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

[lawman]

I think for me "misapplied" would be exactly what we see happen here so often, where people become so involved in the minutiae that as you say "the fun stops" and the emotions associated with that hobby become primarily anger, frustration, petty vehemence. It's surprisingly common.

I suppose "stop" could just mean stop caring about the continuity, and enjoy the show regardless, and maybe that's what some people prefer.

For me, though, the two are pretty tightly intertwined. If I find a fictional property interesting, I find its continuity interesting as well. Conversely, if I lose interest in its continuity, I lose interest in the property in general.

That's my attitude toward Star Wars, for instance. I don't care at all about Star Wars continuity... because I don't care at all about Star Wars. I'll go to a new SW movie if friends or family insist on it, and it may or may not be mildly entertaining, but for my own part, if I never see another SW movie again, I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over it.

Similarly, I'm a huge fan of DC Comics characters... but when DC royally fucked over its continuity with the "New 52" back in 2011, I dropped just about all the DC titles I used to follow, painful though that was, because I just couldn't find it in me to care any more. I only started to pick (a few of) them up again when the company began trying to patch up the problems with "Rebirth" a couple of years ago.

I love Star Trek. I love it enough to want it to hang together as consistently as possible, and to criticize it when it doesn't. If I stopped caring about that, I wouldn't bother watching it at all.

 

[Spot261]

Just seems to me that would mean a lot of criticising really given how badly it all hangs together when you look closely.

Then again, that's what's defined the fandom for the past fifty years

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Thank God I'm not hung over such things.

But I do agree the D7 thing is stupid. It could have easily just been a D6.7 for all I care but whatever.

 

[cooleddie74]

The new "D7" is garbage, pure and simple. It wouldn't even look good for a Romulan or Cardassian ship. Call it a D8 or a D9 but please leave the D7 look alone unless you give it a K't'inga-style visual upgrade with greater surface detail. JJ's Klingon "warbirds" in Trek 2009 were one of the best Klingon ship designs I've seen in years if not THE best we've gotten since the original films. There's almost nothing about the 2009 movie's Klingon warships that don't look good or fit in almost perfectly with the established Klingon aesthetic since 1968. But this thing...sheesh.

It looks like something from a video game and not a particularly good one.

 

[Rahul]

So here's the reimagined D7 battlecruiser, as she appears in Star Trek: Discovery. SOURCE

Remember, it's the intent of the people who make Discovery that this is the same ship design as this:

Holy shit, that's awful!
But at least the ship doesn't look as much as a carbon copy of the Wraith ships from Stargate: Atlantis or the main ship from Stargate: Destiny as it did using the angles on the show. Also, I think whoever did the paint job on this ship (glowing blue?) did a horrible job.

Overall, the ship design isn't too bad. It jus has fuck-all to do with klingon design language. Like everything klingon on this show....ugh.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't suppose I'd use the word need. It's just something people do because they want to. When people talk about Stuff, they like to put it in the context of Other Stuff. It facilitates the conversation. It's not just TV shows; people do the same thing when talking about movies or books, or political candidates, or sports teams, or pretty much anything that fits into a recognizable cultural category of "stuff about which people have opinions."

I guess my answer would be "It depends" on the show. But, as a general rule, I want to take things as they exist, not as a comparison to other works. That may come later after I've seen the entire work, but it certainly isn't my first or second go to in terms of analyzing a work.

But what professional critics do is no different from what amateur critics have ever done, or do today online, or on forums like this. The only difference is that they get paid for it. The ways and means of critiquing a work are the same regardless.

Professional critics are far better equipped that my one Arts and Humanities class in undergrad. So, no, I don't feel I am qualified to speak to that critical level. I have friends who work in the industry whom I would be far more trusting to present their critique than my own.

I'm just at a place in life where I want to go in to shows and books and such without expectations and take them as they are.

Lemme put it this way: would you recommend DSC to a friend you knew did not like Star Trek? Or what about a friend who you knew enjoyed futuristic SF, but for whatever reason had never tried a Trek show before — is DSC the Trek show you would recommend that person start with? Context matters.

Sure, why not?

