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

[lawman]

On this point, TMP also did the same thing, followed by TWOK in some regards. So, Discovery is not the first, and probably won't be the last.

I really don't understand what you mean. With the conspicuous exception of the unexplained change in Klingon appearance — which is kind of a special case, and much discussed in its own right — there was nothing about TMP (or TWOK) that asked viewers to accept it as part of a fictional setting with which it was apparently at odds. The films didn't retcon any narrative history nor any visual history. They did change some visual elements through the passage of story time, but that's not the same thing.

Actually, technically, the USS Kelvin also did this, since it was set 10 years before Discovery (roughly-I'm sure someone will correct me on the dates).

23 years. The Kelvin actually seemed fairly consistent with established Trek continuity. My main complaints about it were that some set designer got mixed up as to whether the engineering hull was above or below the saucer, and (okay, here's where continuity was kind of implausibly stretched) it apparently had 800 crew and 20 shuttlecraft. Abrams just seemed to have a thing about size...

Sadly, that is a lose-lose for the production team. Engaging in that dialog will open them up to more pedantic questions from audience members...

But as Wormhole pointed out, they've already engaged with the audience (and thus invited engagement) on lots of other stuff. If they want viewers to take them seriously when they offer behind-the-scenes info, they need to balance the good with the bad, otherwise it'll all just seem like a PR spin job.

Presumably we will see the Romulans at some point...

Hmm, how do you figure? That would absolutely be a continuity breaker. One can try to finesse BOT's treatment of the cloaking device (as we've seen, although the effort is indeed "rather weak" as you say), but the episode is unequivocal that it involves Starfleet's first contact with the Romulans since the war over a century before. They should be absolutely verboten in DSC unless the show finds itself in a timeframe that postdates 2266.

I'm just of the opinion that the criticism needs to be balanced with the awareness that there is more to this than just a new Star Trek show.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Hmm, how do you figure? That would absolutely be a continuity breaker. One can try to finesse BOT's treatment of the cloaking device (as we've seen, although the effort is indeed "rather weak" as you say), but the episode is unequivocal that it involves Starfleet's first contact with the Romulans since the war over a century before. They should be absolutely verboten in DSC unless the show finds itself in a timeframe that postdates 2266.

You just wait I'm guessing they'll have a whole Romulan arc at some point and end it with the words "classified" and "Section 31" for no good reason.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I really don't understand what you mean. With the conspicuous exception of the unexplained change in Klingon appearance — which is kind of a special case, and much discussed in its own right — there was nothing about TMP (or TWOK) that asked viewers to accept it as part of a fictional setting with which it was apparently at odds. The films didn't retcon any narrative history nor any visual history. They did change some visual elements through the passage of story time, but that's not the same thing.

Oh, so Khan's people didn't change from multi-ethnic space yoga performers in red mechanic's jumpsuits and gold mesh swimsuits to somehow younger Swedish Mad Max cosplayers with ABBA hairdos in the 15 years between Space Seed and TWoK?



Greg Cox came up with an explanation for the changes in his novel To Reign in Hell: The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh, but you can't say there was no visual or narrative change made there if you're going to be nitpicky about the other stuff.

And while Kahn knowing about Chekov before he was on the show can be easily explained by saying he was serving elsewhere on the ship (which is in Greg's novel too; Chekov is on the security detail that takes Khan and his followers down to Ceti Alpha V), at the time of TWoK it was just a mistake, but one we shouldn't make a big deal out of.

 

[Gonzo]

Hmm, how do you figure? That would absolutely be a continuity breaker. One can try to finesse BOT's treatment of the cloaking device (as we've seen, although the effort is indeed "rather weak" as you say), but the episode is unequivocal that it involves Starfleet's first contact with the Romulans since the war over a century before. They should be absolutely verboten in DSC unless the show finds itself in a timeframe that postdates 2266.

If the footprint of the Romulan presence is kept small and the fallout can be kept secret we could see some kind of clandestine storyline with the Romulans up to their old tricks, perhaps we will get to see how their alliance and technology share with the Klingons comes about and also what actions are taken by S31 to destroy it and maybe see how the Discovery is involved in some way.

We now know S31 is going to be shown in this series and they would definitely not be happy with such an alliance happening, while some wont be happy about the inclusion of S31 it does open up lots of options for plot arcs moving forward.

Plus its pretty easy for a Romulan to pose as a Vulcan when necessary as well, of all the other races they are the ones that could hide in plain sight.

As an added bonus we may even find out why its called Section 31.

