Yet others find quite in keeping with their real world experiences with professionals ( in and out of the military)
The only refit the ship has ever undergone was in TMP. It's the same ship from the Cage/SNW through TOS/TAS.
Chapel was barely a character. She shows up she hands McCoy some equipment and fades back into the woodwork.
Who did? When?
Whale swallowed the cloaking device.
Well given what happened when the Enterprise C travelled into the future and created an alternate timeline....
Why?
I disagree. But at this point the TOS Enterprise vs the Discoprise is a shibboleth that can be debated infinitely, a la the proposed Borg logic virus in "I, Borg".
It would shut up once and for all the continuity nitpickers, plus free them from whatever constraints they haven't yet broken in the name of pre-existing continuity, a la the Abramsverse.
The most frustrating thing about SNW to me, apart from the actual content of SNW, is how so many people are totally okay with it, or even love it. It's like they're giving the writers permission to just go do whatever they want, rewrite TOS with a new Kirk even. I mean people are allowed to like what they like, I'm just surprised that it's getting so little pushback.
SNW established that the hull plating gets replaced enough that there is only a single piece that’s from the day it launched. It makes sense that this would continue over the years, so by the time it gets to Kirk it probably has a fresh coat of paint and minor changes. So it’s the same ship, any changes are due to them actually being changed. It happens to actual aircraft and spacecraft, why would the Enterprise be any different?
When someone empowered to make the decision it's been refitted, then it's a refit.
Continuity is fluid. Always has been. It is not carved in stone. New ideas over ride the old one. Been that way since the days of "Earth ship", "Vulcanians" and "Space Command".
When you like something it's easy to ignore stuff. My lizard brain is a continuity freak. I just shut it off. (Okay actually I tell it to shut up)
Very much so, especially when ENT got so much hate back in the day with its very minor, milquetoast revisionism. It only makes sense as a breath of fresh air after DISCOVERY, but DISCOVERY was so different that I at least was able to watch its first season as a better written rerun of the Abramsverse, albeit before most of the Bryan Fuller recruited writers were shown the door.
Haha, only Terry Trek got me to come back here. My top problem with SNW is its selective ties to past continuity. It can't even keep alignment with DISCOVERY seasons 1 or 2, let alone legacy Trek. Is that foreshadowing? Or just an accidental or intentional fuck up? How can I buy into the premise of the show if I don't even know its storytelling ground rules? It's like watching someone trying to set a TV series in a country you lived in for years, but getting half of the basic details wrong.
I hated the JJ Abrams films, but at least they created the Kelvin Timeline. Shame about Romulus and the fate of Spock, but at least everything else was left intact.
I realize I'm arguing with a mod, but I will just say respectfully that it would be very odd to shrink the dimensions of the ship that dramatically, remove advanced technology like a transporter in sickbay and the biofilter from the transporter in general, and Chapel somehow have that much of a change in personality...
I will provide this answer with a bit of a caveat that I usually hate employing: TOS is my favorite series, and Balance of Terror is my favorite Star Trek episode of all time. It is my go to example of conflict, overacting, emoting, as well as caring about one note characters.
It's one thing to say a character's recollections might not be reliable, it's another to say the camera in an unreliable narrator. Just think of all the continuity call backs in PICARD season 3 that many people enjoy... if the season was structurally based on the entire backstory unreliable narrator, then you'd have no past, no future, just an infinite present with half of everything being an intentional or not red herring if nothing mattered.
I think that's rather extreme but you do you. It's not the camera as an unreliable narrator but that whomever is telling the tale is. Which is what a dramatization is all about. This isn't history; it's drama.
Nothing in SNW or DISCO has put me out of this shared history. The people still exist, events still happen, things just look different.
The gatekeeping remains alive and well, I see. Good to know. And fear? Really? It’s a TV show, not the Black Death. And maybe “keeping up on 50+ years of continuity” is simply unrealistic, especially for a commercial endeavour designed to make money and upon which the support of “normies”
is essential. Trek isn’t some holy writ to which producers are bound, it’s an entertainment business that, having been around long enough, sees its support wax and wane among various people. C’est la vie. Need? Not really. A “nice to have”? Sure. But need? Meh.
Welcome to the wonderful world of real world academic historical work (my world). Kinda. There is only one past. That’s true (theoretical physics notwithstanding). But history is not “the past” and no two accounts are ever identical. History encompasses multiple, frequently contradictory, perspectives and it is the job of the historian to make some sense of them, while acknowledging they can never be fully reconciled. Now, I don’t view Trek as some sort of “historical continuum set in the future” but clearly some people do. IF that’s how one wants to approach it, then accepting that multiple perspectives exist simultaneously and, at times, in contradiction, is actually the closest to verisimilitude that Trek can get. One doesn’t have to personally subscribe to all perspectives equally, or any particular one at all, but expecting an over half-century old collection of stories, created by hundreds of authors, to remain entirely consistent is, frankly, illogical. Actual history doesn’t work that way, why would an invented one do so?
Trek is fictional entertainment, not raw footage of reality. The camera is only as reliable as the narrator’s recollections. It’s not an independent recording device. That’s a fundamental aspect of fiction, whether in text, on the stage, or on a screen.
The camara is not a narrator. Is a machine used to film the costumes and sets. It's not part of the "narration".
There are no rules. What happened is what the creators of the moment say happened. Most of that effort is in someone's head. Not on the screen. Not on the page. People do backflips trying make production errors, changed premises and reconfigured dates and events work. And still it doesn't "fit" with out a whole lot of squinting.
The inter-continuity is a lie. The parts if the lore that really matter isn't a model, a costume or a set.
Debating a mod is never a good idea, so I'll just say it's great this BBS allows for an open discussion of continuity/canon. There are major Reddits that ban such discussion.
