Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident

In the thread "The TAS Redux That Might Have Been" in the TOS forum [https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-tas-redux-that-might-have-been.314043/], the question arose about whether TOS, TAS, DISCO, and SNW are in the same continuity. Since the question as it pertains to Pike's accident depends (at least in part) on the ongoing story elements of SNW, given what's transpired in "Children of the Comet" and "A Quality of Mercy," I think it is more appropriate to continue the discussion in the SNW forum.

This discussion will include spoilers of existing SNW episodes, as well as speculation that might or might not be true about future SNW episodes.

@blssdwlf has stated that the continuities of TOS and SNW must be different, because, in his view, the future events shown in DISCO "Through the Valley of Shadows" do not line up with what we are told about the accident in "The Menagerie." From "The TAS Redux That Might Have Been":

From "The Menagerie, Part I" [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/16.htm]:

MCCOY: What's his problem, Commodore?
MENDEZ: Inspection tour of a cadet vessel. Old Class J starship. One of the baffle plates ruptured.
MCCOY: The delta rays?
MENDEZ: He went in bringing out all those kids that were still alive. Just wanted you gentlemen to be prepared.​

So, my answer to this.

We already know the future surrounding these events can be changed. The entire premise of "A Quality of Mercy" is what happens if Pike prevents the cadets from being present at the accident in the first place, avoids the accident himself, and stays in command of the Enterprise. This was foreshadowed as a possibility in "Children of the Comet," when Number One insists that Pike might be able to change his fate. What haunts Pike the most in "A Quality of Mercy" is not that he will be disfigured, but rather that he will fail to save all of the cadets.

And now, to my proposal. I believe that, given the negative consequences in "A Quality of Mercy," Pike will resign himself not to try to avoid the accident or prevent any of the cadets from showing up. Rather, when it finally happens, even though he's been burned already, Pike's going to choose to stay inside and try to rescue everyone he can, including the two cadets that he believes are fated to die, the two he's been haunted about all along. It's this heroic act that Mendez will recall. It will be the one that seals Pike's fate and consigns him to the wheelchair. In other words, what we've seen so far in the snippets of the accident isn't enough to put Pike in that chair.

I think this has been foreshadowed by everything we've seen. I also think one cannot hang their hat on a few brief scenes of flash-forward, such as the ones presented in "Through the Valley of Shadows." In SNW, they've explicitly made the point that the future can be changed—with consequence. And we know that Pike is being moved to try to save the cadets.

So, what say you?

Is mine a plausible scenario?

Does any of this have any impact on whether TOS and SNW are in the same continuity? What are the determining factors as to whether TOS and SNW are in the same continuity?

Maybe there are other factors besides Pike's accident that have a bearing on the question of which Star Trek shows are in the same continuity.

Discuss!

 

Yes.

 

A vote for no...

The multiverse is a win/win option...

 

The "multiverse" is a lazy, unimaginative option.

I vote "yes."

 

Same. Multiverse is the lazy option.

 

No multiverse, but no, its not quite the same continuity. Elements of the time travel done during "First Contact" resulted in the Temporal Cold War, the NX being saved from destruction, and multiple opportunities of advanced technology being integrated early, between Daniel's quarters and the Borg drone. I believe this explains the different technological levels and aesthetics of Strange New Worlds, and any minor differences in background continuity, including a more active Section 31 and the events of Discovery Season 2. YMMV. (Not trying to start the endless debate again).

 

Yes

 

Yeah, it's much easier to just use FIRST CONTACT & ENTERPRISE as the kickoff point for the (not-so) subtle changes to the timeline that has occurred between TOS and the DISCOVERY Era.
God knows it's not a perfect fit, but at least for me, it is a somewhat reasonable In-Universe explanation that doesn't need to be exactly on the nose.

It's a convenient way to have our TOS cake (with DISCOVERY frosting) and eat it too.

 

The explanation is that the producers are changing continuity. It happens eventually in most franchises; it has to.

That being said, I like Corporal Captain's take on this.

 

Paramount says it is so it is. I think it would be better in the long run if it wasn't. I like SNW, but it seems more like a sequel to Disco than a prequel to TOS. I grew up with TOS, so I don't want it overwritten or replaced. They seem to be writing themselves in a corner with the possible Spock, T'Pring, Chapel love triangle and Corby and Leila have yet to be introduced. My concern is they will try to tie it all up and it will make no sense. They should place TOS in a different timeline and be free to write unencumbered by previous choices. One thing the current showrunners have gotten right is the actors. The recasts of Pike, Vina, Chapel. & T'Pring have been excellent. I never thought that I would like La'an, but she has become one of my favorite characters. Although, I think her backstory with Khan and the Gorn is convoluted.

