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

[fireproof78]

And before people start piling on DSC for breaking continuity - not even TOS was consistent WITH ITS OWN SELF. So they can get over it already.

If only...

We just take everything way too seriously. To them, the kind of continuity in the X-Men films is what they're going for with Trek - that is to say, whatever they're doing no matters and what they (or their predecessors) were doing before does not. And from the POV of each show, they happened as-seen and something like the others did.

And yet, even with this wonderfully reasoned response there will still be arguments over it...

 

[The Old Mixer]

You post, you pay.

 

[Delta Vega]

Fuck me, not this canon shit again
The previous post beat me to it

 

[UnknownSample]

Canon and continuity do matter. It's just competent storytelling, and it's all one unfolding story. However, they make mistakes and you just do your best as a viewer. They do change details later, sometimes because a bit of continuity was no good and was holding them back. Most of the personalities on DS9 had to change. The later changes usually have to be honored, at least when they work and don't screw things up.
----------------------
Viewing while caring about the long term story requires a flexible mind. You overlook the stuff they changed.
-------------------
As for Discovery, it not only should be viewed as another timeline, it actually is another timeline. I know many people see red when this is brought up, but there's reason to believe they began with DSC as a reboot and started saying it's part of the main timeline so as not to alienate fans. So they've massively altered things and then say there's no conflict. Well, there is. Look at it. End of argument. Silly to revive the look of Pike's original era? Of course not. The same style with more detail would be great, and obligatory if you're going to set Trek in a very specific past era. They didn't have to set it then.
-----------
It's a reboot. Problem solved. Enjoy.
--------------
It's fine not to care about continuity.... but "You're an idiot if you care"... obnoxious. Put up with it. We're not you.

 

[FormerLurker]

Cannon only matters if they have enough ammunition.

 

[Tenacity]

not even TOS was consistent WITH ITS OWN SELF.

Okay, now point out a inconsistency within TOS that is a profound as the inconsistences between TOS and Discovery.

It's just not on the same scale of "inconsistency."

 

[fireproof78]

It's a reboot. Problem solved. Enjoy.

It's the same continuity. The Visuals changed. It's art. Enjoy.

 

[The Rock]

4) Enterprise (spun out of the events of First Contact), Discovery

Enterprise definatly separate from the first four (live action) series.

If so, how do you explain the last episode of Enterprise "These Are the Voyages..." where the future of Enterprise ends up as TNG?

 

[BillJ]

If so, how do you explain the last episode of Enterprise "These Are the Voyages..." where the future of Enterprise ends up as TNG?

Broad strokes are the same, details are different. Timeline 2 and Timeline 4 Riker handled things in slightly different ways during the events of “The Pegasus”.

 

[Qonundrum]

Life is too short for this crap.........

Then why are they making it crap?

 

[1001001]

As for Discovery, it not only should be viewed as another timeline, it actually is another timeline. I know many people see red when this is brought up, but there's reason to believe they began with DSC as a reboot and started saying it's part of the main timeline so as not to alienate fans.

Right, because all the fans reacted so well to the statements that DSC is the same timeline as TOS... What a brilliant strategy!

So they've massively altered things and then say there's no conflict. Well, there is. Look at it. End of argument.

There's no argument to end. That's the problem.

It's a reboot. Problem solved. Enjoy.

Except it's not, and there's no "problem to solve" in the first place.

It's fine not to care about continuity.... but "You're an idiot if you care"... obnoxious. Put up with it. We're not you.

I certainly wouldn't say you, or anyone else for that matter, are "idiots" for caring about this. I would say you're wrong and I'm sick of reading about it, though...

 

[Vger23]

I was going to read all this, but then I decided that smashing my genitals repeatedly with a meat tenderizer would be preferable.

 

[Tenacity]

I was going to read all this, but then I decided that smashing my genitals repeatedly with a meat tenderizer would be preferable.

Given the title of the thread, why did you freely decide to enter the thread at all?

A few visual discrepancies doesn't mean that entire episodes are not "canon" anymore.

A few visual discrepancies no, I would agree with that.

