Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

1) What they're saying isn't, as you point out under #3, not canon.
2) And? Can still be an "alternate timeline". And how can you tell they only happen in the Prime Timeline?
3) Perhaps not, but there are a few things that were established and that continued up to Enterprise. For example, the writers of the TOS and TNG were told in the respective writer's bible that the "viewscreen isn't a window". Even if the Abramsverse movies used windows, there's no reason why this show would go with it. Visual changes (such as that of the Klingons) were addressed.

Overall, I think it's a lazy show and it feels as if it only got Star Trek slapped on it and that the producers really wanted to do another Sci-Fi instead.

 

I'm sorry, but they weren't. not until over 20 years after the change. We lived perfectly fine for decades without explanation

 

I literally laughed out loud.

 

The sad thing is, the only reason Enterprised delved into an explanation was based off a line from Worf that was only done for a well earned laugh. Things snowball..

 

My opinion is that what makes something "canon" in the particular timeline is whether or not it significantly affects the future events of that timeline, and not whether something "looks" identical from incarnation to incarnation.

The Enterprise in Discovery is, at first glance, unmistakably the Enterprise. Yes, there are design differences. But does a slanted pylon strut affect any future story? If not, just assume it's always looked that way.

Trek is no stranger to changing aesthetics, even between movies! Uniforms change between TMP and TWOK. The BOP bridge changes between TSFS and TVH. Even Saavik changes between films! None of these needs in-universe explanations, because it's immaterial to the story.

Same is true for Klingons, same is true for knowing about cloaking devices in Discovery, etc... Does the latter have any bearing on the events of Balance of Terror, besides a few lines of dialog?

So, YMMV, but that's how I'm going to think about it going forward.

 

Insofar as I care (which is VERY little), then yes...it's Prime. Only because that's what the owners of Trek say AND because "canon" is what's onscreen. Whether or not it makes sense. Whether or not it "looks right". Whether or not it contradicts something that was released earlier.

That said--it simply doesn't matter to me in any significant way (actually, in no way beyond killing time posting here rather than reading yet another article on historical consciousness for my comprehensive PhD exams next month). "Franchise" storytelling, to me, is like comics. If a particular story requires continuity to work (a multi-episode story in a TV show, a multi-issue story in a comics title, the Star Wars "trilogies" [that are now a non-ology(sp?)]), then I expect there to be internal continuity. But across "titles" (series, etc.)? I simply don't care. As long as the "big picture things" are there, it's all good to me (as far as setting--the actual story/movie/episode etc. needs to be reasonably entertaining to interest me). So as long as Bond drives a hot car, drinks expensive booze and carries a smallish pistol, I'm good. As long as the Enterprise has nacelles, a saucer, a lower hull and is generally shaped correctly, I'm good. As long as Superman has the red cape and the mostly blue suit, I'm good. Etc.

So far, DSC fits "the big picture" of Trek to my satisfaction. Whatever the owners want to say about its being "Prime" is fine by me. I don't own it, so I'm not owed anything more than what they offer in exchange for whatever I pay for it.

 

What "we" are you talking about here? I always questioned it, and so did a lot of other fans. An out-of-universe explanation is not the same as an in-universe explanation, and does not facilitate suspension of disbelief in the same way.

I welcomed the fact that finally, after years, Trek was offering an in-story explanation for the different Klingons. In fact, it was literally hearing about that story, after the fact, that prompted me to go back and watch S4 of ENT, long after I'd given up on the show (early in S2) as unwatchable. "Trek finally explained the Klingon thing? This I've got to see for myself!" While it wasn't exactly the explanation I might have imagined (after all, there were all kinds of theories!), it was a perfectly decent one, and a good story in its own right.

I never thought it was a parallel universe... I just thought there was some in-universe explanation that had yet to be revealed. Eventually (very eventually), it was revealed. I frankly think that was an excellent precedent. Creators in a shared universe shouldn't just go around arbitrarily changing things without some kind of in-story rationale at least being possible.

 

Though we didn't, not really. It was just limited to novels, comics and fan fiction. Fans still wanted an explanation.

 

Are people still arguing over 60s production styles?

 

Wait. The Augment virus was dumb and nonsensical and a waste of time by stupid writers...but all the visual differences and changes in DSC are just fine and explanations aren't necessary because...reasons?

Michael Jackson isn't gonna have enough popcorn for the remainder of this thread.

 

Gul Madred probably would've mentioned it, if something was off in Picard's presentation. Like: "Oh my God, what the hell?! You've been tortured enough, man, I'm letting you go."

 

It is our time to burn.

 

Your life quality really depended on an explanation for Klingon forhead bumps? Is that really what you're trying to tell me?

 

I think Star Trek Discovery is driving Memory Alpha to drink. Its pretending 2+2=5 with a straight face. Or, more in keeping with Star Trek, acting like its perfectly fitting in canon is saying there are five lights when there are only four. Which makes Les Moonves Gul Madred.

 

It's a reference tool. It should be neutral and use the latest available information. That means Discovery. You don't teach history with a text from 1969 or even 2005. You don't teach a science course using outdated theories.

 

Maybe, but you also shouldn't necessarily teach revisionist history.

 

No, but if John F. Kennedy was suddenly regarded as our first robot president, its going to cause a bit of a headache to edit that in certain places for the revised edition of the text book.

EDIT:
And it is history rather than science. History itself doesn't change, outside of opinions regarding it. We've seen opinions revised all the time on Star Trek. The Klingons got emotionally refined, where it became only human bias that they were unrepentant bad guys. And the list goes on. The strength of the franchise is that what came before philosophically gets refined and reviewed and reinterpreted with each era. But there are also parts of history that just are what they are. If you have a photo of Abe Lincoln in a stovepipe hat, you can't have everyone believe now that he wore a hipster beanie. Hence, why when you change this much, its an admission that it is a reboot and not in the universe of TOS. It has elements from TOS, but its a show that is not from the world of TOS. In such a case, that's fine. But I myself wish they would just admit it is a reimagining, and that it is its own universe that is borrowing from the original franchise. Trying to jam it into the "Prime Universe" is disingenuous and a marketing thing. Saying everyone on the show is a big fan of the Original Series and it'll all make sense later ... somehow ... gets irksome after a while. I'd be totally cool with it if it just admitted it was a reimagining.

 

You know this is fiction right?

 

like the augment virus?

 

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Editing and updating comes with the job.