Star Trek Canon Problems

[Jmal234]

One thing the Marvel universe got right since it's inception in comics is separating out its realities.

I enjoyed Discovery, and I really enjoy Lower Decks, but having both of those be Canon to series like The Next Generation and the like causes major issues.

Even the Kelvin timeline is the same just a branched reality.

Things would be much cleaner if these were simply completely alternate realities, these stories could be told and enjoyed and with no repercussions to the past cannon of the series. items like the Klingons in Discovery which was a huge misstep along with causes problems with previous shows, and as well as in the Lower Decks which as a show is meant to be comedic... and is enjoyable to watch... but some of their situations cause problems with what's already known.

And I don't necessarily mean like the Mirror universe where it's some place they can visit, more of a completely separate but similar universe where they can tell these stories but not have it impact what's already known, and quite frankly loved by fans.

While I would say Prodigy is similar enough that it can remain, it would be nice if they separated series like Discovery and The Lower Decks, which go against what's known, to be in alternate universes that are very similar to what we've seen in TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. but not the same

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I think they're shying away from this because they assume new fans would have a difficult time getting into things if they establish more alternate universes. I do think something like this would be the perfect solution to their everlasting and ongoing problem of "fans need to suspend their disbelief for a moment and simply enjoy the story instead of yelling about some minor thing that happened in canon on another show and that pretty much contradicts what we see here", but... yeah. Doubt it's gonna happen, as much as they seem to want to have a Marvel like approach to the franchise with all their different shows about it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's a television show. It's fantasy. I know what we've been watching since 2017 is a quasi-reboot but I play along. It really only matters if starship size comparison charts are life.

It's not like the older stuff held together any better, they just made Encyclopedia and Chronology books that pretended it did, and a generation of fans just believed them.

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

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

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

 

[HotRod]

but having both of those be Canon to series like The Next Generation and the like causes major issues.

It really doesn't.

items like the Klingons in Discovery which was a huge misstep along with causes problems with previous shows

How so?

but some of their situations cause problems with what's already known.

Such as?

 

[Michael]

I honestly don’t see these problems with canon that you are seeing. But I’ve realized some time ago that in general fandom basically seems to break up into two groups:

1. One that looks at Star Trek as a collection of distinct TV shows that just happen to be taking place in the same, loosely connected fictional universe, each one kinda telling its own stories, with its own flavor and unique take on the Trek sandbox.
2. And the other one that sees Star Trek as en epic, continuous tale, where each show adds to a larger narrative about, I don’t know, the “History of the Federation”, or something like that.

I think both viewpoints are valid, but I find myself in the first group. I appreciate if something ties together neatly from one show to the other, but it’s not what Star Trek “is about” for me.

And I guess it’s largely the second group that tends to obsess over continuity problems, “breaking canon” or filling in blanks.

 

[The Wormhole]

Ah, another "decanonize the modern shows because I don't like them" thread.

While it might have been interesting from a narrative perspective if they had made the decision to set early Disco in another reality for the purposes of narrative freedom, they could go wild with how the Klingon war played out up to and including a defeated Federation, they didn't. And while I don't agree with all the decisions that show has made over the years, it is part of the same canon as all the other shows and everyone just has to accept that.

Lower Decks? I really don't see how that doesn't fit with canon at all, unless this is another claim of "Starfleet officers aren't supposed to goof around! Not canon!"

Yawn.

 

[Ovation]

Onscreen? It’s canon. Even the continuity glitches? Especially the continuity glitches. (Well, perhaps not especially). But it’s really that simple. Onscreen = canon. Easy peasy.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The funny thing about Trek's canon is that not much has ever been de-canonized. All of the Trek shows are still there, they're still referenced here and there by newer productions, and (what actually counts) they're all licensable by its current IP for broadcast, streaming, & merchandising purposes.

