Not naming names, but there's an unfortunate lot of people on this thread specifically titled "canon, continuity and Pike's accident" that seem to do little other than denigrate people who want dialogue and particularly visual continuity with the older shows. No one's forcing them to take part in this thread and I don't know why they have not created their own thread called "Why Visual Continuity is Unnecessary" or "Modern shows shouldn't use 1960s aesthetics" etc and leave those of us here alone.
Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident
- Thread starter CorporalCaptain
- Start date
Nowhere did I say that so...no.
I mean...ok, and?
We all have our things.
See below:
Is it mocking to want to understand why you want this? This is my sole goal here in this thread is to understand the limits, and the lines that make this Trek thing work?
Again, I have no ill will towards fans but when I run up against something that makes little sense to me I am well within my rights to explore, ask questions, and try to figure out, while others are in their rights to ignore me because "it just is."
Unsatisfying? Maybe but that's where I'm at.
No mockery, no hatred, no denigration, no slandering, an no ill will towards people intended or implied in any of my posts.
Last edited:
^What he said. I'm not detail-oriented enough (and my memory isn't good enough) to catch things that many of you folks notice, but I'm always interested in what other Trekkies think and feel and how the shows do and don't work for them.
I've come to the conclusion that everyone has a line. Or they literally just don't care about Star Trek. That's not a dis. There are people who just don't care about Star Trek. I don't think any of them are here or even writing for a Star Trek show.
Some people care a lot about Star Trek and their line is WAAAAAY off from mine. But they still care about Star Trek.
If next week Amanda and Sarek show up and have a heart to heart with Spock there are fans who will be very upset. We "know" that Spock and Sarek aren't speaking right now. But given this cast (I desperately want to see James Frain again as Sarek) I bet it could be awesome. It breaks Journey to Babel a little. If Sarek and Amanda meet Kirk it breaks a little more. As always Chapel didn't seem super familiar with the House of Sarek, but SNW Chapel is amazing.
That's over some people's line. It's probably over mine, but like I said Frain and Jess Bush are incredible. And I don't need an "Alternate Timeline" label or explanation, thanks.
If next week Sarek and his wife Suzie show up and have a heart to heart with Lennie, their half Vulcan son who is science officer on the U.S.S. Enterprise (played by Ethan Peck) (Lennie, not the Enterprise) then maybe more fans would be upset. The character's name is "Spock" and his mom's name is "Amanda". We "know" these things. But it might be a very compelling and emotional story. (I think the stories with Lennie's parents are always quite good.) Why are we letting "continuity" get in the way of good story telling? "Canon" is for obsessives.
Some people would just say "Oh, it's the guy with the ears!" and keep watching TV. Seriously. I watch every week with my sister in law and for weeks she thought Sam Kirk was Jim's dad.
Obviously one can (and I have) stretch this to an absurd degree. But there are SOME ingredients is this crazy mix of Star Trek that when they get changed too much some people will check out. Other people will say "Oh, THAT'S what I needed!"
Heck, you can change the name of the show to "The Orville" if you'd like and tell those stories.
Some people care a lot about Star Trek and their line is WAAAAAY off from mine. But they still care about Star Trek.
If next week Amanda and Sarek show up and have a heart to heart with Spock there are fans who will be very upset. We "know" that Spock and Sarek aren't speaking right now. But given this cast (I desperately want to see James Frain again as Sarek) I bet it could be awesome. It breaks Journey to Babel a little. If Sarek and Amanda meet Kirk it breaks a little more. As always Chapel didn't seem super familiar with the House of Sarek, but SNW Chapel is amazing.
That's over some people's line. It's probably over mine, but like I said Frain and Jess Bush are incredible. And I don't need an "Alternate Timeline" label or explanation, thanks.
If next week Sarek and his wife Suzie show up and have a heart to heart with Lennie, their half Vulcan son who is science officer on the U.S.S. Enterprise (played by Ethan Peck) (Lennie, not the Enterprise) then maybe more fans would be upset. The character's name is "Spock" and his mom's name is "Amanda". We "know" these things. But it might be a very compelling and emotional story. (I think the stories with Lennie's parents are always quite good.) Why are we letting "continuity" get in the way of good story telling? "Canon" is for obsessives.
Some people would just say "Oh, it's the guy with the ears!" and keep watching TV. Seriously. I watch every week with my sister in law and for weeks she thought Sam Kirk was Jim's dad.
Obviously one can (and I have) stretch this to an absurd degree. But there are SOME ingredients is this crazy mix of Star Trek that when they get changed too much some people will check out. Other people will say "Oh, THAT'S what I needed!"