 

Let's get some of this out of the way -
1. I enjoy both TOS and SNW.
2. Both @CorporalCaptain and I acknowledge there are differences between the shows.
3. Unlike @CorporalCaptain I see no reason to try and force TOS and SNW into the same continuity when SNW's showrunner has stated in two different articles that he's not going to stick to what's been done before.

Spoiler: Akiva Goldsman Statments on Canon

Akiva Goldsman has stated before that he'll break continuity so the simple explanation is that SNW's April is different that TAS' April in the same way that SNW Kirk, Uhura and other characters appear earlier and the ship's tech is different than what came before. I treat it as different stories and not the same continuity. YMMV.

He speaks of their approach again in the latest article here:
https://www.slashfilm.com/1285028/strange-new-worlds-star-trek-canon-guidelines-actual-rules/

EDIT:

Here's the first article that he discusses this approach:

https://www.metacritic.com/news/sta...2-finale-guest-star-canon-strange-new-worlds/

"Fans have really loved the consistency of canon over the course of the Star Trek franchise. I know that can be both a boon for story ideas and character development, and can also be kind of an anchor for storytellers in your position. So, how do you approach it now, especially given that you're bringing in some characters from Kirk's Enterprise and some that have allusions to characters such as Khan?

We love canon. We try very hard to adhere to it, and yet we probably won't destroy a really good story over it. We'll try to body English around it, but fundamentally the spirit of canon is, to us, more important than the letter of the law.

I know that sounds vaguely like an excuse. And in fairness, we really do try very hard to stick to it, but now and then we deviate. And we do it because we thought about it and we believe that we're better off attempting to rewrite canon, which I know sounds sacrilegious, but canon was an accident. When they made "The Cage," they weren't like, "And then we'll cut it into two parts and make it 'The Menagerie' and Star Trek backstory is born!" That was not the purpose. It's a lot of people like us and people who will come after us who will hopefully do their best to stick with what we did and then don't be slaves to it if it gets in their way. "​

So, @CorporalCaptain - what's the end game that you're looking for? For me, one of the things that would be nice is if SNW Pike actually goes in and saves the still living cadets after the explosion instead of seeing repeatedly in flash forwards of him just being there and getting caught in it. Can your scenario work? Yeah, possibly if the SNW series ever film that where they show a new version of the accident. Does that fix all the other changes that Goldsman already alluded to? Probably not since he already admits that characters are appearing earlier than they should be. But I'll still enjoy both the shows and I'll still discuss them as separate continuities because it's just easier to speak of the adventures of SNW Pike, SNW Kirk and TOS Pike and TOS Kirk. Imagine how much of a debate of how Pike saved the cadets would result if we didn't specify which one.

 

It doesn't need to be "forced" into the same continuity. It is in the same continuity. Trek's continuity has always been full of holes, contradictions and illogic.

 

Well, there seemed to be a lot of "forced" explanations of how to fit SNW into TOS here.

 

Quite right!

This whole notion that every single little thing has to line up with what was seen before, or else there will be franchise destroying results, is so very tiresome.

The franchise has also been full of holes, canon violations, and outright mistakes since the very beginning. One of the more fun things, I've always thought, is for us fans to "fill in the blanks". Use our imaginations to "fix" what some would consider mistakes.

In other situations, like the visual differences between TOS and SNW, we just need to suspend our disbelief and again, use our imaginations. In my mind, that's how the Enterprise always looked and I can perfectly picture the "Discoprise" going on all the same adventures we saw in TOS.

Hell, I shouldn't even call it the "Discoprise". To me, she's just THE Enterprise. And she's the same ship we saw in TOS.

 

Since Star Trek is full of that discrepancy so I agree based on the history of it. However, if you were asked to reproduce THE Enterprise I'm pretty sure you'll either pick your favorite or the one you know of or you'll ask which version? It's not really asking suspension of disbelief but finding that reference point to even chat about.

 

This is a prime example of a solution in search of a problem. People can accept recasts, new make up and the like in one series but there is hell to pay if it happens in another.

Ridiculous on its face is this argument to make a problem because the visuals are not strictly literal. Watching a play from night to night must be hell.

 

@Nerys Myk they're playing your song.

 

Apparently it really annoys some of the posters in that thread. I was trying to point out that the showrunner already said he's making changes so why not treat them separately? Apparently treating them separately annoys other posters for different reasons which is a bummer.

 

THE Enterprise.

It's the one with the round saucer, cylindrical secondary hull with a dish, and round nacelles with red/orange bussard collectors.

 

Because one is informed by the other. So I treat them as the same and see no reason to do otherwise.

Mileage will vary. Personally, I'm tired of strict literalism in fiction.