Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
It's arguments like these that honestly make me hate being a trek fan. They without fail get turned into a pissing contest by gatekeeping fans who think that their way is the only true way and anyone who doesn't agree isn't a true fan. I've been witness to these arguments ever since the 90's and back then people hated different aspects of Berman Trek. It was idiotic then and it's idiotic now.
Now excuse me I'll be over here enjoying ALL OF IT.
I'm beginning to realize there is a great divide at the first principles level between pro-NuTrek and anti-NuTrek people. We discuss the franchise in different silos with little overlap. There is a fundamental difference of opinion over what "real Star Trek is".
For me, the whole drawing point to Star Trek is it:
being an allegorical science fiction action adventure franchise set in a canonically interconnected shared universe
based on the principles of secular humanism from 1960's new frontier modernist liberalism
treating each era as a period piece, with verisimilitude and timelessness adding as much realism as possible
the ships, the lore, the different species, the geopolitical situation reflecting 19th century Europe
the "nautical but nice" way Starfleet is organized.
Star Trek from 1966-2005 fell under this formula more or less. Yes, evolution from TOS to ENT, but no dramatic ruptures. And moving too far away from this formula raises questions, especially to the Tech Manual / Chronology / Encyclopedia crowd for whom for almost two decades everything new was at least supposed to fit together in canon (Yes, yes, I know, it's not perfect... but 99% is damn near perfect all things considered).
The Abramsverse trilogy took the franchise in a more populist, Star Wars-ish direction. Kurtzman era is, well, open to much greater debate.
Based on Sci's analysis, I'd argue there's a four quadrant model of Star Trek at present, revolving around canonicity (being informed and bound by what came in the past) and revisionism (different approaches well outside the 1966-2005 guardrails).
PICARD seasons 1 and 2 are canonical, but revisionist. DISCOVERY and SNW are both uncanonical and revisionist. While LOWER DECKS and PRODIGY are canonical, but somewhat revisionist in format. Next you have something like THE ORVILLE, which is uncanonical but non-revisionist to Star Trek.
PICARD season 3 could be the first canonical, non-revisionist season of Star Trek produced since ENT season 4.
That's why so many anti-NuTrek people are excited. There is a segment of the fanbase that wants to see what comes next after everything established in TNG/DS9/VGR. PRODIGY is doing this a bit by
working with slipstream drive and Borg transwarp conduits
(but again, it is limited by being animated and needing to be viewable by 7 year olds).
But for many, "taking the franchise forward" means moving forward in time from "What We Leave Behind", "Endgame", and NEM while using the pre-established canon and organizing principles.
Fascinating. But I think you’re taking all of this far too seriously. Star Trek is an entertainment franchise. The number one priority is that it entertains.
I'm laughing over this notion going around now that "Berman respected the Canon." Twenty years ago, the number one complaint among many was that Berman didn't understand Trek Canon.
But then, I guess it just proves that twenty years from now fanboys will be saying Kurtzman respected Canon and that whoever the head of the franchise will be is the one who is in fact pissing all over a Canon that "has held together until now."
Remember when there was a Federation outpost dedicated to genetic engineering? And then it was illegal since the 1990's. Remember making peace with the Klingons? They did a TNG episode AND a movie with 2 totally different versions of it happening. Remember STVI wrecking the Klingon planet, except it's somehow totally fine in TNG?
Those errors you grew up with and accepted because it's all you knew. These errors you do not, because you're already an adult. That's all it is.
Look at X-Men: Days of Future past, which mixed the rebooted First Class cast with the original trilogy's as if they fitted perfectly when they definitely don't. That's Picard looking up at Pike's Enterprise looking as it does in SNW. That's the forthcoming Lower Decks/SNW crossover. It's fiction, suspend your disbelief and enjoy.
Yeah, but according to some, that doesn’t matter because the continuity between 1966 and 2005 fits together 99%. That’s the “logic” there. Doesn’t matter what actual facts are thrown at them. They’ll believe what they want to. Never mind we’ve been here with every iteration of Trek and their detractors.
Here's a simple rule: not everyone views Trek the same way. There is nothing immutable about Trek, it's canon, or the stories it can tell. It is well and good to say "Well, I prefer this Trek," and recognize that some Trek styles are not for you. That's reasonable. What strikes me as hedging closer to unreasonable is this idea that there is only one way to tell Trek stories and that adherence to canon somehow makes good Trek. That's less reasonable. Treating Trek as a period piece is a distance I cannot go to.
Ultimately, we have to have a sense of perspective otherwise it is extremely mean-spirited to declare something "right Trek" and leave others feeling left out.
Yeah, but according to some, that doesn’t matter because the continuity between 1966 and 2005 fits together 99%. That’s the “logic” there. Doesn’t matter what actual facts are thrown at them. They’ll believe what they want to. Never mind we’ve been here with every iteration of Trek and their detractors.
