It's been in my head canon since day one that SNW's Lt. Kyle is the transporter technician from The Cage, now an officer and finally getting to say and do stuff after nearly sixty years.
Kor
Which 23rd Century is canon?
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
- Status
Kor
I mean, I get that. I use to try to square that round peg for a long time, with a lot of sessions with fan friends, and arguing over which series was better (TOS was always the outlier
) and making sense of different aspects. But, at some point in time, it ceased to be fun and became a very strange game of finding fault. and I think that's where I started taking it less seriously. And I don't mean that it can't be fun, but I think there is a concerted effort to try too hard to make it all fit, instead of taking in the diversity of the shows as it is. If that means treating them as outside of different continuities that that's completely fine by me. If that means this is just dramatic interpretation of events that happened, that's fine too. I think that's part of my maturing with this franchise that it comes across as less important for it to all fit together, and more important for me to approach it as it is presented. Now, this of course comes from someone who was more invested in TOS, and less so in the Berman Trek, which represents a larger chunk of investment of time by fans. But, then, I think you're more right that it's just using continuity as a way to distance newer Treks from the things people are passionate about.
Ultimately, I just think fans need something to be angry about.
Why am I suddenly getting a visual of groups of people wearing various costumes brandishing giant pitchforks and torches?
Well, you took it seriously enough to join an internet bulletin board devoted to it.
To me there is a difference. I enjoy socializing on common interests. I enjoy learning about people's likes and dislikes especially regarding Star Trek since that is something I enjoy. However, as far as seriousness of canon or continuity I don't have that. I spent that energy 20 years ago being angry about stuff I had zero control over. So, I'm at the place of finding enjoyment in talking with people, rather than anger at choices outside my control.
I am more serious about connecting with people than watching Star Trek.
Probably pretty accurate. But, then, I live in rural America so pitchforks are very handy
Very rarely IRL, do I talk to people about Star Trek. The few times it's come up, it's been TOS, TNG, the movies, or PIC. And PIC only really because of the TNG connection. When I'm hanging out with people, the last thing I'm interested in is talking about TV shows.
When I was in high school and college, if we talked about Trek, it was about TNG. Even there, it wasn't too much. Whereas my brother was the one who talked to his friends about Star Trek all the time.
When I was in high school and college, if we talked about Trek, it was about TNG. Even there, it wasn't too much. Whereas my brother was the one who talked to his friends about Star Trek all the time.
With me it hasn't been 20 years, but I cut my teeth on the endless whirlwind of contradictions that is Tolkien's legendarium outside the Lord of the Rings (or even within the Lord of the Rigns) and how often he changed his mind about it. After that I just sorta started embracing the fact that no fictional world is internally consistent and a new story is worth more than adherence to something that was written or shown decades ago.
That actually was part of it for me as well, as well as studying how Star Wars was made. There is inconsistency inherent within fictional works. We are not writing or describing something 100% literal or accurate, especially in the Speculative Fiction genre. At some point in time there is a recognition that this work is imperfect. The question then becomes what do you do with it?
But no beard, and you wouldn't spot a clean-shaven man and say he's a Sikh. How many cereal box tokens did McGivers collect to be appointed Enterprise historian?
Then come Wrath of Khan, they've rebooted Khan without the brownface, recast all his followers as Aryan youth... even in ENT, the Augments copied the WoK look, torn old clothing and all and zero beards.
There's no good answer for it all, it's a bit of a mess. But IMHO, if April can be black, Kyle Asian then Khan can be a white Brit. And it is far less problematic with the "9/11 x 10,000" scene in the movie.
For me personally the answer is simple. I keep enjoying it. It's entertainment, and the (back)story / setting doesn't need to be perfect for that - though of course it's quite possible that flaws of a certain type cause an immersion-breaking experience. But what can be immersion breaking to me doesn't need to be for you, or vice versa. If there are too many such flaws and I find I no longer enjoy it, I'll simply find something else.
Last edited:
I think that is my favorite answer. I love getting more creative outside of Trek.
That's...a choice. Just smash somewhere...over there(growling) Hulk smash!
