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

[Balok's Decoy]

It is a foundation-level element of competent fiction writing to make sure that things presented within the story make sense within the story.

The different Trek series are different stories. The fact that they are vaguely related and occasionally refer to one another doesn't mean that they're beholden to one another. The writers can do as they please. They select material from other series as it benefits their artistic vision and disregard what doesn't benefit their artistic vision.

If you're serious about insisting that there is a difference, you're basically looking at the whole question at the head of this thread and saying not only that DSC isn't in the prime Trekverse, but that no such thing as the prime Trekverse even exists.

The so-called Prime Timeline is a marketing term. It's an arbitrary corporate designation for a series of different but somewhat related television shows.

Every Trek series after TOS is a spinoff of TOS. The subsequent series are free to pick and choose what they like and disregard what they don't like. Each show is its own entity and its own unique story with its own aesthetic and design choices.

TL;DR Star Trek is a set of different but somewhat related tv shows. The writers and artists of the day can cherrypick as it pleases them and suits the unique story they're trying to tell. Canon and timelines are arbitrary marketing definitions. None of it matters. It's all made-up.

 

[lawman]

So, IOW, you are in fact saying not only that DSC isn't in the prime Trekverse, but that no such thing as the prime Trekverse even exists. In your book it's all just a branding exercise.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

So, IOW, you are in fact saying not only that DSC isn't in the prime Trekverse, but that no such thing as the prime Trekverse even exists. In your book it's all just a branding exercise.

Yeah, pretty much. DSC exists in the same made-up universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, only because in real life the writers/producers said so. Whether any of these shows are in X or Y timeline is irrelevant to the stories they tell. The stories are about a certain group of characters. Their lives, adventures, exploits, etc. What "Universe" they do that in is just a label that has nothing to do with anything. Except people's anxiety, I guess.

EDIT: Basically I think what's important is the swing-set and the teeter-totter. Not the fence that surrounds them.

 

[BillJ]

It's all one giant uber-narrative... that's the whole conceit of a shared fictional universe.

I quit treating Star Trek as such a long, long time ago.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I quit treating Star Trek as such a long, long time ago.

This perspective solves a lot of problems. Quite freeing.

 

[BillJ]

This perspective solves a lot of problems. Quite freeing.

It doesn't solve the quality problem.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

It doesn't solve the quality problem.

Well that's true, and an important distinction. Letting go of any need for all the shows to connect to one another doesn't preclude arguments about their quality, on their own or taken together.

 

[fireproof78]

Into Darkness was just a bad idea from the start. If you're going to revive Khan and his Augments nearly ten years early then that's not the story to use as a framing device to bring back such an iconic and revered villain. I know, War on Terror allegory. Fine. That's irrelevant. The story isn't very good at all and Cumberbatch was miscast. He did the best he could with a mediocre script but almost the entire film with the arguable exceptions of Admiral Marcus and Carol was a well-intentioned misfire.

Even fans of the Kelvin timeline aren't terribly fond of the second film. But I digress. Back to the DSC nitpicking.

Outlier here. I love Into Darkness. Story was just fine, but Khan was hit and miss. BC did a great job in his performance, but didn't need to be Khan.

And Khan needs to stop being the "revered" and "iconic" villain for Trek.

 

[ItIsGreen]

Pike is the exact same age as he was in the Prime timeline and was born on the exact same day, but just looks older because [insert convenient in-universe reason here].

Messy divorce?

 

[fireproof78]

Messy divorce?

Paranoid about a Romulan attack.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Outlier here. I love Into Darkness. Story was just fine, but Khan was hit and miss. BC did a great job in his performance, but didn't need to be Khan.

And Khan needs to stop being the "revered" and "iconic" villain for Trek.

If people could get over Khan not being a brownface fake Indian non-Sikh being played by a Mexican and just accepted that in this reboot Khan is a white Brit, literally there's nothing to whine about.

Cumberbatch's version of Khan was fine. Just like Leto's Joker.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

If people could get over Khan not being a brownface fake Indian non-Sikh being played by a Mexican and just accepted that in this reboot Khan is a white Brit, literally there's nothing to whine about.

Cumberbatch's version of Khan was fine. Just like Leto's Joker.

STID is too often assessed in relation to TWOK, not in its own right as its own movie.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Messy divorce?

Different actors.

 

[fireproof78]

STID is too often assessed in relation to TWOK, not in its own right as its own movie.

Same could be said of Discovery. And that is truly unfortunate.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Same could be said of Discovery. And that is truly unfortunate.

Yep. Many Trekkies have this unfortunate (for them) tendency to look at Discovery purely on the basis of comparison to their favorite version of Star Trek. Each series deserves to be experienced and enjoyed (or criticized!) on its own merits as its own show telling its own unique story. Judging a show based on the quality of a different show doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[PhoenixClass]

No, I'm pointing out that visuals only need to be consistent within the context of its own narrative, which (usually) does not include its prequels or sequels. And even then, you have a certain amount of wiggle room when it comes to said consistency, just so long as the differences aren't NOTICEABLE...

... or, at least, have no consequences for the narrative overall.

TOS and the spinoffs aren't part of Discovery's narrative; the story begins and ends before the events of ANY of those series take place. To the extent that they share a common setting with a common fictional history, Discovery needs to be careful not to include events that would explicitly contradict other series' backgrounds (at this, they have NOT been entirely successful) but the visuals and presentation have fuckal to do with that.

So you seem to be saying that story A must be narratively and visually consistent to itself. Story B, if it is in the same world as story A, must be narratively consistent to itself and story B, but need only be visually consistent with itself.

If that is your logic, then isn't your separation of B's visuals arbitrary? If the visuals of story A are connected to it's narrative, then how can B's visuals be unconnected to A when the narratives of A and B are connected?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

So you seem to be saying that story A must be narratively and visually consistent to itself. Story B, if it is in the same world as story A, must be narratively consistent to itself and story B, but need only be visually consistent with itself.

If that is your logic, then isn't your separation of B's visuals arbitrary? If the visuals of story A are connected to it's narrative, then how can B's visuals be unconnected to A when the narratives of A and B are connected?

I can't speak for @Crazy Eddie. But for me, you don't have it quite right. I would say that story A must be narratively and visually consistent with itself. Likewise with Story B. Story A and Story B can be defined by the producers as being part of a "Shared Universe" but that doesn't mean story A must be be narratively or visually consistent with story B.
A = A.
B = B.
A =/= B.
A + B = C, where C is a "Shared Universe." But that equation represents marketing.

 

[BillJ]

Same could be said of Discovery. And that is truly unfortunate.

Hard when it seems its sole intent is to exploit the TOS narrative.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Hard when it seems its sole intent is to exploit the TOS narrative.

The writers/producers of Star Trek too often fall into that Shared Universe tapestry trap, too, because these days that makes for an especially good marketing ploy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And that argument only works if we assume that Pike went through a HELLUVA lot more stress in the altered timeline post-2233 than he did in the original to look so much older by the 2250s. Because the idea that Nero's incursion changed the timeline in both directions both past and future is just stupid and as much as I love Simon Pegg that's not how Star Trek timelines are supposed to work. I just prefer to believe that Pike is the exact same age as he was in the Prime timeline and was born on the exact same day, but just looks older because [insert convenient in-universe reason here].

If only we could figure out what that reason was, we would finally have an explanation for Zephram Cochrane and Commander Riker in "These Are The Voyages"