Heck, you can change the name of the show to "The Orville" if you'd like and tell those stories.
It's hard to say how they can be upset since the Khan SNW episode has definitely stated alternate timelines now. Journey to Babel will just be another episode that took place in the 1990s Khan timeline if this happens.
Fairly well put. I'm just endlessly fascinated by where "the line" is for most people. Because it is way, way off from me. That's not a criticism, not a dis, not a slander. I've been doing this Trek thing long enough to know that fans will disparage me for not knowing a trivia point so I know why people can take it that way.
But, and here's the biggest part for me, Trek has always been something that I had fun with trying to come up with reasons. Trek was something that I got creative with in identifying inconsistencies and possible explanations. To me, and this just might be my perception, the default solution is now "It's an alternate timeline." And that's it. No fun, no enjoyment, no creativity. Just "Parallels" again and again and again.
Maybe that works for some. I don't know. I just know that the minutiae keeps getting pulled out from sources I didn't know about and somehow SNW is wrong but right but wrong.
It's like when my boss was both happy I got a job done, and I had done the job wrong so he had to make some adjustments. As he said, "You did it wrong so well we'll just change the next step."
Thanks, boss!
Can I have it instead? Help a fellow member of the continuum instead of a changeling?
Ok but as of now after you the offer is rescinded as I'm not pc game santa claus. If you're ok with giving me your steam name by pm, I will try to gift itCan I have it instead? Help a fellow member of the continuum instead of a changeling?
I remember Ron Moore commenting that he was one of the bigger endorsers of the holographic communications, though it was like pulling teeth from the Suits at Paramount who felt the viewscreen was one of those Star Trek Traditions which had to be upheld at all costs. They only relented in For the Uniform because Behr made a successful argument that it would enhance the the quality of the episode to have Avery Brooks and Kenneth Marshall onset together acting off each other as opposed to the usual way viewscreen conversations are filmed, with the two actors filmed on separate sets while a stage hand reads the opposite end of the conversation to them. And they relented that in Doctor Bashir I Presume it would be quicker and more convenient to just have that Admiral on set with everyone else, but after that they made it a rule there was to be no more holographic communications and that the traditional viewscreen was the way now. Which is also why the Enterprise E's bridge got a traditional viewscreen in Insurrection as opposed to the blank wall which generated a holographic image when needed in First Contact.
Which makes it all the more ironic that since 2009 the "traditional viewscreen" has been replaced with a windshield and we have seen holographic communications off and on throughout Disco.
And they stopped using them in DS9 because it was hard to get it across that the person didn't just beam into the room and couldn't write effective scenes with them,
From M-A, via the credited sources at the end
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-communicator
I don't see any mention of it being requested from high up to stop.
From M-A, via the credited sources at the end
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-communicator
I don't see any mention of it being requested from high up to stop.
Space Seed just became a cautionary tale: Never name a date!
Thought that was TWOK?
He's dad, Jim.
"From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world. From Asia through the Middle East."
For people with better memories / Google skills than me: How many time in TOS was a definitive calendar date named?
thank you
Ron Moore mentioned it in one of his anti-Trek rants in the early 2000s before BSG started.
For me anyway, any dates given in the Original Series have to be taken with a very large grain of salt and assumed to have been somewhat altered by events dealing with the Temporal Cold War.
I still believe that TOS episodes happen pretty much in the same manner, but quoted dates about its past would be different.
"Squire of Gothos" makes a generic reference that his telescope is about 800 years out of date.
"Tomorrow is Yesterday" Air Force Security Office threatens to throw Kirk in jail for "about 200 years" and Kirk muses that will be about right.
Others might notice but this is what sprang to my mind.
LOL.... I was citing Rogue One and comparing it to Relics, Trials and Tribblations, Flashback, and In A Mirror Darkly. Same level of detail. And once you do such a callback it means if a later production doesn't that they have broken a layer of continuity. And then there is Star Trek Continues which did 11 episodes. That was the established level of faithfulness and that is what I expected. I don't mind reboots. Some can be better than the original. Strange New Worlds isn't hesitating to chart their own course and it is a fabulous reboot of the Cage.
Now if you want to see every new production be modern and up to date, that is your preference. That is not mine. Discovery should have been set before The Cage or in a very different time or been labeled a reboot. The combination of shoehorning it in the middle of an established era of Trek and not following the established franchise policy for the era has disappointed many fans. It hasn't bothered others. Both views need to be respected. You are right and I am right. IDIC.
Similar threads