I'm pretty sure that McGivers was just living out a fantasy and Khan was willing to indulge it to suit his purposes.
Indeed, and that's why it's more interesting to me to hear different responses. There are many out there who put Star Trek (or other franchises) on such a pedestal that I cannot quite fathom the importance, but it is nice to hear the variety of opinions.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of the mind."
Juliet Street, EARTH FINAL CONFLICT.
(I don't recall which episode, though. I think it was "STREET CHASE".)
Juliet Street, EARTH FINAL CONFLICT.
(I don't recall which episode, though. I think it was "STREET CHASE".)
Actually, some of it can be explained.
First, the painting. Marla painted the man she saw, with an outfit she imagined. I don't find it any more odd than doing an actual portrait of someone.
Second, there was no reboot of Khan in TWOK because it was the same actor from "SPACE SEED", Ricardo Montalban.
Third, the Augments on ENT having ragged clothes similar to TWOK makes sense because they were alone on that empty planet with whatever resources they were left with. And I doubt they made making someone a seamstress be a priority.
Fourth, there were a number of white people that Khan woke up in "SPACE SEED". Not all of them were white, of course, but we didn't see everyone. When we see the group in TWOK, there were very few augments left... the rest died.
As far as beards are concerned, maybe Augments simply do not like having beards and shave on a regular basis.
If they went with a white Khan in INTO DARKNESS simply because of wanting to have a white person be the terrorist rather than anyone else, that just reeks of trying to be politically correct just for the sake of it. (I know Benecio Del Torro was in talks originally to play the role, though I don't recall why that fell through.)
The script was taking too long to write, and del Torro had to move on. They then went with who was available, and fit the role of a menacing villain, and Cumberbatch's schedule fit.
No one wonders if real world Sikhs were offended when Montalbán--a son of Spanish immigrants to Mexico--was cast as Khan back in 1967.
Plotting problems aside, the Lt. Charlene Masters character was a standout in that story and should have appeared in more episodes.
Originally, it was considered canon, given the seal of approval (as an official continuation of TOS) by Fontana and Roddenberry at conventions predating TAS' premiere. It was Roddenberry himself who decided to "de-canon-ize" TAS many years later, a decision Paramount did not reject...until TAS references were added to Berman-era series.
The issue is that the story which broke continuity still has the original sitting next to it forever--with the former always standing out as making what some would describe as an unnecessary change which created contradictions in a particular story, arc or character where none existed before. A similar case is ST's Zefram Cochrane and the flat out upending of the original (and sympathetic) character from TOS' Metamorphosis", transforming him into the drunk, aging hippie caricature from Star Trek: First Contact, with Brannon Braga admitting he (and his co-writers) created an entirely new character, thus, there's no way viewers can believe the noble man seen in the 1967 episode was the shambling, asshole-ish mess of far different motivations from the NG movie.
Berman, et al., would have been better off just using a little bit of imagination and creating some other sort of pivotal moment which brought the Vulcans to earth, rather than trading in on a well-known (to the ST part of the audience) historic figure. In other words, do your own thing.
True--it was Marla making an artist's interpretation of the man she imagined he had been on 20th century earth.
Exactly. I cannot imagine how one could miss Montalbán being the same person who portrayed Khan in TOS and TWOK.
You're addressing another one of the myths of "rebooting" or an alleged lack of consistency about the racial make-up of Khan's followers from "Space Seed" and The Wrath of Khan, as if the followers in the movie were "whitewashed". All one needed to do is watch "Space Seed" to see there's a mix of races, including white individuals. There, there's Scotty's assessment during his Communicator check-in with Kirk (while still aboard the Botany Bay):
Scott: "There's no change, and they're mixed types. Western, mid-European, Latin, Oriental."
Khan's group were not homogeneous in composition, nor were they meant to be.
Interesting.
Call it what you want, thing is that *in canon* there are obvious contradictions. And it’s not a new thing, of course.
he has what, twenty lines in three years of tos? We know literally nothing about his character apart from his job.
those are features of the original actor, they have no relevance whatsoever for the character.
- Status
Similar threads