Well, I think it's a matter of rose tinted glasses as well as a bit of Mandela Effect mixed in with nostalgia of remember the things they liked, and mixed in with remembering things from books and such. The Trek fandom has had a lot of people attempting to make sense of the variety of disparate threads in to one unified whole, but that also leads to a lot more assumptions of how well things all hold together.
Season 1 had a much greater budget and suffered from shear fucking hubris.
FWIW, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to season 2. They had to deal with constant Covid changes, early studio interference, and having to shoot almost everything on location. Most of the season 2 writing staff will have episodes in season 3. As the showrunner of season 2, Akiva Goldsman could have done a much better job in the editing bay and tried to fix many of the inconsistencies that cropped up.
I always found it funny after the Admiral said "sheer fucking hubris" and that later Jararti said she killed Maddox because of his "hubris" . Some writer on the team really lives that word. Another sign of terrible writing. Lol.
Yeah, but according to some, that doesn’t matter because the continuity between 1966 and 2005 fits together 99%. That’s the “logic” there. Doesn’t matter what actual facts are thrown at them. They’ll believe what they want to. Never mind we’ve been here with every iteration of Trek and their detractors.
Hahaha... I was so DONE after the second half of DISCOVERY season 2 and the bad reviews of PICARD season 1. Only thing that brought me back was Terry Matalas joining STP season 2. Also saw a bit of SNW... too noncanonical for me. But I did like more than dislike PRODIGY and LOWER DECKS, so I'm not anti-everything NuTrek.
Gotta love that a contributor to one of the most canon oriented websites is the researcher for this season as well...
I always found it funny after the Admiral said "sheer fucking hubris" and that later Jararti said she killed Maddox because of his "hubris" . Some wrote on the team really lives that word. Another sign of terrible writing. Lol.
You seem to love research projects. There ya go. Be sure to show your math. And you can’t use any head canon or conjecture. It literally has to be exacting language from aired episodes. And if one episode doesn’t match up to something previously established, the newer episode would not fit into your grouping. I think you’ll be surprised at how much you’d have to ignore.
I always found it funny after the Admiral said "sheer fucking hubris" and that later Jararti said she killed Maddox because of his "hubris" . Some wrote on the team really lives that word. Another sign of terrible writing. Lol.
You seem to love research projects. There ya go. Be sure to show your math. And you can’t use any head canon or conjecture. It literally has to be exacting language from aired episodes. And if one episode doesn’t match up to something previously established, the newer episode would not fit into your grouping. I think you’ll be surprised at how much you’d have to ignore.
But continuity wise I'm not that that strict. I allow for reasonable in universe explanations for apparent contradictions... which SNW and DISCOVERY don't allow for.
But continuity wise I'm not that that strict. I allow for reasonable in universe explanations for apparent contradictions... which SNW and DISCOVERY don't allow for.
If you have to allow for head canon (which is exactly what you’re doing) then it simply cannot fit 99% of the time. It’s okay. It still fits together pretty well and at the end of the day, I really don’t care. I dont let my enjoyment be ruined as to whether what they say in the latest episode fits in precisely with what happened in episode 622 or not.
But don’t make assertions you can’t actually back up.
Exactly my point. You’ve just eliminated any episode which references James T. Kirk which then has a cascading effect which has to wipes out just about anything with the exception of WNMHGB.
But continuity wise I'm not that that strict. I allow for reasonable in universe explanations for apparent contradictions... which SNW and DISCOVERY don't allow for.
Neither do other contradictions from other shows. We just roll with it via head canon or rationalizations from in universe without any basis within the text itself.
If you have to allow for head canon (which is exactly what you’re doing) then it simply cannot fit 99% of the time. It’s okay. It still fits together pretty well and at the end of the day, I really don’t care. I dont let my enjoyment be ruined as to whether what they say in the latest episode fits in precisely with what happened in episode 622 or not.
But don’t make assertions you can’t actually back up.
Star Trek from 1966-2005 according to a r/startrek post was 544hours, 58 minutes of content. My hypothesis says there's then room for 5 1/2 hours of canon violations. James R Kirk tombstone is 30 seconds... "Unnatural Selection" is the hardest episode to reconcile, so that leaves 4 hours 45 mins for other canon violations which can be individual lines or scenes...
But aside from all that, until DISCOVERY and later SNW, no new series contradicted an entire other series.
PICARD season 3 is supposed to be fully canonical. Yay!
Star Trek from 1966-2005 according to a r/startrek post was 544hours, 58 minutes of content. My hypothesis says there's then room for 5 1/2 hours of canon violations. James R Kirk tombstone is 30 seconds... "Unnatural Selection" is the hardest episode to reconcile, so that leaves 4 hours 45 mins for other canon violations which can be individual lines or scenes...
But aside from all that, until DISCOVERY and later SNW, no new series contradicted an entire other series.
PICARD season 3 is supposed to be fully canonical. Yay!
