How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?

[fireproof78]

DSC’s changes are too obvious not to notice, but either way, I was just responding to claims of it being unnecessary, detrimental to enjoyment, especially connected with online extremism, “sad or funny”…

Did someone say "don't notice it?"

My points about being detrimental is when those details are a barrier to engaging with the story. As in, I cannot enjoy DSC because the Enterprise is 400+ meters vs. 256 meters. I'm not saying people will not engage in those technical details or that analysis won't happen because it clearly will. But, it strikes me as odd to allow those details interfere with enjoyment of a show.

Sorry, it's confusing to me.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think you're misstating @Greg Cox's position somewhat. The impression that I get from Greg's posts is that the redesigns don't bother him as a fan, not just because as a tie-in author, he doesn't have to worry about the tech stuff that much. (Greg, if I'm misunderstanding your opinion, please correct me.)

Bingo. If anything, it's the other way around. When I'm writing a Trek book, I will consult every reference book and tech manual available--in part because I don't know the techy stuff as well as I understand the characters so I need all the help I can get when it comes to the tech, but when I'm just watching the show as a fan I'm not going to get bent out of the shape because third ventral emitter dish is in the wrong place, or notice that a second lieutenant's uniform has the "wrong" number of pips or stripes or whatever.

(Dare I admit that I've been a Trekkie my whole life and I've never paid attention to what exactly the various bells and whistles on the uniforms mean?)

One can argue, I suppose, that I'm naturally predisposed to prioritize plot and dialogue over the visuals, but I like to think that I'm not overly fundamentalist about the story stuff either. I'm perfectly fine with ignoring "Turnabout Intruder" when it comes to female starship captains, nor does it bother me that Kirk doesn't mention his brother Sam at the end of the STAR TREK V because Sam had nothing to do with that story, which didn't need to confuse matters by referencing an irrelevant plot point from "Operation--Annihilate."

Mind you, I have no eye for hardware in general. I couldn't tell a Ford from a Chevy if my life depended on it, let alone see any major differences between this or that version of the Enterprise. They all look more or less the same to me.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Did someone say "don't notice it?"

My points about being detrimental is when those details are a barrier to engaging with the story. As in, I cannot enjoy DSC because the Enterprise is 400+ meters vs. 256 meters. I'm not saying people will not engage in those technical details or that analysis won't happen because it clearly will. But, it strikes me as odd to allow those details interfere with enjoyment of a show.

Sorry, it's confusing to me.

I mean I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d argue that “interference with enjoyment” would be an extreme reaction to changes. As noted before, for me it’s usually a matter of “oh, look at that bridge redesign!”, which can have the effect of putting on the backburner whatever heightened plot developments surround the latest effort to save the universe. But if I had to analyze why I don’t enjoy the show, it would hardly be because of the redesign: I would’ve wanted something like Marvel’s Netflix shows minimum, where they take specific characters, disconnect them from the MCU’s greatest hits and keep focusing on them and them alone. DSC but in the 25th century. DSC in the 23rd century but on a mission far away. An ensemble crew we want to see more and more of, without the Enterprise of all ships rushing in to save the day.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d argue that “interference with enjoyment” would be an extreme reaction to changes. As noted before, for me it’s usually a matter of “oh, look at that bridge redesign!”, which can have the effect of putting on the backburner whatever heightened plot developments surround the latest effort to save the universe. But if I had to analyze why I don’t enjoy the show, it would hardly be because of the redesign: I would’ve wanted something like Marvel’s Netflix shows minimum, where they take specific characters, disconnect them from the MCU’s greatest hits and keep focusing on them and them alone. DSC but in the 25th century. DSC in the 23rd century but on a mission far away. An ensemble crew we want to see more and more of, without the Enterprise of all ships rushing in to save the day.

That is all completely fair. But, given the reactions that I have seen to things like ENT, Kelvin Trek and DSC regarding aesthetics I can say that some have that reaction.

Again, it's not that people are not noticing it. I notice the uniforms right off with Pike on DSC, and personally think they need a little work. But, that doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the characters, which I think is the more important thing, and what production teams are emphasizing.

My overall point is that fans can expect technical details and manuals all they want, but that isn't a requirement for the production team.

 

[Tenacity]

but that isn't a requirement for the production team.

