Which 23rd Century is canon?

[F. King Daniel]

The fact that there's an in-universe explanation for why Khan became a white guy in Into Darkness does not make the decision to cast a white guy to play a Sikh role any less offensive

I seriously doubt Khan is supposed to be a Sikh. That was 1960's absolute lack of research.

And considering the movie ends with 9/11 x 10,000, isn't having a pasty white boy the perpetrator probably for the best?

 

[Dukhat]

If you want them to be the same character, that's fine. If you want them to be separate characters, I see no reason not to assume they're separate characters. I think this is the sort of thing where both interpretations are equally valid.

Well, yes, I'm well aware that I can interpret things however I want. But that's not what I asked. I asked if they were supposed to be the same character, as in, 'SNW Uhura is definitely supposed to be TOS Uhura, so is SNW Chief Kyle supposed to be TOS Lt. Kyle?' In other words, has there been any official word on the subject?

 

[Sci]

I seriously doubt Khan is supposed to be a Sikh. That was 1960's absolute lack of research.

I mean, he's identified in dialogue as a Sikh and his last name, "Singh," is a common Sikh name.

And considering the movie ends with 9/11 x 10,000, isn't having a pasty white boy the perpetrator probably for the best?

Maybe, but by the same token it's kind of offensive to give a POC role to a white guy. The solution, I would argue, is that Cumerbatch's character should not have been Khan in the first place.

Well, yes, I'm well aware that I can interpret things however I want. But that's not what I asked. I asked if they were supposed to be the same character, as in, 'SNW Uhura is definitely supposed to be TOS Uhura, so is SNW Chief Kyle supposed to be TOS Lt. Kyle?' In other words, has there been any official word on the subject?

Ah, I understand. As far as I know, there has been no official word on whether the Mr. Kyle of SNW is the same character as from TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, yes, I'm well aware that I can interpret things however I want. But that's not what I asked. I asked if they were supposed to be the same character, as in, 'SNW Uhura is definitely supposed to be TOS Uhura, so is SNW Chief Kyle supposed to be TOS Lt. Kyle?' In other words, has there been any official word on the subject?

Nope.

I would argue, is that Cumerbatch's character should not have been Khan in the first place.

Yes, but Star Trek cannot move past its past and its TWOK love affair.

I seriously doubt Khan is supposed to be a Sikh. That was 1960's absolute lack of research.

And considering the movie ends with 9/11 x 10,000, isn't having a pasty white boy the perpetrator probably for the best?

Nope, I don't think so either. I think it was McGivers' weird historical fantasy come to life.

 

[Lord Garth]

One of the transporter technicians in "The Cage" was an Asian. I think that's where they might've gotten the idea to make "Kyle" in SNW an Asian. It's a deep-cut tip of the hat to "The Cage" that most people wouldn't notice.

Ortegas is another one, but that one's more known. The original name for Jose Tyler in "The Cage" was Jose Ortegas. The creators of SNW just brought back the original surname and changed the gender.

If someone needs a rationalization: There could've been another Kyle serving on the Enterprise in Pike's time. And since Ortegas and Tyler don't have the same last name and aren't the same gender, they're different characters as well.

Canon works with continuity to quite a degree, if you want it to work.

 

[Lord Garth]

I never understood the reason for the destruction of those planets, especially not Vulcan in the 23rd century since it obviously existed in the 24th century.
That's where I definitely lost all respect or whatever for what is "canon" or not and the whole idea with any continuity at all In Star Trek.
I like continuity!

You're a science-fiction fan. You know about alternate timelines. The three JJ Abrams films take place in the Kelvin Timeline. Everything else takes place in the Prime Timeline. They even spell it out in the 2009 Film that it takes place in an alternate timeline. The only way they could've made it any more clear would've been if Doc Brown made a cameo and pulled out a blackboard.

In the Kelvin Timeline: Vulcan was destroyed in 2258 and Romulus was never destroyed (that we know of).
In the Prime Timeline: Vulan was never destroyed in 2258, but Romulus was destroyed in 2387.

Nero (the villain of the 2009 Film) was from the Prime Timeline in 2387. He saw Romulus be destroyed. Then he went back in time to 2233, created an Alternate Timeline (a.k.a. The Kelvin Timeline), and stayed there. Eventually he destroyed Vulcan in that timeline in 2258.

The Kelvin Timeline and Prime Timeline run parallel to each other and the events that happen in them become more different from each other as time moves forward.

 

[Lynx]

Oh dear, I'd actually kicked a hornet's nest by a few statements I did here!

