I wonder if the Picard show will make any direct references.
Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Yeah, I guess it's probably almost impossible to measure.
It was more rambling thoughts on my part when I was reading your comments and King Daniels. I started wondering, is it possible that some future Star Trek show is so far removed from everything Star Trek has been (not just production values, but story, characterizations) that it ceases to be "Star Trek"?
I don't really expect a firm answer to that, and as you noted different people have different tolerance levels for that.
It's true Enterprise tanked in the ratings. Ironically it does seem that a lot of fans are protective of Enterprise these days. I never had an issue with it overall. I just wish more fans appreciated it while it was on the air, as maybe then it would have actually continued. It would have been nice to actually have seen the Romulan War on air, instead of it having to be written about in novels (not that I didn't like the novels...but let's be honest, would your rather see it or just read about it). But I digress.
Yeah I agree. The showrunners will definitely want to reference something they worked on, if for no other reason than ego (not that ego is always bad--you have to have a bit of an ego to run a show after all). I'm sure there'll be lots of TNG references too, but you can bet Discovery references will be made.
I just take the show for what it is. I make no attempt to reconcile it with the other shows. But then I’m not as knowledgeable about tv Trek as most of the people on here.
Since it's from mostly the same creative staff and will be running on the same service at the same time, of course it will.
In terms of those parameters, I say no. Even if it diverges from how I personally see Star Trek, it will still be somebody's Star Trek. Again, this is a franchise whose mission statement is exploring the new and embracing the different. It should try new things. A franchise that just repeats the same stuff over and over again has no point in continuing.
To me, the only thing that would make something not Trek is if it completely abandoned Trek's values and worldview -- if it became pro-war, pro-bigotry, anti-science, something like that. There are some people who think that DSC season 1 abandoned Trek's values, but I think it ended up reaffirming them, since the characters that lacked those values turned out to be villainous or misguided and it was the crew's commitment to them that saved the day. (Indeed, the whole thing was pretty much a quick-and-dirty rehash of DS9's war arc. I don't give it many points for originality, but it does fit in terms of values.)
Yes, definitely. I think a similar thing happened with Voyager, which was heavily criticized in its day. In fact, I personally wasn't that fond of either series at the time, but I've come to see more merit in them upon revisiting them. It's like I keep saying -- there's always a negative reaction to any new Trek from some segment of fandom, but over time, with the opportunity to look back and reassess things, fandom generally ends up becoming more accepting of that incarnation.
The revisions and additions to continuity in DSC's first season don't bother me half as much as the overt attempts to walk several of them back in season two. Things like making a big deal about the D7 being a brand new ship, the face of the unified Empire (it doesn't have to be! Just start using them, mixed in with the other ships at first, then exclusively, if you must wipe away the season one Klingons. We'll make something up so it fits, we always do), or Pike suddenly channeling Bill Adama and ordering all the holographic projectors removed from the Enterprise, and apparently banning them for the life of the ship (hairy Klingons is fine. It'd be even better if it was the only one they mentioned in dialog). It makes the more out-there additions they haven't walked back stick out more, and also makes me a little suspicious that things like Burnham's relationship the the family Sarek and Section 31 just being a wacky nickname for Starfleet Intelligence are going to be tied off in a similar "and let us never speak of this again" type way. It's "The Good That Men Do" over and over again, complete with the awkward seams and holes that'll never be patched over because they main goal was either mollifying the audience or turf-war disagreements between different writers, where the last one standing when the show ends wins.
I find it amusing how, back in the day, ENTERPRISE was routinely lambasted for "continuity violations," its portrayal of Vulcans, and so on, but now it's treated as a venerable component of the "canon"--as opposed to that new upstart DISCOVERY. Rest assured that a decade from new, today's fans will be complaining that that latest Trek production is incompatible with DISCO.
"That's not the 'real' Michael Burnham. Nobody can replace Sonequa Martin-Green!"
"That's not the 'real' Michael Burnham. Nobody can replace Sonequa Martin-Green!"
