Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[BillJ]

My favorite example of that is TNG S3 - " Who Watches The Watchers", where they refer to the Mintakins as " Early Proto-Vulcans" <-- however these said "Proto-Vulcans" are logical and peaceful, and most seem to have their emotions in check or very subdued...

Early Vulcans logical and peaceful with a hint of emotional control?

Whomever wrote the episode didn't really watch the original Star Trek much did they? But, back in the day I didn't see the TNG writing or production staff raked over the coals for this one, even though it clearly showed they had no knowledge of Star Trek Canon or Continuity when it came to the Vulcan civilization.

I always figured they meant biologically similar.

 

[NCC-73515]

My favorite example of that is TNG S3 - " Who Watches The Watchers", where they refer to the Mintakins as " Early Proto-Vulcans" <-- however these said "Proto-Vulcans" are logical and peaceful, and most seem to have their emotions in check or very subdued...

Early Vulcans logical and peaceful with a hint of emotional control?

Whomever wrote the episode didn't really watch the original Star Trek much did they? But, back in the day I didn't see the TNG writing or production staff raked over the coals for this one, even though it clearly showed they had no knowledge of Star Trek Canon or Continuity when it came to the Vulcan civilization.

You can be guaranteed if any Kurtzman Star Trek production made an error like the above, they'd be castigated over their lack of respect for Star Trek Canon.

...or they did know the difference between technological and cultural eras
Nowhere did anyone say proto- means pre-Surak attitudes.

 

[Commander Troi]

Fascinating discussion folks! As someone whose first contact with the idea of continuity was comic books, I've seen how it can be Super Cool *and* how it can be a prison. As with most things, the secret seems to be balance.

 

[BillJ]

Fascinating discussion folks! As someone whose first contact with the idea of continuity was comic books, I've seen how it can be Super Cool *and* how it can be a prison. As with most things, the secret seems to be balance.

I see it as a multiverse, where the broad strokes are relatively the same but the details are different.

 

[fireproof78]

Fascinating discussion folks! As someone whose first contact with the idea of continuity was comic books, I've seen how it can be Super Cool *and* how it can be a prison. As with most things, the secret seems to be balance.

Balance is something that I think is important. Do I miss out on excellent stories because I cannot regard them as congruent with what came before or can I balance my own preferences with the nature of storytelling (advances, different artistic interpretation, etc.)

For me, and Star Trek, that's a yes. I have seen too many varieties in Trek's interpretation over the years, from comics, to novels to video games, to hold visual details as immutable.

Others will certainly vary. But, unless there is a distinct difference (James R. Kirk vs. James T. Kirk) in the history I am OK with small visual variations.

 

[The Wormhole]

Whether or not continuity or canon should or shouldn't matter is one thing, but what really grinds my gears are the ones who complain about the continuity/canon errors in the current shows with the claim "this never went on in the other shows." It totally did. It's always been going on. Don't pretend it's anything new.

 

[fireproof78]

Whether or not continuity or canon should or shouldn't matter is one thing, but what really grinds my gears are the ones who complain about the continuity/canon errors in the current shows with the claim "this never went on in the other shows." It totally did. It's always been going on. Don't pretend it's anything new.

This similarly grinds my gears. More than that is the at times extremely negative view of the production team, that they don't get Star Trek because they don't remember minutia from past shows. Like, seriously?

 

[NCC-73515]

Whether or not continuity or canon should or shouldn't matter is one thing, but what really grinds my gears are the ones who complain about the continuity/canon errors in the current shows with the claim "this never went on in the other shows." It totally did. It's always been going on. Don't pretend it's anything new.

Mistakes, sure. Deliberate, unexplained, and unnecessary major changes? Not very often. Prove me wrong with real examples

 

[UssGlenn]

You know how I know I'm starting to get old? I've been around long enough to see new Trek, Enterprise, because appreciated amongst large portions of the fandom. Kurtzman Era Trek will get it's reassessment when the next new abomination comes along.

 

[Noname Given]

You know how I know I'm starting to get old? I've been around long enough to see new Trek, Enterprise, because appreciated amongst large portions of the fandom. Kurtzman Era Trek will get it's reassessment when the next new abomination comes along.

And that's the way Trek fandom has been since TAS in 1973. (And I speak from first-hand experience.)

 

[dupersuper]

How can it be the same universe if no one who worked on creating that universe is involved?

So Marvel Comics changed universes once Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, et al weren't working there any more? Doctor Who changed universes several times over?

Actually that is how it works in most media. Nobody thinks that the Superman that is printed now is in the same universe as Siegel and Shuster's. Nobody thinks that the Batman printed now is in the same universe as Bob Kane's.

Only because DC Comics is so reboot happy...

So, as usual, Star Trek exists way behind the times.

Or march to the beat of their own drummer...

The Kelvin timeline would like a word with you.

That was a specific case of an alternate timeline that was presented as such.

To expand ideas.

Why would a story need to be set in the prime universe to do that?

They are just doing a rolling reboot or else Spiderman would be 65 years old.

The comic book term is sliding timeline. The heroes perpetually began their careers 10 - 15 years ago. All the stories from the 60s still happened, every one in them just had cell phones now.

It would be neglect to not alert authorities en route. People could be hurt and his taking a second to inform people might save lives.

He has no bars, his phone's dead, his phone got busted last issue when he fought Vulture. Easy-peasy.

even then, there were a whole helluva lot of people for whom Endgame was their first Marvel movie.

Confused people, I'd imagine.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Mistakes, sure. Deliberate, unexplained, and unnecessary major changes? Not very often. Prove me wrong with real examples

They completely changed the Klingons and the Romulans both visually and culturally moving from TOS to TNG, then did the same thing to the Ferengi (with slightly less visual change) and the Trill from TNG to DS9. Voyager's entire basic premise is nonsensical when you remember how far the original Enterprise was capable of traveling a hundred years earlier.