My wife's first full Star Trek film was Star Trek 09. She found it more enjoyable than when we attempted to watch TWOK together. That didn't last long.

I think for me "misapplied" would be exactly what we see happen here so often, where people become so involved in the minutiae that as you say "the fun stops" and the emotions associated with that hobby become primarily anger, frustration, petty vehemence. It's surprisingly common.

Exactly. If I'm watching something and I'm becoming angry, I have serious questions about why I am watching it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How do you figure?

Common sense is just the conventional understanding of what usually happens in a particular situation. Occam's Razor is the assumption (not always correct) that all other things being equal, the explanation that relies on the smallest number of unknowns should be assumed to be true.

Common sense method to prevent getting sick: Get a flu shot and stay away from people who cough alot.
Occam's Razor only applies when you have multiple options to choose from, and the most plausible explanation probably isn't even the most common one (e.g. "I have no proof that vaccines don't cause autism, and I have anecdotal evidence that they do not prevent the flu, so I will not get the vaccine this year.")

Yes, of course. But it's not pertinent to what we're actually discussing here, because (as I said) the rules are different. The rules of the contract between show and audience...

I don't remember signing any sort of contract when I turned on Star Trek Discovery. The show didn't start with a disclaimer explaining to me that I have to watch the show a certain way and that the producers have to make it a certain way. Maybe I'm missing something?

Or maybe YOU are missing the fact that there are no rules.

There are conventions, best practices, a set of behaviors most people consider "normal" because just about everyone does them that way. Every once in a while, somebody does something different, something that breaks all the "so-called rules", and it works so well that suddenly everyone wants to do it that way. But there is no rule that says fiction has to be done a certain way or else the audience will be angry. The only rule that exists for fiction is that it has to be entertaining. And that rule is enforced almost entirely through economic success.

Yes, it is a simulated reality, for heaven's sake.

No, Lawman, it is not. It is a STORY, which is communicated from the storyteller to the audience by way of a medium. Regardless of the medium, all stories -- no matter how detailed -- are just information that has to be interpreted by the receiver. We interpret those stories in the context of reality as we know it, in the context of our own memories, which is why no two people perceive a story exactly the same way.

Fiction is a special kind of story. It's a story that the audience knows from the beginning isn't actually true, so it comes with certain assumptions for content. The most basic of these is "willing suspension of disbelief." The audience knows the story isn't true, but pretends that it IS true and then compares that story to his own perception of reality

There are a thousand different ways and formats to convey information in a story. We have tales, anecdotes, memoirs, parables, fables, legends, rumors, ballads, novels, poems, comics, music videos, TV shows, movies and operas. There are different conventions for format and structure of these things because different things work for different audiences in different cultures at different times. But these mediums all have one thing in common: they are all vehicles to communicate a narrative, and everyone who experiences the medium knows that what they're watching isn't real.

Of course they matter, just as much as the narrative inconsistencies.

Narrative inconsistencies are the ONLY thing that matter. The visuals are just a vehicle used to convey the narrative.

The only time a visual inconsistency matters is when it causes a contradiction in the narrative (something is supposed to be happening at night but instead it's shown to happen in broad daylight).

No, they're not.

Yes they are.

And they're completely equivalent to the paraphrases I offered.

Not even slightly. And it's obvious that you knew this in your second post or else you wouldn't have reworded them so dramatically.

One of these says that the Work we're watching is Star Trek, taken as a whole, including everything in its "prime timeline," and this is just a new chapter. The other says that the Work we're watching is just Discovery, the series qua series, to be taken in isolation. Those are not compatible statements

Absolutely they are. This kind of thing happens in REAL LIFE often enough that it happening in fiction shouldn't even be strange.

Put it this way: if I'm watching Simone Biles' floor routine at the 2016 Olympics, I know I am watching a part of the career of a gymnast who has been training for almost a decade to get where she is right now, and her olympic performance is just a new chapter in that career. On the other hand, I'm not going to critique her performance in comparison to the compulsory routine she did when she was eight years old. That was a completely different chapter in her life, competing for a different gym, in a different uniform, in a different time and place. Indeed, this is LITERALLY true for the people who have to judge her performance and give her a competing score; they don't get to go back and say "Well, it's better than the routine she did two and a half years ago, but it's not as good the one she did last month." They have to judge her on the criteria of what they've seen in the last eighty five and a half seconds and how that meets the standards of performance they have agreed to judge by. All of which means that Simone Biles could very easily be the best gymnast on the entire planet, but if she screws up her floor routine at crunch time, she's not going to win the gold.

