Head Canon
- Thread starter Cromwell
- Start date
To quote my favorite Vulcan, "Fascinating."
Personally, I find TOS the most appealing from a world building point of view, so I could get on board with the continuity.
For me, I don't have a problem discarding minor bits, or things that don't make sense (Generations, looking at you). Generally speaking, I prefer to fill in the gaps of things that are not shown on screen, which is why I love things like Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual.
For myself:
Star Trek (what some people call "classic Trek" or "TOS")
This is the real prime universe warts and all. Everything else is disposable and in another universe.
All movies / TNG / DS9 /Voy and Ent are in a different universe because they cannot be reconciled stylistically with the original regardless of how many times they show a classic set or prop in them.
JJ-verse is in yet another universe. I enjoy it about as much as I enjoy the other spin-off's.
Star Trek (what some people call "classic Trek" or "TOS")
This is the real prime universe warts and all. Everything else is disposable and in another universe.
All movies / TNG / DS9 /Voy and Ent are in a different universe because they cannot be reconciled stylistically with the original regardless of how many times they show a classic set or prop in them.
JJ-verse is in yet another universe. I enjoy it about as much as I enjoy the other spin-off's.
I would like to pretend that ENT never happened. (Really, ENT, VOY, and all the TNG films. But if I had to pick just one, ENT would be it.)
So how do you explain "Relics" (TNG), "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9), and "Flashback" (VOY)?
So how do you explain "Relics" (TNG), "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9), and "Flashback" (VOY)?
In the case of "Relics" and "TaT"....as admirable attempts at honoring the original series by showing it's aesthetic but ultimately showing that they don't really mesh well together.
"Flashback" didn't show anything from the original television series.
Kirk and co. were still there though, just that when they try crossovers it shows why trying to stay true to the original aesthetic it didn't really mesh with everything else.
For example, when I watch TMP, it's hard to believe it's in the same universe from a visual perspective. But the same events happened, they just looked different. The episodes you listed feel like "special episodes" to me where we just over look the visual incompatibility for the sake of stunt casting and anniversaries.
I don't know; I don't think it's any different than the differences between classic Dr. Who and nuWho, which take place in the same universe...
Well, it did have TOS actors...
And? Not sure what you're saying here. I'm not saying those characters didn't exist. Star Trek can exist independently of it's spin-offs. The spin-off's still need Star Trek. I imagine that those events of the five year mission looked somewhat different. Stunt casting episodes and anniversary episodes stand out as such and so it's more a wink and a nod thing when they show the 60's tech.
They can say it all they want, but the reality is they just "sorta" take place in the same universe. There are plenty of differences between the old and the new, but those get hand waved away for the sake of pretending that it's all one same thing. For example, if they showed the Cybermen per their original 60's appearance it would be jarring and highlight that difference. So they'll mention the events without ever showing them per their original appearance because they get that too.
For me there is the original Star Trek universe where the Klingons look like they're supposed to and another universe where that look has a different explanation 'ala ENT and TMP.
It's a visual thing.
Last edited:
No worries. It's a confusing kind of thing that is a bit hard to explain so I was focused on trying to be as clear as I could and missed it.
They're the same show, with a fifteen-year break between seasons; they don't contradict each other (stylistically or continuity-wise) any more than the original run contradicted itself on occasion.
For me:
All of TOS happened.
"Yesteryear" in TAS happened, but the rest of the cartoons are disposable.
The TOS movies happened, except 5, which was a campfire story.
TNG and DS9 happened.
Voyager and Enterprise didn't happen, and are excised from human memory (well, from my continuity
).
The TNG movies were all poop, so I ignore them.
All of TOS happened.
"Yesteryear" in TAS happened, but the rest of the cartoons are disposable.
The TOS movies happened, except 5, which was a campfire story.
TNG and DS9 happened.
Voyager and Enterprise didn't happen, and are excised from human memory (well, from my continuity
).The TNG movies were all poop, so I ignore them.
I accept all of STAR TREK as having "happened." That includes when Kirk - without regard for Leonardo da Vinci's status, legendary achievements and immortality - beat him to a pulp for the love of an android with a bad wig, who found the contradictory nature of Love to be - truly - fatal. Spock definitely has a brother named Sybok and I consider it a tremendous waste of an opportunity that the reboot has not, as yet, utilised him. Especially considering the fate of Vulcan, it seems to be a ripe target for Sybok's particular Path of Healing. Perhaps, in STAR TREK 3, this will be remedied ...
For me:
All of TOS happened.
"Yesteryear" in TAS happened, but the rest of the cartoons are disposable.
The TOS movies happened, except 5, which was a campfire story.
TNG and DS9 happened.
Voyager and Enterprise didn't happen, and are excised from human memory (well, from my continuity
The TNG movies were all poop, so I ignore them.
And I apparently have so little regard for the JJTrek movies that I completely forgot to mention that they're out.
What?!? Is that reasonability and rationality I hear?? You, sir, are NO TRUE FAN!!!!
IrishNero
Commodore
I guess ,if you say so, but my hair is falling out naturally, and not coming out because I pulled it out when some knucklehead writer decided to step on my 'canon.'
Given that 'canon' is defined as the books of scripture by which a person preaches their chosen religion, not necessarily their actual interpretation of such, then effectively the 'canon' is the source material itself. Everything else is up to the individual.
For some reason, the word has become corrupted to mean "The way in which a chosen work is interpreted by the viewer/reader."
'Canon' is a million different things to a million different people.
Actually, 'continuity' is simply the act of making sure things are internally consistent, the broad consensus of a sequence of events. An almost impossible task, when every version of Star Trek has its own contradictions within both themselves, and to the other incarnations also.
'Continuity' can be as simple as making sure a character has their birthday on the same day every season, or mourns the death of their wife on the same day that we saw her killed in that car crash three seasons ago, or whatever. It isn't really anything more than that.
For some reason, the word has become corrupted to mean "The way in which a chosen work is interpreted by the viewer/reader."
'Canon' is a million different things to a million different people.
Actually, 'continuity' is simply the act of making sure things are internally consistent, the broad consensus of a sequence of events. An almost impossible task, when every version of Star Trek has its own contradictions within both themselves, and to the other incarnations also.
'Continuity' can be as simple as making sure a character has their birthday on the same day every season, or mourns the death of their wife on the same day that we saw her killed in that car crash three seasons ago, or whatever. It isn't really anything more than that.
Similar threads