I find it amusing how, back in the day, ENTERPRISE was routinely lambasted for "continuity violations," its portrayal of Vulcans, and so on, but now it's treated as a venerable component of the "canon"--as opposed to that new upstart DISCOVERY. Rest assured that a decade from new, today's fans will be complaining that that latest Trek production is incompatible with DISCO.
"That's not the 'real' Michael Burnham. Nobody can replace Sonequa Martin-Green!"
This is my favorite part of the new content cycle, lol.
I'd generally agree with that. It's one of the things about Discovery that made me still feel like it was a Star Trek show, even if I didn't feel like it fit well in the overall prime-universe.
Discovery has been a difficult animal because it's the first Star Trek production that doesn't feel like it fits in the prime-timeline like they say it does. I dismissed the continuity issues of the Abrams-trek because they explicitly told us it was a branch, or parallel universe. It made it easy to overlook most of the continuity issues because it was a different time line. With Discovery they've repeatedly said this is the prime timeline and I'm having a hard time seeing that. But personally it's not something I felt an issue with TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. That's not to say I embraced them from day one. But it wasn't continuity for me. It was, can you really have Star Trek without Kirk and co, then could you have Star Trek on a space station? Those kinds of things, but I came to love all those shows to varying degrees. Now I'm not saying the continuity in all the previous shows was perfect. Many have brought up many examples of continuity errors, or just plain retcons in those shows. But they were never overwhelming to me as a viewer, or made me feel they'd be better if they were a reboot. Discovery is much harder to reconcile.
BUT, all that being said for me Discovery was never an issue about it being Star Trek, and I've enjoyed the show in general even if I find it frustrating at times.
I have to disagree with that. There were fans who felt that the movies, TNG, DS9, etc. didn't fit like they said they did. For that matter, the movies and TNG didn't even necessarily try to fit. Roddenberry considered TMP to be a reinvention of things he didn't have the budget or technology to get right in TOS. Meyer and Bennett ignored TMP when they made TWOK, aside from recycling its sets and footage for budgetary reasons. Roddenberry again saw TNG as an opportunity to restart and revise, a soft reboot that would keep only the parts he liked and ignore the rest; it was only years later that subsequent producers started tying it more directly to TOS. The idea that the various productions even represent a single unified timeline in the first place is one that evolved only gradually. And the term "Prime Timeline" wasn't coined until 2009 (in much the same way that "World War One" wasn't called that until there was a second one).
Honestly, I somewhat feel the same way. But it's not my decision to make, or yours. Like I keep saying, this will be treated as part of the larger whole by future productions. That's what matters here, because Star Trek belongs to them and we're just the audience.
I guess I should have clarified for me. It's just something that wasn't a bugaboo for me back then. My first exposure to Star Trek was the movies, and later when I watched the TV series I just considered the movies a natural progression from the TV series. While TWOK didn't follow any story themes from TMP I never considered it inconsistent with TMP. I guess it made it easier that it was the same sets and ship and all. But I never thought TWOK couldn't be post-TMP, even if it didn't acknowledge TMP. Ditto for TUC, while it really didn't acknowledge anything from TFF, it didn't contradict it either.
As for TNG, I just always felt any differences was because it was 78 years post-TVH. I now know Rodenberry considered it a soft reboot, but at the time it started I never knew that. I just assumed it was a continuation 78 years later. And I didn't see anything at the time that was inconsistent with the original series that couldn't be explained away as being 78 years later.
Now had Discovery taken place 78 years after Nemesis, then any differences or changes could easily be explained away as it being 78 years after Nemesis. And the showrunners, who have been doing pretzel twists trying to make Discovery fit wouldn't have to worry about it....and I think it would have freed them significantly.
Yeah, I know. I'm just expressing an opinion, but I realize my view is only my own and doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. The only way it would matter is if a lot of fans tuned out and viewership plummeted because of it. I don't see that as an issue. And for all my griping about Discoveries continuity, I still watch it and I otherwise liked the show.
I find it easier to view it as a reboot, or parallel timeline. Who knows? I may feel the same way about the nu-TNG show. Maybe I'll like it too but feel it also would be better as a reboot. Maybe I'll consider all the Trek shows from Discovery to the upcoming shows a reboot universe, or alternate universe. Maybe it'll just be easier to consider everything from "Broken Bow" to "Nemesis" (well even up to the relaunch novels) as a single universe, then Discovery and future shows as a reboot/parallel universe with similar themes to the original....or maybe I'm just babbling now
.