Continuity, though, that's another matter. You can have stuff that doesn't fit that well continuity-wise and still be canon. TOS is still as much canon as SNW, even if there are discrepancies between the two. How well stuff fits together has nothing to do with canon. It's all about what is considered official and what isn't. NCC-1701 is still the original Enterprise, regardless of what she looked like in TOS, Star Trek '09, or SNW. Fans are free to argue about it until the 23rd-Century actually comes, but it doesn't change anything. I'm sure there will be yet another reimagining of NCC-1701 in another ten years or so, but that version will be considered the same Enterprise by the IP owner as well. That's just the way Trek rolls, regardless if longtime fans are okay with that or not.

I do get how some people feel. In a perfect world, everything matches perfectly. But a decision was made quite some time ago that Trek was going to be constantly modernized for current audiences regardless if a show or movie was a prequel or not. Other franchises may strive for a tighter continuity, but Trek isn't one of them.

 

[BillJ]

I don’t care about canon, just give me good stories.

 

[1001001]

Oh, good. A canon thread.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Oh, good. A canon thread..

Sounds reasonable. They were told to have fun.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You know, I'm also a Sherlock Holmes fan, and the Holmes Canon also has its fair share of continuity glitches. Sherlock Holmes calls his landlady Mrs. Turner instead of Mrs. Hudson once. Professor Moriarty and his brother both have the first name of James. A lot of the dates that Watson gives for Holmes' cases don't conform to real calendar dates. And don't even get me started on how many times Watson was married, exactly when he got married, and to whom.

I don't think I've ever seen a Sherlock Holmes fan argue that all of these contradictions MUST mean that certain adventures take place in an alternate reality, though. Instead, Holmes fans try to come up with creative but reasonable explanations for these contradictions. Most of them find it a fun challenge.

Food for thought.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Maybe Trek itself is partly at fault here. It IS a science fiction franchise where alternate universes are a very common occurence. I don't think it's bad per se to imagine that some of the shows take place in different universes. I do doubt that they'll ever go down that road officially tho. I mean even the Kelvin movies caused a lot of confusion back then. I remember seeing a LOT of topics on various message boards where people simply missed the fact that they take place in an alternate universe and were confused about it etc.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

Discussed - and debunked - so many times...

I enjoyed Discovery, and I really enjoy Lower Decks, but having both of those be Canon to series like The Next Generation and the like causes major issues.

No.

Things would be much cleaner if these were simply completely alternate realities, these stories could be told and enjoyed and with no repercussions to the past cannon of the series. items like the Klingons in Discovery which was a huge misstep along with causes problems with previous shows, and as well as in the Lower Decks which as a show is meant to be comedic... and is enjoyable to watch... but some of their situations cause problems with what's already known.

But different looking Romulans from TNG onwards (same appearance as Vulcans is even plot relevant in TOS, and ironically kinda solved by PIC), the Trill retcon, the Borg redesign, and Worf's "evolving" forehead don't count, huh?

On top of that, the Klingon design wasn't completely altered but rather expanded, new skin colours added, some got elongated skulls, plus of course the whole thing about being bald in times of (civil) war. Previous Trek also introduced a great variety with diverse ridge patterns.

Regarding Lower Decks, one of its basic ideas is calling out and making fun of the other show's already ridiculous, and yet canonical, elements. Just look at the damn Pakleds.

 

[Skipper]

A wizard did it. Or Q. Or a Q-Wizard.

 

[Cr0sis21]

It's funny when these canon issues come up.
No one, for instance, ever complains about women being captains after TOS devoted a whole episode to how they couldn't be.
I really couldn't care less about things like the bridge on SNW looking nicer than it did on TOS. It's supposed to be the same bridge? Then it is.
I get annoyed when things are changed just for the sake of doing it (The way the Klingons looked in DISCO season 1), but in general these things don't really bother me.
Canon is a guideline, and a reference point to create verisimilitude and a richer narrative canvas. It is not a noose. I get annoyed by people saying DISCO and LD should be decanonized for the same reason I get annoyed when someone like Michelle Paradise says they went to the 32nd century to get away from canon. You're looking at it the wrong way. All these shows that try to run away from canon in various ways (ENT, Voyager, DISCO) are basically fueling the demands by certain fans to decanonize whatever they think "isn't Trek".

And the multiverse idea is cool for an episode or something, but it's unworkable for the long term. People got tired of the MCU multiverse after, what, one movie? Trying to do that on Trek would be a death blow.

