That is up to each person to decide for themselves
Alex Kurtzman on the Fine Line Between Adding to, and Staying True to, Star Trek's Canon
- Thread starter Danja
- Start date
That is up to each person to decide for themselves
What is? That it’s canon? That’s not up for debate. DSC is canon along with every other Trek TV series.
How continuity fits together
How continuity fits together
Ah, ok. I find that it fits together by the thinnest of threads. YMMV.
I believe it is well established that our mileage varies as much as a 1979 suburban and a 2014 Prius compared together.
Heck, DS9 established that the organization had been part of the "original Starfleet charter," show we pretty much knew that they were in business during TOS from the very beginning of their introduction.
Of course, ENT established that there was an Earth Starfleet even before the Federation Starfleet, and Section 31 existed back then too. So Sloane’s line must be retconned to imply that it was Earth Starfleet’s charter which included them. So it existed from pre-2151 to the 2370’s, and in all that time it hasn’t seemed to change one iota as far as its members being complete assholes.
As a matter of fact, I’m going to petition CBS to name their new Section 31 show Star Trek: Assholes.
Interesting video where Jessie Gender plays a character who hates Discovery arguing with someone who loves it. Appropriately, those characters look like the aliens from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". The first two minutes, I swear, could be a parody of a TrekBBS thread gone wrong (though it could be anywhere else too). For the next 30+ minutes after, they actually hash things out.
A lot of points in here are items I've raised, or heard raised, over the past two years.
EDIT: I posted in the comments section of the video, and mentioned this board. So I've given us some publicity. Feel free chime in over there as well.
A lot of points in here are items I've raised, or heard raised, over the past two years.
EDIT: I posted in the comments section of the video, and mentioned this board. So I've given us some publicity. Feel free chime in over there as well.
Last edited:
Makes sense (and, frankly is a lot less hard to explain away then there being an Enterprise before Kirk's "first" and "original" of the "five"/"six" to "bear the name"; saying that it was only referring to "Federation" ships is kinda weak, even if it's the best we've got.
Not to mention that as well as having this ‘new’ Enterprise that no one ever mentioned before but seemed to be of major historical importance, for some reason there wasn’t another Starfleet ship named after it between 2161 and 2245 (84 years!)
Finally, something we agree with. I just gloss over Enterprise. I think of the original Enterprise as the one from TOS. I'll always just call that other ship the NX-01.
As has EVERY Star Trek production when it comes to "Story we want to tell today" VS Canon. That goes for TOS, TAS, (The films be they TOS or TNG based) TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC and (probably in all likelihood) PIC, Lower Decks, and S31 (if it's made).
Because that's the point of Star Trek is to tell an entertaining story (I read that somewhereAs has EVERY Star Trek production when it comes to "Story we want to tell today" VS Canon. That goes for TOS, TAS, (The films be they TOS or TNG based) TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC and (probably in all likelihood) PIC, Lower Decks, and S31 (if it's made).
That's why DSC doesn't bother me as much as others with regards to continuity. Is the technology from DSC to TOS so vastly different as to impact the story being told. Are the phasers on DSC doing something new that would impact TOS? What about the uniforms? Perhaps the starships somehow impact the story more than I realize?
That's my question.
And here’s my question: If the sets, props, uniforms, starship designs, etc. did not impact the story in the least, then why not make the show look exactly like TOS? If, as you say, the audience is entertained sufficiently by the story, the why not at least try to make it more in continuity with TOS? That just gives them bonus points for how they entertain us: a good show that’s also a believable show continuity-wise.
Hamlet is still Hamlet no matter how it's staged. So is Star Trek. It should move with the times because that is how it stays alive. People who want it to be like it was in the past, IMO, want Star Trek to remain stuck in the past. But Star Trek is not about the past and never has been.
What does any of that have to do with my point? If the story is the most important thing, then the window dressing isn’t important. Having it look contemporary or having it look anachronistic shouldn’t matter. So if it doesn’t matter, then a Star Trek series set ten years before TOS and looking exactly like TOS should be a huge success if the story is good, right? If it’s only the story that matters, right?
Because production values to a contemporary audience. Not that TOS is cheap, but it is a different style by today's standards. It's not that the sets, props, and costumes don't impact the story, but they do impact the audience's perception of the show.
It matters because you still need a hook for the audience. And, my experience with my family members tells me that many are off-put by TOS and TNG and its appearance.
It's a weird balancing act.
But then the story isn’t the most important part of making a show successful if people will turn away from it just because of how the show looks. It sounds more like the window dressing is primary and storytelling is secondary.
Similar threads