It is not a contradiction to be judge something in isolation while also being aware that it's part of a larger volume of work. Your teachers did this every time they gave you a homework assignment and graded it. I can GAURANTEE you that they compared each assignment you turned in to the one before it and saw and recognized that you were making progress in some areas and falling behind in others. But they also graded your papers ON THEIR OWN MERITS and not in the context of every other paper you had ever turned in.

I can only conclude that you watch TV and film with a very different sensibility than I do, and than most other people do

That is an assumption you continue to make for which you have provided little or no factual support.

I also don't think you're being entirely truthful in this statement, though. On the one hand, you're basically claiming that visuals and props MUST be taken literally, bu you've also already conceded that musicals do not work this way. This seems like another example of you trying to create a universal rule that only actually applies when you want it to.

 

[lawman]

I don't remember signing any sort of contract when I turned on Star Trek Discovery. The show didn't start with a disclaimer explaining to me that I have to watch the show a certain way and that the producers have to make it a certain way. Maybe I'm missing something?

You're being pedantically literal here (especially for someone who keeps going on about interpreting things figuratively). Show of hands: did anyone reading this think I meant an actual legal document?

Or maybe YOU are missing the fact that there are no rules.

Okay, fine, you don't like the word "rules," I could make the exact same point using the word "conventions." Or "norms." I don't want to get into another hairsplitting argument over semantics.

The only rule that exists for fiction is that it has to be entertaining.

The Phantom Menace exists, so obviously that one can be broken too...

No, Lawman, it is not. It is a STORY...

Gosh, thanks for setting me straight there.

Want to have some really mind-twisting fun? Go read Baudrillard's essay "Simulacra and Science Fiction"...

Fiction is a special kind of story. It's a story that the audience knows from the beginning isn't actually true, so it comes with certain assumptions for content. The most basic of these is "willing suspension of disbelief." The audience knows the story isn't true, but pretends that it IS true and then compares that story to his own perception of reality.

Yes, yes, of course. Exactly what I've been talking about since the beginning. (A process the component elements of which you keep stubbornly refusing to acknowledge.)

There are different conventions for format and structure of these things because different things work for different audiences in different cultures at different times. But these mediums all have one thing in common: they are all vehicles to communicate a narrative, and everyone who experiences the medium knows that what they're watching isn't real.

Still safely sticking with the incredibly obvious.

But there's a leap coming... wait for it!...

Narrative inconsistencies are the ONLY thing that matter. The visuals are just a vehicle used to convey the narrative.

There it is! We have here a conclusion that absolutely does not follow from the uncontroversial premises set out beforehand.

Hell, you can't even agree about what the boundaries of the narrative are. (If it's "Star Trek as a whole," that's very different than if it's "the episodes of Discovery," a point you keep variously agreeing and disagreeing with depending on how I paraphrase the same damn statements.) At this point trying to have a reasonable discussion about what does or doesn't amount to a contradiction within that narrative becomes completely impossible.

(Are there figurative or symbolic visual elements in Trek? Of course. For instance, I don't think the bridge in TOS actually has a light that's designed to shine across the eyes of the captain at moments when he makes particularly dramatic statements. But that's not the kind of thing we're talking about here.)

Put it this way: if I'm watching Simone Biles' floor routine at the 2016 Olympics... I'm not going to critique her performance in comparison to the compulsory routine she did when she was eight years old.

And if my best friend were a gazelle, he'd always be faster than me when we go out running together. That has every bit as much to do with what we're talking about.

Because continuity is not a concept in Real Life, and continuity errors do not happen in Real Life. Things always look the way they look, things always happened the way they happened. Any apparent inconsistencies are strictly the result of incomplete or inaccurate perceptions. The question of the scope of the narrative drops away, because the scope is "every damn thing, ever."

