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

[lawman]

I don't claim that the notion is canonical. It's obviously easier for producers to treat it all ("Kelvinverse" aside) as one single timeline from beginning to end. As I said way back on page one of this thread, though, I don't really care about "word of god" in my filmed entertainment (and even less in Trek, where it could change from one production to the next); once something's out there, it's open to interpretation.

It's a matter of headcanon. Trek is chock-full of time-travel incidents that, to my mind, don't logically leave the timeline in the same shape it started in. (I already mentioned STIV and "Yesterday's Enterprise" earlier, but there are plenty of others.) FC is one such that just happens to be at the right time, and to the right time, to explain away the existence of a subsequent series that retconned a whole lot of TOS continuity (albeit not to the same extent as DSC, FWIW), yet had somehow never been mentioned before. It seems to me more logical and more elegant to regard it that way than otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

I voted yes. It's meant to be Prime, and it more-or-less fits. Or, at least, there aren't more inconsistencies than usual. I'd of course rather there weren't any, but that's apparently not very realistic.

It's the same as with Doctor Who. That world is chock full of nonsense, and yet it's still a single continuity.

 

[DigificWriter]

Up until Discovery, visuals were part of canon.

That is... not correct.

Visual aesthetics in Star Trek have never been Canon because there's never been a single consistent visual aesthetic for the franchise.

 

[Lezta]

That is... not correct.

Visual aesthetics in Star Trek have never been Canon because there's never been a single consistent visual aesthetic for the franchise.

Each visual aesthetic has represented a different time period. Which is pretty realistic - we don't have the same fashions or aesthetics we did 10 years ago, let alone a hundred. That's no reason to say visuals aren't canon.

 

[cultcross]

I don't claim that the notion is canonical. It's obviously easier for producers to treat it all ("Kelvinverse" aside) as one single timeline from beginning to end. As I said way back on page one of this thread, though, I don't really care about "word of god" in my filmed entertainment (and even less in Trek, where it could change from one production to the next); once something's out there, it's open to interpretation.

It's a matter of headcanon. Trek is chock-full of time-travel incidents that, to my mind, don't logically leave the timeline in the same shape it started in. (I already mentioned STIV and "Yesterday's Enterprise" earlier, but there are plenty of others.) FC is one such that just happens to be at the right time, and to the right time, to explain away the existence of a subsequent series that retconned a whole lot of TOS continuity (albeit not to the same extent as DSC, FWIW), yet had somehow never been mentioned before. It seems to me more logical and more elegant to regard it that way than otherwise.

Yeah, by even the most forgiving standard, Trek has played fast and loose with timelines since TOS, changing and 'repairing', and sometimes permanently changing. I'm sure somebody tried to map them once, and it was a real maze, especially when Voyager came along.

It's also been very inconsistent on the matter of causality and 'changing the past'. Some installments, like Past Tense, The Visitor, Endgame, or City on the Edge of Forever imply that the past is changeable - that you can see effects in real time in the 'present' from changing the past. Other installments, like Assignment Earth, Times Arrow, and to a more ambiguous extent Star Trek IV, imply that the changed events in the past have 'already happened' by the time we get to the 'present' - e.g. Data's head showing up before they went back in time and left his head there. A predestination paradox or something close to it. There's no real reason why the scenario in Times Arrow is any different from that in First Contact - aliens are changing the Earth's past - but in STFC we see an instantaneous change to the 24th century, while in Times Arrow the effects of the changes have already been incorporated into the timeline.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I remind again, "Tomorrow is Yesterday" had all the silliness with them beaming Captain Christopher into himself as they warped back through time, which somehow made everything okay.

"Time Squared" had the duplicate Picard fade away when his timeline was deleted (not to mention the nonsense about him "catching up" with their timeline - he'll always be 6 hours behind!), but pretty much every other time travel episode keeps it's temporal orphans around.

The rules of time travel are:

1. There are no rules.
2. See rule #1.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If i ordered a cheese burger, I don’t expect a filet o fish, and will not learn to like it.

And if you order a cheeseburger assuming it will have meat, cheese and ketchup and nothing else, you might be unpleasantly surprised to find that the chef prepared it with caramelized onions, mayo, tomatoes, pickles, lettuce and a little bit of worchestershire sauce.

But if you then throw a hissy fit about how the cheeseburger isn't what you wanted and start spewing vitriol at the chef, the wait staff, the manager, the bus boy and the bar tender and giving long rants about what terrible people they are because they can't even cook a cheeseburger right... well, you get the idea.

If I pay to see a Star Wars film, I expect it to be one

It was a Star Wars film. Just like the cheeseburger you ordered with a bunch of extra shit on it is, in fact, a cheeseburger.

That you had an overly specific expectation of what you were buying doesn't actually say anything about what you bought. That you had an overly negative reaction to what you bought that is completely at odds with the measurable quality of the product, on the other hand, tells us a lot about your mindset.

