Sure, why not? It would’ve forced CBS to hire expensive, controlling showrunners who wouldn’t just ride on legacy interest in Sarek, Amanda, Spock, Pike, but instead develop characters that could make us forget about TOS. Or CBS hires the wrong people and DSC fails: either way, there’d be no Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek.
How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Sure, why not? It would’ve forced CBS to hire expensive, controlling showrunners who wouldn’t just ride on legacy interest in Sarek, Amanda, Spock, Pike, but instead develop characters that could make us forget about TOS. Or CBS hires the wrong people and DSC fails: either way, there’d be no Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek.
Thank you. Basically, I see a near-anthology series with the best SF writers of the day exploring new worlds and ideas… oh, and BTW, it’s set in that Star Trek universe, could’ve fooled me, but look, it does say “Star Trek” in the subtitle. No pre-release hype, no tie-is, nothing, just the stories themselves bringing in viewers.
I happen to think "Balance of Terror" is a great episode. I judge what I'm watching in the context of when it was made and by whether or not they made the best episode or movie they could with the resources they had available at the time. And "Balance of Terror", just like several other episodes, delivered.
If "The Vulcan Hello" settled for only looking like TOS, then I'd know that they did not put together the best product they could've with the resources available to the current production team.
I'm going to refrain from wondering how about how DSC could've worked in the 25th Century until I've seen Picard. A hostile Klingon Empire where the concept of peace with them is totally foreign and a Terran Empire in its savage prime are both things more conductive to a 23rd Century setting. Had Planet of the Titans been made, the Crossfield Class Starship also would've been a 23rd Century design, as far back as the '70s.
A series set post-2387 and in the wake of Romulus' destruction is what I thought we'd get when a sixth Star Trek series was first announced in November 2015. Even though I didn't think we'd ever see Picard again, Picard is actually more along the lines of what I initially thought we'd see. At least as a setting. That wasn't the story they wanted to tell with DSC, so I don't have an issue with them setting it when they did. In fact, it probably worked out for the better, because Picard doesn't have to worry about what another series did when it tackles post-Nemesis, post-Hobus head on.
Last edited:
Which is where this plan falls apart. Perhaps when it is our millions of dollars on the line we will regard it differently.
That is... Not a good look.
I didn't go through the entire thread but I'll say this: You can decide for yourself what is canon and what isn't.
If you're not gonna tie into the Trek lore, might as well make an original sci-fi series.
It can’t be an original series because conceptually it’s still going to feel like Star Trek, just not one where writers are looking back to elements other writers have established, but rather creating their own on equal footing. Someone had to create the Klingons. Someone had to create the Borg. You want to be that someone creating the next successful element (or failing in the process), not just a writer remixing the lore for ratings. Give the audience what they didn’t know they wanted, surprise them and get them out of their comfort zone.
We'll circle around back to this once S2 is completely out of the Spoiler-Warning Zone.
All the Trek I want to watch is canon for me.
May not be "official" to anyone else than me but works for me.
That's not what canon is, though. One more time for the people in the back: Fans do not decide what canon is. You're talking about personal continuity.
Personal continuity may be better than any canon.
It may be but that doesn't change the terms.
I'm going to have to ever-so-slightly disagree. Since I told someone stupid stuff should be ignored when they said "canon is canon". It sounds too much like "rules is rules" (and I hate bureaucrats because sometimes I think judgment calls have to be made and they just won't do it). I'm not a stickler when it comes to things I think are ridiculous.
It's mostly limited to things like sexism in TOS, Warp 10 in "Threshold" and Humans evolving into Salamanders, the Enterprise-A having 78 decks and being able to travel to the center of the galaxy. Things like that. Not "This series I don't like isn't canon!" or "I ignore everything after _____!"
It's mostly limited to things like sexism in TOS, Warp 10 in "Threshold" and Humans evolving into Salamanders, the Enterprise-A having 78 decks and being able to travel to the center of the galaxy. Things like that. Not "This series I don't like isn't canon!" or "I ignore everything after _____!"
Last edited:
Perhaps canon exists on a continuum?
I agree that it binary arguments are not productive, nor do I think all that appears on screen is canon, as that would allow for some rather odd canonical things in terms of production bloopers and the like.
I think that's why these discussions are not always fruitful. It is very much a judgement call and that judgement will vary from person to person. It is most certainly not binary, black or white, good or bad.
It's easy, if you like it, watch it, if you don't, skip it. 
It depends.It's easy, if you like it, watch it, if you don't, skip it.
There is no Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek. Hollywood is a business and shows have to make money. The original was a losing proposition for NBC, which was why it was cancelled after three seasons and sat on the cancellation bubble for the entirety of its network run.
I have my issues with Discovery, and consider it an alternate timeline. But if I'm sitting atop of CBS and my job depends on the show being watched and being profitable, I'd have probably made many of the same decisions that they have up to this point.
It is easy to sit on this side and shit on what they've done up to this point, I know I have on more than one occasion, but at some point the reality of the situation sets in. Doesn't mean one can't be critical, but do take a moment to evaluate the overall situation.
This!
You’re assuming I haven’t, or I would soften my criticism on the theory that we’re all in the same boat and at least we have Star Trek on the air again. However, as a fan I don’t need to identify or sympathize with CBS: I just watch the final product, so all I’m interested in is what kind of official Star Trek is being released, even if the groundbreaking kind can only be obtained by hiring expensive showrunners or selling the property to another company. I could even live with no new Star Trek as opposed to more of this derivative kind, any of which would be unthinkable from the POV of a CBS executive.
The only limits to such requests would be those of television production in 2019, but if something can be made, we should ask for it, and if it doesn’t happen, there is always other TV. I’ll still watch DSC for lore, just not rewatch it several times, and despite having a sense of why it is the way it is, my reaction will still be “Well, too bad, but it should be better; I can’t change it but I can play something else.”
Not the CBS corporation, but the people working on the show. Even Alex Kurtzman has a boss. They don't hand him $140 million dollars for a season and tell him to go hog-wild with whatever he and his writers want to do. He and his writers and production team are stuck between the desires of CBS and likely Netflix, and the dozens of different demands of fandom. No matter what course they choose, they will be pissing off fans of one stripe or another.
I think overall, the writing and design of Discovery are weak. At the same time, I can understand that Kurtzman and company are working the definition of the no-win scenario. My voice is one of many conflicting voices.
Similar threads
