first two seasons.

*sigh* Oh, great, a rehash of an argument I had all the time 15-plus years ago. No, they only contradicted things that fans thought were true but had no actual canonical basis.

Spoiler: Discovery season 2 ending

Discovery was flirting with it but explained away everything at the end of season two. If they had not done away with certain Discovery technologies and explained why they were never discussed it would have been a contradiction.

No, they explained it in the stupidest way possible. There was no need to explain why the technology was never discussed, any more than the countless other revolutionary technologies that Trek has mentioned in one episode and ignored afterward. There was no need to explain why Spock never mentioned Burnham when he never mentioned any of his relatives until they were standing right next to him on the Enterprise. There was no need to cover up spore drive in order to cover up a time travel incident that had nothing to do with spore drive, and it makes no sense, as well as being essentially impossible, to erase the entire existence of the starship Discovery and every member of its crew from history just to cover up that one time-travel incident. How do you erase everything else they accomplished and affected? How do you create such a massive hole in the historical record with nobody noticing and investigating? It's pure nonsense, an untenably clumsy fix for something that didn't need fixing.

I would recommend going to see your opthalmologist, check out the latest in wrist-borne technology, and my God, man, you look like a tatterdemalion!

Seriously? You interpret "look pretty much the same as" to mean "are the same as"? Joke fail.

 

[fireproof78]

Discovery was flirting with it but explained away everything at the end of season two. If they had not done away with certain Discovery technologies and explained why they were never discussed it would have been a contradiction.

Just like the way Trek has handled this before? I mean, I get that the spore drive is a game changer and all that jazz but the transporter curing aging? I think that merits some more discussion that just "Roll the credits."

Discovery has kept it within tolerance (Knowing now some of their stuff disappeared never to be heard of again) but they damn well should be expected to.

That expectation is setting up for disappointment, in my experience.

The Abramsverse movies have people transporting to Kronos directly from Earth.

Based upon future knowledge. Also, alternate universe.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Based upon future knowledge. Also, alternate universe

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Transwarp_beaming
In the novel for "Into Darkness", they showed how Khan accomplished those steps that the movie omitted.

According to the novelization of Star Trek Into Darkness, beaming to Qo'noS for Khan was a more complicated plot. The small portable transwarp beaming device on the jumpship only had enough power to beam Khan to an automated cargo station on Earth's orbit. From there he accessed a heavy-load transporter to beam onto an unmanned vessel in orbit of Luna. Khan had equipped the ship with another unauthorized transwarp device wired into the empty ship’s engine. Utilizing the entire energy output of the engine for a single massive burst, he could have beamed anywhere in our galactic region. Transporting to Qo'noS completely burned out the device, so no one was able to follow him using it.

Transwarp beaming shouldn't be a trivial matter.
Space is moving, Planetary Systems are rotating around the Galactic Body's large Black Hole, the target on a Planetary Body is rotating, the vessel is orbiting said Planetoid, who knows what kind of space interference between your transporter pad and the target.

Even when Kira was Beamed from DS9 to Empok Nor, somebody had to plant a Homing Transponder disguised as a piece of jewelry as a gift for Kira. That's what allowed her signal to be clear for a beam out over such long distances.

If there was going to be such long Beaming capability, there needs to be a strong & clear signal along with a excessive amount of power to transport the long distances with a exponential increase in energy the further you get or a complicated relay network for bouncing the Transport Signal along with the Matter Stream from Site to Site.

Imagine somebody sets up a Inter-Planetary Transporter Relay Network between Planetary Systems. If a few seconds of interference happens during the transport between A to B, that persons's signal or matter stream might be lost or degraded beyond the point of no return. There is a reason why such vast distances are generally safer to travel via StarShip. I wouldn't want to lose a chunk of my body due to "Galactic Sub-Space Radio Interference" or one of many random spatial anomalies that happens 'Oh-So Frequently' in Star Trek!