We were told to expect Star Trek, Prime Star Trek, and some people feel this is not what was delivered.

Right. It's like paying for a "Chicago style hotdog" and having somebody hand you a footlong with a dill pickle, mustard, grilled onions, hot peppers, diced tomatoes and celery salt. The appropriate reaction is "This is pretty good, but you're seriously stretching the definition of 'Chicago style' my friend." The competing reaction -- to throw the hotdog on the ground and go on an angry rant about how the guy who made it is a terrible chef and demand that he make a REAL Chicago Style hotdog -- would be puerile and stupid.

Note that the above examples are NOT hypotheticals, I have been witness to some truly epic and embarassing meltdowns by amateur food critics. I realize you think this sort of behavior is justifiable, but it DOES reflect a mindset of entitlement more befitting of a spoiled child than an actual functioning adult.

‘Shut up and be grateful for whatchoo git’ is rarely a positive approach to things

On the contrary, showing proper gratitude is the BARE MINIMUM of a positive approach for receiving a service from others, what most Americans call "Basic good manners" or, alternately, "Common fucking courtesy". Even if the service isn't perfect, the least you can do is show gratitude for having received it and THEN apply criticism for how the service could be better.

Perhaps you mean it isn't a SATISFYING approach? I agree. But some of the most satisfying behaviors are also juvenile and moronic.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Seems like in your worldview, any sense of expectations (about gifts, entertainment, whatever) is unjustified, no matter what it's based on...

Not at all. Just that part of being an ADULT is recognizing that your expectations rarely stack up well against reality.

People are different, and not everyone can cope with disappointment. Inasmuch as people are entitled to their emotions, not everyone should have to. But in the same sense that nobody has a right to judge your emotions, EVERYONE can judge your actions. I may, for example, be deeply and thoroughly disappointed by my son's decision to drop out of college, but if I start being an asshole to him just because he didn't meet my expectations, that reflects badly on ME, not on him.

Moreover, there's a Catch-22 for anyone taking a critical stance toward something: if you haven't seen it, you don't know what you're talking about, but if you have seen it, you're being a hypocrite because you're giving money to the creators then criticizing them.

Don't confuse criticisms with complaints. They are NOT the same thing.

 

[EnderAKH]

Not at all. Just that part of being an ADULT is recognizing that your expectations rarely stack up well against reality.

People are different, and not everyone can cope with disappointment. Inasmuch as people are entitled to their emotions, not everyone should have to. But in the same sense that nobody has a right to judge your emotions, EVERYONE can judge your actions. I may, for example, be deeply and thoroughly disappointed by my son's decision to drop out of college, but if I start being an asshole to him just because he didn't meet my expectations, that reflects badly on ME, not on him.


Don't confuse criticisms with complaints. They are NOT the same thing.

This is why I have discovered in the last 10 years or so that I found many movies/TV shows I disliked were because the movies/TV shows weren't what I thought they were going to be, and didn't do the things I expected them to do based largely on speculation from places like this and marketing. That is why I have started going in as cold as I can when I watch something, to help let the movie or TV show be what it is, rather than being disappointed that it wasn't what I expected it to be. It's part of the "Positive Watching" thing I've been trying. I WANT to like things, not sit around shitting on them. It has helped immensely.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is why I have discovered in the last 10 years or so that I found many movies/TV shows I disliked were because the movies/TV shows weren't what I thought they were going to be, and didn't do the things I expected them to do based largely on speculation from places like this and marketing. That is why I have started going in as cold as I can when I watch something, to help let the movie or TV show be what it is, rather than being disappointed that it wasn't what I expected it to be. It's part of the "Positive Watching" thing I've been trying. I WANT to like things, not sit around shitting on them. It has helped immensely.

This is literally how I got into "Game of Thrones." Going by the ads and publicity materials alone, I DID NOT think I was going to like that show.

 

[jaime]

And if you order a cheeseburger assuming it will have meat, cheese and ketchup and nothing else, you might be unpleasantly surprised to find that the chef prepared it with caramelized onions, mayo, tomatoes, pickles, lettuce and a little bit of worchestershire sauce.

But if you then throw a hissy fit about how the cheeseburger isn't what you wanted and start spewing vitriol at the chef, the wait staff, the manager, the bus boy and the bar tender and giving long rants about what terrible people they are because they can't even cook a cheeseburger right... well, you get the idea.


It was a Star Wars film. Just like the cheeseburger you ordered with a bunch of extra shit on it is, in fact, a cheeseburger.

That you had an overly specific expectation of what you were buying doesn't actually say anything about what you bought. That you had an overly negative reaction to what you bought that is completely at odds with the measurable quality of the product, on the other hand, tells us a lot about your mindset.


