Canon: How many times is enough?

To me, TOS is its own thing; it's the only Trek that counts. So it really doesn't bother me if the other shows contradict it in some way, since they're just a bunch of spinoffs/reinterpretations that only loosely fit in the same universe as Star Trek. It's their problem, not TOS's. TOS still stands on its own merit.

Kor

 

That's not a bad way to look at it. All the "based on Star Trek, created by Gene Roddenberry" shows are free to do as they please because they're spinoffs.

 

That's a good way to look at it. You can view TOS existing in its own universe and the rest of the series in another reimagined universe.

 

Jinx

 

So is it "not a bad way" or a "good way" to look at it?

I'm so confused now

And, yes, I think TOS is its own thing, which also allows Franz Joseph's designs back in to canon!

 

Interesting premise which I'd never really considered, although it wouldn't take someone all that pedantic to then start making the opposite criticism, why so many things do smack of continuity when they needn't? How come characters from TOS can turn up as historical figures in what is supposed to be an alternative universe? You can't please everyone and that's the problem.

For me I just can't see the point in getting hung up on whether things match up. There really isn't such a thing as ST canon, even within any given series. What we try really hard to see as a consistent, coherent universe is really a hodge podge of often contradictory ideas and concepts with no great effort made to make them match up, merely entertain whilst provoking thought.

Few fictional universes are even remotely consistent when it boils down to it and the irony of ST being so intimately associated with detail obsessed fans is that it is a particularly chaotic and contradictory setting. Season 1 of TOS saw to that by barely managing to get even the most fundamental components consistent from episode to episode. Everything since has either tried to adhere to one or more of those often incompatible versions or simply added to the chaos by virtue of having literally dozens of writers bewildered by the increasingly difficult task of simply managing to write anything which didn't violate canon or contradict something which came before whilst leaving any wiggle room to actually add anything new.

The only way to have a true "canon" in the way we often seem to imagine it would be to start from scratch, otherwise it's just too late. The damage was irreparably done decades ago and it seems pointless to try to make it all add up now when, frankly, it simply doesn't. It seems even more pointless to expect the writers of a new show to devote such an absurd amount of effort to make a new show fit in perfectly with a universe which already contradicts itself at every turn.

 

I couldn't disagree more. In fact the writers that stayed truest to canon were the latest writers. TOS, as you say, struggled with consistency from episode to episode, TNG also had problems, but the later series, when writers actually had *more* material, actually made efforts to keep within established lore, and were relatively successful compared to earlier writers.

 

I get your point, but those writers only had the chance to do that detailed reconciling work because trek had already become a success. It thrived and became a worldwide icon despite all the canon violations, the petty details that were wrong. It wasn't pristine canon that made trek such a success, it was the themes and messages it conveyed, the sense of hope that humanity held the seeds of genuine greatness.

The attempts at making it consistent, of adhering to some manner of canon really came later, if at all, after the show was already a worldwide icon.

 

I'm with "canon is important to worldbuilding storytelling" and that it matters (and is personal) what rule is broken and how far (and if a reason is given, and if that reason is valid), mostly in terms of "did they have to do that?" I hate it when it seems they don't.

Most people would be pissed if the whole ST canon from TOS was scrapped (Hence the "Kelvin Timeline")... especially if there wasn't a compelling reason given or cause shown. They are at the idea that This new timeline means that people and events we've known and loved for years was all a "oh but that was all a dream/it all happened in a time loop/alternate reality" situation.

I think this has to do with what defines ST (or any story) to people. If everything about it was changed, then would it still be Start Trek?

For those who don't think they have a problem with canon, well, what if TOS wasn't internally (mostly) consistent? What if, in every episode, rules, aesthetics, roles, entire characters etc were changed, without explanation (except they want to tell some story)? One day Kirk's captain, next it's Spock (not because he took over, he just "always was"), then neither is even in the show, and it's no longer about space exploration, it's a colony, SF doesn't exist, it's the Vulcan Alliance we're observing...

