And that’s up to you; the fact is that other fans expect them and they are published from time to time, sometimes merely as nuggets of information spread out in various publications. Someone else expects models or tie-in novels/games/comics. It’s all a function of interest.
How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
And that’s up to you; the fact is that other fans expect them and they are published from time to time, sometimes merely as nuggets of information spread out in various publications. Someone else expects models or tie-in novels/games/comics. It’s all a function of interest.
The majority of fans here disagree because it's a general trek discussion board, not a technical board.
Think that through from an analytical perspective.
You've just made my point for me, the only way i which you are representative of "the fans" is if you skew the data in the most extreme way imaginable. You could equally claim football fans and large support a particular team because you surveyed those who are members of that teams' fan club all seem to agree.
Actual trek fans (ie those who make an effort to engage in some manner beyond merely watching the show) are already a pretty small subset of the viewing population. This forum is a pretty good cross section of that subset which you have several times claimed to represent. Technical forums are not, they are a more specific group yet again and it's fair to say the couple of hundred people on this site who focus on the imaginary tech of the franchise probably represent a significant chuck of those doing so across the English speaking world. They are not "the fans" and they do not represent what "the fans" want.
Claiming now that you are simply acknowledging them as a portion of the fandom is disingenuous, you have quite clearly been making statements that cast you as speaking for "the fans" collectively and that simply isn't the case, nor does it really acknowledge that, as sci fi goes, trek really isn't made to be about the minutiae.
The novel "Prime Directive" includes the bridge module of the Enterprise being destroyed. It takes place between TOS and TAS. The bridge chairs were given round bases, too.
Kirk leads us to believe, in ST:TMP's novelization, that the dramatisations from his official 5YM logs are often exaggerated. We are perhaps seeing dramatisations based on adaptations which feature some creative license.
Last edited:
I’m not sure how you got the idea that I ever claimed tech fans represented the majority of fandom. Maybe it was the line where I said that fans look at what designers create? It was only ever meant in the sense that tech fans are also fans, without suggesting percentages. To be clear, I’m thinking of people who might participate on the technical board here.
Therefore, the proportion of people who aren’t interested in tech is exactly as expected in this topic; I was merely responding to claims that worldbuilding analysis is unnecessary and even harmful to the enjoyment of the show itself (in fact, you can do that at the same time, to the extent that the show itself is well-written). I was just surprised that fans of particular interests don’t anknowledge the fifty-year existence and validity of other forms of fan interest.
Therefore, the proportion of people who aren’t interested in tech is exactly as expected in this topic; I was merely responding to claims that worldbuilding analysis is unnecessary and even harmful to the enjoyment of the show itself (in fact, you can do that at the same time, to the extent that the show itself is well-written). I was just surprised that fans of particular interests don’t anknowledge the fifty-year existence and validity of other forms of fan interest.
Ok, fair enough, but what then is the issue?
You seem to be declaring that people who look at the technical details are in some manner less casual, more serious, viewers than those who look at the minutiae of world building, which I would argue is exactly the opposite of the case. The world building in trek extends to that which is necessary for framing stories which entertain and pose moral or philosophical questions along the way. It does not go to anything approaching the lengths you seem to imagine to be accurate or consistent between (or, indeed, within) iterations.
I put it to you that the reason the majority of fans don't focus on those details is that they were never intended to. Trek has never been that consistent or precise in its' world building and therefore attempts to examine it in those terms are inherently bound to be wasted energy if inconsistencies requiring explanation beyond simple acknowledgements of the realities of TV making are seen as failings.
We don't really need to examine whether something can be explained away "in universe", represents an alternate universe or requires the show to be a reboot. If it works right there in that episode then that's good enough not only for me or the majority but also the people making the show.