Right. It's like paying for a "Chicago style hotdog" and having somebody hand you a footlong with a dill pickle, mustard, grilled onions, hot peppers, diced tomatoes and celery salt. The appropriate reaction is "This is pretty good, but you're seriously stretching the definition of 'Chicago style' my friend." The competing reaction -- to throw the hotdog on the ground and go on an angry rant about how the guy who made it is a terrible chef and demand that he make a REAL Chicago Style hotdog -- would be puerile and stupid.

Note that the above examples are NOT hypotheticals, I have been witness to some truly epic and embarassing meltdowns by amateur food critics. I realize you think this sort of behavior is justifiable, but it DOES reflect a mindset of entitlement more befitting of a spoiled child than an actual functioning adult.


On the contrary, showing proper gratitude is the BARE MINIMUM of a positive approach for receiving a service from others, what most Americans call "Basic good manners" or, alternately, "Common fucking courtesy". Even if the service isn't perfect, the least you can do is show gratitude for having received it and THEN apply criticism for how the service could be better.

Perhaps you mean it isn't a SATISFYING approach? I agree. But some of the most satisfying behaviors are also juvenile and moronic.

Your extreme approach to food is entertaining, your assuming my position on things, less so.
I don’t think the responses you describe are in any way what I am describing as justified. *shrug*
Also, if you have witnessed these things, it’s a wonder you haven’t given up fast food, let alone anything as polarising as and SF&F fandom.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don’t think the responses you describe are in any way what I am describing as justified.

You're coming to the defense of the small vocal minority that flamed "The Last Jedi" despite overwhelmingly positive critical reviews and the similar (if not overlapping) fan community that continues to drag "Discovery" for such venial sins as not putting hair on the Klingons. At the risk of repeating myself, back in the first half of the season I had an amusing discussion where someone called me "an arrogant motherfucker" for pointing out that Harry Mudd's beard probably wasn't that huge of a canon violation on account of the existence of razor blades.

These are functionally similar to a person making a scene at a restaurant because his hamburger has mayo instead of ketchup.

This is essentially what you are defending.

Also, if you have witnessed these things, it’s a wonder you haven’t given up fast food, let alone anything as polarising as and SF&F fandom.

I've given up on taking toddlers and ratchet people to fancy restaurants since I know such people are likely to do something obnoxious if they don't get what they're expecting to get. I've completely given up on Star Wars fandom for much the same reason. I've ALMOST given up on Star Trek fandom, but it's not all bad.

Relatedly, I don't like Star Trek: Voyager. It's my LEAST favorite Star Trek series. The only scifi series I've seen that was worse than Voyager was "Stargate SG-1, which I also despise. I do not watch Voyager except for the handful of episodes I find almost tolerable, nor do I watch Stargate. I also don't go to the Voyager forums or the Stargate forums to tell people there how much I hate those shows. I don't go on IMDB and deliberately post negative reviews to drag its rating down. I don't write long rambling blog posts about all the things those shows are doing wrong and why the writers of those shows should be ashamed for pushing such a terrible product.

The reason I don't do this is because I'm not an overgrown man-child who has to show my ass when I don't like something. This is, however, a DISCUSSION BOARD, so if you express the opinion that such behavior is justifiable or acceptable, I'll happily share my dissenting viewpoint with you.

 

[lawman]

Yeah, by even the most forgiving standard, Trek has played fast and loose with timelines since TOS, changing and 'repairing', and sometimes permanently changing. I'm sure somebody tried to map them once, and it was a real maze, especially when Voyager came along.

It's also been very inconsistent on the matter of causality and 'changing the past'....

That map sounds like something I'd love to see. Also, to give credit where due, Christopher Bennett has done a yeoman job in his DTI novels of rationalizing how time travel works in the Trekverse that manages to make sense of (almost) every story involving it.

...if you then throw a hissy fit about how the cheeseburger isn't what you wanted and start spewing vitriol at the chef, the wait staff, the manager, the bus boy and the bar tender and giving long rants about what terrible people they are because they can't even cook a cheeseburger right... well, you get the idea.
...
...to throw the hotdog on the ground and go on an angry rant about how the guy who made it is a terrible chef and demand that he make a REAL Chicago Style hotdog -- would be puerile and stupid.
...
It was a Star Wars film. ... That you had an overly negative reaction to what you bought that is completely at odds with the measurable quality of the product, on the other hand, tells us a lot about your mindset.
...
Note that the above examples are NOT hypotheticals, I have been witness to some truly epic and embarassing meltdowns by amateur food critics. I realize you think this sort of behavior is justifiable, but it DOES reflect a mindset of entitlement more befitting of a spoiled child than an actual functioning adult.

I'll allow that you've seen such things; I have friends who've worked in food service who have shared some truly remarkable horror stories about customer behavior. Those are the outliers, though. Most customers, even when they send something back or otherwise have a complaint, are polite and diplomatic.