I also don't think you're being entirely truthful in this statement, though. On the one hand, you're basically claiming that visuals and props MUST be taken literally, bu you've also already conceded that musicals do not work this way. This seems like another example of you trying to create a universal rule that only actually applies when you want it to.

Only if you completely failed to read (or to grasp) what I already painstakingly explained. The "rules" (conventions, norms) I'm talking about aren't absolute, of course; they're flexible. The "contract" with the audience (note the quotation marks, so you know I'm talking about it in the sense of an unwritten intersubjective agreement, not a binding legal document!) varies according to the medium and genre and format and other characteristics of the work under consideration.

But Star Trek is not a musical. (Or a comedy. Or a stageplay. And certainly not an Olympic competition.) And if we're to take DSC as part of Star Trek, then it behooves us to look at how other shows under the umbrella of Star Trek have struck that deal with the audience over the years. And what we find is that it's the kind of deal that in fact is completely routine in television and film, which is to say that the majority of visual elements in the show are treated as simulacra of reality to the best extent feasible with the TV or film technology of the time; as diegetic elements; as things the characters take literally, not figuratively, and interact with accordingly; as things every bit as intrinsic to the narrative as, say, dialogue. This is so uncontroversially true that even Trek productions made decades apart consistently depict these elements in substantially identical ways, certainly to at least the same extent (arguably more so!) that they respect and abide by statements in dialogue or events in the plot from other older productions.

Until DSC, that is. DSC is unilaterally trying to rewrite that deal with the audience, and asking them to treat it as two incompatible things at the same time. And you're carrying its water.

 

[Butters]

Because continuity is not a concept in Real Life, and continuity errors do not happen in Real Life. Things always look the way they look, things always happened the way they happened. Any apparent inconsistencies are strictly the result of incomplete or inaccurate perceptions. The question of the scope of the narrative drops away, because the scope is "every damn thing, ever."
.

Continuity errors in real life?

Trump, the best and worst thing to happen to America, depending on who you ask. Brexit, Bitcoin, HS2, whatever. The world looks different to every person you ask.

That one series of trek might portray a future time period one way, and another do it differently isn’t unreasonable. It’s all down to the story teller. So something’s look different, it not like the transporter beam had ever been consistent.

 

[lawman]

Value judgments. Different sort of thing entirely, and something fiction does have in common with real life. One can debate endlessly about whether DSC or any given episode thereof is good or bad (and there are plenty of threads here doing that), but that's not the same as a discussion about continuity, about whether it's consistent in its depiction of the underlying fictional reality and "fits" into the timeline thereof.

 

[Butters]

But the continuity errors are minor and the sticking points are largely aethestic. If you close your eyes and listened only, you wouldn’t know there was any difference at all. That’s not continuity.

 

[Amasov]

Still don't understand why this is a question being asked? If they say it's in the prime timeline, then OK, it's in the prime timeline, unless said otherwise. I have no reason to doubt them. Aesthetic seems to be the major sticking point...as well as minor continuity issues here and there. Not every show can be perfect with their continuity, so not sure why Star Trek is unforgivable.

For instance, in Frasier, Marty (Frasier's dad) said in a season one episode that he never had a brother. Jump forward to season five, we find out he does, in fact, have a brother. But, I never started to scream "CANON VIOLATION!" or consider, maybe, the fifth season of Frasier, to take place in some other parallel timeline simply because the continuity didn't perfectly match.

Bad example, I suppose, but, I think you get my point.

 

[lawman]

But the continuity errors are minor and the sticking points are largely aethestic. If you close your eyes and listened only, you wouldn’t know there was any difference at all. That’s not continuity.

Well, the category of things DSC is not includes "radio show."

But seriously, you're begging the question. If it were as simple as you say, everyone would have voted for choice one in the OP's poll. One obvious continuity change, for instance, that is absolutely not about aesthetics, nor remotely "minor" as it's a key plot point for much of the season, involves the Klingons' widespread use of the cloaking device. Not to beat a dead horse, but there's really no way that can be made to dovetail with Spock's explicit dialogue in "Balance of Terror" a decade later... nor with the overall plot and theme of that episode, in which it is very significant that the Enterprise is facing a surprising new technology from the Romulans.