It just is what it is on a case by case basis. The Enterprise might be 250m long in one episode and 300 in another. It doesn't really matter. From the word go it was made abundantly clear to writers that Trek was about characters and action, with some real world commentary underlying those things. The hundreds (thousands in fact) of people involved in writing and producing the show over the course of half a century have simply never had a remit to accuracy that reflects what a tiny portion of the fans have latterly ascribed to their creations. Thus it inevitably falls short of unreasonable criteria which were never part of the intent anyway.
There are many intellectual properties and creations out there which are indeed intended by the author(s) to be examined in excruciating detail and thus yield rewards when that exercise is undertaken.
I've mentioned Tolkien earlier and it's a prime example. The more you examine his works the more they give, the inconsistencies being informative of the evolution of his intent over time and examined as such. It lends itself to such scrutiny and rewards those that undertake it, in no small part because a single author can be forever in a position to understand his own intent and build each part of his creation as integral to that which has come before.
Trek, however, is not such an example. It is a show made piecemeal by an army of many and each has been operating under commercial pressures according to a general guide, not a deeply interconnected structure which informs and comments on itself several layers beyond the obvious.
They are less casual viewers, as are those who may examine the show from the point of view of literary criticism rather than mere weekly entertainment. I don’t see the opposite there, just different areas of fandom involvement which is different from casual viewing.
Also, while Trek worldbuilding is nothing like Tolkien’s, it’s there in unfinished form and fans are free to speculate on aspects that are currently not there, without complaining about “failings” because that would imply unfamiliarity with production processes. The Enterprise may look 250m long in one episode and 350m in another, but it’s not supposed to be a Transformer, so what is the real answer?
It’s not wasted energy, but something that can also inform future production, eg. when fans such as Rick Sternbach, Mike Okuda or Doug Drexler fleshed out their thoughts for TNG, DS9 or ENT. You’ll often see a designer or VFX artist say “I always thought the purpose of X was Y”. In fact, one fan theory was that the internally offset TOS bridge turbolift would slide to the aft position on the exterior before going down, and that was now implemented in DSC’s redesign of the Enterprise, rather than merely handwave what seems to be a TOS production inconsistency.
Also, while Trek worldbuilding is nothing like Tolkien’s, it’s there in unfinished form and fans are free to speculate on aspects that are currently not there, without complaining about “failings” because that would imply unfamiliarity with production processes. The Enterprise may look 250m long in one episode and 350m in another, but it’s not supposed to be a Transformer, so what is the real answer?
It’s not wasted energy, but something that can also inform future production, eg. when fans such as Rick Sternbach, Mike Okuda or Doug Drexler fleshed out their thoughts for TNG, DS9 or ENT. You’ll often see a designer or VFX artist say “I always thought the purpose of X was Y”. In fact, one fan theory was that the internally offset TOS bridge turbolift would slide to the aft position on the exterior before going down, and that was now implemented in DSC’s redesign of the Enterprise, rather than merely handwave what seems to be a TOS production inconsistency.
The real answer is that which has already been given, that the length of the Enterprise is simply not part and parcel of what the show is about. Examining failings of consistency becomes a fools' errand when one realises it would be more productive looking for the isolated areas where things actually hold up to scrutiny rather than failing.
Yes designers of the ships look at past iterations and the observations made about them, but they do so far more loosely than the fans themselves and that discrepancy inevitably leads to frustration if people aren't able or willing to take a step back, shrug their shoulders and acknowledge that they are focusing on that which was never intended to be focused on.
When the combined volume of fan created "information" about what is onscreen overshadows the source material in both scale and depth it's time to take a breath and consider whether the fans who insist on that material approaching the same standards of precision aren't just missing the point. There's a world of difference between being creative with that material (see: the starfleet museum) and retroactively applying observations to the show and expecting it to be consistent with inferences people have made on its' behalf.
One is healthy and fun, the other merely an inevitable source of frustration detrimental to the enjoyment and appreciation of something we all claim to love.