 

[cooleddie74]

We already know why it's called Section 31. "Divergence(ENT)" explained that it refers to Article 14, Section 31 of the original Earth Starfleet charter.

 

[The Wormhole]

Hmm, how do you figure? That would absolutely be a continuity breaker. One can try to finesse BOT's treatment of the cloaking device (as we've seen, although the effort is indeed "rather weak" as you say), but the episode is unequivocal that it involves Starfleet's first contact with the Romulans since the war over a century before. They should be absolutely verboten in DSC unless the show finds itself in a timeframe that postdates 2266.

On the first episode of After Trek, the writers put on a whole production about how they desperately want to use the Romulans but can't because of canon. Though given the restraint they're not holding when it comes to fanwank or "canon from a certain point of view" (like the whole Klingons conquering the Federation thing in the last few episodes) I'll be very surprised if we don't see Romulans in the show at all at some point. The show seems to be ticking off boxes of obvious fanwanking storylines, we've had Klingon war and Mirror Universe, we're getting something involving the Enterprise and something with Section 31. The most obvious remaining ideas are Romulans, time travel to the 24th century, and the Borg. And the make-up people recently talked about some ideas they have concerning the Borg.

Hell, the Romulans would have worked better than the Klingons anyway, given it already is canon that they haven't been seen from for a century. And given Michael Burnham's connection to Vulcan, this storyline could really explore the relationship between Vulcans and Romulans, something that has gotten very little attention in canon despite being around for nearly all fifty years of the franchise's existence. But of course, if they did this they'd have to throw away the Prime Universe Safety Blanket which Star Trek really doesn't want to do at all.

 

[Gonzo]

We already know why it's called Section 31. "Divergence(ENT)" explained that it refers to Article 14, Section 31 of the original Earth Starfleet charter.

Funny how so many keep trying to argue that it isn't an officially sanctioned part of Starfleet and by extension the Federation.

Someone has to do the dirty jobs no one else wants to do.

One of the more realistic aspects of Star Trek.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

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

 

[fireproof78]

I really don't understand what you mean. With the conspicuous exception of the unexplained change in Klingon appearance — which is kind of a special case, and much discussed in its own right — there was nothing about TMP (or TWOK) that asked viewers to accept it as part of a fictional setting with which it was apparently at odds. The films didn't retcon any narrative history nor any visual history. They did change some visual elements through the passage of story time, but that's not the same thing.

The Klingon appearance is the biggest one. And the fact that it is accepted now doesn't make it any less jarring at the time or within the narrative continuity. We give it a pass now because we have the whole story.

Discovery is being held to the same standard without even being allowed to tell its whole story.

And, for me at least, the rapid uniform change is very disconcerting, as well as changes in tech, from wrist and then back to flip. No apparent explanation either.

Or, and Kirk is a jerk in TMP. What changed? This is where my suspension of disbelief is stretched to the point of breaking.

Respectfully, TMP asked the same thing at the time, but we just accept it now. This is my frustration, is the lack of willingness to allow Discovery to grow in to its own and become a part of the franchise.

23 years. The Kelvin actually seemed fairly consistent with established Trek continuity. My main complaints about it were that some set designer got mixed up as to whether the engineering hull was above or below the saucer, and (okay, here's where continuity was kind of implausibly stretched) it apparently had 800 crew and 20 shuttlecraft. Abrams just seemed to have a thing about size...

Who is to say it is 800 crew?

But as Wormhole pointed out, they've already engaged with the audience (and thus invited engagement) on lots of other stuff. If they want viewers to take them seriously when they offer behind-the-scenes info, they need to balance the good with the bad, otherwise it'll all just seem like a PR spin job.

And it possibly is.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean.

As much as I enjoy Discovery, and I'll acknowledge it has its flaws, I am more than willing to grant that the BTS issues probably resulted in much of the challenges we have had in the narrative presentations. The pressure from CBS to perform, the change in leadership, and the like. It isn't that this just a new Trek show but a flagship show for a new platform push.

I don't expect perfection when all that is going on. I'm more generous perhaps but as has been stated before, my standards are, apparently, very low.

 

[Tuskin38]

Funny how so many keep trying to argue that it isn't an officially sanctioned part of Starfleet and by extension the Federation.

SLOAN: We don't submit reports or ask for approval for specific operations, if that's what you mean. We're an autonomous department.
BASHIR: Authorised by whom?
SLOAN: Section thirty one was part of the original Starfleet charter.
BASHIR: But that was two hundred years ago. Are you telling me you've been working on your own ever since? Without specific orders? Accountable to nobody but yourselves?
SLOAN: You make it sound so ominous.