Might be fun (def is in Twilight Zone and Outer Limits for ex).... but it wouldn't be ST.

A little rationalization balm: It was never "a fact" that Trills couldn't transport, it was just what Odan said, at a time when SF was not aware of their joined nature, so maybe he was trying to keep the secret (certainly the transport would've shown two lifeforms etc).

It is also never explicitly stated that the hosts are Trill... they are called Trill hosts... but that could mean they are hosts to a Trill, not themselves Trill, or could refer to them being representatives of the Trill, not from Trill (as in not indigenous to Trill). Or maybe there were a different race of Trill.

 

I like to think there's a sane middle ground between changing everything every episode and clinging religiously to every last detail from every single episode produced in the last fifty-plus years.

Seriously, any position can be made to sound ridiculous if you take it to an absurd degree.

 

I agree. People's comment's (in this thread) along the lines of "canon doesn't matter" is to me an absurd degree.

 

I used to care about canon, but loving the X-Men movies has shown me you can tell great stories while making whatever changes you need to the overall continuity.

As long as Discovery is internally consistent, let it be it's own thing where the Klingons look different and everything's much more advanced.

 

That's about my take... I do like a (fairly high?) level of franchise wide continuity, but when it's ret-conning what I liked to begin with.... well that's annoying. I say a good level of internal continituty (in each show) is great, and even from one to the next... ret-cons and (sometimes) pre-quels can be a real bummer when held along with other stuff in a franchise.

 

I don't mind changes just as long as you don't erase the stuff I like as if it never happened. That is my big issue with the new Klingon look in terms of them being prime universe Klingons. Also I want enough consistency to make the shows feel like a connected and shared universe. Also if the shows start doing more arc storytelling the importance for this will only increase.

Jason

 

Examples, other than those that are arguably a figure of speech?

 

Many of the continuity problems on the show (not all) could be put down to this, or something like it. Just because a character says something, this wouldn't necessarily make it true, or have it be something that applies to every person in the Federation, or the galaxy.

People misspeak, they misremember, they're just plain wrong, they're being facetious, they're pushing a personal agenda.

It's like when Kira said she thought Starfleet didn't make warships (referring to the Defiant), and Sisko responded with the Defiant is the first, I (personally) think he was being ironic, and not making a factual statement.

The stipulation at the end of your sentence is a interesting one, an example that couldn't possibly be contested.

I mean Picard's "money doesn't exist in the 24th century" itself could have been a figure of speech, which in no way indicates the absence of money.

Arguably.

 

HAHA true enough... how about examples of actual tangible currency exchange in Federation/SF setting (money makes sense on DS9 for example)?

 

There are whole threads on this (right next to "Is Starfleet a military") but the entire plots of Mudd's Women, The Devil in the Dark, and much of The Trouble with Tribbles. I might chuck Requiem for Methuselah in there as well. If you want to get into TAS then I give you Rich Dude Carter Winston.

 

I think some effort to respect there is a cannon is important, though I think it's been shown in many of the series that even with healthy respect an element of "looseness" is inevitable and not always a bad thing.

That said, one of the recent spoilers about the lead character Michael Burnham being Spock's half sister and Sarek playing a huge part in her life just annoys the living crap out of me. And let me say I think exploring the conflict of a human raised on Vulcan is cool as hell! But why not just make it ANOTHER family?

Sarek and Spock are in multiple series and movies already. Their histories are told. The conflicts between the Vulcan ambassador and his half human son are a legendary part of the lore. Sarek was always unhappy with how "human" his son was - it was a conflict that emerged from TOS, to the TOS movies and even into TNG.

Why completely altar that family's history to include a human daughter / sister that no one's never heard of? Wouldn't it be 100% more interesting to any Star Trek fan to see that conflict explored with entirely new characters?

Sigh.