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

[DSG2k]

<old man shaking fist at cloud>

What's wrong with Star Trek being like Batman?

What's wrong with the way it once was, a continuous single story told across fifty years with better continuity than single author Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 book universe (in part because he didn't much try)? The Star Trek Original Universe was special precisely because it didn't go the comic book route of reboots every other year.

Yes, a little anti-continuity brigade stands ready to interject with lame arguments about marginal hiccups like Trill makeup and odd weapon launch locations and James R. Kirk of UESPA, but the fact is that unlike the hundred reboots and retellings of Batman across different media, I could pick up most anything Trek before 2009 and know not only the general feel of the setting, but its specific history, and the appearance of these in whatever I'd picked up were dependent only on the quality of the storyteller and their knowledge of the universe.

Since 2009 this has faded, and nowadays is almost utterly trashed with the new discontinuity of the CBS canon versus the older policy. The feel is entirely different to match the new works, and the history is a mish-mash of Original Universe, JJ-Trek stuff, iffy novel continuity, and the CBS canon material. Heck, I don't even know how anyone's mental image of a novel setting is supposed to work now . . . should I imagine lens flares?

Spoiler: Discovery Season 2

One of my favorite older Trek novels is a book that took disparate bits of Trek history throughout the Original Universe and wove them into a coherent story. Lang's _Immortal Coil_ could pull that off in regards to androids, AI, and human consciousness because of how well the Original Universe held together over time. Now, however, such a book makes no sense, because -- if we treated all the Original Universe and Disco-verse as one -- in the 2250s a Starfleet AI called Control was perfectly capable of merging its consciousness with that of the insidious human Leland, the combined "evolution" allowing Control to better fit in as a human being while not being saddled with unfortunate qualities like guilt.

"But that’s a one-off, it isn't like Control published a manual!" True enough, but that'd certainly be, not just noteworthy, but a path worthy of being followed up on by later researchers, no?

Instead, we have the original path of M-5, a tremendous computer with massive power requirements, programmed with human engrams, being treated like a great advance ten or so years after Control, Ira Graves blowing minds by uploading his a century after Contro yet the genius not getting it right, et cetera. It just all breaks down . . . like comic book continuity.

I miss the good old days when things were added to the Original Universe and people tried to make sure they fit.​

</old man shaking fist at cloud>

 

[1001001]

Pinned thread at the top of this forum: NO DSC SEASON 2 Spoilers

You have received an infraction for posting uncoded spoilers. Sorry, but we have to be fair, since others have received the same consequence. Comments to PM

 

[Spot261]

<old man shaking fist at cloud>



What's wrong with the way it once was, a continuous single story told across fifty years with better continuity than single author Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 book universe (in part because he didn't much try)? The Star Trek Original Universe was special precisely because it didn't go the comic book route of reboots every other year.

Yes, a little anti-continuity brigade stands ready to interject with lame arguments about marginal hiccups like Trill makeup and odd weapon launch locations and James R. Kirk of UESPA, but the fact is that unlike the hundred reboots and retellings of Batman across different media, I could pick up most anything Trek before 2009 and know not only the general feel of the setting, but its specific history, and the appearance of these in whatever I'd picked up were dependent only on the quality of the storyteller and their knowledge of the universe.

Since 2009 this has faded, and nowadays is almost utterly trashed with the new discontinuity of the CBS canon versus the older policy. The feel is entirely different to match the new works, and the history is a mish-mash of Original Universe, JJ-Trek stuff, iffy novel continuity, and the CBS canon material. Heck, I don't even know how anyone's mental image of a novel setting is supposed to work now . . . should I imagine lens flares?

Spoiler: Discovery Season 2

One of my favorite older Trek novels is a book that took disparate bits of Trek history throughout the Original Universe and wove them into a coherent story. Lang's _Immortal Coil_ could pull that off in regards to androids, AI, and human consciousness because of how well the Original Universe held together over time. Now, however, such a book makes no sense, because -- if we treated all the Original Universe and Disco-verse as one -- in the 2250s a Starfleet AI called Control was perfectly capable of merging its consciousness with that of the insidious human Leland, the combined "evolution" allowing Control to better fit in as a human being while not being saddled with unfortunate qualities like guilt.

"But that’s a one-off, it isn't like Control published a manual!" True enough, but that'd certainly be, not just noteworthy, but a path worthy of being followed up on by later researchers, no?