And the thing is, there's no reason the DSC showrunners had to go that way with the story. They could've easily come up with any number of alternative means of giving the Klingons a temporary strategic advantage in the war, something that required Discovery's spore drive to level the playing field. They chose to retcon a central element of a highly regarded TOS episode, for no damn good reason.

That kind of thing isn't necessarily enough to make me say "it must be a whole different universe" (which is why I voted for choice two in the OP's poll). But it certainly does exemplify that the showrunners are playing needlessly fast-and-loose with continuity.

 

[The Wormhole]

But I do agree the D7 thing is stupid. It could have easily just been a D6.7 for all I care but whatever.

That's more or less my issue with the new D-7, there was no need for it. They could have called it anything. Hell. given how much of a hard-on the writers have for the Klingon language, I'm surprised they didn't just call it a Klingon name. They chose to use the name D-7 so they really should have used the design associated with it. If they stuck with it in the movie that actually was a reboot, they can stick with it here. Sure, the design might be fifty years old, but it still holds up and if it's good enough for a tentpole blockbuster film in 2009, it's good enough for TV in 2017. Hell, if they did feel the need to "update" it they could have still gone with something that resembled the general outline of the D-7, like they did with the updated Enterprise in the finale. To created a totally new design and call it D-7 really is appalling.

Moreover, I find the silence from the production staff on the matter deafening. They're quick to provide details on anything and everything. We have producers tweeting that the computer graphic that identified Stamets as the chief engineer is an error, a writer explained all of Emperor Georgiou's titles and what they mean, and we have had explanations for the updated Enterprise, and even the modified computer graphic showing changes made to the Constitution class Defiant in the Mirror Universe. Yet no one is saying anything about the D-7. Not why they used such a recognizable classification on a new design, not why they didn't use a new name or why they didn't use the old design. Given how spotty communication seems to be behind the scenes (the recent can use stuff from the films/forbidden from using the stuff from the films covfefe an excellent example) I wonder if this whole thing isn't the result of a miscommunication which has since gone onto have massive repercussions and all involved are hoping to ignore the matter and hope it goes away.

 

[lawman]

That's pretty much my take on the D7 thing too. But really, how hard would it be for someone in the show's hierarchy simply to say "we got our wires crossed, sorry!" It would be a refreshing moment of candor, even without any further details. It's not as if fans don't know the show has been through egregious amounts of behind-the-scenes turmoil.

 

[The Wormhole]

I suspect the D-7 thing is something they must be really embarrassed about, which to be fair is understandable. Does anyone who knows anything about Trek fandom really expect something like that wouldn't get noticed and torn apart? The whole thing makes them look so totally ignorant they understandably want to pretend it never happened. Hell, I noticed the recently released images of it avoid calling it "D-7."

 

[fireproof78]

Until DSC, that is. DSC is unilaterally trying to rewrite that deal with the audience, and asking them to treat it as two incompatible things at the same time. And you're carrying its water.

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.

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).

Should it not be up to the individual audience members to decide if they will accept that deal?

That's pretty much my take on the D7 thing too. But really, how hard would it be for someone in the show's hierarchy simply to say "we got our wires crossed, sorry!" It would be a refreshing moment of candor, even without any further details. It's not as if fans don't know the show has been through egregious amounts of behind-the-scenes turmoil.

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. Please note: Not saying D7 is pedantic. Just that it would set a precedence that the production team may not want.

Or, they'll admit error, and when individuals find more errors (because more will come) then the expectation is for them to own those as well. So, the silence will become more deafening if they don't address those issues.

At least, to my eyes.

 

[Gonzo]

I suspect the D-7 thing is something they must be really embarrassed about, which to be fair is understandable. Does anyone who knows anything about Trek fandom really expect something like that wouldn't get noticed and torn apart? The whole thing makes them look so totally ignorant they understandably want to pretend it never happened. Hell, I noticed the recently released images of it avoid calling it "D-7."