I find it easier to view it as a reboot, or parallel timeline. Who knows? I may feel the same way about the nu-TNG show. Maybe I'll like it too but feel it also would be better as a reboot. Maybe I'll consider all the Trek shows from Discovery to the upcoming shows a reboot universe, or alternate universe. Maybe it'll just be easier to consider everything from "Broken Bow" to "Nemesis" (well even up to the relaunch novels) as a single universe, then Discovery and future shows as a reboot/parallel universe with similar themes to the original....or maybe I'm just babbling now
As I said, the way I perceive the Trek universe has evolved with each new series or movie. The Trek universe I imagine now is not the same one I imagined 40 years ago. But I don't consider that an "alternate reality," because it's all just made up. The conceit that it's any kind of "reality" at all is just a fictional pretense. So if the nature of that fictional construct is reimagined over time, that's not two or more different "realities," it's one pretend-reality that's been reinterpreted. Like I said, it evolves and changes over time. DSC has introduced somewhat more radical changes than we've been used to in recent decades, but no more radical than TMP was at its time.
In its own way, every new series or incarnation of Trek has been a reboot of sorts, a fresh interpretation and approach to the universe due to the different people making it, no matter that they've pretended to share a common reality. Fandom today has gotten too absolutist in its perception that something is either a direct continuation or a reboot, mutually incompatible choices with no overlap. That's just not how human creativity works. Something can be a reinvention and a continuation at the same time. Give the same subject to three different artists and they'll portray it in three distinct ways, but they're all still meant to be portrayals of the same single subject. You just have to suspend disbelief about the differences, to treat them as a matter of variant interpretation and artistic license, not a fundamental difference in the subject being portrayed.
If people showed aliens documentaries of different people in different timeframes from different Earth countries as one large franchise show, the aliens would probably think the documentaries contradict each other and don't take place on the same planet.
Reality is unrealistic.
Honestly Trek continuity seems to be holding up fine for 50+ years, given the sheer amount of material. The only competition I think is Dr. Who.
Reality is unrealistic.
Honestly Trek continuity seems to be holding up fine for 50+ years, given the sheer amount of material. The only competition I think is Dr. Who.
Yeah, I know. Sometimes I get a bit too wrapped up in the whole continuity thing. And you and Greg are probably right, in 10 years many of us will probably feel it's sacrilegious if some show contradicts something that happened on Discovery.
Every so often I take a step back to put it all in perspective. After all, as you noted, it's just fiction. If I can get over the 'dream season' on Dallas, I'll get over my hang-ups about continuity in Discovery
Every so often I take a step back to put it all in perspective. After all, as you noted, it's just fiction. If I can get over the 'dream season' on Dallas, I'll get over my hang-ups about continuity in Discovery
Just remember -- it's all true, especially the lies.
And then there was TAS, which everyone ignored, except when they didn't
Even though it's the only sequel series that has the direct involvement of multiple TOS producers and writers and nearly all the original cast. If anything, it's a more authentic continuation than any of the others.
Yet even before the infamous Roddenberry memo, it was treated as optional by many. A lot of the early Pocket novelists ignored it or weren't even aware of it -- for instance, A.C. Crispin's Yesterday's Son ignored "Yesteryear," and Howard Weinstein's Deep Domain ignored "The Ambergris Element" (even though Howie had written for TAS and his previous Trek novel had referenced "The Pirates of Orion"). And I remember a column in an issue of DC's first Trek comic where editor Bob Greenberger said that he considered the animated series part of "real" Trek but writer Mike Barr didn't.
I probably shouldn't admit this, but I've only seen three or four episodes of TAS and am not very well-versed in it.
In my defense, TAS had been declared off-limits at the point I started writing Trek books so there was never any incentive to familiarize myself with it . . . ..
In my defense, TAS had been declared off-limits at the point I started writing Trek books so there was never any incentive to familiarize myself with it . . . ..