Well, nothing really is. As noted multiple times, the people on the show can do anything they want with their own property. If a audience member doesn't care for it, they can take their particular set of eyes and ears elsewhere,

 

[fireproof78]

Well, nothing really is. As noted multiple times, the people on the show can do anything they want with their own property. If a audience member doesn't care for it, they can take their particular set of eyes and ears elsewhere,

If we want to get nihilistic about it, certainly. But, the counterpoint that I know is coming is that Star Trek has a fan base that wants certain things, and I think that these changes need to be acknowledged as not requirements but expectations in order to have a good faith discussion.

 

[Greg Cox]

My attitude basically boils down to: a decent respect for continuity is a virtue, but it's possible to get too nitpicky about this stuff, to the point where you're not having fun anymore.

How nitpicky is "too" nitpicky is, of course, a judgment call.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It’s a bit like spelling when you think about it, at least for people who are familiar with TOS: on the one hand it’s often arbitrary and the least important aspect of language, but you also don’t want to change habits if you want your readers to focus on the content.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s a bit like spelling when you think about it, at least for people who are familiar with TOS: on the one hand it’s often arbitrary and the least important aspect of language, but you also don’t want to change habits if you want your readers to focus on the content.

But Star Trek has done this since TMP and TNG...what's wrong with it happening again?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But Star Trek has done this since TMP and TNG...what's wrong with it happening again?

Star Trek had done this under the conceit that those fictional societies are evolving with the passage of future time, just as Star Trek production has evolved over the last fifty years. DSC went back and reimagined an earlier era rather than recreate it with reverence in accordance with that conceit, namely that Pike’s era was established in 1964 and looks and feels a certain way. If it seems out-of-date in any respect, that’s OK, you just don’t revisit Pike (at least not very often) but stick to the 24th or the 25th centuries. Other properties would be reimagined all the time, but Star Trek simply didn’t have that precedent, hence the range of possible reactions to the change.

Mine is that Star Trek doesn’t need Spock, Picard or any other legacy character forever, that they can all be swapped out and replaced with others in totally different situations as long as the premise remains the same: Star Trek, figuratively or literally. “To boldly go where no one has gone before”. Focus on the core, focus on your own characters, focus on making Star Trek with no debts to earlier productions. Do that and you don’t need to remain in a particular century, so the scenery takes care of itself.

 

[fireproof78]

DSC went back and reimagined an earlier era rather than recreate it with reverence in accordance with that conceit,

That conceit was not part of TOS or TMP. TMP was reimagined because they good, and GR demonstrated zero reverence for TOS. So, I do not buy in to this conceit, because part of Star Trek's core concept is technology based upon contemporary understanding, not forever locked in to 60s era technological understanding or story based concepts.

 

[Longinus]

That conceit was not part of TOS or TMP.

Yes it was. The new look of Enterprise was sold as a refit, and kinda big deal was made out of it. Of course the real reason was that they wanted to update the look for the big screen, but in-setting explanation was prominently provided.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

That conceit was not part of TOS or TMP. TMP was reimagined because they good, and GR demonstrated zero reverence for TOS. So, I do not buy in to this conceit, because part of Star Trek's core concept is technology based upon contemporary understanding, not forever locked in to 60s era technological understanding or story based concepts.

GR didn’t have reverence even for a reimagined TOS era, hence the creation of TNG. He pretty much treated TOS like a first draft to be thrown into the archives, not revisited and edited forever. Star Trek should keep going with that rather than weave around characters like Spock, Kirk, Picard. Just create the next iconic characters and setting, updating science, technology and society as required, with no need to stay in a particular century.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It’s a bit like spelling when you think about it, at least for people who are familiar with TOS: on the one hand it’s often arbitrary and the least important aspect of language, but you also don’t want to change habits if you want your readers to focus on the content.

...What? No, it's not like spelling at all. Spelling is a constant and not something that you change. Production design is something that changes all the damn time. It changed on the shows and the movies whenever they got a new production designer, whenever they got a director with a different aesthetic, or whenever they just felt like shaking things up.

The engine room on the Enterprise changed between seasons 1 and 2 of TOS, and the engine room changed again to a completely different design in TMP. (Seriously, they don't look anything alike.) And then they changed the engine room again in TWOK with the addition of a room that had never been seen before because they wanted a dramatic place for Spock to die in. As always, the needs of a particular story dictated the production design. And that is how it should be. Creating a Trek show around not deviating from previously-established production elements is like the tail wagging the dog.

