Spoilers How literal is LD in your headcanon?
- Thread starter Boris Skrbic
- Start date
Nah, that's not how it works.
Parody or not, it's still canon. Canon isn't based a show being a certain style of entertainment.
Uh? How am I wrong? it's a TV show produced by Paramount that takes place in the Star Trek Universe. Using comedy and poking fun at Trek Tropes doesn't alter that.
Nah, that's also not how it works.Tell you what... if Peanut Hamper appears on Discovery after 700+ years floating through space... then you're right.
Then show the the Star Trek Guide to How "It" Works.
- Paramount makes a show.
- The stuff in that show is canon
Again not how it work.
Repetition doesn't make it canon. Pretty much every one off element is canon.
Indeed. The powers that be have stated it as canon. Whether people accept it is another story.
It’s like I’ve said. There’s a huge difference between “canon” and “part of the main continuity “
It is absolutely canon. It’s a televised Star Trek show and part of the official works. It has my complete respect as such.
Do I accept it as being in continuity with other live-action Star Trek shows? Nope. Not even a little bit.
It is absolutely canon. It’s a televised Star Trek show and part of the official works. It has my complete respect as such.
Do I accept it as being in continuity with other live-action Star Trek shows? Nope. Not even a little bit.
It's canon and continuity. It's just goofy canon and continuity.
In the James Bond movie continuity we have a Master Race despot with unisex jumpsuit-wearing followers and troops manning an orbital space station with a henchman who has steel teeth and can survive massive impacts and explosions and bite through solid metal bars. Nobody bats an eye. Goofy doesn't negate canon status unless the studio says so.
In the James Bond movie continuity we have a Master Race despot with unisex jumpsuit-wearing followers and troops manning an orbital space station with a henchman who has steel teeth and can survive massive impacts and explosions and bite through solid metal bars. Nobody bats an eye. Goofy doesn't negate canon status unless the studio says so.
I absolutely agree it’s canon. It’s an official Star Trek work, produced and distributed by CBS.
But I don’t view it as “real.” The events as depicted can’t possibly take place in the same universe as TNG, VOY etc. This doesn’t change my respect for it. But it also means that nobody on the planet is going to convince me (for example) that Ransom was hanging out with a Salt Vampire (Veritas). It’s a cute little cartoon that makes fun of Star Trek in a loving and sometimes entertaining way. But, for me, that’s it.
And, in fact, that’s the only way I can enjoy it.
I kind of consider LD a kids cartoon / holoprogram / whatever about silly Starfleet adventures that is available to the citizens in the late 24th century (or whenever this takes place). So that way, it’s part of the Star Trek universe, but it sure as hell isn’t “really happening” either.
And I don’t typically care about continuity or canon....but in this case this is absolute.
For me, it's like TAS. It's not Canonical. Regardless of whether I like it or not, or whether someone says that it is so.
YMMV - and that's fine.
Discovery - I headcanon away as an alternative universe, same for Picard and Strange New Worlds. But I know that they are canonical, even if I wish they were not.
I really enjoyed all the Kelvin movies and loved that they were set in an alternate universe. I found them to be far more respectful of what came before. I still lament that Paramount were unable to capitalize on the success of ST09 and the end (at that point) of the Star Wars film saga.
YMMV - and that's fine.
Discovery - I headcanon away as an alternative universe, same for Picard and Strange New Worlds. But I know that they are canonical, even if I wish they were not.
I really enjoyed all the Kelvin movies and loved that they were set in an alternate universe. I found them to be far more respectful of what came before. I still lament that Paramount were unable to capitalize on the success of ST09 and the end (at that point) of the Star Wars film saga.
The question for me is whether we are treating Star Trek as a documentary (maybe David Attenborough's great, great, great granddaughter narrates it) following the lives of the various crews. This would then mean that everything we see is literal representations and causes no end of grief parsing through the inconsistent nature of it.
Or, is everything we see a dramatic interpretation? Like Shakespeare's Richard III where it is based on a historical figure but has been tailored to its audience.
This way, the spine of the stories can be true, the general themes are there, but it allows for inconsistent behaviours and presentations due to its very nature.
This in theory resolves the canonical issues and continuity issues and leaves.
Obviously it isn't perfect, but we see such narrow stands of these worlds that to say what happens on X must happen on Y, but Z happened which contradicts it can never be resolved. Instead, storyteller A had a great story about flagship D and as the flagship these people are all paragons of virtue.
Storyteller B though was more interested in the war with the Klingons and to emphasis the nature of war Burnham is both a Judas and Messiah to teach that anyone can be redeemed but also everything is dark and sweary and violent to teach us that war is bad etc etc
Or, is everything we see a dramatic interpretation? Like Shakespeare's Richard III where it is based on a historical figure but has been tailored to its audience.
This way, the spine of the stories can be true, the general themes are there, but it allows for inconsistent behaviours and presentations due to its very nature.
This in theory resolves the canonical issues and continuity issues and leaves.
Obviously it isn't perfect, but we see such narrow stands of these worlds that to say what happens on X must happen on Y, but Z happened which contradicts it can never be resolved. Instead, storyteller A had a great story about flagship D and as the flagship these people are all paragons of virtue.
Storyteller B though was more interested in the war with the Klingons and to emphasis the nature of war Burnham is both a Judas and Messiah to teach that anyone can be redeemed but also everything is dark and sweary and violent to teach us that war is bad etc etc
For me, "being respectful of what came before" is a complete non-issue...and I'm a TOS-first fan from the late 70's re-run scene. There's no such thing, as far as I'm concerned, as "being respectful of what came before," and that doesn't factor at all into my assessment of a series or film in the franchise. If it did....I would have stopped watching the franchise at the opening of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and never found a single re-entry point.
I think KelvinTrek, PIC, DSC, and LD are all EXTREMELY respectful of what came before, in their own unique ways.
LD, however, is a silly cartoon that is almost entirely unrelatable to how real-world people (or aliens) would act in these kinds of situations and within the provided context/setting. It's absolute foolishness lovingly and intentionally designed for laughs and nostalgia. And, in my opinion, it succeeds at what it sets out to do. I like it for what it is.
But- my personal approach to it is "please....PLEASE don't try to make me think that it is MORE than it is supposed to be just because you love it." It's a cheeseburger off the dollar menu. Yummmmm! But please don't try to BS me by claiming it should be on the menu at the steakhouse for $35. Because that, my dear friends, is horseshit.
This is my view as well. I get tired, so blasted tired, of the word respect tossed around so casually around about a franchise that has changed much since its first inception. In my opinion, fictional franchises do not deserve any measure of respect. If a person wants to reimagine Star Trek has a fun loving cartoon more power to them.
Similar threads
