Having time for detail-oriented hobbies is one thing, having time to complain about the size of a starship shown on T.V or the cinema screen is another, unless the entire franchise changes to be solely about the Starfleet Corp of Engineers
How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Having time for detail-oriented hobbies is one thing, having time to complain about the size of a starship shown on T.V or the cinema screen is another, unless the entire franchise changes to be solely about the Starfleet Corp of Engineers
There is a difference between complaining and rationalizing. It’s OK to complain about DSC’s initial lack of clarity (why not say that unlike the Bermanverse, you’re totally breaking with period-TOS, done? There is a quick way to end one discussion), but by now we’ve seen enough to clarify the show’s approach and determine how the changes should be handled in detail-oriented tie-ins (meaning if novels can avoid mentioning meters, tech manuals should determine what they’re tying into before including exact depictions).
It is precisely that. Which is fine, but I'm not going to act like there is a satisfactory answer for all parties.
Like I said, it's all about keeping things in perspective. Nothing wrong about obsessing over blueprints and technical manuals if that's your hobby. Lord knows I can ramble on about the finer points of esoteric topics. (Don't get me started on Bram Stoker.) I think people just push back when preserving the sacred "canon" or maintaining visual continuity with an older production becomes the standard by which any new STAR TREK (or DOCTOR WHO or PLANET OF THE APES or GODZILLA) project is judged, and anything that doesn't meet that standard is furiously condemned as an "abomination" or not "real Trek" or a "slap in the face" to all "true fans" or some such overheated rhetoric. That's the sort of thing that provokes some of us to go "Um, folks, you do remember this is a TV show, right? It's supposed to be fun."
And I don't think I'm exaggerating. These days it seems as though no sooner than some new geek-friendly project gets announced than suddenly people have to know to whether it's "canon" or how exactly it fits into some "Extended Universe." Let's be honest here, it's only matter of time before we starting getting urgent debates on whether the new Banana Splits movie is "canon" with the original series. To those of us who remember when TV shows were just TV shows and not an "interactive multimedia fandom experience," it can seem a bit extreme.
A non-techy comparison might be your hardcore shippers for whom nothing matters except the relationship between two particular characters. Never mind that that latest season of SAMURAI VAMPIRE MERMAIDS might be brilliantly written and acted and produced; if Dmitri and Yvonne don't kiss, than the season totally sucks and the show obviously hates the fans because they aren't giving "the fanbase" what they want.
To me, that's kinda the same thing as insisting that an entire Trek series is obviously in a different "timeline" because the viewscreen is 12% bigger or a plot point contradicted a line of dialogue from "The Omega Glory." That's when the tail starts wagging the dog.
YMMV.
And I don't think I'm exaggerating. These days it seems as though no sooner than some new geek-friendly project gets announced than suddenly people have to know to whether it's "canon" or how exactly it fits into some "Extended Universe." Let's be honest here, it's only matter of time before we starting getting urgent debates on whether the new Banana Splits movie is "canon" with the original series. To those of us who remember when TV shows were just TV shows and not an "interactive multimedia fandom experience," it can seem a bit extreme.
A non-techy comparison might be your hardcore shippers for whom nothing matters except the relationship between two particular characters. Never mind that that latest season of SAMURAI VAMPIRE MERMAIDS might be brilliantly written and acted and produced; if Dmitri and Yvonne don't kiss, than the season totally sucks and the show obviously hates the fans because they aren't giving "the fanbase" what they want.
To me, that's kinda the same thing as insisting that an entire Trek series is obviously in a different "timeline" because the viewscreen is 12% bigger or a plot point contradicted a line of dialogue from "The Omega Glory." That's when the tail starts wagging the dog.
YMMV.
Last edited:
Short Answer about how "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-ations", and "In the Mirror Darkly" can still be considered canon: I suspend my disbelief. TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT represent events from the TOS Era differently than how DSC or PIC would.
How PIC represents TNG/DS9/VOY, if they ever flashback to it, remains to be seen.
How PIC represents TNG/DS9/VOY, if they ever flashback to it, remains to be seen.
/thread
The majority of fans posting here seem to disagree, and this is indeed the closest thing in existence to a true long term mass focal point of the fandom as a community (as opposed to casual viewers). Also note a lot of the usernames you are interacting with have actual trek authors or writers behind them.
Perhaps you are projecting you own interests and priorities onto others, declaring what you want to be what "the fans" want?
Just a thought.
Personally I want depth, storytelling, allegorical meaning and entertainment, something which challenges me just a little bit whilst being essentially popcorn TV. That's by and large what Star Trek is and has always been.