Instead, we have the original path of M-5, a tremendous computer with massive power requirements, programmed with human engrams, being treated like a great advance ten or so years after Control, Ira Graves blowing minds by uploading his a century after Contro yet the genius not getting it right, et cetera. It just all breaks down . . . like comic book continuity.

I miss the good old days when things were added to the Original Universe and people tried to make sure they fit.​

</old man shaking fist at cloud>

Is that not largely where we are now? Even the Abramsverse, whose foul utterances I shall not utter here, does in fact tally into the bigger picture at least nominally. There are certainly stronger ties between it and the "prime universe" than there are for many of the multiple realities we see week by week in show.

I do sometimes wonder if the issue isn't really continuity of story so much as continuity of visuals. We had the largely consistent visual feel of the Berman/Braga era for the best part of two decades and if current iterations really diverge it's in that regard. They just take us ever so slightly out of our comfort zone and I can't help but wonder if the Picard show won't take that on board. Looking at DSC S2

Spoiler

it certainly seems they tried much harder to bring TOS and movie era visuals back to the forefront

I personally never really viewed Trek as having a strong continuity anyway, more of an occasional nod towards it prior to DS9 really. I always viewed each series and episode on its' own merits and that worked just fine for episodic storytelling. It made little difference in most cases. It doesn't matter whether the crew found themselves in Qs' Sherwood Forest recreation or the Moriarty holodeck program first, only the Borg episodes and a few others really work on that level, whereas there are countless examples of discontinuities which make no sense whatsoever if you examine it with anything more than a cursory glance.

Here's a little thought experiment, consider what would really change if most TOS and TNG episodes were altered to look loosely the same but with a string of different ships and crews. Would they somehow not work individually as a consequence?

My take is they would hold up just fine (though the series overall would suffer) because from a story telling point of view they mostly didn't rely on each other to make sense anyway. YMMV.

 

[DSG2k]

Continuity and episodic storytelling are neither contradictory nor contrary.

(Note that your different ships and crews are different ships and crews, which is an acknowledgement of a sensible, continuous universe, rather than an affront.)

 

[Greg Cox]

We had the largely consistent visual feel of the Berman/Braga era for the best part of two decades and if current iterations really diverge it's in that regard. They just take us ever so slightly out of our comfort zone and I can't help but wonder if the Picard show won't take that on board. Looking at DSC S2

Interesting. This kinda supports my pet theory that it's mostly the folks who grew up on the Berman era that have issues with Star Trek changing its look yet again. As opposed to us old-timers who lived through TOS, then TMP, then KHAN revamping the look of TMP, then TNG and so on. At this point, I kinda expect TREK to get a makeover every other decade or so, nor do I necessarily expect an in-universe explanation for it. My "comfort zone" is not tied to any particular look.

It's just standard operating procedure . . . and not just for STAR TREK.

 

[Spot261]

Interesting. This kinda supports my pet theory that it's mostly the folks who grew up on the Berman era that have issues with Star Trek changing its look yet again. As opposed to us old-timers who lived through TOS, then TMP, then KHAN revamping the look of TMP, then TNG and so on. At this point, I kinda expect TREK to get a makeover every other decade or so, nor do I necessarily expect an in-universe explanation for it. My "comfort zone" is not tied to any particular look.

It's just standard operating procedure . . . and not just for STAR TREK.

Indeed, once you've seen the jarring leap that TMP was at the time, then again going into TNG, DSC just look like more of the same.

 

[Spot261]

Continuity and episodic storytelling are neither contradictory nor contrary.

(Note that your different ships and crews are different ships and crews, which is an acknowledgement of a sensible, continuous universe, rather than an affront.)

My argument doesn't rest on them being contradictory or contrary, it relies on them not having to co exist anymore than happens to serve any given story and that in most cases that meant "not at all".

Hence the fact that any serious examination of trek continuity inevitably ends up acknowledging it's pretty much a case of many different writers making the odd effort to loosely tie things together and relying on the viewer to fill in the gaps.

 

[fireproof78]

My take is they would hold up just fine (though the series overall would suffer) because from a story telling point of view they mostly didn't rely on each other to make sense anyway. YMMV.

That's my take away as well.

Here's a little thought experiment, consider what would really change if most TOS and TNG episodes were altered to look loosely the same but with a string of different ships and crews. Would they somehow not work individually as a consequence?

Largely I see this more with DS9 and TNG's relationship, even though they were so close together.

