Would you accept a flexible Star Trek timeline?
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Everything is so freakin complicated. Compare a baseball game called on tv to one 30 years ago. They sap the joy and charm out of it with the complexity of analysis and stats. Feel like I'm in school.
When I was a kid I watched Star Trek cuz it was fun, they were good people, my heroes. Maybe this is why the general public goes in for Star Wars more. And why the convoluted trade war! prequels are rightly dissed. I hope PIC is fun with some what ifs and moral dilemmas and NO time travel!
When I was a kid I watched Star Trek cuz it was fun, they were good people, my heroes. Maybe this is why the general public goes in for Star Wars more. And why the convoluted trade war! prequels are rightly dissed. I hope PIC is fun with some what ifs and moral dilemmas and NO time travel!
I have no problem with a flexible timeline. Star Trek is to be entertaining first, and scientific second, like a distant second. The two are not mutually exclusive, but I would prefer enjoyable characters, entertaining stories and interesting technologies instead of making sure dates line up.
I read history for that.
I read history for that.
Hmm, I'd say it's a little of both.
Story wise it's basically one timeline. It's not perfect--so in a sense we already have to be a bit flexible if you're like me and have watched all the series and movies. There are inconsistencies already---some are minor, some fall in the middle but with a bit of creative story telling they can be explained (our novel writers are usually pretty good with this category), and there are things that just can't be explained and you have to accept it as an inconsistency---which is where some flexibility comes in. Like @Dry Bones 37 noted, if the episodes you are watching are otherwise enjoyable it's easier to overlook. If it's a bad contradictory story, then the contradiction is more glaring probably.
Then there's production design. That's been updated over the years. In a sense that's why I feel Discovery almost feels like a reboot. And as far as production design it kind of is.
So I'd say if you still follow Star Trek you're probably already pretty flexible. It's just flexibility within a single timeline instead of seeing it as something different.
Story wise it's basically one timeline. It's not perfect--so in a sense we already have to be a bit flexible if you're like me and have watched all the series and movies. There are inconsistencies already---some are minor, some fall in the middle but with a bit of creative story telling they can be explained (our novel writers are usually pretty good with this category), and there are things that just can't be explained and you have to accept it as an inconsistency---which is where some flexibility comes in. Like @Dry Bones 37 noted, if the episodes you are watching are otherwise enjoyable it's easier to overlook. If it's a bad contradictory story, then the contradiction is more glaring probably.
Then there's production design. That's been updated over the years. In a sense that's why I feel Discovery almost feels like a reboot. And as far as production design it kind of is.
So I'd say if you still follow Star Trek you're probably already pretty flexible. It's just flexibility within a single timeline instead of seeing it as something different.
Didn't the makers say it's in the prime universe (aka 1966 Trek)? Or are those two different things and "prime" really means "Kelvin timeline" since, being the current/active one, could then be considered "prime"? (And keeping in mind Trek66 also played loose with real science, sometimes - albeit rarely - for cheap crowd pleasing fluff - there are still a lot of variables but in most cases those are mitigated when something else that's really good compensates.)
I'll give DSC/S2 a retry down the road after letting some of these mindsets gel. Peck's Spock as scripted just did not feel like character building leading to Nimoy's Spock - for me, anyway, it did for others, it's all good either way.
My preferred approach to resolving contradictions is imagine there is some real events that happened in some universe and each show is told by a different historian in that universe.
So the basic story is the same but each takes a different perspective and style on that story. Any differences? Two historians just had a different perspective on those events. Like one might idealize a certain time period, and another may see a dark side to its Utopianism and focus on that.
This explanation is great because it allows me to see the Trek universe as a single cohesive entity without making my brain explode trying to piece everything together.
So the basic story is the same but each takes a different perspective and style on that story. Any differences? Two historians just had a different perspective on those events. Like one might idealize a certain time period, and another may see a dark side to its Utopianism and focus on that.
This explanation is great because it allows me to see the Trek universe as a single cohesive entity without making my brain explode trying to piece everything together.
Last edited:
I think that any show that delves in to our humanity's future you are going to have that reboot. How much that reboot in the visual impacts one's enjoyment will vary. I personally struggle to have TMP and TOS in the same continuity, as it is visually jarring (especially the uniforms), and the characters don't feel in line with TOS representations.
To me, it just comes with the territory. Flexibility is more enjoyable than insisting everything must perfectly sync up and if it doesn't then it must be an alternate universe. That's too black and white for me.
