Does canon really matter?
- Thread starter Spot261
- Start date
Everyone, please...we should all understand that NOTHING matters...as long as we have each other.
Also, I am not opposed to a musical episode of Star Trek anything.
ENT fit in perfectly. In an alternate reality created by the Borg temporal incursion in First Contact.
Which is also the reality from which the Kelvin Universe branched out.
Exactly! I've been saying this for a long time! This way from TOS to Voyager fits in its own canon and ENT-Disc & the reboot movies are their own canon.
ENT fit in perfectly. In an alternate reality created by the Borg temporal incursion in First Contact.
Which is also the reality from which the Kelvin Universe branched out.
But there's no proof of that in canon.
While I personally don't subscribe to that theory (based on the official stance by CBS and that the novel continuity follows this), I feel that headcanon to be pretty valid.
I mean, you COULD say that TATV proves it indirectly because elements of the Enterprise-D are ever so slightly different, along with Troi and Riker not looking as young and springy, putting this in the new alt-timeline. Yes, yes, its because this episode was made like a billion years after The Pegasus was made and it's the production, not the internal timeline...but that's the great thing about headcanon, now isn't it?
I mean, you COULD say that TATV proves it indirectly because elements of the Enterprise-D are ever so slightly different, along with Troi and Riker not looking as young and springy, putting this in the new alt-timeline. Yes, yes, its because this episode was made like a billion years after The Pegasus was made and it's the production, not the internal timeline...but that's the great thing about headcanon, now isn't it?
Honestly, I have no problem with the stories being told by Abrams-trek.
However, I am bothered by the way Abrams' creative team played fast and loose with the details of the Star Trek universe -- i.e., the details that give Star Trek that certain "Star Trek Feel" -- such as the way they moved around the quadrant as if they were going to the corner store for a loaf of bread.
IMO, making the universe in which the story takes place actually feel like Star Trek is more important than -- say, for example -- if Kirk was Born in Iowa or simply moved there as an infant.
The size of the Enterprise bothered me, too. What was the necessary reason for the ship being so big? Was it simply so they could film some interior scenes on a big soundstage or huge interior location? The large size of the ship added nothing of value, and instead made the ship feel very much unlike the ship(s) we all grew up with. They could have easily kept it the same size as the TOS Enterprise.
But it doesn't seem like there is going to be any post Voyager DS9 movies or shows so these new movies and shows can be accounted for as being in the Kelvin Timeline pretty easily.
Well, that shot with the big ass shuttlebay was pretty cool. That was probably reason enough.
But making the galaxy feel so tiny in the first two movies did in fact bug the hell out of me. Then the Enterprise being next to the moon in one scene and then losing propulsion control and somehow falling into Earth's atmosphere like two seconds later took the cake.
There are plenty of wild inconsistencies in Star Trek already. Including the NX-01 being faster than the fastest of the 24th century ships.
That was the way they moved around space in TOS. So I'm not sure they were being all that fast and loose?
If you are Picard, a very good diplomat, then it's not much of a stretch for him to call it disastrous. The first Klingon to come to Earth was shot! Couple that with Archer not letting him die and taking him back to Qo'nos, then I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to call that first contact disastrous. The Klingons had it out for us after that.
I think that sometimes it helps to understand the person saying a line than just taking it at face value.
There really is no proof in canon for the branching out of the Kelvin Timelinefrom the events of Star Trek 09. The only proof we have is Paramount/CBS saying that's what happened. The explanations from the Bridge about an Alternate Reality was very vague and the meaning and repercussions of that had been interpreted many different ways and debated on these very message boards to the point where it can be pretty easy to ignore the studios official stance on the subject.
There are several instances in [most of] TOS of them saying they will take days to get somewhere...
...and yeah -- I specified "most of TOS" because I know there were occasions, such as WNMHGB, where they seemed to be able to zip to the edge of the galaxy. But I chalk that particular "flaw" up to being a Pilot episode. Pilot episodes are often unlike full production runs of a show.
Everyone knows Picard doesn't care or know much of anything about history, and is often prone to exaggerations and hyperbole when discussing facts.
Especially when he's drunk.
Which is often.
Discovery is Prime Timeline, so no.
And then in the sequel they have another ship that dwarfs the Enterprise, so after all that consternation over how big the ship is for no good reason, there is an actual plot point that needs the Enterprise to feel small and outmatched.
They were able to travel a thousand light-years in twelve hours in "That Which Survives".
If a story is good, then who cares what particular format it's in?
Plenty of the Trek novels have been way better than plenty of episodes. "Canonicity" doesn't make one iota of a microscopic shred of a difference as to their quality.
Kor
Similar threads