Just because you happen to be noticing the redesigns more now does not mean that they're suddenly breaking from how things have always been done.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes it was. The new look of Enterprise was sold as a refit, and kinda big deal was made out of it. Of course the real reason was that they wanted to update the look for the big screen, but in-setting explanation was prominently provided.

Some things were. Other things, such as the Klingons, were sold as that is how it is always been. Also, I recall a quote from GR that he expected Star Trek to update again and again as part of cultural development.

GR didn’t have reverence even for a reimagined TOS era, hence the creation of TNG. He pretty much treated TOS like a first draft to be thrown into the archives, not revisited and edited forever. Star Trek should keep going with that rather than weave around characters like Spock, Kirk, Picard. Just create the next iconic characters and setting, updating science, technology and society as required, with no need to stay in a particular century.

As I noted above, there is a quote around of GR discussing future generations and expecting them to update and edit Trek as they see fit. He may have disagreed with the means (see TWOK) but he certainly didn't have reverence for the past iterations.

Again, the central conceit is contemporary understanding of technology and looking forward to an optimistic future of humanity. It isn't just to be left unchanged forever.

ETA: I know there are various attitudes, and opinions on this, and certainly in the Berman era there was a lot less changes, and a lot more reverence. Please feel free to continue down with what works for you, but it is my opinion that that isn't how it has always been. And, I don't expect it to remain the same or treat the past with reverence. Star Trek is about looking forward, not back.

Something the franchise truly struggles with, all across the board.

 

[Daddy Todd]

It’s a bit like spelling when you think about it, at least for people who are familiar with TOS: on the one hand it’s often arbitrary and the least important aspect of language, but you also don’t want to change habits if you want your readers to focus on the content.

Yeah, but there is an arbiter of spelling and language. It's a dictionary. But dictionaries change over time, because a dictionary is (and should be) descriptive. As new words appear, old words shift their meaning, and spelling changes, dictionaries have to be updated to keep pace. Dictionaries are updated every year or so to account for that stuff.

Who's the arbiter of Star Trek canon? And who's out there documenting changes in that canon? Well, nobody.

Except the folks creating new episodes. That's why they get to decide what is and isn't canon. It used to be "A", but now it's "Z". And, in fact, it was always "Z". Because they say so.

If we were talking about the real world, that would be "1984"-level newspeak. However, since it's a collection of TV shows and movies, it's not a crime and it's not a sin. It's just creative folks being creative.

 

[Therin of Andor]

...What? No, it's not like spelling at all. Spelling is a constant and not something that you change.

Spelling does evolve over time. New spellings become accepted into dictionaries as recognised/recognized alternates.

Who's the arbiter of Star Trek canon?

The show-runner of the day: Gene Roddenberry, then DC Fontana (TAS), then Roddenberry again, then Rick Berman, then Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman, then Fuller, now Kurtzman.

But nobody is officially "documenting canon". It falls to fan contributors of Memory Alpha.

 

[Daddy Todd]

The show-runner of the day...

That's why I continued to say "...the folks creating new episodes."

 

[Ghrakh]

Just go with what you feel.

Good point. Instead of warp drive just use hyperspace and get wherever you need to be, instantly.. To hell with canon. Who cares about nacelles, or vulcan logic for that matter. Replace characters with whoever you want. Fuck canon.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Spelling does evolve over time, of course, but we don’t change it as part of an original endeavor, expecting readers to focus on that and new content at the same time. Likewise, is the goal to create a tense situation where the viewers are thinking about the characters and plot (as suggested in Greg’s ST [2009] example) or dazzle them at the same time with unexpected production design or even bits of terminology invented for the TNG-era? If not, then all that should fall into the background, but then again there is the issue of new audiences who may look at it and say the year isn’t 1964.

That’s why revisiting past eras and characters requires tradeoffs in proportion to expectations, whereas going forward into the future solves both problems at the same time. Even the Nemesis era feels a little out of date? No problem, make it 2396 and change whatever you need; even if you change too much, we can handwave it with the passage of time. But viewers are now getting into your particular story, not the scenery of the fictional universe, regardless of whether they’re familiar with Star Trek or not. Otherwise, you just have to expect different reactions to an attempt at reimagining an era.