Interesting. This kinda supports my pet theory that it's mostly the folks who grew up on the Berman era that have issues with Star Trek changing its look yet again. As opposed to us old-timers who lived through TOS, then TMP, then KHAN revamping the look of TMP, then TNG and so on. At this point, I kinda expect TREK to get a makeover every other decade or so, nor do I necessarily expect an in-universe explanation for it. My "comfort zone" is not tied to any particular look.

It's just standard operating procedure . . . and not just for STAR TREK.

Completely agree on this point. It amazes how quickly TMP gets grandfathered in, as does TWOK, despite dramatic changes in both design aesthetic, as well as characters, and look. It isn't like Star Trek has never done what DSC has done before, or Abrams or even ENT.

I think the Berman era created such an appearance of visual continuity that any changes is disconcerting. But, that doesn't make it less a part of the same story, the same characters, despite aesthetic changes. Transporters are transporters, phasers are phasers but the characters are the most important.

 

[Greg Cox]

Indeed, once you've seen the jarring leap that TMP was at the time, then again going into TNG, DSC just look like more of the same.

Exactly. And, yes, we realize that these changes are supposedly "explained" by the passage of time, but the fact remains that, by the time the Berman-era stuff came along, we had seen the look of the franchise updated three or four times already, so the latest makeovers don't faze us.

The alleged consistency of the Berman era can be seen as an aberration, not the norm.

 

[fireproof78]

The alleged consistency of the Berman era can be seen as an aberration, not the norm.

And not essential for enjoyment.

 

[Donald G]

Interesting. This kinda supports my pet theory that it's mostly the folks who grew up on the Berman era that have issues with Star Trek changing its look yet again. As opposed to us old-timers who lived through TOS, then TMP, then KHAN revamping the look of TMP, then TNG and so on. At this point, I kinda expect TREK to get a makeover every other decade or so, nor do I necessarily expect an in-universe explanation for it. My "comfort zone" is not tied to any particular look.

It's just standard operating procedure . . . and not just for STAR TREK.

If there's one thing DISCOVERY has managed for me, it has been to rekindle a long-dormant interest in what one might call "slightly off-model STAR TREK" -- like the more idiosyncratic interpretations of the universe that existed in spin-off media in the years before the Richard Arnold's infamous canon memo.

(The canon memo was also a primary factor in my dropping my collection of STAR TREK novels in the early nineties since "they didn't count." Today, I consider myself a "post-canonist." )

 

[The Wormhole]

<old man shaking fist at cloud>

Well, I agree with that much anyway.

 

[Greg Cox]

If there's one thing DISCOVERY has managed for me, it has been to rekindle a long-dormant interest in what one might call "slightly off-model STAR TREK" -- like the more idiosyncratic interpretations of the universe that existed in spin-off media in the years before the Richard Arnold's infamous canon memo.

(The canon memo was also a primary factor in my dropping my collection of STAR TREK novels in the early nineties since "they didn't count." Today, I consider myself a "post-canonist." )

I'm actually rereading Ishmael now . . . for the first time since the eighties.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I see where people are coming from, but we need to acknowledge the scope of each reenvisioning as well, not just the fact that it happened. No, TMP isn’t believable at all if we think of it as some kind of a revolution out of nowhere, but suppose it was always there in the background of TOS, with newer technologies being adopted closer to Earth? Let’s not forget that Franz Joseph’s TOS blueprints would show up in the background and that TMP designers followed them closely for inspiration, so there was that level of continuity, on top of the fact that the film was set a couple of years after TOS, not before, while the script made sure (or happened) to emphasize that the Enterprise was redesigned as well as refitted into something Kirk didn’t know “a tenth” as well as Decker.

As for TWOK, that was supposed to be years after TMP, and still it reused most of that new look because it had to, for budgetary reasons. TNG redesigned a lot but kept a great deal, even though it was set in the following century, not to mention that from the very beginning the conference room featured that lineage which included the TOS and TMP Enterprises as well as the Excelsior design from the films, followed by the intermediate Ambassador design. Background graphics would reuse FJ’s images and we would keep seeing something closer the film era with the Stargazer and such. The production was totally fine with that level of continuity even then, again in part for budgetary reasons.

Now, DSC is closest to TMP in that after so many decades it had the budget to start from scratch, but the difference now is that there is no attempt at a handwave. The time is not later, it’s earlier. The Enterprise would have to be magically refit there and back again, in order to fit between the two pilots of 1964/65. So even if earlier we were required to ignore some changes analogous to those due to recasting, it’s only now that the scale of that has increased. This isn’t necessarily something an entire earlier generation of fans could’ve gotten used to, because Star Trek continued moving forward or else compromised between our expected future and the past of TOS (as on FC and later ENT).