I'm sorry if some of those comments may have insulted some people. On the other hand, there was a long time ago that I saw so much activity on the TrekBBS so maybe my posts did achieve something good at all.

OK, I have got a lesson about what canon is which I find positive. For some reason, I thought that "canon" was necessary for possible guidelines for different Star Trek projects to avoid contradictions. Obviously it has nothing to do with that and I'm actually grateful to have learned that.

It has often happened when I've presented some controversial ideas för certain characters and events that some dissapointed poster has showed up and slapped me over the fingers with some comments about "this is not canon" and silly me has thought "oh, have I violated some continuity with my suggestions". But from now on, i can wave away all comments about this or that being "not canon" by simply stating "I don't care!"

As for my not so nice comments about NuTrek and some of the recent series, I have to state that my criticism is tough but fair. Personally I think that Star Trek has being messed up in recent years and I don't like it. What we have now is a development like those silly Batman movies where The Joker can be killed off in one movie, then return as a crazy punk rocker with bad make-up in another. I have to admit that I actually liked the first two batman movies, the one with Jack Nicholson as The Joker and the one with Danny DeVito as The Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. The rest have been horrible. It's sad that Star Trek is walking the same road with messed up continuity.

As for the recent Trek movies and series, my personal opinion is that I don't like them. Too much doom-and-gloom, too many bad characters and too many producers wiith too big egos who try to set their mark on the show. I just have to menton the Mutant Ninja Turtles who are supposed to be "Klingons" in Discovery.

I did have some hope for Picard because I've always wanted a return to the 24th century but the series has become a disappointment for me. Too much doom-and-gloom even there. Maybe a sign of the times in a decade when everything is doom-and gloom so why not Trek series too. As for Lower decks, I find it too cartoonish. I can't take it seriously, it's like watching The Simpsons or Family Guy. (No offense to those series, I actually like both The Simpsons and Family Guy). I would like to see an animated series with characters who really look like the characters from TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY.

I've often criticized some elements in certain newer Trek movies and series, like the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus.I know that can be called "creativity", "drama" or whatever. I just find it destructive.

 

[Weyoun 251]

Pineapple

Fuck you and your pineapple!

When I rule the world it will be people like you who are first up against the wall!

 

[Lynx]

Yep! Although it is highly unlikely that Paramount would hire a producer who does something like that, since Spock is probably still the single most popular Star Trek character.

I hope that you don't think I've been chosing you as a "special target for my vitriolic complaints", something which a certain ice hockey coach once did when he, after telling the whole team what a bunch of crap they were, turned to another player and gave him a special treatment, telling him how worthless he had been. The point was that the selected player hadn't played a single minute of the first period. When the coach stormed out of the locker room, one of the other players turned to the unlucky guy and said: "Well, you must admit that you did a lousy warm-up!"

Anyway, it's not the point here, rather the fact that you have come up with some interesting points which I would like to comment. As for my "suggestions" for Spock and Vulcan, it was just an example and the resaon for including Spock in my example is that I'm aware of his popularity. I like him too!

! Canon is important if you're, like, deciding what works to include in a wiki or if you're writing licensed tie-in fiction so you know what info is binding on you as the creator of a derivative work. If the day comes that Star Trek leaves copyright and enters public domain, there will be multiple Star Trek canons and it'll be important to know which canon a work belongs to. But it's not important in most other contexts.

I can see your point here.

I mean, Star Trek has always had continuity errors. First the USS Enterprise was a United Earth starship, then it was a Federation starship; first its space serve was the United Earth Space Probe Agency, then it was the Federation Starfleet. First humanity had only broken the "time barrier" since the crash of Vina's ship, then humans had had warp drive for hundreds of years. First Zeframe Cochrane was from Alpha Centauri, the he was from the United States. First he was James R. Kirk, then he was James T. Kirk. First Spock had emotions, then he was spared Earth emotions, then he had emotions but he suppressed them. First Spock was Vulcanian, then he was Vulcan. First Vulcanians had been conquered by Humans, then Vulcan hadn't been conquered in cultural memory. First Vulcan had no moon, then it did. First women had only recently been allowed into Starfleet and were banned from commanding starships, then women and men were always equal. And on and on and on. Current producers are no worse than any others with maintaining consistent continuity.

I know that and continuity errors can be fun sometimes. I've spent a lot of time sorting out continuity errors and contradictions in the season 1-3 Voyager books and even in some episodes too. The result can be seen on the Kes Website, especially in the books section. My biggest achievement was to explain all the shuttles and torpedoes Voyager wasted by coming up with The Shuttle and Torpedo Building Team!

