Poll Severe issues with the immense amount of inconsistencies in the Lore ...
- Thread starter A'Tun-Te
- Start date
That's where you have to remember that STAR TREK isn't fact; it's theater, and that a change in art direction is just . . . a change in art direction. It doesn't always need an "in-universe" explanation. It's like recasting an actor; you just need to suspend your disbelief and assume it or they always looked that way.
If I was hired as the ultimate overlord of Star Trek my first rule would be:
1. Star Trek is fact.
Though I don't know what my second rule would be yet. Probably something about banning Ferengi comedy stories or one-episode romances.
Star Trek is the result of many showrunners and writers making it all up as they go along. Everyone has different ideas about how the universe "should" work and it's reflected in their shows. TNG-era Trek kept away from lots of TOS concepts because Gene and his immediate succesors considered them goofy. But some of those same concepts (a big magical forcefield around the galaxy, for one) have been embraced enthusiastically by the current Trek showrunners.
Sometimes this causes issues, like everyone in Discovery's 31st century should be beaming across the galaxy with a tap of their badges, but these concepts are ignored presumably because they'd make the universe utter chaos (which I'd LOVE to see explored but whatever)
And now every show has it's own art guys and producers who want to craft a unique look for everything, so we've got Strange New Worlds with an Enterprise far more like that of the recent movies, but it's somehow the exact same ship made of cardboard in TOS. They're taking more of a loose adaptation approach, where all this stuff can be "recast" as easily as an actor. Which version of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 is the "correct" one? Whichever, since both versions appeared in modern Treks (the SNW version in PIC S1, the TOS one in Prodigy and Lower Decks). Even the Enterprise in Strange New Worlds is a little different to how it appeared in Discovery season 2 or Short Treks. There's no longer a concrete answer for how big the Enterprise is. But does it really matter? Only if you're into the technical manuals and size comparison charts.
Sometimes this causes issues, like everyone in Discovery's 31st century should be beaming across the galaxy with a tap of their badges, but these concepts are ignored presumably because they'd make the universe utter chaos (which I'd LOVE to see explored but whatever)
And now every show has it's own art guys and producers who want to craft a unique look for everything, so we've got Strange New Worlds with an Enterprise far more like that of the recent movies, but it's somehow the exact same ship made of cardboard in TOS. They're taking more of a loose adaptation approach, where all this stuff can be "recast" as easily as an actor. Which version of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 is the "correct" one? Whichever, since both versions appeared in modern Treks (the SNW version in PIC S1, the TOS one in Prodigy and Lower Decks). Even the Enterprise in Strange New Worlds is a little different to how it appeared in Discovery season 2 or Short Treks. There's no longer a concrete answer for how big the Enterprise is. But does it really matter? Only if you're into the technical manuals and size comparison charts.
I really wish they would start finding people with zero exposure to the franchise, start looking for people to take it in a direction away from nostalgia porn.
Same here. They have moved back to a check-box mentality by my estimation that doesn't expand the franchise. And all it does is appeal to fans who want a lot of everything to tie all together. It creates a very strange idea of Star Trek that isn't always congruent to exploring possibilities of storytelling but content to stay inside it's safe little box.
No. Every fictional universe has "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" in the lore.
It happens. Especially in such a long-running franchise that has the input of so many people.
It happens. Especially in such a long-running franchise that has the input of so many people.
There's contradictions and inconsistencies, then there's just doing their own thing and waving at the fans and going, "yeah, sure its all Prime!"
That's why I think they should hire people with more exposure to the franchise. People who could instantly say "Oh, that one's been done already," to every overly familiar idea, but have a brain full of ideas of new places to take the series. People who don't have to go check Memory Alpha looking for references to drop in to score points, but can just write stories that exist in the universe.
"Prime" is ever changing, updating and reinventing.
I think very few folks are aware of that. I think most believe that they are keeping everything the same as much as possible, they can't fathom that TOS is simply going to be retconned out of the franchise sometime down the road.
I have DVDs and an internet connection. I'm good.
Exactly. Why does there even need to be a "correct' answer? And how often does the exact size and specs of the hardware actually figure into the story, aside from the dramatic effect of "Whoa! That other ship is WAY bigger than us!" or whatever? As long as the ship has a saucer and two nacelles, and is immediately recognizable as the Enterprise or Voyager or whatever, that's all we really need to understand who is who and where. Whether the auxiliary starboard transceiver relay looks exactly like it did in some previous STAR TREK production, created decades ago by different people in a different era for a different generation of TV viewers, probably has little enough or nothing to do with how engaging or exciting or thought-provoking a new movie or episode is on its own terms.
IMO, at least.
The older I get, the more I think that there's no "definitive" version of anything, whether we're talking Batman, Godzilla, Sherlock Holmes, or Star Trek. Nor should there be.
I can do what they're doing now, and I don't have to go to Memory Alpha!
Same here.
I get why characters like Batman get reinvented, and the version of him I grew attached to came into being a long long way down the line, but I gave up on the comics a couple of reboots ago because nothing seemed to matter anymore.
This relatively recent idea of definitive continuing universes where characters have their time and then pass the story along to the next set of heroes is far more appealing to me. If I'm given a choice between learning more about Kirk and Spock's past, or getting the next chapter of Star Trek, post Dominion war, post Voyager's return, it's not even a choice for me. I mean sure I'm hyped for Strange New Worlds, but it's always going to be weighed down with this sense of 'what are they going to retcon this time?' Like something's burrowing under the foundations of something very precious to me.
I don't want Kirk and Spock to turn into Sherlock Holmes or Batman, continually reinvented for a new audience (alternate universes aside). Their Trek came years before I was born but when I first watched the series I loved discovering this history to the 90s Star Trek I was fan of, and I loved how it actually felt like a legitimate history. It's obviously dated and clearly more primative... like something that comes before something else should be.
Last edited:
Treks been retconning since day two. It's never been immune to that. It's always fitting things between the cracks, filling in the cracks and at times paved them over. I see no difference in telling new stories with old characters or just new stories. No difference in telling stories set in 2261 or 2416.
Similar threads
