Which we all rather like and hold in high regard.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Which we all rather like and hold in high regard.
It depends. Does it work within the previous knowledge, or does it go against all other information?
For the record, I'm actually all in on having all available info on all subjects listed. But I also don't think that the newest source should always be the default of "what's real". But it should all be there, otherwise it's useless as a knowledge source. Memory Alpha isn't the place to decide what gets left out.
I do plan to write a folk ballad in their honor. I tried to get Gordon Lightfoot on board, but he won't return my calls anymore.
Often it means that previous knowledge and information was flawed, incorrect or an outright lie.
It's fiction. The newest is the most "real".For the record, I'm actually all in on having all available info on all subjects listed. But I also don't think that the newest source should always be the default of "what's real". But it should all be there, otherwise it's useless as a knowledge source. Memory Alpha isn't the place to decide what gets left out.
You are correct though, MA is not the place for those decisions.
You mean the smartest and best answer for the different Klingon appearance on TOS? Yes. It was glorious revisionist history and all it did was give a serious explanation for a tongue-in-cheek comment by Worf. The writers on ENT should get a medal for finally settling the issue after a generation of confusion.
It sure is causing butthurt over on Ex Astris Scientia.
Everything causes butthurt at EAS.
But not as the gospel truth. it's fiction, it can change to serve the story. Like how the Borg went from weird threat Picard and crew met in the Delta Quadrant early in TNG to being a known entity by the Federation since the beginning. They even wiped out Guinan's homeworld in the 1800s.
According to some sources, he was.
A paraphrasing of a convo I recently had:
Friend "It's not prime!"
Me "The writers say it's prime."
Friend "It doesn't matter what the writers say, canon is ON screen."
Me "It's still prime."
Friend "If only the writers would come out and say it's a reboot!"
Me "But you just said what the writers say about it doesn't matter...sigh..."
Friend "It's not prime!"
Me "The writers say it's prime."
Friend "It doesn't matter what the writers say, canon is ON screen."
Me "It's still prime."
Friend "If only the writers would come out and say it's a reboot!"
Me "But you just said what the writers say about it doesn't matter...sigh..."
Exactly. It fits fine enough.
As for "high regard" and treating Star Trek as some sort of historical regard for an accurate record is nonsensical. TMP offered no explanation for uniform, Klingon or other characters taking more time that Sulu, Chekov and Uhura. DISCO fits just fine.
Uniforms changed three times during the course of early TNG until the later TNG movies, that's just a little over a decade. Getting upset over the uniforms being different in Discovery just seems like you want something to hate and can't find anything else.
I've heard and read so many arguments about canon over the years that I can't relate or engage with them anymore. I've never been able to identify with the need for adherence for canon. I put this down to owning the Trek Encyclopedia as a kid and reading about how many inconsistencies there were in the franchise, I think it lead to me taking Trek canon less seriously.
Why do people need an explanation for why the Klingons suddenly had bumpy foreheads in TMP when the obvious answer is they had the resources and money to do it? Why does that need an in-universe explanation when the real world explanation makes sense? To that end, why does Discovery need to look like a show made in the 60's. I'm not trying to be facetious or bait people into arguing. I'm genuinely curious to get responses from fans who need, want or like adherence canon as I want to understand their point of view. Like, what does canon mean to you and for you?
Why do people need an explanation for why the Klingons suddenly had bumpy foreheads in TMP when the obvious answer is they had the resources and money to do it? Why does that need an in-universe explanation when the real world explanation makes sense? To that end, why does Discovery need to look like a show made in the 60's. I'm not trying to be facetious or bait people into arguing. I'm genuinely curious to get responses from fans who need, want or like adherence canon as I want to understand their point of view. Like, what does canon mean to you and for you?
Last edited:
And I, for one, would have absolutely loved *every one* of those connections. Draw it all together! Ilia and Decker, through Trelane, spawned the Q continuum. V'ger was made by the Borg! BOOM! Q's obsessoin with the Borg *explained.* One great, cosmic, era spanning epic.
Star Trek already suffers from Small Universe Syndrome. Tying everything together moves it into the ridiculous realm of the Star Wars prequels (C3PO as Luke's brother, Boba Fett as the model for the Storm Troopers, etc.).
I'm assuming you think that's a contradiction somehow, but I see a consistent thought process. Changes to makeup, costumes, visuals etc to move with the times and budgets don't require in universe explanations, either for TMP Klingons, or for DSC changes. They're just different, because the creators are doing something else now. Just as it was with all the other times that Trek changed things without comment.
Are we really suggesting we need an in universe explanation, maybe a two parter, for why Trill are spotty in the Take My Hand era, bumpy in TNG, then spotty again in DS9? Or shall we just accept the fact that they changed the makeup because Terry Farrell looked weird in the bumps?
They actually did a novel explaining this. It was the same augment virus, giving Trills bumps the same way it (briefly) gave them to Archer
I'm sure they did. Hopefully it was a 6 part series.
It's not about "canon" per se (which is merely a statement of what's officially "on the record" and what isn't), it's about continuity. Internal consistency. With that caveat... I'd think the difference between an in-universe (diegetic, Watsonian) explanation for something and an out-of-universe (non-diegetic, Doyleist) explanation for something is pretty much self-explanatory, surely? The former facilitates the willing suspension of disbelief so essential to enjoying fiction as an immersive experience; the latter disrupts it.
I much prefer to keep the experience non-disrupted — that is to say, to avoid being pulled out of the story. That's why continuity is important to me... and always has been, in pretty much every multi-story fictional universe I enjoy, not just Star Trek. Comics (the Marvel Universe, the DCU)? Prose (Sherlock Holmes)? Film and TV (countless examples)? I've devoted lots of time and mental energy to reconciling the inconsistencies in these fictional realities, because it makes it all more fun. More satisfying.
The thing is, every other aesthetic change in TMP had an in-story explanation. Only the Klingons didn't. You're positing that we should've just accepted them as a retcon, but I never found that approach satisfying.
Retcon of course stands for "retroactive continuity," which seems simple enough... but IMHO there are two ways of doing it. Let's call them "easy" and "hard." The easy ones simply supply new information that casts past events in an interesting new light. (Dr. Strange was behind the scenes during the Fantastic Four's first confrontation with Rama-Tut in ancient Egypt? Cool!) The hard ones (for both writers and audience) require you to treat things you thought you knew as Wrong. (Spider-Man actually got his powers not through radioactivity, but because a spider-god made him its totem? Ummm... right...)
In Trek terms, it's the difference between saying DS9 characters were roaming the halls of Station K-7 while Kirk was contending with tribbles (easy!)... and saying that Klingons "always" looked radically different than the way we saw them countless times with our own eyes (a whole lot harder to swallow).
Last edited:
your idea of what's smart baffles meYou mean the smartest and best answer for the different Klingon appearance on TOS? Yes. It was glorious revisionist history and all it did was give a serious explanation for a tongue-in-cheek comment by Worf. The writers on ENT should get a medal for finally settling the issue after a generation of confusion.
They actually did a novel explaining this. It was the same augment virus, giving Trills bumps the same way it (briefly) gave them to Archer
Wait. This is a real thing? No joking?
It's moments like these I'm glad that I don't bother to read most of the novels.
Similar threads
