How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?

[Greg Cox]

But do you also TOSsify the references to disco or Elon Musk? I’d argue you have to go beyond production design and see it as another universe on the shared Prime Timeline framework. Yes, all this happened in the original universe also — more or less.

I'm not sure how historical references to events and personages post the 1960s are any sort of "canon" issue, aside from the fact that, say, Watergate or 9/11 were never mentioned on TOS for obvious real-world reasons. It's certainly easy enough to rationalize that Star Trek characters simply never happened to mention Elon Musk or disco onscreen, the same way many of us manage to go entire months without casually named-dropping Joan of Arc, Thomas Edison, or Benny Goodman. For all we know, Uhura once did a medley of disco's greatest hits in the Enterprise's rec room sometime between episodes.

If Spock can mention Nixon going to China, why can't his sister mention Elon Musk or whatever? Or are we assuming that all historical records of the Bee Gees were wiped out during the Eugenics Wars?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

No, everything that could’ve happened would’ve in the “original universe” also — however, because of its treatment of Star Trek as a collage of period pieces, I’d be more inclined to imagine that disco party as a formal gathering with jazz music (think “Conscience”), while references to Elon Musk might be redirected to someone from the space race. In other words, period-DSC would make like it’s 1965 yet quietly remain consistent with future developments where possible.

 

[fireproof78]

Problem is "enjoy" doesn't follow either of those.

Enjoyment is on a personal level that has nothing to do with canonicity.

CBS owns Star Trek. CBS says Star Trek: Discovery is part of the Star Trek canon. Ergo, Star Trek: Discovery is part of the Star Trek canon.

Exactly.

Someone else said it great....DSC had done a production design equivalent of "recasting" a role with a different actor. Yes it all looks different, but we know what it's supposed to be and how it's supposed to fit. It's an elegantly simple and perfectly reasonable way to view things.

You're telling me this is supposed to be Saavik?!

 

[BillJ]

You're telling me this is supposed to be Saavik?!

I keep seeing Saavik tossed out there as some kind of excuse for the changes Discovery has made. She's a character that appears three times in a five year span, changing actors once due to a contract dispute.

For me, and I can only speak for me, this is apples and oranges compared to changing the entire look of a period of time that existed for fifty-years relatively unchanged. From "The Cage" to its last appearance in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Heck, when publishing TOS books, Pocket is still using TOS artwork. So, obviously not everyone is all in on this new look being the look for TOS.

So it makes more sense from my perspective to treat Discovery as a separate timeline. Created from the Borg time incursion in Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[fireproof78]

I keep seeing Saavik tossed out there as some kind of excuse for the changes Discovery has made. She's a character that appears three times in a five year span, changing actors once due to a contract dispute.

For me, and I can only speak for me, this is apples and oranges compared to changing the entire look of a period of time that existed for fifty-years relatively unchanged. From "The Cage" to its last appearance in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Heck, when publishing TOS books, Pocket is still using TOS artwork. So, obviously not everyone is all in on this new look being the look for TOS.

It's not an excuse. It is an example of the concept.

As I said, and this is only for me, Star Trek is not its own universe disconnected from human advancement. It is predicated upon current human technological knowledge, which means it can change based upon human technological understanding.

TOS presented that technology one way while DSC presented that future with more technological detail. I'm struggling with the exact idea but I don't think anyone is going to claim something is less Shakespeare just because the tech is better.

Heck, this means that both looks are valid at the same time.

YMMV.

 

[BillJ]

I'm struggling with the exact idea but I don't think anyone is going to claim something is less Shakespeare just because the tech is better.

I'm not saying it is less "Star Trek", just that it is different from the original Star Trek. I see it as its own thing.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not saying it is less "Star Trek", just that it is different from the original Star Trek. I see it as its own thing.

It is, and it isn't all at the same time.

At least to my view. They can exist side by side in the same continuity. It's a matter of artistic expression, not a literal interpretation.

 

[BillJ]

It's a matter of artistic expression...

Even as artistic expression, Discovery sticks out like a sore thumb when compared directly to The Original Series that it is supposed to overlap with.

Part of it is simply the fact that the world is a very different place. Even if they tried to recreate TOS, it would be a very different TOS from the original. It is one of my problems with most TOS fan films. Though they have the look, the writing makes the episodes feel different than the show they're based on. Even when they bring in folks that worked on TOS, even they've changed to a point that the writing no longer feels like the writing they did in the 1960's. Even the novels are at a point where they largely don't feel like TOS, outside of a writer or two.

Differing experiences in a completely different world equate to a completely different feel in the end product. Discovery might have been able to fit itself into the timeline (from my POV) if they had done the show in 2300's to 2330's (or the 25th century). A time that largely has no material present. But eight years prior to TOS? It isn't even close.

They are simply my thoughts when I look at Discovery. Of course, everyone's mileage will vary.

 

[fireproof78]

Part of it is simply the fact that the world is a very different place. Even if they tried to recreate TOS, it would be a very different TOS from the original.

Exactly. And that's OK with me because it is what I expect. That doesn't make it outside of the continuity for me.

Obviously, as you say, mileage will vary.

