No, I chose 1987 because with the advent of TNG, the writers and artists - many of whom were Trek fans - began an ongoing effort to weave everything including TOS into a much more consistent and tighter continuity than ever before. It was in the first season of TNG, for example, that a calendar year was given for an episode...
TOS was much looser and deliberately vague about dates.
...I believe that the first onscreen reference to Kirk's ship as a "Constitution class vessel" is in the second episode of TNG, canonizing what had been an accepted bit of supporting [l]ore...
So, TOS established the Trek universe but TNG defined or standardized - to a greater or lesser degree - the detailed continuity that fans would increasingly fuss over and dispute for decades to come.
I see what you're getting at, and in a sense you're right. Before 1987 there was only one Trek series, one crew, one ship (refit notwithstanding). Doing a spin-off naturally multiplied the complexity of the fictional universe, and made it both more important and more difficult to keep everything straight.
(That said, TNG made some strange decisions along those lines. The calendar year it chose, for instance, flatly contradicted the widespread (but non-canonical) understanding of when TOS had been set, and required the whole timeline to be recalculated and shifted roughly 60 years further into the future — apparently (if I can believe the behind-the-scenes info I've read) just so that someone in control at the time could maintain the conceit that TOS took place "exactly 300 years" after it was broadcast.)
(And FWIW, technically the term "Constitution-class" originated with a Matt Jeffries technical drawing used in the TOS episode "Space Seed," so it goes way back. You're right that it was never
spoken on-screen until TNG S1, though.)
Regardless, though, you've moved the goalposts a bit. The issue at hand wasn't which components of the Trek franchise added the greatest mass of details to the worldbuilding process — by sheer volume of episodes, TNG and its successors would probably win that regardless of the creators' efforts to "define and standardize" things. The issue was which components of the Trek franchise seemed to be undermined the most by ENT, to the irritation of fans. And that answer to
that was clearly TOS. (At least until S4, when the new writing staff made a dedicated effort to reorient the show into a more credible prequel... but too little too late.) If you skip straight from ENT to TNG and leapfrog the 23rd century, there wouldn't appear to be much in the way of inconsistencies.
Discovery though, just isn't Star Trek beyond it's name. It shares pretty much absolutely zero with other Star Trek series or the ideals of the series. There is no explorations of social issues, high scifi concepts, political issues, philosophical issues. There is no exploration of alien species, of the world, of the setting. It's just extremely grim and dire drama non-stop.
Discovery is in every way, a generic grimdark action-scifi series with a Star Trek aesthetic skin plastered on top. ... It's a generic scifi show riding on the brand name aimed at 20 year old Star Wars fans.
You know, I've had a lot of reservations about DSC, and I agree that it's taking a very different tone from past Trek series. Still, by and large I'm enjoying it, and I think it's overstating the case to claim it shares "zero" with past Trek. Interestingly enough, though, your criticisms here (especially the "generic action sci-fi with a Star Trek skin" bit) are a spot-on description of my reaction to the
Abrams films in 2009 and 2013.
...where say The Orville a show I don't really like either because of the lame humour, everyone instantly sees it as Star Trek, because it actually captures the feel and hope of a Star Trek show and even tries to explore social problems and issues.
I rather like
The Orville, but I agree that it's better the further it gets away from the sitcom-y elements. While it's obviously an homage, though (my favorite description is "Star Trek with the serial numbers filed off"), I wouldn't exactly say it captures the feel of "a Star Trek show" in general. I'd say it captures the feel of
one specific Star Trek show, namely TNG. If that's where one's main fan attachments lie, there's your fix... but it doesn't really do much by way of my affection for TOS. (Nor does DSC, of course.)
This is not just a problem with Star Trek, Nu-Star Wars is the same thing, a new series that just doesn't get Star Wars nor it's fandom nor the setting while smashing in a generic marvel formula.
I'll admit that I'm not remotely the fan of SW that I am of Trek, by a long shot... but FWIW I think the new sequels have actually been doing a damn good job of capturing the look and feel of the original SW trilogy. They're certainly
trying to, at least, which is more than one can say for any Trek production in recent years. I'm not saying I want to see a slavish imitation of TOS, of course (and I don't think you are either), but I admit I'd enjoy something that at least makes more of an effort to capture what made it special and recognizable.
...when it appears that his straight white southern American character is being written out of the show and possibly made into a mustache-twirling villain -- I can see how that could make people get irritated.
Hold on. I agree that Isaacs has been the most charismatic actor on the show. But turning
any character into a one-dimensional villain would be bad writing, and I think it's premature to assume that's where the show is going. Also, when was it established that Lorca is in any way "southern"? His accent certainly isn't.
If you want a Star Trek fan production done amazingly well, it's all about Star Trek Axanar... Imagine the Axanar storyline done on an 8 Mil per episode budget, as opposed to the 80K they had.
Interesting. I've read a fair bit about Alec Peters and the controversy over this project, some of it pretty harshly critical, but I hadn't actually watched this piece until you posted it here. And I have to admit, it's actually really good. It captures the look and feel and mood of Star Trek way more evocatively than most of what we've seen on DSC (never mind the Abrams pictures).
Discovery's handling of the Klingon war thus far as been really convoluted and messy. It almost feels like an afterthought, despite the death toll being so massive.
I still don't think that a "Klingon war" story is something that Trek ever actually needed to do, but if it were to be done, I'd rather have seen it like in the Axanar bit than with the unrecognizable and frankly boring Klingons we got in DSC.
(Where do you get a "massive" death toll, though? Last I recall, it was only about 10,000 dead.)
That's war. Axanar would have been safe, familiar and adhere to fan expectations of irrelevant canon, whether it made sense or not.
I would prefer messy-life is messy. War is messy. Let Star Trek be messy and feel more like real people than neat little packages that can be wrapped up by episodes end.
I literally don't know what you're trying to say here.
First of all, what do you mean by "fan expectations of irrelevant canon"? (The show's actual creators keep telling us that canon is relevant, so it's reasonable to expect it to be treated that way, no?)
Second, I agree that a lot of the storytelling in DSC has been "messy" — a product of too many cooks in the writers' room, so far as I can discern. But how does that make for a better show? It certainly hasn't felt more like a real war, or more like real life in general... not that those are necessarily goals Trek should be aiming for anyway.
I have discussed, at length, in several threads how I think DISCO adds to Klingon lore, especially with the cult of Kahless. I think the spore drive is an interesting conundrum that reflects current scientific research and possible implications...
C'mon, pull the other one. DSC does have some genuinely redeeming qualities, and has taken some worthwhile creative risks, but its depiction of the Klingons is
not one of them. So far as I can tell it hasn't added a single thing of interest to "Klingon lore." The Klingons in DSC have been boring, ugly, one-note, plot-driven characters, through and through, saddled with stilted dialogue and incoherent motivations.
Burnham engages me. She is damaged, and suffers PTSD and a difficult upbringing. She is tying to find her place and so far hasn't yet. That story and her character speaks to me in a way that Star Trek often does with some one off characters.
I agree, Burnham has interesting aspects. Of course, so do Tilly and Stamets. She would probably work well as a "one off" character, as you put it. She just doesn't necessarily seem to have the level of depth and charisma to be the
lead of the show, which is a problem.
