TAS was also non-canon....until all of it was canon.
Evidence of SNW being a possible alternate timeline from TOS
I’m usually looking at my phone where CBS live action Trek is concerned.
And now is the best canon.
I don't want a world where Harry Mudd doesn't come back for a third swing at Kirk, this time with a love potion. 
Can't wait for the Robert April vitiligo episode
Probably less than I think and more than you think...
Kirstie Alley. Everything produced after Spock died and in which Saavik looks like Robin Curtis is a new timeline . . . the so-called Prime Timeline in which Spock has secret half- and foster siblings, he said half-facetiously.
However, that half-facetious remark isn't too far off in regards to my current philosophy regarding this debate.
In the "reality" that is my personal headcanon, which is binding only upon myself, I consider the Prime Timeline to consist of any Star Trek produced and released to the public from 1987 to the present. Sybok, Michael Burnham, Cochrane being an Earthman who later moved to Alpha Centauri, the Federation has roughly 150 members in the mid-24th century, the Enterprise being 442 meters long, Spock's having had a failed relationship with Christine in SNW, and the Eugenics Wars being 21st century conflicts are Prime Timeline events.
In the ur-Timeline, the events of TOS occurred (largely) as broadcast, Cochrane is from Alpha Centauri, the Federation is a thousand planets and growing in the TOS era, Khan reigned from 1992-96, the Enterprise is 947 feet long, and Spock has no half or foster siblings.
And time is like a river, with eddies and currents, and diversions and tributaries which branch off and can rejoin the main flow, but trace echoes and discontinuities pop up but eventually get washed away as the flow reestablishes itself.
Ultimately, though, all this is fiction, where all the "historical facts," events, and statistics are all made up anyway and subject to change at the whims of the creators, and this is a game we play to impose the illusion of order on the product of decades of messy creative decisions. And with all such games, some find it fun, some take it much too seriously, and some find it very annoying. I tend to enjoy the game as a game.
Of course, all my waffling and theorizing above is immaterial, since we all know that the only canonical Star Trek is Roddenberry's novelization of The Motion Picture. Would Admiral Kirk's preface lie to you?
Last edited:
Mad Max works because of the lack of rational explorations. Miller is on record as saying none of the films are meant to be "documentary accurate" versions of events, but rather legends being told decades or centuries later. Mad Max movies aren't future histories any more than Robin Hood stories are past histories.
Macross takes the same approach, details are "canon" between series only to the extent that Kawamori feels they'll help with the new story he wants to tell.
Personally, I feel this is a better approach; I think both franchises are stronger for it and more enjoyable because they sidestepped the incessant convolutions required to try and drag everything into a common continuity. Outside of TNG/DS9, which were designed to work together and had at least some cross-communication, I treat every series as being it's own little world and don't try to make them fit in with the others.
But I don't need to convince anyone to do it my way, either, and for those that find the official statements that SNW and TOS are the same continuity compelling, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. If that adds to your enjoyment, it's all good.
That is the goal is enjoyment not history lesson.
I thought it was like a sweater. An exquisite, fragile sweater, always one tug away from completely unraveling.
I absolutely LOVED the original Mad trilogy since I was a kid. I was so happy when they were going to make a fourth. Then a war or something where they wanted to shoot was going on and delayed it and them Mel Gibson said he was too old. (Though he goes and does an action film with Stallone shortly thereafter and got in good shape as well for it..
) Anyhow they decided to reboot. I was pissed. NO ONE can play Max besides Mel Gibson i thought. It's like Indiana Jones. Should be left alone. I reluctantly went to see it and after the film I was like, Mel Gibson who??? .....it was BETTER to me than the original series of films. I could not believe I was thinking that and still do to this day. Tom Hardy was perfect for the role. Yes I wish they would Max's days before everything went to crap but alas George wanted to have him in the desert already. But otherwise 11 years later and it's my favorite or at least up there in my favorite action/adventure films of all time. Then came Furiosa and it was awesome as well. Broke my heart that people didn't go out to see it. Which means no more George Miller Apocalyptic films. 
Anyhow after that experience I would definitely be up for a new reboot of Trek. Clean slate. Make new characters reimagine older ones to their hearts content. But make it a real reboot. No gimmicks like with the 2009 film with Nimoy. No saying it's set in the prime universe etc. I would love that. But they better hurry. We all are not getting any younger and I don't think I have another whole round of new Star Trek series to watch left me...
Similar, except I start in 1981 (I can't say 1979, because TMP doesn't really fit into what came before or after).
And on the whole, i see the "Prime Timeline" as of less a specific continuity and more a series of generally agreed continuity points, which are subject to alteration from time to time.
On that note, one thing that the original series insinuated, but the later series largely dropped for a more Star Wars interpretation, is that the Federation was largely Earth and her hundreds of colonies, with a few alien species (and presumably tbeir colonies) thrown into the mix.
Me neither. Reading all that reminded me of the two dorks in that South Park episode who got into fights over whether The Menagerie should count as one or two episodes.
Talk about first world problems.
The same reason why there is a fixation on viewership or box office numbers. If the status light is a certain way then it must be good or bad.
It's not enough to just like a show.
It's not enough to just like a show.
People want to feel like they're part of the cool crowd and insiders. Spoiler alert: we aren't.
Yes, we all know crunching numbers is cool.
I'm OCD and even I can't be bothered with most box office or Nielsen numbers.
I have it on good authority that numbers are beautiful
He also needs to be demoted from full admiral to commodore and pretend he was actually an ambassador in SNW instead of still in Starfleet.
Pretty sure TOS basically called Enterprise an "Earth ship" until Arena when they mentioned the Fed (maybe they mentioned it earlier I can't recall though)
Similar threads