 

[Dukhat]

The funny thing about Trek's canon is that not much has ever been de-canonized. All of the Trek shows are still there, they're still referenced here and there by newer productions, and (what actually counts) they're all licensable by its current IP for broadcast, streaming, & merchandising purposes.

Continuity, though, that's another matter. You can have stuff that doesn't fit that well continuity-wise and still be canon. TOS is still as much canon as SNW, even if there are discrepancies between the two. How well stuff fits together has nothing to do with canon. It's all about what is considered official and what isn't. NCC-1701 is still the original Enterprise, regardless of what she looked like in TOS, Star Trek '09, or SNW. Fans are free to argue about it until the 23rd-Century actually comes, but it doesn't change anything. I'm sure there will be yet another reimagining of NCC-1701 in another ten years or so, but that version will be considered the same Enterprise by the IP owner as well. That's just the way Trek rolls, regardless if longtime fans are okay with that or not.

I do get how some people feel. In a perfect world, everything matches perfectly. But a decision was made quite some time ago that Trek was going to be constantly modernized for current audiences regardless if a show or movie was a prequel or not. Other franchises may strive for a tighter continuity, but Trek isn't one of them.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. To me however, there's a huge difference between not having things in a 50+ year franchise perfectly match up continuity-wise, and purposely changing things so much that your new stuff looks and feels nothing like the source material. At that point it's debatable whether your show is still part of the larger established universe, or it's its own thing. I think the problem arises when the producers of that new show still feel the need to use the old show as a crutch because they don't have enough faith that their show will be able to stand on its own, so they are afraid to go the 'reboot' route because they are worried that people won't watch it unless it's tied to the previous iteration. Ron Moore didn't seem to have that problem when he created nuBSG. JJ Abrams didn't seem to have that problem when he created the Kelvin Timeline (although there still was a connection to the prime universe with Spock & Nero, but that was peripheral to the larger story.)

 

[Skipper]

This is how I usually justify any "inconsistencies" in the Star Trek saga. What we see is obviously not a live recording of events. Let's say that they are reconstructions, like a docudrama, of events that really happened. Obviously the style of these reconstructions depends on the era in which they were made. So inconsistencies are due to this. To give another example:

This is Robin Hood


And this is Robin Hood


Assuming that he was a real character, it is obvious that any movie that tells his story will reflect the period in which it was filmed.

Same for Star Trek. If the Romulians appear different between series, it is not an inconsistency, it is an artistic choice by those who wanted to reproduce historical events for television.

 

[evilchumlee]

Those two Robin Hood movies are in no way linked, aside from drawing upon similar mythos.

This is Egon Spengler (Ghostbusters - 1984)

This is also Egon Spengler (Ghostbusters 2)

Both of these movies follow the same story, with the same characters and take place within the same shared universe.

This is ALSO Egon Spengler (The Real Ghostbusters)

Although sharing a common mythos, this cartoon does NOT take place within the same shared universe. It is a similar universe to the movies, but it not the same.

As the characters, setting, and aesthetics change, we can still acknowledge the works as being related to each other. They are about the same idea of the characters and situations, however not every work is linked together in a single, shared universe.


The Star Trek issue is that it is clear that not everything takes place within a single, shared universe... but the creators insist that it is so, making the idea of "canon" to be a tricky issue.

This is not an issue when it comes to something like the Kelvin Timeline movies. They are based on/inspired by characters and situations from the original show, but it is *NOT* taking place in a same universe with the original show. On the flipside, something Discovery is based on the original show, and claims to take place in a shared universe with it, while making precisely zero attempt to actually fit into that, which causes the work to make absolutely no sense when compared to the other parts of the shared universe it takes place in.

 

[HotRod]

The Star Trek issue is that it is clear that not everything takes place within a single, shared universe...

But it does. Kelvin timeline and Mirror universe excluded.

On the flipside, something Discovery is based on the original show, and claims to take place in a shared universe with it

It's not a claim. It does take place in the shared universe.

while making precisely zero attempt to actually fit into that,

I've seen lots of attempt.