Major changes in design and size I would say yes.

just pretend that the sets in "Relics" or whatever always looked like the one on DISCO

Greg, why don't you just pretend that the bridge we saw in season two of Discovery looks like the one depicted in TOS, TNG and ENT? One reason you wouldn't is that they look substantially different. We're not seeing some small addition.

Canon and continuity do matter.

It seems that the producers of the modern Trek and more than a few of the fans use the term canon differently. "Previously established" canon does matter, Trek has large numbers of people who for better or for worst have become invested in decades of Trek.

If so, how do you explain the last episode of Enterprise "These Are the Voyages..." where the future of Enterprise ends up as TNG?

The ending showed the previous series Enterprise designs, I still maintain that Enterprise (the series) is different enough from the prior referred to history mentioned in various episode to be not apart of that history.

Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy ENT. It's my fourth favorite Trek series and I like what they did with most of the characters. I feel that to have simply placed the series a couple of decades after the events of the movie First Contact (with some other changes) would have solved for me many of the issues that I feel disconnected it from previous Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Greg, why don't you just pretend that the bridge we saw in season two of Discovery looks like the one depicted in TOS, TNG and ENT?

That works, too. Story-wise, it's the same ship.

 

[Relayer1]

I was going to read all this, but then I decided that smashing my genitals repeatedly with a meat tenderizer would be preferable.

After you with the tenderizer...

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I hear that only the episodes where Kirk wears his green wraparound tunic are canon now. Pass it on!

Behold, your new Star Trek Canon!

"The Enemy Within"
"Charlie X"
"Court Martial"
"Wolf in the Fold"
"The Doomsday Machine"
"The Apple"
"Mirror, Mirror"
"The Trouble With Tribbles"
"I, Mudd"
"Bread and Circuses"
"Journey To Babel"
"The Immunity Syndrome"
"Trials and Tribble-ations"

Please stay tuned for the final decision on the canonical status of McCoy's short-sleeved medical tunic.

 

[Tuskin38]

Trying to remember if we ever saw the bridge dedication plate.

For the Defiant? We did, it was nearly identical to the TOS Enterprise plaque, just with a different place name and Constitution Class instead of Starship

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm inclined to take stories on their own terms. If a movie tells me Emily Blunt is the same Mary Poppins formerly played by Julie Andrews . . . okay then, she's the same Mary Poppins. If a movie me tells that Dracula's castle in some Hammer Horror sequel is the same castle seen in a previous film, even if it was obviously filmed elsewhere . . . okay, it's Castle Dracula. I'm not going to worry about whether Emily Blunt is playing an alternate Mary Poppins in another timeline, or insist that particular Dracula sequel is not "canon."

So if you tell me the Enterprise in DISCO is the same one from "The Cage," even though it's obviously not the same set from fifty-plus years ago . . . okay, it's Pike's Enterprise because that's what the story says.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Tenacity]

Story-wise, it's the same ship

I have to admit that what you've posted makes no sense to me.

Perhaps the term "story-wise" has some special meaning to you as a author, that I can't grasp.

In my eyes it would be like remaking Magnum P.I., and replacing the original Magnum's Ferrari 308 GTSi with a Thomas Saf-T-Liner school bus. And then insisting that they were the same vehicle.

 

[Greg Cox]

I have to admit that what you've posted makes no sense to me.

Perhaps the term "story-wise" has some special meaning to you as a author, that I can't grasp.

In my eyes it would be like remaking Magnum P.I., and replacing the original Magnum's Ferrari 308 GTSi with a Thomas Saf-T-Liner school bus. And then insisting that they were the same vehicle.

I just meant that, in terms of the plot, it's supposed to be same ship. And, honestly, they're not replacing a sports car with a school bus. Story-wise, it's still a Federation starship called the U.S.S. Enterprise. It's got a saucer and nacelles. It has a warp drive and photon torpedoes and consoles that explode when the ship is under attack. Sounds like the Enterprise to me.

Again, it's like Dracula's castle. As long as it's a spooky Gothic pile, with turrets and gargoyles and wolves howling in the distance, it doesn't really matter if the drawbridge or the dining room is exactly where it was two movies ago. You still get the same dramatic effect. It doesn't change the story one bit.

Same with the Enterprise.