As for now, I try to find out why, where or when O'Brien was demoted during his time on the Enterprise. Now that will be an interesting job!

But shouldn't writers and producers of a series like Star trek where fans are nitpicking and want continuity strive to eliminate as much as possible of continuity errors?

For that matter, if April was commanding the Enterprise in the 2240s, then that could pre-date the DIS S1-2 blue uniforms and the "Cage"-style uniforms. We could see them wearing the uniforms we saw with Captain Robau and the USS Kelvin at the start of Star Trek (2009). Or they could wear an entirely new style.

Goodness knows it's now clear that there are a lot of Starfleet uniform designs floating around these days -- I think between Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard, we now have something like six different uniforms being used circa 2380-2385? (The First Contact/later Deep Space Nine uniforms, the California-class and Starbase 84-type uniforms from Lower Decks, the Protostar and Dauntless uniforms from Prodigy, and the Picard flashback uniforms.)

I must admit that I find the constant changes of uniforms in Star Trek rather silly. Just like some lousy sports team without histiry or culture which constantly changes its colors and uniforms.

They should have kept the TNG uniforms. They looked the best.
Or dressed them up in black, like the old German "Space Patrol" series. And added collars and some stripes in red, blue, yellow and green (sexcurity should have green as own color).

Anyway, as it has been, Starfleet looks more like a fashion shop than a defence force.

context re: the name of Star Trek's corporate owner. CBS Inc. and Viacom re-merged back into one company. For about five minutes, it was known as CBS Viacom, but now CBS Viacom has changed its name to Paramount Global. In checking out the copyright notice on the latest episode of Star Trek: Prodigy, it would appear that they're keeping the Star Trek copyright under the ownership of CBS Studios Inc. as a subsidiary of Paramount Global, but Paramount Pictures (itself a separate subsidiarity of Paramount Global) still owns the copyright on the Star Trek films under license from CBS Studios Inc. (its sister subsidiary). So in general, I think it's probably a bit clearer to refer to Star Trek's corporate owner as Paramount or Paramount Global, since Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios Inc. are both just subsidiaries of Paramount Global anyway.

There's an old expression in the country where I live which says something like: "The more cooks in the kitchen, the less quality of the soup". I guess it's relevant here. maybe it's the reason why the Star Trek DVD.s are of such bad standard that I have to buy new boxes affet two or three years?

Just for the record, Una McCormack's wonderful Cardassia novels are not fanfics, because fanfics are by definition unlicensed, unauthorized fiction produced by fans without involvement from the owners of the intellectual property involved. By contrast, McCormack's novels are authorized tie-in novels produced under license from the owners of Star Trek.

I know that.
I just brought up those books since I've been critical to the development of the Star Trek books too and now I'm happy to discover some books I really like!
You know, I can actually be very nice sometimes, especially when it comes to thoser who surprise me and make me happy with something I consider excellent!

That is a good attitude to have, and I think if we keep saying more Star Trek being produced in more and more divergent styles, we're going to have a lot more situations where some Star Trek shows won't be for everyone even as there is something for everyone's tastes.

Well, I really hope that I will find something worth watching when it comes to Star Trek. But with the current doom-and-gloom everywhere, I do have my doubts. Do you know that after NCIS took a turn to the worse, I no longer follow any series? That has never happened before!

Not exactly. There are three important timelines in the Star Trek canon:

• The Prime Timeline (setting of Enterprise, Discovery, Strange New Worlds, The Original Series, The Animated Series, The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Generations, Voyager, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard)
• The Mirror Universe (setting of "In A Mirror, Darkly, Parts I & II" [ENT]; "Despite Yourself," "The Wolf Inside," "Vaulting Ambition," "What's Past is Prologue," and "Terra Firma, Parts I & II" [DIS]; "Mirror, Mirror" [TOS]; "Crossover," "Through the Looking Glass," "Shattered Mirror," and "The Emperor's New Cloak" [DS9])
• The Kelvin Timeline (setting of Star Trek [2009], Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond)

In the Kelvin Timeline, Vulcan was destroyed in 2258. In the Prime Timeline, Vulcan is never destroyed, but Romulus is destroyed by a supernova in 2387. As far as we know, neither Vulcan nor Romulus was ever destroyed in the Mirror Universe.

But isn't it becoming very confusing? And isn't Discovery creating its own timeline where the Klingons have been conquered by the Mutant Ninja Turtles who pose as "Klingons"?

