Here is why canon is important to Trek.

[stardream]

I suppose from what I can recall from ST09 or was it STID, Kirk was making it up as he went along. Great command material technique....

But didn't he do that in the original series to some extent? Just to be clear, I agree with your overall point.

 

[J.T.B.]

Starship Troopers did the same thing with activating cadets and making them officers and solidiers later, but it seemed more reasonable somehow.

If they were made second lieutenants that's one thing. If it was comparable to ST09, they would have been made colonels (I saw the movie but don't remember much).

 

[Tenacity]

Starship Troopers did the same thing with activating cadets and making them officers and solidiers later, but it seemed more reasonable somehow.

If you're referring to the novel (and not the movie), officer cadets would be sent out with the temporary "rank" of third lieutenant (just enough to place them in the line of command),but they continued to be considered cadets, after some time in the field they would return to school as cadets.

On just such a assignment, Johnny Rico was referred to as a cadet by his commanding officer. he was given command of a small unit of soldiers and refer to by them as lieutenant

 

[Herbert]

I used to think canon mattered in Trek, and fretted endlessly about making it all work as a cohesive whole. Then I realised how much I loved the X-Men films, whose universe holds together in the broadest strokes imaginable only (check out Trask in X-Men: The Last Stand compared to the version of the character in Days of Future Past!), and suddenly it stopped mattering.

That's another issue because Marvel used to have continuity and a shared universe. Now, it's endless reboots, re-imaginings, and new # 1 issues. Unless you go back 15-20 years ago, there is no Marvel canon anymore. I miss that.

 

[fireproof78]

If you're referring to the novel (and not the movie), officer cadets would be sent out with the temporary "rank" of third lieutenant (just enough to place them in the line of command),but they continued to be considered cadets, after some time in the field they would return to school as cadets.

On just such a assignment, Johnny Rico was referred to as a cadet by his commanding officer. he was given command of a small unit of soldiers and refer to by them as lieutenant

The important point is that he was an officer. The commandant of the school makes this very clear, that they are not "Cadets under instruction" or "officer trainees." They are "3rd Lieutenants" (a highly temporary rank, but rank non-the-less) so that they are inserted in to the chain of command and can give lawful orders.

Also, the field exercise was the last part of their OCS training, and if the commanding officer of the unit the 3rd lieutenant didn't recommend for promotion, then they would go before a review board. They did not have the option of being demoted to enlisted rates, or returning to OCS for further instruction.

Starfleet Academy has a different attitude, clearly, but the chain of command is very much relevant. The cadets were likely given temporary commissions for the crisis, with the possibility of a field promotion. Pike gives Kirk a field commission and places him in the chain of command at first officer. Regardless of Kirk's status before, the field commission inserted him in to the chain of command at rank of lieutenant, with all the rights and privileges that come with it, including giving lawful orders.

 

[UnknownSample]

1. Star Trek: Discovery is not continuing a show. It is a new show. There has not been a Star Trek show for twelve years.

2. You are confusing your subjective artistic preferences for objective artistic requirements. An entry in a franchise that disregards previous continuity can be high-quality -- just look at The Dark Knight, which is in contradiction to the Batman canon. On the other hand, an entry that respects prior continuity can be deeply mediocre -- just look at Spider-Man 3.

Continuity =/= quality.



No one said that. What I and others have said is that continuity should not be the primary artistic consideration. Continuity should be used to enhance the story, not to hinder it. Forcing Star Trek: Discovery to adhere to the production design aesthetics of a half-century old television show originally designed for black-and-white televisions nine presidents ago would hinder the show. Taking advantage of the basic astropolitical setup of the mid-2200s as established in the original Star Trek to tell a new story enhances it.



Problem with this logic is that the list of creators who had their own creative ideas that involved breaking with the show's internal history begins with Gene Roddenberry himself.