So while I understand that people look at this differently, we shouldn’t pretend that a lot more isn’t demanded of viewers now than before, again, mostly because of the underlying creative decision to circle back to the tried-and-true, starting with S4 of ENT, continuing in that vein with TOS-R, then moving on to the Abramsverse and now DSC. The more time is spent in an earlier period, the more pressure there is to reimagine, rather than leave things be due to nostalgia or inertia. My hope is that Star Trek will snap out of that and not become like Sherlock Holmes or Batman, a franchise centered around a few well-known characters as opposed to the basic premise of exploration, literal or figurative.

 

[fireproof78]

The more time is spent in an earlier period, the more pressure there is to reimagine, rather than leave things be due to nostalgia or inertia.

Good. That is the heart of Star Trek to look forward, to imagine new technologies and to recognize changes in contemporary culture as they tell these stories.

I get that others see it differently, but I'm not going to act like Star Trek has to remain exactly as it always has been, because Star Trek is based upon the fundamental concept that technology can change and improve based upon a contemporary understanding of technology and humanity.

Now, perhaps that would be better served by moving forward in the timeline of Star Trek, or a reimagining, or a reboot, whatever term appeals. In my opinion, and from what I have read of the BTS information, Star Trek acts within contemporary knowledge of technology and the influence upon humanity.

 

[DSG2k]

My argument doesn't rest on them being contradictory or contrary, it relies on them not having to co exist anymore than happens to serve any given story and that in most cases that meant "not at all".

Hence the fact that any serious examination of trek continuity inevitably ends up acknowledging it's pretty much a case of many different writers making the odd effort to loosely tie things together and relying on the viewer to fill in the gaps.

I would argue that the rules and details of the universe being kept the same between stories is more than an odd effort. That's really the name of the game.

A police procedural doesn't need to focus on the same characters each episode, either, but it also can't break the setting. The rules of the setting would be realistic (or at least quasi-realistic) policing in modern society.

A period piece set during WW1 needs to keep to the rules of that era . . . no AR-15s and mobile phones. We may follow different groups that operate in dissimilar ways . . . trench warfare here, horses there, or massed Napoleonic infantry charges at this time and infiltration tactics after artillery barrages later . . . but it is all part of the setting, the rules of the universe that one ought not break.

Trek was very good about that sort of thing compared to most any other science fiction setting, but no more.

And, I'd be remiss if I failed to touch on another point. This notion that resistance to Discovery is somehow based solely on the fact that it looks different is completely off-base. It's almost a consensus view among my usual haunts that Discovery being explicitly set an alternate universe or, as some suggest, even being set in a post-Nemesis period would actually solve most of its problems. That means it's a matter of continuity, not appearance.

Indeed, the suggestion that TMP, TWoK, et al. were somehow all Disco-esque reboots because of different appearance of certain things (e.g. the ship, uniforms) is also off-base. Literally hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, from the script work to the filming of lines to the construction and filming of the drydock sequence, to clearly set the changes to the ship as being a result of change over time in a continuous universe that follows an internal, sensible logic.

Even JJ-Trek featured such an outlay to explain its differences and establish a new continuity.

None of this would be necessary per your statements that it's all largely disjointed but for fanon, or the notion that the repaint of the bridge between TFF and TUC somehow constitutes a rejection of prior continuity equivalent to that seen with the CBS Canon versus the Original Universe.

 

[Spot261]

I see where people are coming from, but we need to acknowledge the scope of each reenvisioning as well, not just the fact that it happened. No, TMP isn’t believable at all if we think of it as some kind of a revolution out of nowhere, but suppose it was always there in the background of TOS, with newer technologies being adopted closer to Earth? Let’s not forget that Franz Joseph’s TOS blueprints would show up in the background and that TMP designers followed them closely for inspiration, so there was that level of continuity, on top of the fact that the film was set a couple of years after TOS, not before, while the script made sure (or happened) to emphasize that the Enterprise was redesigned as well as refitted into something Kirk didn’t know “a tenth” as well as Decker.

As for TWOK, that was supposed to be years after TMP, and still it reused most of that new look because it had to, for budgetary reasons. TNG redesigned a lot but kept a great deal, even though it was set in the following century, not to mention that from the very beginning the conference room featured that lineage which included the TOS and TMP Enterprises as well as the Excelsior design from the films, followed by the intermediate Ambassador design. Background graphics would reuse FJ’s images and we would keep seeing something closer the film era with the Stargazer and such. The production was totally fine with that level of continuity even then, again in part for budgetary reasons.

