SNW truly respects TOS continuity!

[cooleddie74]

T'Pau was played by three different actors between 1967 and 2004. A Slavic actor with a Russian accent, an Asian actress and then an American actress with a North American accent. Yet all three are meant to be the exact same individual in one timeline. That's how a franchise lasting more than half a century has to roll.

 

[David cgc]

^(He's counting the hologram from that episode of Voyager where the Doctor accidentally turned history's greatest hero into history's greatest monster.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

of but how is SNW respecting TOS continuity?

In it's set design, prop design and costuming. Thematically , too.

I mean the Enterprise must have had a hell of a downgrade for the Kirk era and even before with Jeffery Hunter's Pike in The Cage!!!

Nope, as of SNW the Enterprise has always looked like that. Respecting continuity does't mean duplication down to the type of nail and cut of plywood used in 1964.

Plus since how does Christine Chapel, a minor character in the first season of TOS with only three shows to her name, be on the Enterprise with Uhura when neither of them were part of the crew at the time of Kirk's taking command before WNMHGB?

Why would either have to be part of a crew from half a decade in the future?

Dr.M'Benga too was a minor character and more Brooklyn Black than African Black?

Pretty sure like Uhura, M'Benga was meant to be "African Black" even though both were played by Americans.

George Samuel Kirk on the Enterprise as a crewmember, since when? And if so why didn't Spock or Kirk himself mention it in Operation:Annihilate?

Since SNW established he was. That's how these things work. Why would Sam's posting from years in the past be relevant? I think they also failed to mention Sam's other kids in Operation: Annihilate. Does that mean they don't exist?

Now this cannot be the TOS universe no matter what the producers say!!!

That's the only metric that has any value. My opinion and yours are irrelevant.

 

[cooleddie74]

Yep. Face it, any franchise that runs this long has to hire different actors to reprise certain roles. Actors age, decide they don't want to come back or die.

 

[fireproof78]

Since SNW established he was. That's how these things work. Why would Sam's posting from years in the past be relevant? I think they also failed to mention Sam's other kids in Operation: Annihilate. Does that mean they don't exist?

They don't.

SNW is insidious in it's evil!

 

[Mudd]

I'm not on here to poo poo this show as I've seen a few episodes and found it very much superior to Discovery which I was not a fan of but how is SNW respecting TOS continuity?
I mean the Enterprise must have had a hell of a downgrade for the Kirk era and even before with Jeffery Hunter's Pike in The Cage!!! Plus since how does Christine Chapel, a minor character in the first season of TOS with only three shows to her name, be on the Enterprise with Uhura when neither of them were part of the crew at the time of Kirk's taking command before WNMHGB? Dr.M'Benga too was a minor character and more Brooklyn Black than African Black? Plus the Gorn were a totally unknown race at the time of Arena and if Spock knew of them why did he keep it from his Captain and where was the records of previous Gorn attacks upon Federation ships and worlds? Also the colony of Cestus III was unknowingly planted within the limits of Gorn space and it was that they feared an attack upon their territory which made them destroy Cestus III!
George Samuel Kirk on the Enterprise as a crewmember, since when? And if so why didn't Spock or Kirk himself mention it in Operation:Annihilate?
Now this cannot be the TOS universe no matter what the producers say!!!
JB

All of this constitutes nothing more than conjectural conclusions on your part, derived from spotty evidence and often complete lack of evidence - along the lines of "How can this be true when it was never mentioned before or never occurred to me?"

As such it has little to do with continuity and nothing to do with what is or isn't "canon."

This is the Enterprise, this is Pike, Uhura. Chapel etc. No "alternate universes" required or involved.

 

[johnnybear]

No it has to be alternate! If we're talking as the show is real how do you explain the technology and size of the ship compared to the original series which I think looks much better! The new show is far too shiny and large!
JB

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn't "have to be" anything.

 

[Mudd]

No it has to be alternate! If we're talking as the show is real how do you explain the technology and size of the ship compared to the original series which I think looks much better! The new show is far too shiny and large!
JB

I don't talk as if the show is real.

Problem solved.

(There is no other right answer.)

 

[johnnybear]

True.
JB

 

[Nerys Myk]

No it has to be alternate! If we're talking as the show is real how do you explain the technology and size of the ship compared to the original series which I think looks much better! The new show is far too shiny and large!
JB

Is this a real question? It's a TV show. We do what we've done since 1966 and roll with it. Did you cry "alternate universe" when Kirk's middle intial went from "R" to "T"? How about when the nacelle ends flip from grids to spheres? (sometimes in the same episode)The ship went through all sorts of cosmetic changes from the pilots to the ongoing series. None of which ever got an on screen explanation.

 

[Jack Wolfe]

No it has to be alternate! If we're talking as the show is real how do you explain the technology and size of the ship compared to the original series which I think looks much better! The new show is far too shiny and large!
JB

What an absolutely stunning lack of perspective. It's a fictional TV show, so calm down. Would you like to breathe into a bag?

 

[Mudd]

Everything since ST:TMP has been an alternate universe. Everything. Because there has never been a disregard for visual continuity in the Trek universe nearly as huge and unexplainable as the changed look of the Klingons in that film.

Yes, I know they've "explained" it at least twice - and the explanations were complete duds.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Everything since ST:TMP has been an alternate universe. Everything. Because there has never been a disregard for visual continuity in the Trek universe nearly as huge and unexplainable as the changed look of the Klingons in that film.

Yes, I know they've "explained" it at least twice - and the explanations were complete duds.

I don't understand the resistance that the series is an alternate universe. Would it delegitimize the series if it actually is? Still these problems would be avoided if they made these languishing shows set after Picard's timeline, with a band of new characters who had no relations to the heroes we knew.

 

[fireproof78]

Because Pike.