As for the Mirror Universe, I must admit that I've never been fond of that scenario. I can stand Mirror Mirror in TOS but the otherwise excellent DS9 over-did this scenario. The DS9 mirror episodes are something I sopetimes skip during my relaunches of that serie, even if I liked the Mirror Ezri!

The 24th Century of the Kelvin Timeline has never been seen onscreen. The idea behind setting the 2009 film in a new timeline was that it allowed the writers to make radical changes without contradicting the events of the Prime Timeline.

The dramatic purpose was that the destruction of Vulcan in Star Trek (2009) was the "all is lost" moment, the point where the protagonists seem as far as possible from the accomplishment of their goals in order to create a sense of triumph when they achieve victory at the end of the story. It established how dangerous Nero was, and it took away the audience's perception that a character that is famous from The Original Series must necessarily survive the film (thereby increasing the dramatic stakes of the story).

The dramatic purpose behind the destruction of Romulus was that it provided plausible motivation for the film's antagonist to want to destroy Vulcan and Earth. Years later, the first season of Star Trek: Picard used Star Trek (2009)'s decision to destroy Romulus in 2387 of the Prime Timeline to serve as a backstory for how the Federation had fallen into xenophobia and Picard had become alienated and disillusioned -- which then opened the door for a story about Picard regaining faith and purpose, and thereby leading the Federation into redemption for its mistakes.

sorry, but it is really unreasonable to attribute creative decisions you don't like to ego. Like it or not, most of the time these writers are just trying to tell a good story.

But isn't those examples just pure evidence of producers with an ego trying to set their mark on the product?

And by trying to do so, they are overdoing the dramatic effects with no thoughts about how such an action as detroying certain important worlds in the Star Trek Universe can damage not only existing timelines but destroying the possibilities for good storytelling in the future too.

In that case, why not destroy Earth too? That would really be appropriate in this decade filled with doom-and-gloom, gore and dystopian scenarios in each and every movie and series. Then they can create a new timeline, especially named after the producer who came up with the brilliant idea and have a devastated humanity settled on Errathea in the Alpha Centauri system, the planet were humans lived before escaping a planet-wide disaster by migrating to Earth a long, long, long time ago. Now wouldn't htat be a splendid idea for creative ideas and radical changes, or...................?

(I really hope that some future Star Trek producer don't read my suggestion above.)

As for telling good stories, I think its possible to tell excellent, exciting stories without destroying planets which have great importance for the Star Trek Universe or killing off or destroying popular and beloved main characters.

 

[Captain Crow]

If the day comes that Star Trek leaves copyright and enters public domain, there will be multiple Star Trek canons and it'll be important to know which canon a work belongs to.

No.

If Star Trek ended up in public domain and no one snap up the rights to it then there would be no canon Star Trek at all. As something being "canon" simply denotes that it's officially recognized by whoever owns the property that that thing is based off of.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I seriously doubt Khan is supposed to be a Sikh. That was 1960's absolute lack of research.

Marla McGivers' painting of Khan is shown wearing a turban.

 

[jackoverfull]

Probably not but that's OK. To me, it's all Star Trek, canon status is basically assured.

no argument there: canon is what the IP owners say is canon, that at the moment is anything that ends up on screen. Conflicting canon is an issue but it doesn’t make it less canon.

But watching an entire series based on some silly and nonsensical plot point makes me tire of that series a bit sooner than a series where the silliness is more limited to a few isolated episodes.

Exactly. The silly premise, underdeveloped characters, confusing camera work, messy storylines and drab sets and CGIs all add up.

I haven't seen enough of TAS to make a statement about the quality of writing.

some was very good, some was very bad. And the very low budget didn’t help.

But I think the horrible animation

it has its charm!

I mean it's no different than changing the Trill make-up. The TNG Trills only appeared once

I think that the trill reimagining is much worse honestly. They should have changed the name and made jadzia a totally different joined species.

Here’s a question. Is the young Asian-American actor playing Lt. Kyle in SNW supposed to be the same guy as John Winston’s white blonde British Lt. Kyle from TOS? Because that’s a bit more of a change from making Robert April black.

I think so. But even then, it’s not like we knew much about Kyle.

I still think the greatest thing Strange New Worlds could do is have one episode set in the TOS aesthetic from the sets, to the costumes, to the ships. As for the reason behind it - historical records, alien hallucinogens, or alternate universe....who cares? It would at least be fun to see.

could be fun!

 

[Captain Crow]

Conflicting canon is an issue but it doesn’t make it less canon.

There is no such thing as "conflicting canon" as "canon" is not something that can conflict with itself.