What I don't want is pinpoint accuracy on the dates, speeds, sizes, distances, number of windows......blah blah blah. Which is nice, because Trek has never really been all that consistent anyway.
That's not depth, it's pedantry.
It's not a brainless franchise, far from it, but worldbuilding has only ever really been about setting a scene for the important stuff, not an involved Tolkien/ G.R.R.Martin esque exercise in coherent creativity.
Last edited:
A documentary designed for students of starship engineering?
First of all, it's critical of your position. That's allowed.
Second, do not derail threads with complaints. Use the report function.
Lastly, you really might want to reconsider how you post here.
Honestly, I think I'm running out of ways to make the same points, but to get back to the original question, namely how can certain old episodes be considered "canon" any longer given the revamped visuals in the newer shows, my answer would be:
Two words: artistic license.
Three words: suspension of disbelief.
Four words: just go with it.
Are they still part of the larger continuity? Then they're "canon" for whatever that's worth. Rewatch them, enjoy them, enjoy the new stuff, too, if it appeals to you.
Don't let a too finicky approach to "canon" get in the way of enjoying STAR TREK.
Two words: artistic license.
Three words: suspension of disbelief.
Four words: just go with it.
Are they still part of the larger continuity? Then they're "canon" for whatever that's worth. Rewatch them, enjoy them, enjoy the new stuff, too, if it appeals to you.
Don't let a too finicky approach to "canon" get in the way of enjoying STAR TREK.
Last edited:
Only a particular subset of fandom cares about this stuff. Most people I know who like the Trek shows just enjoy the adventures are aren't concerned if all the dots connect. Some people want it all to add up, others of us don't care. I grew up on TOS and there was plenty that didn't add up or was inconsistent and we didn't try to decanonize that which didn't fit. Sure, some fans went to extremes to rationalize it, but a lot of were really more in tune with the punchline of the MST3K title tune.
Me, I'm with @Greg Cox 's 2, 3 and 4 word answers.
Me, I'm with @Greg Cox 's 2, 3 and 4 word answers.
Even if we did try to rationalize it all together which technical manual is the final world? Eaglemoss? Franz Josephs'? Haynes manual?
No matter what there is a barrier to this consistency that is being demanded upon an entertainment franchise. It's fun to niggle at the details but this attitude (as presented in this thread thus far) seems to want every detail to be ironed out in order to enjoy it.
Yep.
It's preposterous that some fans expect it, especlally for TV. I mean, TV shows are seat-of-our-pants affairs that are nowhere near as "designed" as a lot of people think. The writers and production people are racing against a ticking clock to get an episode in the can, and in the whirlwind of a hundred people trying to get that show together things are going to be forgotten, overlooked, or deliberately ignored.
Fine with absolutely everything you said in your post, but I gotta know where to find this series.
The majority of fans here seem to disagree probably because it’s a general Trek discussion board, not a technical board that also exists right on this website and others, and I see I’m also interacting with a published writer of Trek tie-in fiction, who has explained several times with examples why DSC’s redesign need not concern him as part of his assignments (either such differences need not be mentioned in text or they can be worked around in generalized language). That’s different from creating blueprints and tech manuals that are designed to go into such detail.
And I’ve never said my position is that of all fans (I thought that was obvious), just that of a part of fandom: the point isn’t to convince anyone to adopt it, just to respond to instances where such a position has been deemed unnecessary, obstructive to enjoyment of fiction or even parodied and ridiculed. As Kubrick demonstrated with 2001, worldbuilding is not pedantry: it’s a part of making that fiction feel believable, and sometimes that can also be discussed, expanded upon and/or published in licensed tie-ins. Star Trek has had various degrees of design depth and consistency, from TMP on one end to the Abramsverse on another, but it’s always fun to fill in missing pieces regardless of effort put in at the source.
If there are no technical manuals is it less believable?
If there is no behind-the-scenes worldbuilding, even if it isn’t published, it can be less believable, depending on what the story needs. If you’re in a technical environment such as that of a starship, and characters don’t seem to make consistent statements appropriate to a situation, it comes out as actual technobabble.
There is a difference between published materials for the fans and production worldbuilding. I expect the latter but not the former.
Five words: treat it as a reboot.
I find idea of Discovery much more interesting as a reboot/alternate timeline than an addendum to the Prime universe.
Definitely more satisfying than the "never talk about it again" aspect they felt the need to tack on to the end of season two.
Last edited:
Similar threads