DSC has been a prominent example of that. The level of scrutiny and willingness to find fault has been breathtaking when one considers how every version of the show has demonstrated much the same faults. It was destined to failure in the mindset of some fans because they set out to find fault rather than appreciate it for what it was. There's almost a bizarre machismo attached to being able to point out those faults and explain them to other, lesser, fans thus proving ones' pedigree or credibility as a trek expert. It doesn't work, it just alienates new fans and puts unfair pressure on the people creating the show, people who do in fact experience the full gamut of human emotions at the unavoidable barrage of criticism.
Sorry, but that’s just scapegoating on a group of fans you yourself agree are in the minority, and industry professionals know better than to listen to inevitable extremism from somewhere. Heated discussions about DSC haven’t merely been “universe”-related; the show is changing showrunners and isn’t winning awards however you look at it. It’s not The Handmaid’s Tale or Better Call Saul: there is no single vision of what it wants to be, with a focus on building up its original characters rather than weaving here, there, everywhere between legacy elements.
A very vocal group of fans who have lately had the means to communicate their discontent in ways which would never have been possible in the past. Star Trek has rarely been an award winning show, nor has it ever really had all that coherent a vision beyond the broad strokes.
If you believe the barrage of fan based criticism hasn't been significantly based on machismo and mutual escalation I suggest you scroll through the past few years in here and on YT comments. Much the same happened with TNG at first but the means to transmit that wasn't of the scale and prevalence it is now and we view that which has gone before with rose tinted glasses. DSC clearly hasn't performed that badly given Netflix' continued willingness to fund it, especially in light of how ruthless they appear to have been with other shows which received far more positive public press.
Trek is not about technical details, that's why we have nonsensical "technobabble" to smooth over areas where real science would have changed both the nature and direction of the show and the process of making it. That technobabble and the numbers attached to it are just one example of the "worldbuilding" which is reality should be better described as "scene setting".
It's the background, not the focus, and it's pretty flexible as needs with good reason. Tearing it apart for not being something it was never intended to be is just....silly.
Again, that’s extremism and isn’t relevant here. If there are people who can’t say “fine, we’ll call it Discovery universe”, that’s their limitation, without going as far as dismissing an entire hobby as inevitably leading to “machismo”, a conclusion which is in fact offensive to me and everyone on various tech boards. For my part I’m merely disappointed that TPTB couldn’t feel so secure in their original elements to set the show in the 25th century, without resorting to reimagined audience hooks and safety nets.
Then why alter it from what was previously established, if it's inconsequential?
You're offended by the suggestion taking the imaginary technology of imaginary starships in an imaginary universe which was never intended to be anything but the backdrop to adventure stories is a little bit silly? Or by the observation that people do frequently compete quite heatedly over the tiniest details of those imaginary starships for years at a time typically in the context of questions to which there is no right answer anyway?
In either case if you find that offensive then you have more pressing concerns than the opinion of a total stranger on a message board, most tellingly "what the fuck am I doing with my life?". YMMV
Because it suits whatever episode, series, scenario is being presented at the time I suppose. If we were to get caught up on wondering whuy some detail from a previous episode wasn't being mentioned we run into the problem that pretty much half the episodes since TOS would have our heroes lives be made very easy by taking kironide, employing the tractor beam and transporters in even slightly imaginative ways and surviving any dangers by virtue of transporter duplicates.
Would be quite a boring show though.
No, just your stated notion that it has a particular connection with “machismo” and extremism. If aspects of fandom appear a bit silly at times, that’s OK. If people want to spend their time evolving a discussion over decades (and it does actually evolve as research and the source material develop), that’s OK, too. Others like to play STO or read tie-in novels. Who cares?
And of course there are right answers because no writer would write a story where Starfleet engineers don’t know their own ship specs. It’s just that such answers are sometimes hard to pin down.
Last edited:
Easy...there is word of God...Gene Roddenberry himself that what "it looks like" is just a "representation" fitted to our current technology. Whatever it "looks like now" is the way it ALWAYS looked. He said that when people complained about TMP looking so different.