That's also how things have gone in the discussion at hand, which means you're flailing at straw men here. Nobody has "thrown a hissy fit" about DSC's handling of continuity or otherwise behaved in the extreme way you describe, nor has Jaime or anyone else defended such behavior. In fact, most of the vitriol has come from you. You're inventing an unreasonable opponent out of whole cloth in order to discredit people who are trying to have a perfectly reasonable discussion about some specific aspects of the show. There is no empirical "measurable quality of the product" that can settle the discussion; the whole point is to compare different subjective takes on that quality.

Don't confuse criticisms with complaints. They are NOT the same thing.

I don't want to get into another argument with you over semantic hairsplitting. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, they are exactly the same thing.

No critic, whether he's Roger Ebert (RIP) or some guy on the internet, actually gets to send a movie or show back to the kitchen and request a replacement. All anyone can do is explain what he doesn't like about it, and how it could have been better. That's what you're trying to discredit.

I've given up on taking toddlers and ratchet people to fancy restaurants since I know such people are likely to do something obnoxious...

What are "ratchet people"??

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'll allow that you've seen such things; I have friends who've worked in food service who have shared some truly remarkable horror stories about customer behavior. Those are the outliers, though. Most customers, even when they send something back or otherwise have a complaint, are polite and diplomatic.

That's also how things have gone in the discussion at hand...

... because the people we're talking about aren't involved in the discussion. It's a discussion about whether or not that reaction -- the behavior you grant does indeed exist -- is actually justifiable.

Which it isn't.

Even the tendency to linger around on a forum dedicated to the discussion of a TV show you hate and cannot bring yourself to enjoy is dubious AT BEST.

I don't want to get into another argument with you over semantic hairsplitting. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, they are exactly the same thing.

No, especially for the discussion at hand.

Criticism stems from critical thinking and the analysis of a situation from an objective point of view. Criticism by definition implies or directly states some corrective steps that would actually solve the problem being observed. A complaint is drawing attention to a problem for attention's sake.

This is literally the difference between "This cheeseburger tastes like shit!" and "This cheeseburger is overcooked and the onions are a bit too salty." Doesn't matter if you send it back or not, doesn't matter if you wind up enjoying it anyway or not; a criticism is a statement that something could be better, a complaint is just an announcement that it ISN'T.

There is a reason we have people in our society called "Professional Critics."
There is a reason we do not have people in our society called "Professional complainers."

 

[lawman]

... because the people we're talking about aren't involved in the discussion. It's a discussion about whether or not that reaction -- the behavior you grant does indeed exist -- is actually justifiable.

Then this is just a pointless derailment. You're trying to turn a discussion about a topic into a discussion about other people's discussions about the topic.

 

[cultcross]

And now you're discussing his discussing of other people's discussions. And now I'm discussing that.

We need to go deeper.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And now you're discussing his discussing of other people's discussions. And now I'm discussing that.

We need to go deeper.

Then this is just a pointless derailment.

Are derailments supposed to have a point?

You're trying to turn a discussion about a topic into a discussion about other people's discussions about the topic.

That's what it originally was in the first place, as you evidently failed to notice.

 

[fireproof78]

This is why I have discovered in the last 10 years or so that I found many movies/TV shows I disliked were because the movies/TV shows weren't what I thought they were going to be, and didn't do the things I expected them to do based largely on speculation from places like this and marketing. That is why I have started going in as cold as I can when I watch something, to help let the movie or TV show be what it is, rather than being disappointed that it wasn't what I expected it to be. It's part of the "Positive Watching" thing I've been trying. I WANT to like things, not sit around shitting on them. It has helped immensely.

Same here. I don't watch things for the sake of hating them. I watch them because they interest me in some regard. And that's it. Not because "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" or whatever other label gets bandied about. I'd watch DISCO if it wasn't Star Trek, just like I watch Orville even though it isn't Star Trek.

More generally, part of the reason I find the discussion here so amusing is the simple fact that DISCO isn't changing just because I sit here and flail on my computer. If I don't like it, then I'm done with CBS All Access. I'll speak with my dollars, rather than complaining about why it didn't make my expectations.

 

[lawman]

Well, sure. Same attitude here, at the end of the day. I stopped watching both VOY and ENT fairly early in their runs, and never felt like I missed either one. At the moment I think DSC pretty much jumped the shark with episode 13, when it turned Lorca into a cardboard Bond villain, but it has just enough potential that I'm willing to give it another shot next season.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, sure. Same attitude here, at the end of the day. I stopped watching both VOY and ENT fairly early in their runs, and never felt like I missed either one. At the moment I think DSC pretty much jumped the shark with episode 13, when it turned Lorca into a cardboard Bond villain, but it has just enough potential that I'm willing to give it another shot next season.

Glad you'll be sticking around next season though. Should be interesting