• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do you like the Discovery Klingon look?

Do you like the discovery Klingon look?

  • Hate it

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • Love it

    Votes: 18 32.1%
  • Couldn’t care less

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Total voters
    56
But there is no reason to think that something that is not contradicted by anything is not canon just because you don’t like it.
 
In a franchise that exists for as long as Star Trek does certain things inevitably have to be removed from continuity, because they simply don't fit anymore.
And as I said, Pike saying that would be as stupid as much of a non-sequitur as a deacon declaring they can't get used to seeing preachers at church. No matter what people try to make of it, there's just no way to make that statement fit the modern continuity.
 
Yeah until a company declares a work isn't canon anymore, it's canon. For example, the Ewok movies and the original hand animated Clone Wars show aren't canon anymore, because Disney said they didn't make the jump to new canon in the Star Wars buyout.

To be fair, the Cage was always messy because it didn't air until the 80s as a special. Pike's line was cut in the Menagerie, so it's possible here there's wiggle room that the Cage isn't canon and only Menagerie is.
 
Actually there is a difference. 'Canon' by its basic definition is just a collection of works. Canon as the people in charge of Star Trek define it is whatever is shown on screen. 'Continuity' is a different matter. Things in one work of canon can contradict another work of canon, but that still doesn't change the fact that both works are canon. Take the subject of this thread for instance. The look of the TOS Klingons contradict the look of the DSC Klingons. They're both the same race of aliens from two different works from the same canon, so they're equally valid even though they contradict each other.

My issue was never that they changed the Klingons' looks. They do that all the time. My issue was that they changed the Klingons' looks so drastically that they became almost unrecognizable. But that has nothing to do with canon.
 
In a franchise that exists for as long as Star Trek does certain things inevitably have to be removed from continuity, because they simply don't fit anymore.
And as I said, Pike saying that would be as stupid as much of a non-sequitur as a deacon declaring they can't get used to seeing preachers at church. No matter what people try to make of it, there's just no way to make that statement fit the modern continuity.
I'm used to the Marvel approach to continuity. Basically even some really terrible concepts written in the early 40s-60s, that don't remotely fit into the rest of the canon now, sometimes they've somehow been able to make fit.

For example, in Uncanny X-Men #3 way back in the 1960s, there's a panel where Professor Xavier is basically lusting after his underage teenage student Jean Grey in his thought bubble. That's criminal and all kinds of wrong, and Stan Lee/Jack Kirby/subsequent X-Men writers realized it after the fact since X-Men never brought it up again until....

the Onslaught crossover in the 1990s, where Onslaught takes Jean Grey on a mental flashback to this exact same panel, showing that Professor Xavier always had a dark side and leading to the shocking reveal of the story that (spoiler for X-Men comic book)
the villain Onslaught was really Charles Xavier
 
I'm used to the Marvel approach to continuity. Basically even some really terrible concepts written in the early 40s-60s, that don't remotely fit into the rest of the canon now, sometimes they've somehow been able to make fit.

Yeah, I mostly take the Marvel approach for Star Trek, probably because I was heavy into Marvel comics before I got heavily into Star Trek. And most of the time they just don't mention their particularly unfortunate stuff and it's ignored in newer continuity (unless they find a place where it's usable, like the Onslaught example you mention)
It's really the best approach imo, since it saves you the trouble of thinking up convoluted explanation for every outdated/badly written/nonsensical element from 50+ years ago
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top