YMMV.
Visually, the biggest jump is still from TOS to TMP. Not that there haven't been big jumps since then, but none were as drastic.
I'd say TOS to Discovery. With TMP, you at least had the same actors to fall back on for that feeling of visual continuity.
Indeed. And characters felt off from their TOS presentation, so there was not a solid feeling of continuity.
As noted elsewhere, a definite timeline makes it harder to retread and weave between, which is always a good thing. It’s bad enough that certain one-off episodes from the 60s have been raised to a pantheon of sorts rather than remain previous installments to be followed by subsequent ones on equal footing.
Yeah, and despite my complaints about Discovery's production design, I know there has to be some updates.
I find I preferred the balance on Enterprise. I thought Zimmerman and his team did a good job making Enterprise look futuristic from today but at least made it seem less advanced than the original series. I never complained about the production design on Enterprise as a result.
I thought Discovery went a bit too far in the futuristic direction and didn't account enough for the era it takes place in. But of course that's just my take--like anything others will disagree. But I never expected Discovery to look like "The Cage".
And I hate the stupid window on the bridge. Have I said that before?
That's all JJ Abrams fault. Ugh.Though I loved the "In a Mirror, Darkly" Enterprise episodes---but I know that's only a one time trip down nostalgia lane and wouldn't really work for an entire series--at least one that's serious sci-fi. But I loved that I got an opportunity to see 60's set design with modern special effects. And during the battle we got to see what a constitution class starship in the Enterprise's class was really capable of, and how powerful it really was.
Not so active these days. More like in a state of limbo. I'd say when the films return (when, not if) it'll be something else entirely. I'm basing this off of what's happened with other film series that have been rebooted at least one other time before. They're usually just rebooted yet again. But anyway...
Even if someone doesn't agree that DSC is "Prime", it can be a Third Timeline but it's completely incompatible with the Kelvin Timeline. Totally and utterly. Disco Pike's fate doesn't line up with Kelvin Pike's. Then there's the Enterprise being in service in DSC S2, which takes place in 2257, while the Kelvin Enterprise would've still been being built (2255-'58).
Also, Admiral Marcus in Into Darkness wanted to revive Khan to figure out how to fight Klingons because of fear of impending war. ID takes place in 2259. If it's 2259, and those films took place in the same timeline as DSC, then he'd know all about fighting Klingons because the Federation would've been at war with them a few years earlier (2256-'57). So, again, the two don't line up or fit together at all. Nor were they intended to.
Last edited:
To me, Star Trek is more fun to be a fan of if it’s still contributing to a unified 50 year legacy than if it’s a bunch of totally separate things. So I want everything to be in one universe because it’s just more fun that way.
But I guess it’s easier for me to accept that it’s written by human beings who prioritize their current story over absolute consistency. So I don’t see the need for complicated in-universe explanations to justify the differences.
But I guess it’s easier for me to accept that it’s written by human beings who prioritize their current story over absolute consistency. So I don’t see the need for complicated in-universe explanations to justify the differences.
But one must still be careful not to break immersion, as on the Eaglemoss chart which slots the scaled-up DSC Enterprise into the original lineage, with only vague notions of a “refit” discredited by Short Treks, which show that version pre-“Cage” also (it would require a ridiculous there-back-there or even a there-back-there-back sequence). The simpler solution is to sweep these differences under the rug, eg. by excluding that version from the overall lineage while acknowledging the history in text, then covering DSC in a separate class of tie-ins that try not to depict TOS.
I prefer the window to the stupid blank screen when the power goes out.And I hate the stupid window on the bridge. Have I said that before?
It makes as much sense as having the bridge on top of the ship.
I'm not sure I even think of a multiverse, I just watch the shows as presented and either enjoy them or not.
Trying to make it all tie together is a endeavour destined to failure and the only mechanics governing the interactions between "universes" are real world ones.
So, yeah, grab a beer, watch Picard pontificate, watch Kirk punch someone, watch Tilly be too awesome for the English language to describe and have fun.
Last edited:
The bridge on top might seem like a bad spot for combat situations, but I'm sure most Federation starships go their whole life without getting into a fight, so it might make sense for other reasons, like if the ship is flooded with radiation. Either way, I can make excuses for it. It's also important for giving the audience a sense of scale. The window as the viewscreen is harder to explain.
If I excluded DSC from the lineage it would be less fun to watch, though. It wouldn’t be part of a legacy, and adding to that legacy.
Similar threads