Seriously. Is it James T. Kirk or James R. Kirk? Is the Enterprise an Earth starship or a Federation starship? Does Kirk work for the United Earth Spaceprobe Agency or Starfleet? Is Spock a Vulcan or a Vulcanian? Does Vulcan have no moon or multiple moons? Was Vulcan conquered or is the idea of Vulcan being conquered inconceivable to any living Vulcan? Is anti-matter so dangerous that it could destroy the universe, or is it just the thing that powers the warp drive? Do they use lithium crystals or dilithium crystals? Do they fire lasers or phasers? Is warp drive necessary to travel faster than light, or can a Romulan starship move from star to star with simple impulse power? Is the acquisition of wealth a driving force for miners like those in "The Devil in the Dark," or has money disappeared like in Star Trek IV? Do Klingons bear a striking resemblance to racist Fu Manchu-esque caricatures of Asians, or are they bumpy-foreheaded? Why the complete change in production design aesthetic between TOS and TMP even though it's only been two years?



I don't know anybody who thinks the idea that Kirk goes from being a cadet to being captain of the flagship in the course of about two days isn't absolutely ridiculous, no matter what their age.



Aural sensitivity. The context of the scene makes it very clear that Uhura is talking about her sense of hearing and skills as a communications officer. She is objecting that her superior skills as a communications officer ought to warrant her being assigned to the Enterprise, but that she is being unfairly reassigned to a less-prestigious post because of her relationship with Spock.

You are arguing with things I never said. I never said violating continuity makes a show low quality, or that maintaining continuity makes a show good. I simply said that continuity is necessary. Anyone wanting to make their own brilliant TV series that seriously violates the extended long term story of Trek can go off and make that show, and I might love it. But they shouldn't drag Star Trek into it. I already said this.

Star Trek: Discovery is not a continuation of Star Trek? It's a completely new show? I wish it were. Unfortunately, it has "Star Trek" in the name, uses Star Trek symbols, attaches itself to the Star
Trek mythos, and hopes for millions of Star Trek viewers, who will be eager to watch because of the name. It's been announced that it's fictionally set at a certain point in the ST universe. So yes, it's a continuation of Star Trek, and should earn the name by not only being very good science fiction drama, but also by honoring the worldbuilding of the five Trek series and not violating continuity in any significant way. No one forced them to set their show ten years before TOS. They should have to lie in the bed they made.
------------

 

[Ralphis]

Assuming we're talking about whether or not it's a big deal DSC isn't being made to adhere to the look of The Cage...to me, the general narrative of what we consider the Prime Timeline should be respected as much as possible. But aesthetically, IMHO, make it look the best you can. If that means go in a different direction than what was done before, so be it.

 

[The Wormhole]

The producers have already made it clear that Star Trek: Discovery's first season will comprise a single season-long arc, with a beginning, middle, and end. The era of truly episodic television is pretty much dead, and Star Trek can't be trapped in the 80s (or even the 90s or the 00s).

Hell, by the 00s Star Trek was quickly becoming one of the only shows that didn't have if not ongoing story arcs than at least continuing story threads through their seasons. By the time Enterprise did become serialized in 2003 it was so late to the party it was laughable.

But didn't he do that in the original series to some extent? Just to be clear, I agree with your overall point.

Well no, contrary to the perception influenced by pop culture, Kirk of TOS was very much an officer who knew his shit and earned his command through skill and leadership. The "winging it" Kirk first showed up in the movies, TWOK to be exact.

 

[fireproof78]

Assuming we're talking about whether or not it's a big deal DSC isn't being made to adhere to the look of The Cage...to me, the general narrative of what we consider the Prime Timeline should be respected as much as possible. But aesthetically, IMHO, make it look the best you can. If that means go in a different direction than what was done before, so be it.

Exactly so.

 

[Sci]

You are arguing with things I never said. I never said violating continuity makes a show low quality, or that maintaining continuity makes a show good. I simply said that continuity is necessary.

And I am saying that you only think continuity is necessary because you have mistakenly assumed that a subjective artistic preference is an objective artistic necessity. It is not.

Continuity is not necessary. We know this because there are numerous successful franchises where continuity between installments is minimal or non-existent. Supergirl is not set in the same continuity as Smallville or Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Smallville was not set in the same continuity as Superman Returns. Superman Returns was not set in the same continuity as Superman: The Animated Series or Justice League. Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League were not set in the same continuity as Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was not set in the same continuity as Superboy. Etc.

Right there, from 1988 to 2017, the Superman franchise has had six television series, three feature films, and seven continuities. And yet, the Superman franchise is still enormously popular and has been for 79 years.

The Star Trek franchise has generally either maintained continuity between installments, or maintained the illusion of continuity between installments. That is an artistic preference, and it has generally worked for them. But it is not an objective necessity.