There is a good chance of more back tracking beyond even that in the second season, we may even see recognisable Klingon vessels before the series ends.

We see the D7 in ToS and then the Bird of Prey and updated D7 K'Tinga variant in the films so there is time to introduce them both before we reach that time point in ToS, if that is their plan the big question is why not just include them from the start.

If they do it right they will make a fortune selling the new models to fans, its a no brainer from every angle.

Presumably we will see the Romulans at some point, they really need to have fixed the Klingon ships before then as we know the Romulans and Klingons share ship designs and technology at some time during/prior to 2268, if they don't put it right its going to screw up the Romulan ships as well which will just add insult to injury.

What makes it worse is how great the D4 looked in Star Trek Into Darkness, we don't see it much but what we do see could totally be a precursor/smaller sibling to the Klingon Bird of Prey we see in the original films and TNG.

That just leaves the elephant in the room which is the Klingon cloaking technology we are shown in the pilot and throughout the season that the Klingons shouldn't actually have, plus its a major plot point so its a bit hard to just disregard by saying it was just on a few ships or that it was a prototype as the whole Federation witnessed it every time the Klingons attacked, all they can really do is say that it was a failed design and wasn't used again after Starfleet was able to counter it but its still rather weak.

The only way I can think of to really fix the cloaking issue would require time travel based chicanery to go back and destroy the Sarcophagus ship, yet they need that ship to trigger the unification of the Empire to fit what we see in ToS, a full on reset would be a real waste of everyone's time.

The shroom drive is easier, its a failed prototype on two ships, one of which is destroyed so I don't really see it as being a major issue that we never hear about it again.

Personally I don't think they have broken out of the Prime timeline yet be it intentional or not but they have already stretched the boundary close to breaking point after only one season but there is time to fix it should they choose to do so.

For the record I don't really mind if its prime timeline or not, I just want them to make up their minds.

 

[Refuge]

Value judgments. Different sort of thing entirely, and something fiction does have in common with real life. One can debate endlessly about whether DSC or any given episode thereof is good or bad (and there are plenty of threads here doing that), but that's not the same as a discussion about continuity, about whether it's consistent in its depiction of the underlying fictional reality and "fits" into the timeline thereof.

For clarity. (Am I correct??) We have Star Trek as a TV franchise (and its subsequent movies) set in what is called the prime timeline. It incorporates established continuity. We also have the Kelvin Universe movies which are a Star Trek reboot.

There are rules. Like it or not 'prime timeline' 'reboot' and 'canon' come with definition and meaning. The prime timeline is not the same as a reboot. It is different for the very reason it has an existing framework, existing character and history. The whole advantage of a reboot is to allow flexibility to make any artistic and narrative changes the production chooses. The whole advantage of being prime is to work within a known quantity that has obvious direction and a certain amount of fan loyalty.

I'm not convinced in the slightest that anything goes when it comes to continuity. That it is representing being prime universe if you just say it is and then screw with that continuity and pass it off as writers' fictional prerogative. That is what a reboot is about. Fine, Discovery has officially become part of the prime timeline. It's called itself a duck but at times it's like a turkey in disguise. Though to be fair it isn't failing in every department but it only takes a fail or two to screw with the very meaning of continuity. Arguments about writers not being held accountable are irrelevant... of course they are. Star Trek is a product and the writers have a job. They do owe it to their bosses and their audience to follow through with what they have been tasked and the production has exploited in its marketing and concept. It's nonsense to imagine that as human beings they are not capable of failure or deserving of criticism or that 'Discovery' is some pet project of boundary free artistic license. If they wanted to go down that path they should've done a blessed reboot or started a blog.

 

[fireproof78]

They do owe it to their bosses and their audience to follow through with what they have been tasked and the production has exploited in its marketing and concept. It's nonsense to imagine that as human beings they are not capable of failure or deserving of criticism or that 'Discovery' is some pet project of boundary free artistic license. If they wanted to go down that path they should've done a blessed reboot or started a blog.

Who is saying they are not capable of failure?

I'm not saying don't criticize them. 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. Maybe I'm too generous but I'm not going to tear a show a part because it doesn't meet my standard of "Star Trek." Not after one season.