It is, but there is no reason for a production team to cater to every specific interest. In point of fact, the Abrams' films did not do it and are still enjoyable in their own right.
Are there fans that try to figure out how it all pieces together? Sure. Is that incumbent upon the production team to provide that information. The answer is a hard and fast "No" because that is not the foundation of what Trek was built upon.
And that is the best news I could have ever had regarding Star Trek. I don't want, desire, or need Star Trek to be award winning or prestige television. It is an action/adventure vehicle with social commentary woven within it. The fact that fans push back against elements like S31 and more darker elements of DSC is indicative of this fact.
Well, I’d applaud it if Star Trek became prestige television (which just means original, extremely well written, acted, filmed, scored…), whatever it did with tech.
Anyway, let me try to wind this thread down by saying that certain episodes can still be canon because we know DSC weaves between the established backstory: it just takes specific creative liberties that wouldn’t have been taken by the Bermanverse. Whether or not that ever crystalizes into something like a “Discovery universe” on a shared Prime Timeline, we’ll just have to see — for now it’s enough to know that tying into DSC means recasting and redesigning earlier elements to fit that particular style, rather than treat them as artifacts of a period to be recreated whenever they are revisited.
Anyway, let me try to wind this thread down by saying that certain episodes can still be canon because we know DSC weaves between the established backstory: it just takes specific creative liberties that wouldn’t have been taken by the Bermanverse. Whether or not that ever crystalizes into something like a “Discovery universe” on a shared Prime Timeline, we’ll just have to see — for now it’s enough to know that tying into DSC means recasting and redesigning earlier elements to fit that particular style, rather than treat them as artifacts of a period to be recreated whenever they are revisited.
I'd applaud that too but I don't expect it. Let Star Trek be Star Trek.
Because Bermanverse became locked in the Roddenberry box, while TOS and those films allowed for far more freedom in creating tech. Again (and I feel like I am belaboring this point but here we are) Star Trek is based upon tech understanding of current humanity, not just it's own imaginary world. Which means we will see Star Trek from a 60s era humanity in TOS and a 70s era humanity in TMP. It changes because it is based around our human understanding not just in world understanding.
Indeed, what people refer to as "not being canon" is typically simply showing greater creative latitude.
I think you're misstating @Greg Cox's position somewhat. The impression that I get from Greg's posts is that the redesigns don't bother him as a fan, not just because as a tie-in author, he doesn't have to worry about the tech stuff that much. (Greg, if I'm misunderstanding your opinion, please correct me.)
Again, not everyone places the importance on the tech & design elements as you do. I'd wager that for the majority of fans, as long as the sets look similar, they don't even notice most of the differences.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe TMP's version of things if it was a better movie. I'll take the TOS version any day.
As the great William Shatner once said in an Saturday Night Live sketch, it's just a TV show.
^^ 100% agree. There is nothing more annoying than a fan who expects a television show (or movie, or novel, or comic book) to conform with his personal fanon.
Yes, those are called "Every episode of Star Trek ever produced."
Nobody posting on this thread gets to decide what canon is. The people who own and produce Star Trek decide what canon is. That's what canon means.
The preceding post brings up the relevance of Greg being a writer of licensed ST tie-in fiction, so I replied in those terms (he specifically mentioned he might write about paces in the transporter room instead of meters). But no, this doesn’t concern him as a fan either.
DSC’s changes are too obvious not to notice, but either way, I was just responding to claims of it being unnecessary, detrimental to enjoyment, especially connected with online extremism, “sad or funny”…
Yes, but one that includes a future governmental organization designing starships (as opposed to living in a shapeshifting dreamverse where nothing makes sense). The point is that dimensions do exist in-universe, they just aren’t always pinned down for the viewer.
Of course, but I was summarizing how the unchanged canon policy applies to DSC (it all happened, but in such a way that period artifacts must be updated before bringing them up on the show).
Last edited:
Similar threads