 

[Daddy Todd]

...all historical records of the Bee Gees were wiped out during the Eugenics Wars...

That’s enough to make one long for the Eugenics Wars!

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not an excuse. It is an example of the concept.

The Saavik thing is also a convenient example of how not every discrepancy requires an in-universe "explanation" involving parallel timelines or whatever. Sometimes you just need to remember that, in the real world, these are theatrical productions and that a certain degree of artistic license and suspension of disbelief is to expected.

Recasting an actor, revisualizing a set or costume . . . it's just show-biz. If the story says it's the same Enterprise, it's the same Enterprise . . . even if actors and sets and costumes and makeups don't look exactly like they did before.

ST III didn't feel obliged to explain that Robin Curtis was playing an alternate Saavik from separate timeline, so why insist that Pike's Enterprise can't possibly be set in the same continuity as the other "Prime" shows just because it looks a little different?

 

[Nyotarules]

If fans who want to revere the Holy continuity of entertainment ever considered producing a tv show of your own?

 

[Dukhat]

ST III didn't feel obliged to explain that Robin Curtis was playing an alternate Saavik from separate timeline, so why insist that Pike's Enterprise can't possibly be set in the same continuity as the other "Prime" shows just because it looks a little different?

Probably because it doesn’t look ‘a little’ different. It looks a lot different. Almost like it’s a completely different show than the show it was meant to take place ten years before. And it’s not just the look. There are fundamental differences that I can’t simply shrug off as a ‘visual reboot.’

Does that mean I hate the show and won’t watch it? Does it mean that I think the show isn’t ‘canon?’ Of course not. But I’m not fooling myself (and DSC’s producers aren’t fooling me either.)

 

[fireproof78]

Recasting an actor, revisualizing a set or costume . . . it's just show-biz. If the story says it's the same Enterprise, it's the same Enterprise . . . even if actors and sets and costumes and makeups don't look exactly like they did before.

This is quite right . And this is even more true with Star Trek since Roddenberry didn't want people focused on the tech or the look. The story is about people and their adventures, not exactly how the tech works.

 

[Greg Cox]

This is quite right . And this is even more true with Star Trek since Roddenberry didn't want people focused on the tech or the look. The story is about people and their adventures, not exactly how the tech works.

Amen. It seems we're in danger of confusing the backdrop with the play. The plot and characters are the same; they've just repainted the furniture.

Is Pike the Captain of the Enterprise at roughly the right time? Is Number One still his number one? Did he have a tragic encounter with Vina years ago? Yep. Sounds like STAR TREK to me.

 

[fireproof78]

Amen. It seems we're in danger of confusing the backdrop with the play. The plot and characters are the same; they've just repainted the furniture.

I think we already have past that point.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I’ve said it before: the underlying, deeper problem with DSC’s approach is that it allows for risk management. You can reenvision a property to make it more contemporary and bring in audiences that wouldn’t watch a period piece. You can make name drops and weave between famous elements to bring in viewers that need to see Captain Pike. If you focus on new elements to near-exclusion of legacy, then the risk of failure is greater. And I’d rather see Star Trek succeed or fail on TNG terms than merely exist as the riff of the day followed by the riff of tomorrow (and so on and so forth, like infinite takes on Batman).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Or are we assuming that all historical records of the Bee Gees were wiped out during the Eugenics Wars?

Records of that period are fragmentary.

Heck, when publishing TOS books, Pocket is still using TOS artwork. So, obviously not everyone is all in on this new look being the look for TOS.

That's dumb. You're expecting Pocket to suddenly overwrite TOS imagery on all of their TOS novels just because a couple of characters got recast and some of the imagery changed? And they fact that they're not is some sort of statement or value judgement on Discovery? They're still using TOS artwork because that's the show that's being adapted. If they did a DSC novel that took place on Pike's Enterprise, they'd use the DSC versions. This is not that tough to understand.

Recasting an actor, revisualizing a set or costume . . . it's just show-biz. If the story says it's the same Enterprise, it's the same Enterprise . . . even if actors and sets and costumes and makeups don't look exactly like they did before.

Exactly. Heck, if you're going to be this anal about it, why not come up with explanations for why Spock's makeup looked different in "The Cage," "Where No Man Has Gone Before," TOS, and the various movies? Because those ears and eyebrows change their shape a lot.

 

[Greg Cox]

And I’d rather see Star Trek succeed or fail on TNG terms than merely exist as the riff of the day followed by the riff of tomorrow (and so on and so forth, like infinite takes on Batman).

See, I have no problem with that. I've grown up on multiple riffs on Batman, Dracula, Godzilla, Zorro, etc. Don't see why that approach shouldn't work for Star Trek, too. The way I see it: It's the natural life-cycle of iconic properties. Helps keep them fresh instead of ossifying.

 

[fireproof78]

See, I have no problem with that. I've grown up on multiple riffs on Batman, Dracula, Godzilla, Zorro, etc. Don't see why that approach shouldn't work for Star Trek, too. The way I see it: It's the natural life-cycle of iconic properties. Helps keep them fresh instead of ossifying.

I think the reason why is because Star Trek is still new to this stage of the icon life cycle.