The modern 'major unnecessary changes' aren't any more numerous, imo, though occassionally more annoying to me personally.

 

[SJGardner]

Just because it received a clunky and convoluted "official explanation" 25 years later, the evolution of the Klingon make-up and culture in the 80s was the epitome of a major, deliberate, unexplained and more-or-less unacknowledged change. The Klingons went from "entire can of bronzer and mustache" aliens to "latex make-up and false teeth" aliens and they suddenly always have looked like that, the show simply didn't have the budget to depict it properly before.

One of the worst original sins of Star Trek was when Trials and Tribble-ations poked fun at the make-up differences, and both fans and writers took it at face value and began treating it as an in-universe plot-hole that absolutely needed an explanation.

 

[NCC-73515]

They completely changed the Klingons and the Romulans both visually and culturally moving from TOS to TNG, then did the same thing to the Ferengi (with slightly less visual change) and the Trill from TNG to DS9. Voyager's entire basic premise is nonsensical when you remember how far the original Enterprise was capable of traveling a hundred years earlier.

The modern 'major unnecessary changes' aren't any more numerous, imo, though occassionally more annoying to me personally.

When were the Klingon and Romulan visual changes, for how long were they unchanged after that, and were they acknowledged in-universe with an in-universe reason for the change? Can cultures not change a lot in 100 years? How often did the Trill appear before and after the change? TOS speeds and distances were inconsistent within the show, since the universe was still being built and nothing was established yet. For how long were warp scale definitions consistent after TOS?

Just because it received a clunky and convoluted "official explanation" 25 years later, the evolution of the Klingon make-up and culture in the 80s was the epitome of a major, deliberate, unexplained and more-or-less unacknowledged change. The Klingons went from "entire can of bronzer and mustache" aliens to "latex make-up and false teeth" aliens and they suddenly always have looked like that, the show simply didn't have the budget to depict it properly before.

One of the worst original sins of Star Trek was when Trials and Tribble-ations poked fun at the make-up differences, and both fans and writers took it at face value and began treating it as an in-universe plot-hole that absolutely needed an explanation.

They did not suddenly always look like that (see Klingon Augments). What is so sinful about filling a hole, answering a mystery, explaining an apparent contradiction? Would you say that most of TOS S3, TNG S1-2, ENT S1-2, and all of TAS were "necessary" stories?

 

[SJGardner]

They did not suddenly always look like that (see Klingon Augments). What is so sinful about filling a hole, answering a mystery, explaining an apparent contradiction? Would you say that most of TOS S3, TNG S1-2, ENT S1-2, and all of TAS were "necessary" stories?

The Klingon Augments are literally the ex-post-facto fanwank explanation I'm talking about. They were introduced 25 years after the original make-up change just to explain an apparent plot hole that's for all intents and purposes a change in production design that came from the transfer from a network TV to a motion picture budget. If they were intended to look different in-universe, Kirk and the others surely would've mentioned that they changed. Just because there were some stories about it in the expanded universe, TV and movie canon was perfectly okay with pretending nothing was different until the DS9 writers decided to poke fun at it for a one-off gag.

They should've went with their original idea of having Worf appear in a TOS Klingon make-up in the past and no one from his crew commenting on it. It would've saved us all a lot of trouble. Yeah, fans would've still grumbled about things looking different, but there was no reason to explain a change in production design. I can't help but cringe at how Memory Alpha keeps listing and describing "uniform variants" like Data's off-color uniform top with the two seams on the chest in early Season 3 or Sisko's "formal" crewneck jacket in Rapture that were clearly simply unfinished test versions of their costumes that still needed refinement, but just because they were visible on screen, they "needed" to be listed. Mind you, I don't have a problem with providing explanations for "apparent contradictions." What I have a problem with is the idea that everything that seems incongruous must need a definite explanation.

 

[Tuskin38]

What is so sinful about filling a hole,

It was a hole that didn't need filling. It was a retcon, the Klingon makeup changes in TMP were intended to be retroactive.

 

[The Wormhole]

TOS speeds and distances were inconsistent within the show, since the universe was still being built and nothing was established yet.

Isn't it worse that TOS was inconsistent with itself? After all, there was far less material back then for them to have to review and make sure it was consistent. Hell, even when TNG started, all they had to review was 79 episodes and four movies. As opposed to today where there's 800 episodes and thirteen movies. If they couldn't stay consistent back when the franchise had fewer than a hundred episodes and movies total, why should they be expected to be consistent now when that number is within spitting distance of a thousand?

And besides, no continuing franchise has ever been that good with keeping itself consistent. The old Marvel comics were so bad at it they actually turned it into a game for the fans with the old Marvel No-Prizes. Doctor Who had a producer who actually admits continuity is only what he can remember. Why Star Trek fans exist the franchise has always been a bastion for consistency up until very recent, or that consistency even matters truly is a mystery for the ages.

 

[coryjosb]

The Klingon joke was funny and that's a good enough reason to do something in a TOS themed anniversary special imo

 

[eschaton]

The Klingon joke was funny and that's a good enough reason to do something in a TOS themed anniversary special imo

Though if they had just made Worf look like a TOS Klingon when they went back in time (which they mooted) it could have killed the idiotic Enterprise explanation before it was even born.

 

[cooleddie74]

TOS was so inconsistent with itself it couldn't even decided on what the Federation and Starfleet were called for most of the first, oh, 18 or 19 episodes. I know it was 1966 and 1967 and expecting a series to have ironclad first-year continuity is difficult even in our age but Gene really needed to decide before "Arena" that it was called the Federation and stick to it.

At least it was settled by season's end.