Anyone wanting to make their own brilliant TV series that seriously violates the extended long term story of Trek can go off and make that show, and I might love it. But they shouldn't drag Star Trek into it. I already said this.

1. Star Trek does not have an extended long-term story. The prime timeline of the Star Trek franchise represents a common setting with a common history, but there is no over-arching story. Star Trek is not Star Wars.

2. I eagerly await your condemnation of Gene Roddenberry, then, because the list of producers who have violated the Star Trek continuity in the name of telling a better story starts with him.

Star Trek: Discovery is not a continuation of Star Trek?

Of course it is not. Star Trek ran for three seasons from 1966 to 1969; it has long since completed production. Star Trek: Discovery is a new series in the Star Trek franchise, but it is not a continuation of a series that ceased production 48 years ago.

It's a completely new show?

Of course it is, just like Supergirl is a completely new show from Smallville or from The Flash. (And just like the current The Flash is a completely new show from the 1990s The Flash!)

I wish it were. Unfortunately, it has "Star Trek" in the name, uses Star Trek symbols, attaches itself to the Star Trek mythos, and hopes for millions of Star Trek viewers, who will be eager to watch because of the name.

Being set in the same fictional continuity as previous television series does not make this not a new television series. Star Trek: Discovery is a new television series based upon a previous television series called Star Trek.

It's been announced that it's fictionally set at a certain point in the ST universe. So yes, it's a continuation of Star Trek, and should earn the name by not only being very good science fiction drama, but also by honoring the worldbuilding of the five Trek series and not violating continuity in any significant way.

Yet more confusing of an artistic preference for continuity with an objective artistic requirement for continuity. Should Supergirl "earn its position" as an entry in the Superman franchise by not contradicting what the 1978 Superman film established with its worldbuilding?

No one forced them to set their show ten years before TOS. They should have to lie in the bed they made.

Dude, it's their intellectual property. They can do with it whatever they want.

 

[jaime]

And I am saying that you only think continuity is necessary because you have mistakenly assumed that a subjective artistic preference is an objective artistic necessity. It is not.

Continuity is not necessary. We know this because there are numerous successful franchises where continuity between installments is minimal or non-existent. Supergirl is not set in the same continuity as Smallville or Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Smallville was not set in the same continuity as Superman Returns. Superman Returns was not set in the same continuity as Superman: The Animated Series or Justice League. Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League were not set in the same continuity as Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was not set in the same continuity as Superboy. Etc.

Right there, from 1988 to 2017, the Superman franchise has had six television series, three feature films, and seven continuities. And yet, the Superman franchise is still enormously popular and has been for 79 years.

The Star Trek franchise has generally either maintained continuity between installments, or maintained the illusion of continuity between installments. That is an artistic preference, and it has generally worked for them. But it is not an objective necessity.



1. Star Trek does not have an extended long-term story. The prime timeline of the Star Trek franchise represents a common setting with a common history, but there is no over-arching story. Star Trek is not Star Wars.

2. I eagerly await your condemnation of Gene Roddenberry, then, because the list of producers who have violated the Star Trek continuity in the name of telling a better story starts with him.



Of course it is not. Star Trek ran for three seasons from 1966 to 1969; it has long since completed production. Star Trek: Discovery is a new series in the Star Trek franchise, but it is not a continuation of a series that ceased production 48 years ago.



Of course it is, just like Supergirl is a completely new show from Smallville or from The Flash. (And just like the current The Flash is a completely new show from the 1990s The Flash!)



Being set in the same fictional continuity as previous television series does not make this not a new television series. Star Trek: Discovery is a new television series based upon a previous television series called Star Trek.



Yet more confusing of an artistic preference for continuity with an objective artistic requirement for continuity. Should Supergirl "earn its position" as an entry in the Superman franchise by not contradicting what the 1978 Superman film established with its worldbuilding?



Dude, it's their intellectual property. They can do with it whatever they want.

Do you have an example that is not an adaptation?

Though you are right that Trek does not have one overreaching story. It does have, as you say, something approaching a history though.

 

[jaime]

Hell, by the 00s Star Trek was quickly becoming one of the only shows that didn't have if not ongoing story arcs than at least continuing story threads through their seasons. By the time Enterprise did become serialized in 2003 it was so late to the party it was laughable.