SISKO: There's no record of a Deputy Director Sloan anywhere in Starfleet. And as for Section thirty one, that's a little more complicated. Starfleet Command doesn't acknowledge its existence, but they don't deny it either. They simply said they'd look into it and get back to me.

BASHIR: Section Thirty one isn't part of Starfleet Intelligence.

BASHIR: He works for an organisation called Section Thirty one. They see themselves as protecting the interests of the Federation, although they have absolutely no official standing.

SLOAN: Section Thirty One has no headquarters. These files, they exist only in the minds of a very select group of people, and I happen to be one of them. If you really want to destroy Section Thirty One, it's now or never.

BASHIR: Section Thirty One aren't part of the Federation. They're a rogue organisation that

 

[Gonzo]

It isn't officially sanctioned. Again DS9 says this.

They only use the charter as an excuse for their existence. It doesn't give them actual legitimacy.

Yet they are one of the main reasons why the Dominion war is brought to a winning end, sounds to me like they are tolerated by those in the upper echelons, if not they wouldn't be able to operate.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yet they are one of the main reasons why the Dominion war is brought to a winning end, sounds to me like they are tolerated by those in the upper echelons, if not they wouldn't be able to operate.

Because they turned a blind eye in a time of great strife.

Tolerated isn't the same thing as officially sanctioned.

 

[Gonzo]

Because they turned a blind eye in a time of great strife.

Tolerated isn't the same thing as officially sanctioned.

How does unofficially sanctioned sound.

Its all about plausible deniability.

 

[Tuskin38]

They're still an autonomous department with zero oversight that works in near 100% secrecy.

A rogue organization.

 

[lawman]

Funny how so many keep trying to argue that it isn't an officially sanctioned part of Starfleet and by extension the Federation.

As I've posted elsewhere, we don't actually know what that provision of the Starfleet charter says. All we know is that Section 31 thinks it legitimizes what the organization does. That doesn't necessarily make them official (even if some officials sympathize or collaborate with them). To my mind, they're analogous to a more proactive version of present-day "Tenthers"... people who think the future of the United States depends on their decidedly quixotic, historically unsupported, and jurisprudentially groundless interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[lawman]

The Klingon appearance is the biggest one. And the fact that it is accepted now doesn't make it any less jarring at the time or within the narrative continuity. We give it a pass now because we have the whole story.

I actually agree with you about this. The Klingon thing was jarring at the time, and for a long time thereafter (which is why I disagree with the fans who pretend that everyone back then just handwaved it away). But as I said, that was an exception.

And, for me at least, the rapid uniform change is very disconcerting, as well as changes in tech, from wrist and then back to flip. No apparent explanation either.

See, this didn't bother me at all. "Rapid" is a relative term... all we saw was that Starfleet had different aesthetics for its uniforms (and ships and such) in the 2260s, the 2270s, and the 2280s. That doesn't take anything more than a set of different people in charge. And heck, given a future in which matter replication is feasible, it would be fairly easy to implement... changing uniforms fleetwide would be as simple as rolling out a software update. (Certainly we later saw lots of variation in ships and uniforms over the course of 24th-century Trek.)

Or, and Kirk is a jerk in TMP. What changed? This is where my suspension of disbelief is stretched to the point of breaking.

I don't see what you're talking about here. Kirk's personality seemed entirely consistent to me. Granted such perceptions are subjective, but then you've also got to grant that people's attitudes and behavior do evolve over time. So, while I've occasionally watched a story and thought "X seems out of character here," I've never thought of that as a continuity problem. It doesn't affect the backstory. In constrast, if Kirk in TMP had (e.g.) said he was an only child, that would have been a continuity error.

Who is to say it is 800 crew?

Pike to Kirk, in ST09: "You know, your father was Captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives, including your mother's. "

As much as I enjoy Discovery, and I'll acknowledge it has its flaws, I am more than willing to grant that the BTS issues probably resulted in much of the challenges we have had in the narrative presentations. The pressure from CBS to perform, the change in leadership, and the like. It isn't that this just a new Trek show but a flagship show for a new platform push.

I don't expect perfection when all that is going on. I'm more generous perhaps but as has been stated before, my standards are, apparently, very low.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. In that sense, it is indeed not "just a new Star Trek show." But all those other considerations are business considerations. There's no reason that viewers should care about them at all. (Indeed, in the pre-Internet age, we probably wouldn't even have been aware of them). I honestly couldn't give a tinker's damn whether CBS succeeds with All Access or not (actually, on second thought, I probably hope it doesn't... yet another streaming service out there really doesn't make anyone's life easier). You've talked before about judging the show on its own merits, and to the extent that we can do that, those are the merits of what actually shows up on screen, regardless of how it got there. Conversely, if one is going to consider it in a larger context, I think the context of "prior Star Trek history" is more interesting and important than the context of "corporate business incentives."