For instance...

As far as current canon is concerned there are at least four NCC-1701s. Continuity, which is what 99.9999% of people whinging "TEH CANON!!1!" are actually whinging about, dictates which one is used within the story being told.

 

[The Wormhole]

In "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach", Alora says that the last time she saw Pike, he was wearing the blue uniform.

Cool. Well, that obviously happened at a different time than this picture

 

[jackoverfull]

BBQ Chicken pizza with pineapple is amazing. If that's wrong then I will not be right...on pizza.

You are hereby banned from entering Italy until you abjure your heretic deeds.

It looks like everything is canonical nowadays.
Does Romulus and Vulcan exist and in which timeline? Well, according to "canon" they both exist and don't exist so acirding to that "logic" your preference is obviously "canonical" too.
As my is!

vulcan is destroyed in the 23rd century in the Kelvin timeline but isn’t in the prime one, Romulus is destroyed in 2385 in the prime timeline, we don’t know if the same will happen in the Kelvin one. It’s not that complex.

So if I became a Star Trek producer and created a pre-TOS series in which Vulcan was destroyed, thus eliminating the possibility for Spock, Tuvok and other Vulcans to even exist, would that be considered "canon" despite the fact that it contradicts what we have seen in TOS, TNG and VOY?

In that case, the whole thing with "canon" is silly.

correct. Also, TUC said that the Klingon homeworld would end up without a breathable atmosphere in a few decades, yet it seems fine on TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

But shouldn't writers and producers of a series like Star trek where fans are nitpicking and want continuity strive to eliminate as much as possible of continuity errors?

Nope. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread that can be a nice artistic goal but isn't a requirement, especially in Star Trek which has contradictions all over the place, including in the same shows.

As for telling good stories, I think its possible to tell excellent, exciting stories without destroying planets which have great importance for the Star Trek Universe or killing off or destroying popular and beloved main characters.

Of course its possible but again not required. No character and no planet is so important as to avoid potential catastrophe, especially in a dramatic series. That's not ruining anything; it's telling the story they prefer to tell. People can disagree, but that's why we have so many different variations of Trek stories, and shows, and the like. It's to cast a wide net and entertain the audience, not tiptoe around sensitive things and never do anything controversial.

 

[Dukhat]

I think so. But even then, it’s not like we knew much about Kyle.

He was a recurring secondary character throughout TOS and had a cameo in TWOK. We don’t need to know his life story; just that he’s white, blonde and English.

Now if the producers of SNW want to say their show takes place in the same universe as TOS but looks visually different, fine. If they want to say that Chief Kyle is the same person as Lt, Lyle, that’s fine too. Heck, if they introduce McCoy in SNW as a woman, that’s fine as well because there’s no reason to stop completely changing things from the source material once you’ve already started down that path. And the producers have that right because they own Star Trek and can do whatever they want. But then at that point one should legitimately be allowed to ask oneself if they should be taking the whole ‘same universe’ thing as seriously as the producers seem to be taking it.

 

[fireproof78]

Why does anyone take it that seriously?

 

[Orphalesion]

Why does anyone take it that seriously?

I think it stems from a desire to see a fictional universe as "real" as possible. That's not something that's unique to the Trek Fandom either.

It's of course a futile exercise, because fictional universes aren't real. But I think the desire is there in certain people. I know it was that way with me when I was still a teenager.

Though I also suspect there's also those people who use problems with the continuity/canon so that they can call any iteration they dislike "non-canonical" or "not real Trek"

 

[Lord Garth]

Though I also suspect there's also those people who use problems with the continuity/canon so that they can call any iteration they dislike "non-canonical" or "not real Trek"

Yup. I've also suspected that for a while. Even before ENT. In 1999, someone who used to post on here complained about why the fleets of ships on DS9 were so large compared to the one during The Battle of Wolf 359. "The Dominion destroyed 4,000% of the fleet!" He kept going on and on about it. So, at the time, I called him on it and said, "If people like something, they'll look the other way." Then he began going into talking about the quality. TrekBBS hasn't changed at all. I'm someone who can say it's been the same since Day One.

It's not that hard to imagine, "Oh! Maybe it's a different Kyle?" Instead of throwing your hands up and exclaiming, "How dare they change Kyle?!?!!" That's an easy one.

The not-so-easy-one, for some people, is going to be when SNW catches up to Kirk taking command. "How come it's not just like 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'?" Because it's not going to be! And SNW could have the best final episodes ever, when the time comes, but there will be people who'll totally ignore all of that and just zero in on focusing on WNMHGB.