Well no, contrary to the perception influenced by pop culture, Kirk of TOS was very much an officer who knew his shit and earned his command through skill and leadership. The "winging it" Kirk first showed up in the movies, TWOK to be exact.

Both Ds9 and Voyager had plot-threads and arcs...and much as I am not it's fan...enterprise itself had some also.

 

[Nightdiamond]

If they were made second lieutenants that's one thing. If it was comparable to ST09, they would have been made colonels (I saw the movie but don't remember much).

True-- and Sulu and Uhura would probably be captain, Chekov would be a second lieutenant. But Kirk, he would be just under a general.

Whether its the flaship (a fanon belief ?) or not it was a roll my eyes moment for me when watching the movie. The STDS9 episode 'Valient' on what happens when mainly inexperienced cadets run a ship (during war time no less) seems more real for the ST universe.

The scenario is hard to swallow. Not enough to affect watching the movie, but it is hard to swallow without smirking.

If you're referring to the novel (and not the movie), officer cadets would be sent out with the temporary "rank" of third lieutenant (just enough to place them in the line of command),but they continued to be considered cadets, after some time in the field they would return to school as cadets.

On just such a assignment, Johnny Rico was referred to as a cadet by his commanding officer. he was given command of a small unit of soldiers and refer to by them as lieutenant

I always thought Johnny Rico and his friends were all enlisted and quickly promoted to soldiers, and then by the end of the movie Johnny was made a lieutenant after the original leader was killed.

ST09 matches Starship Troopers from one scene to another.

Even the part where Johnny messes up during a firing exercise and gets in trouble, then the attack, then he is allowed back in and made a soldier----Kirk gets caught cheating on the Kobiashi Maru, gets in trouble, there's a hearing--then the attack, he sneaks aboard the enterprise with the other cadets.

 

[Jayson1]

And I am saying that you only think continuity is necessary because you have mistakenly assumed that a subjective artistic preference is an objective artistic necessity. It is not.

Continuity is not necessary. We know this because there are numerous successful franchises where continuity between installments is minimal or non-existent. Supergirl is not set in the same continuity as Smallville or Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Smallville was not set in the same continuity as Superman Returns. Superman Returns was not set in the same continuity as Superman: The Animated Series or Justice League. Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League were not set in the same continuity as Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was not set in the same continuity as Superboy. Etc.

Right there, from 1988 to 2017, the Superman franchise has had six television series, three feature films, and seven continuities. And yet, the Superman franchise is still enormously popular and has been for 79 years.

The Star Trek franchise has generally either maintained continuity between installments, or maintained the illusion of continuity between installments. That is an artistic preference, and it has generally worked for them. But it is not an objective necessity.



1. Star Trek does not have an extended long-term story. The prime timeline of the Star Trek franchise represents a common setting with a common history, but there is no over-arching story. Star Trek is not Star Wars.

2. I eagerly await your condemnation of Gene Roddenberry, then, because the list of producers who have violated the Star Trek continuity in the name of telling a better story starts with him.



Of course it is not. Star Trek ran for three seasons from 1966 to 1969; it has long since completed production. Star Trek: Discovery is a new series in the Star Trek franchise, but it is not a continuation of a series that ceased production 48 years ago.



Of course it is, just like Supergirl is a completely new show from Smallville or from The Flash. (And just like the current The Flash is a completely new show from the 1990s The Flash!)



Being set in the same fictional continuity as previous television series does not make this not a new television series. Star Trek: Discovery is a new television series based upon a previous television series called Star Trek.



Yet more confusing of an artistic preference for continuity with an objective artistic requirement for continuity. Should Supergirl "earn its position" as an entry in the Superman franchise by not contradicting what the 1978 Superman film established with its worldbuilding?



Dude, it's their intellectual property. They can do with it whatever they want.

I think most people agree with this that a new Trek show doesn't have to stick to established canon to be good only that you can't change it and say it's still part of the same universe the old shows were set in.
It's okay to create a new show and new continuity or canon while only be loosely connected to the previous shows. With "Discovery" though they seem to want it both ways. They want to change everything yet say it's still part of the same universe that everyone use to watch. I don't see why there is this fear, sometimes I suspect even with fans, to just say we are starting over with something completely new.
I do think though if "Discovery" is a hit then it means it might be the beginning of a new universe of shows and movies as well and if that is the case I think it would be important for those things to feel connected to each other just like the Berman shows did or the Abrams movies do to each other. It is possible to do show after show that don't feel connected and are their own thing but I do think you loose something if you have a massive franchise and you don't even try to create a shared universe between some of the shows.