 

[DanielPMonut]

As I've posted elsewhere, we don't actually know what that provision of the Starfleet charter says. All we know is that Section 31 thinks it legitimizes what the organization does. That doesn't necessarily make them official (even if some officials sympathize or collaborate with them). To my mind, they're analogous to a more proactive version of present-day "Tenthers"... people who think the future of the United States depends on their decidedly quixotic, historically unsupported, and jurisprudentially groundless interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Yeah, I always think of this, or of right wing militias that insist on weird interpretations of both Article 1 section 8 of the constitution and the second amendment.

 

[fireproof78]

I actually agree with you about this. The Klingon thing was jarring at the time, and for a long time thereafter (which is why I disagree with the fans who pretend that everyone back then just handwaved it away). But as I said, that was an exception.

It will always be jarring to me, because the explanation from GR was that "that's how Klingons always looked." So, the whole DS9 and ENT thing has never sat as the explanation.

See, this didn't bother me at all. "Rapid" is a relative term... all we saw was that Starfleet had different aesthetics for its uniforms (and ships and such) in the 2260s, the 2270s, and the 2280s. That doesn't take anything more than a set of different people in charge. And heck, given a future in which matter replication is feasible, it would be fairly easy to implement... changing uniforms fleetwide would be as simple as rolling out a software update. (Certainly we later saw lots of variation in ships and uniforms over the course of 24th-century Trek.)

Sure, but it's as soon as three years after TOS. I've studied enough about uniform development to know that is a pretty quick change. But, to your point, Star Trek has done this before and after. It still stood out to me as quite odd.

I don't see what you're talking about here. Kirk's personality seemed entirely consistent to me. Granted such perceptions are subjective, but then you've also got to grant that people's attitudes and behavior do evolve over time. So, while I've occasionally watched a story and thought "X seems out of character here," I've never thought of that as a continuity problem. It doesn't affect the backstory. In constrast, if Kirk in TMP had (e.g.) said he was an only child, that would have been a continuity error.

Kirk's lording over Decker has always struck me as being out of character.

Pike to Kirk, in ST09: "You know, your father was Captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives, including your mother's. "

Lives do not equal crew, if we want to get pedantic.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. In that sense, it is indeed not "just a new Star Trek show." But all those other considerations are business considerations. There's no reason that viewers should care about them at all. (Indeed, in the pre-Internet age, we probably wouldn't even have been aware of them). I honestly couldn't give a tinker's damn whether CBS succeeds with All Access or not (actually, on second thought, I probably hope it doesn't... yet another streaming service out there really doesn't make anyone's life easier). You've talked before about judging the show on its own merits, and to the extent that we can do that, those are the merits of what actually shows up on screen, regardless of how it got there. Conversely, if one is going to consider it in a larger context, I think the context of "prior Star Trek history" is more interesting and important than the context of "corporate business incentives."

Larger context, for me, will always include business side. That's all variables included within the context, not just what I should know or would know.

Let me try to break this down a different way, as far as how I regard thing.

First, I'll address what is on screen, if I can identify with the characters, connect with them, etc, as well as the story and the larger work. For instance, I have no issues with the first two episodes of Discovery. That's me.

Secondly, I'll take the larger context of the greater show's development, from BTS production, to societal context, etc.

Finally, when the show is all done, I'll regard it in context of the greater continuity, especially with a show that is still in production. I find it odd to judge a show's place in a greater franchise or continuity or make assumptions regarding the production team's plans when the story isn't done yet.

 

[Gonzo]

As I've posted elsewhere, we don't actually know what that provision of the Starfleet charter says. All we know is that Section 31 thinks it legitimizes what the organization does. That doesn't necessarily make them official (even if some officials sympathize or collaborate with them). To my mind, they're analogous to a more proactive version of present-day "Tenthers"... people who think the future of the United States depends on their decidedly quixotic, historically unsupported, and jurisprudentially groundless interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

For me I just see it as plausible deniability for Starfleet and the Federation covering their collective legal asses.

Each to their own.

I guess interpretation like possession is nine tenths of the law, just ask any lawyer.

 

[Discofan]

For me I just see it as plausible deniability for Starfleet and the Federation covering their collective legal asses.

Each to their own.

I guess interpretation like possession is nine tenths of the law, just ask any lawyer.

Except maybe for strict constructivists.