And that is sufficient for me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't understand the resistance that the series is an alternate universe. Would it delegitimize the series if it actually is? Still these problems would be avoided if they made these languishing shows set after Picard's timeline, with a band of new characters who had no relations to the heroes we knew.

Such decisions are above our "paygrade".

 

[Mudd]

I don't understand the resistance that the series is an alternate universe. Would it delegitimize the series if it actually is?

There's no issue of legitimacy to be discussed.

It's fussy, irrelevant nonsense. If you're determined to believe that this made-up fantasy is so irreconcilable with some older version of a made-up fantasy that you can't enjoy it without some gibberish sorting them into different boxes, well, go with God I suppose.

None of it is real. None of it takes place in any universe. It's a story that takes place in the same imaginative space as Cinderella and Rent.

I swear, I think the need some fans feel to complicate fiction this way is symptomatic of something diagnosable.

Still these problems would be avoided if they made these languishing shows set after Picard's timeline,

People who wallow in these "problems" are welcome to stew in them.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

No it has to be alternate! If we're talking as the show is real how do you explain the technology and size of the ship compared to the original series which I think looks much better! The new show is far too shiny and large!
JB

Why aren't you mad at Roddenberry for setting the precedent of changing things visually once you have the money to do so? The minute Roddenberry got given a movie budget the Enterprise visually became a completely different ship and the Klingons suddenly developed ridges. Roddenberry's response to the fan outrage was to say that he had always intended for the klingons to look more alien and the Enterprise to look more advanced.

You can bet your finnicky arse that if Roddenberry had the 60's equivalent of an $8million per episode budget, TOS would have looked much different than what we got. So with this in mind, why should tv producers over half a century later, not be allowed to follow Roddenberry's example?

 

[Shawnster]

SNW truly respects TOS continuity!

Except when it doesn't. Or, perhaps, it's better to say it respects the continuity but chooses to ignore what it wishes.

Follow up question (not that it will be answered because no one cares to answer it): why are these more egregious than past Treks? What makes these canon violations worthy of commentary vs. other series violations?

They are more egregious than past Trek because, as the title of this topic and 12 pages of discussion proudly proclaims, everyone from the top of CBS down to us humble fans keep praising Trek for its adherence to detail.

Look, it's fine if they want to create a prequel and insist it's not a reboot, then they should go the extra mile to avoid the obvious inconsistencies.

On the other hand, if they want to make broad changes, then make it a reboot. It worked for BSG.

T'Pring, Chapel, and M'Benga. the use of them in SNW doesn't make much sense.

I liked T'Pring, but I could go either way on her appearance. TOS gave me the impression they were betrothed in childhood and hadn't seen each other since.

Im happy for M'Benga's presence, but wish he reminded me more of his TOS incarnation. I always looked forward to his TOS appearances and excited to see what comes. Not feeling the daughter and her illness though.

Chapel, on the other hand, gives me grief. This is not the TOS Chapel in any way. Roger Korby aside, this is just not the same character. This Chapel is never going to grow into the more reserved, prim, proper, silently pining Christine Chapel we saw. This character would have been better suited being Rand. She could have been (another) cadet or an ensign. This character is assertive, vibrant, and vivacious like Rand.

And as I said before, where TOS had internal inconsistencies ... these were small things.

And herein lies the rub. The staunchest defenders of these continuity changes/violations tell the rest of us that it's the broad strokes that are important. The changes that people are complaining about are minor window dressing. The problem is none of us agree what is a major brush stroke or what is a small thing. I like the visual changes to the Enterprise for the most part (hate the world engine room and the ridge on the saucer about deck 5). I'm fine with the visual change to the DISCO Klingons. On the other hand, I've noted some complaints above. I think there are enough broad inconsistencies or contradictions that make this better suited as a not so soft reboot.

There are too many fans, to many opinions to agree on what is a broad stroke and what is a minor quibble.

Stratagema: the ultimate evolution of Connect Four.
.

Nah, Stratagema is 24th Century two player version of Qix

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

(Comment about the Gorn being unknown until TOS "Arena") Are they? Dialog is not conclusive on this matter.

Yes, they are. Context of the entire episode is that "Arena" was a first contact situation. I just re-watched the episode last week to make sure what I thought was based on the episode.

There was no reason to make the enemy in SNW "Memento Mori" the Gorn. It did not matter to the plot.

This is an example of what some of the fans are here complaining about. This looks like a creative choice that was made in spite of continuity. They could have made the enemy the Tholians, Kzinti, Tzenkethi, Suliban, or some new species. Instead they made them Gorn. Let's not let continuity get in the way of art.

Get, this is Star Trek. It's a science fiction series that is about a positive future. Yet it wants to lean heavily on the past. DISCO starts off as a prequel. SNW is a prequel. Burnam is related to Spock. Sarek is a major player. Look, there's Chapel, Uhura, M'Benga, and a descendant of Kahn. Oh, look, here's Captain Kirk's brother. 12 ships like the Enterprise in the fleet and yet we've got 2 series set on the Enterprise. For a franchise focused on the future, it leans too much on the past.

DISCO season 3 is probably what DISCO should have been from the start. 1,000 years in the future. Free of any shackles and continuity issues. Fresh start. Clean slate. Forward to the future.

SNW is my favorite of modern Trek. My biggest complaint is they focus on too many characters per episode. It's like there is an A, N, and C plot. The episodes prior to "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" feel spread just a little bit too thin. At least "Lift Us..." focused all the sub plots on the main plot.

Oh, and lose the "previously on." We all know already.

 

[Mudd]

Look, it's fine if they want to create a prequel and insist it's not a reboot, then they should go the extra mile to avoid the obvious inconsistencies.

On the other hand, if they want to make broad changes, then make it a reboot. It worked for BSG.

Nope.