Jason

 

[Sci]

I think most people agree with this that a new Trek show doesn't have to stick to established canon to be good only that you can't change it and say it's still part of the same universe the old shows were set in.
It's okay to create a new show and new continuity or canon while only be loosely connected to the previous shows. With "Discovery" though they seem to want it both ways. They want to change everything yet say it's still part of the same universe that everyone use to watch.

And how is that any different from what TMP did, or what TWOK did after TMP?

 

[Jayson1]

And how is that any different from what TMP did, or what TWOK did after TMP?

I think the big difference is you still had all of the original actors to begin with plus you had no real franchise at that time but just one show, and a show that had never really went into much depth with world building. You had more of a blank slate back then to make changes and still make it feel like it fit. Then you toss in the fact that there was a big leap in years from "TOS" to the movies that also help sell any changes. Sometimes I think it isn't about what changes but what still stays the same or familiar that really makes fans acept any changes to canon.
I personally think that if the uniforms on "Discovery" had looked more like TOS style uniforms and the Klingons looked more familiar and they didn't use lens flares then all the other changes wouldn't have even phased anyone in terms of accepting the new show as being part of the prime universe.
Sets and computer graphics and special effects and new aliens and even the robot would have gone over as acceptable changes due to the show being made in 2017.
Jason

 

[Sci]

I think the big difference is you still had all of the original actors to begin with plus you had no real franchise at that time but just one show, and a show that had never really went into much depth with world building. You had more of a blank slate back then to make changes and still make it feel like it fit. Then you toss in the fact that there was a big leap in years from "TOS" to the movies that also help sell any changes.

I'm pretty sure two years was not enough for the entire history of Klingon evolution to change from "vaguely racist Fu Manchu stereotype of Asians" to "guys with bumpy foreheads."

 

[Jayson1]

I'm pretty sure two years was not enough for the entire history of Klingon evolution to change from "vaguely racist Fu Manchu stereotype of Asians" to "guys with bumpy foreheads."

That's true but the Klingons from "TOS" were not the same as the ones who were around when when "Nemesis" ended. They may have been popular but Worf and then the popularity of the new look I think made them even more iconic than they had been. I personally think the new look put them up their with the Vulcan's pointy ears as a untouchable when it comes to changes. You can tinker with the look and defiantly upgrade the outifts and even the weapons but the foreheads and the hair has to stay or at the very least the beards. I think in all of Trek their might be 6 or so aliens that you got to sort of keep the same. I would go with:
Vulcans
Romulans
Klingons
Ferengi
Cardissians
Borg
Andorians
Bajorans
That came out to 8. Maybe the Bolians as well but as long as they are blue I think it doesn't matter that much with them. KInd of the same with the Tellerites. Give them a pig snout for a nose and your all good.

Jason

 

[dswynne1]

I think Kirk becoming captain so soon would have been more acceptable by the audience if a) he was not depicted as such a delinquint, and, b) if there was a throwaway line that stated that Kirk was "acting captain" while Pike recovers.

 

[Sci]

That's true but the Klingons from "TOS" were not the same as the ones who were around when when "Nemesis" ended. They may have been popular but Worf and then the popularity of the new look I think made them even more iconic than they had been. I personally think the new look put them up their with the Vulcan's pointy ears as a untouchable when it comes to changes. You can tinker with the look and defiantly upgrade the outifts and even the weapons but the foreheads and the hair has to stay or at the very least the beards. I think in all of Trek their might be 6 or so aliens that you got to sort of keep the same. I would go with:
Vulcans
Romulans
Klingons
Ferengi
Cardissians
Borg
Andorians
Bajorans
That came out to 8. Maybe the Bolians as well but as long as they are blue I think it doesn't matter that much with them. KInd of the same with the Tellerites. Give them a pig snout for a nose and your all good.

Jason

Oh, c'mon. You're okay with TMP doing it but not when DSC does the exact same thing, that's all this comes down to. There's no substantive difference between TMP re-designing the Klingons and DSC re-designing the Klingons. (Or between TNG re-designing the Romulans and DSC re-designing the Klingons.)