Who disregards the continuity after the Kirk era?

[plynch]

In religion, if you reject a canon by disbelieving parts or adding to it, you are a heretic.

I frankly have never understood a personal canon. I know you are all making fun of the obviousness of "None of it really happened," but it . . . well . . . didn't. And there's SO much inconsistency even within some series, you'd have to throw out whole ep.'s from your canon, right?

To answer the OP, I in practice pretty much disregard stuff other than TOS; watched DS9 in order via Netflix. It wasn't as good as I recalled, frankly. It was the sophisticated Trek when it aired, I guess, but well, yeah. I kinda like VOY - it's funner than the other Berman-era ones. But I guess I don't think too much about the continuity for above reasons. Thanks for posting the question.

 

[Withers]

Ok, but, history REALLY DID happen. Nothing in Star Trek actually "happened", so we're each free to accept or disregard any part of this fictional "future history" that Paramount shows us.

Except that the shows were in fact made and were in fact continuations of the story of the Federation set up in TOS. They are history in that sense of the word so I don't really see the difference.

-Withers-​

 

[Chaos Descending]

Ok, but, history REALLY DID happen. Nothing in Star Trek actually "happened", so we're each free to accept or disregard any part of this fictional "future history" that Paramount shows us.

Except that the shows were in fact made and were in fact continuations of the story of the Federation set up in TOS. They are history in that sense of the word so I don't really see the difference.

-Withers-​

 

[ToddPence]

Me. I enjoy TNG, DS9 and Voyager. This doesn't make them canon. Likewise one may enjoy the stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle's son Adrian for "The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes" but this doesn't mean that they have to accept them as part of the Sherlock Holmes canon.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

In religion, if you reject a canon by disbelieving parts or adding to it, you are a heretic.

Is Star Trek a religion then?

 

[John200]

In religion, if you reject a canon by disbelieving parts or adding to it, you are a heretic.

Is Star Trek a religion then?

I guess so.

 

[FalTorPan]

In a sense, each Trek television series can be taken as its own continuity, since no single series is more consistent with any other series -- much less with all of them -- than it is with itself. In addition no casual viewer should need to have watched any Trek series in order to enjoy any other Trek series.

 

[Destructor]

After the Undiscovered Country that's all folks my personal continuity can be over.

I was tempted once ,but the completist in me didn't let it happen.

Well, given that TOS episodes barely had continuity between themselves and that the whole idea of 'onscreen canon' really only became an issue in the TNG-era... this seems a pretty odd question in general.

I consider every scrap of Trek, from go (TOS) to woe (ST09), to be part of the canon. Cause it is.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I "disregard continuity" that I don't like pretty simply, by only rewatching episodes and movies that I enjoy. Works perfectly without a lot of fuss about what ought and oughtn't to be so.

 

[muzzleflash]

Ok, but, history REALLY DID happen. Nothing in Star Trek actually "happened", so we're each free to accept or disregard any part of this fictional "future history" that Paramount shows us.

Except that the shows were in fact made and were in fact continuations of the story of the Federation set up in TOS. They are history in that sense of the word so I don't really see the difference.

-Withers-​

History in the sense that the episode/movie existed.

 

[Withers]

^ Surely you don't think I'm so off my rocker I meant that I thought the shows actually happened? I realizes we've got some crazies running around but c'mon...

-Withers-​

 

[Delta1]

Indeed. Only a few parts of the shows actually happened--the death of Edith Keeler, or the Eugenics Wars, for instance. The rest of the episodes will happen far in the future.

 

[Gepard]

Indeed. Only a few parts of the shows actually happened--the death of Edith Keeler, or the Eugenics Wars, for instance. The rest of the episodes will happen far in the future.

...

Joke, yes? Please?

 

[BillJ]

I count it all. But where there's a conflict I defer to TOS.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

When putting together my own Chronology of the Trek Universe, I pretty much ignored the post TOS era. That was partly because I was less interested in the 24th century, and partly because I'd essentially be duplicating the Okuda's efforts for TNG and the like (I have some quibbles with their theories for the TOS era).

I definitely disregard VOY & pretty much all of ENT. Just didn't care for them.

 

[Kelso]

The only continuity that matters is the story that I'm watching/reading at the moment.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I count it all. But where there's a conflict I defer to TOS.

And when there is conflict within TOS?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

The only continuity that matters is the story that I'm watching/reading at the moment.

That's the approach I've also taken with Trek.

 

[BillJ]

I count it all. But where there's a conflict I defer to TOS.

And when there is conflict within TOS?

Then it comes down to which episode I like more.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I remember seeing the beginning of a fan story, years ago, that drafted a different version of "Generations" based on the premise that TNG took place twenty years after TUC rather than - what, seventy or eighty years? In some ways it worked better.

I take it you don't have a link to that.