Now, DSC is closest to TMP in that after so many decades it had the budget to start from scratch, but the difference now is that there is no attempt at a handwave. The time is not later, it’s earlier. The Enterprise would have to be magically refit there and back again, in order to fit between the two pilots of 1964/65. So even if earlier we were required to ignore some changes analogous to those due to recasting, it’s only now that the scale of that has increased. This isn’t necessarily something an entire earlier generation of fans could’ve gotten used to, because Star Trek continued moving forward or else compromised between our expected future and the past of TOS (as on FC and later ENT).

So while I understand that people look at this differently, we shouldn’t pretend that a lot more isn’t demanded of viewers now than before, again, mostly because of the underlying creative decision to circle back to the tried-and-true, starting with S4 of ENT, continuing in that vein with TOS-R, then moving on to the Abramsverse and now DSC. The more time is spent in an earlier period, the more pressure there is to reimagine, rather than leave things be due to nostalgia or inertia. My hope is that Star Trek will snap out of that and not become like Sherlock Holmes or Batman, a franchise centered around a few well-known characters as opposed to the basic premise of exploration, literal or figurative.

I don't think it's expecting any more or less of viewers than ever before, it's just operating within a different culture of TV making. Personally I couldn't give a fuck about the technology because it has only ever been there as plot devices anyway.

We need people to travel between planets, we get FTL.

We need people to land on planets on a small TV budget, we get transporters.

We need weapons on ships more advanced than nukes, we get phasers and torpedoes.

We need higher powers to create situations where our heroes are in positions of true or apparent helplessness, we get Q, Trelane, Prophets, blah blah, blah.

We need something that marks the Discovery out from her peers and thus justifies her being such a key asset in a war, we get the spore drive.

These things aren't what the show is about, they're just magical words that give a convenient name to the impossible so we can ask the more important questions being addressed. It doesn't matter how big the ship is, or what colour the bridge is painted, or where the nacelles sit, or what uniform someone is wearing or.....whatever.

What matters is there's an entertaining story which also makes you think.

 

[Spot261]

I would argue that the rules and details of the universe being kept the same between stories is more than an odd effort. That's really the name of the game.

A police procedural doesn't need to focus on the same characters each episode, either, but it also can't break the setting. The rules of the setting would be realistic (or at least quasi-realistic) policing in modern society.

A period piece set during WW1 needs to keep to the rules of that era . . . no AR-15s and mobile phones. We may follow different groups that operate in dissimilar ways . . . trench warfare here, horses there, or massed Napoleonic infantry charges at this time and infiltration tactics after artillery barrages later . . . but it is all part of the setting, the rules of the universe that one ought not break.

Trek was very good about that sort of thing compared to most any other science fiction setting, but no more.

And, I'd be remiss if I failed to touch on another point. This notion that resistance to Discovery is somehow based solely on the fact that it looks different is completely off-base. It's almost a consensus view among my usual haunts that Discovery being explicitly set an alternate universe or, as some suggest, even being set in a post-Nemesis period would actually solve most of its problems. That means it's a matter of continuity, not appearance.

Indeed, the suggestion that TMP, TWoK, et al. were somehow all Disco-esque reboots because of different appearance of certain things (e.g. the ship, uniforms) is also off-base. Literally hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, from the script work to the filming of lines to the construction and filming of the drydock sequence, to clearly set the changes to the ship as being a result of change over time in a continuous universe that follows an internal, sensible logic.

Even JJ-Trek featured such an outlay to explain its differences and establish a new continuity.

None of this would be necessary per your statements that it's all largely disjointed but for fanon, or the notion that the repaint of the bridge between TFF and TUC somehow constitutes a rejection of prior continuity equivalent to that seen with the CBS Canon versus the Original Universe.

There's nothing you'v said here though which couldn't equally be applied to any other version of the show.

True continuity throughout TOS into TNG would result in a very very different show and setting.

 

[DSG2k]

There's nothing you'v said here though which couldn't equally be applied to any other version of the show.

How so?

True continuity throughout TOS into TNG would result in a very very different show and setting.

In what way?

 

[Spot261]

How so?



In what way?

If you haven't noticed the vast swathes of glaring continuity "errors" which have plagued Trek since the very beginning nothing I can say will convince you. I've done it more than once before at great length and I'm not doing it again.

Just watch the old stuff with a more critical eye and you'll see why we've had decades of arguments about this stuff.