I'm not the only Star Trek fan that ignores certain episodes movies or even series. This is not anything new.
I'm not lost. This isn't a religion. It's a fictional science fiction show and we're all free to take what you like and leave the rest.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
I'm not the only Star Trek fan that ignores certain episodes movies or even series. This is not anything new.
I'm not lost. This isn't a religion. It's a fictional science fiction show and we're all free to take what you like and leave the rest.
This isn't a religion?!? Holy Shit!!!
I used to think it wasn't but I'm not so sure anymore! LOL!
Update - Posty needs some more thread meme bling.
Last edited:
We are already discussing Trek from unique points-of-view due to our various experiences in life. I would imagine that someone who doesn't count "Spock's Brain" as part of their personal universe, would be unlikely to jump into discussions about the episode.
Discussions about how Discovery meshes with "Balance of Terror" would likely lean more heavily with folks who see it all as one timeline.
That is the reality though. Heck, even Gene Roddenberry himself wanted to think some aspects of Star Trek V & VI were apocryphal.
I think everyone recognizes canon, which is simply the complete body of work seen on the large and small screens. Continuity is another issue.
The definition of the type of Continuity we're talking about is:
the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast.
With a franchise as large as Star Trek there are errors, inconsistencies and contradictions in the "self-consistent detail" of the narrative of Star Trek. Therefore fans are at liberty and have the freedom, for their own enjoyment, to piece together more consistent continuities by either an acceptance or rejection of certain aspects of the canon. The reasons why people do that and the continuity they arrive at can be interesting and fun to discuss as long as people have some tolerance of other views and don't take it all so seriously.
And I suspect the reason for that is because new movies and a new series set in the same era but made by entirely separate production teams are bound to contradict each other, so they've taken a nice easy escape. Now Discovery doesn't have to worry about squeezing the USS Franklin into it's version of early Starfleet history, and ST4 doesn't have to worry about Klingon sarcophagus ships, aliens in Starfleet whose sole purpose is to sense the coming of death, or bluniforms.
He also said The Animated Series wasn't canon.
Hater!!
Exactly! It is canon simply by the definition of what canon actually is. But if Gene can ignore certain aspects of canon and continuity why does it bother some people when others do the same thing?
Fan A "How do you think situation X was resovled? Variable Y?"
Fan B "Situation X never happened"
Fan A "Episode 146 of series B and the 6th feature film explain how variable Y may have helped resolve situation X"
Fan B "Series B and film 6 never happened in my personal head cannon, pocket universe (I'm super special) so situation X is irrelevant."
Fan A "OK...we're done here.
;-)
Fan B "Situation X never happened"
Fan A "Episode 146 of series B and the 6th feature film explain how variable Y may have helped resolve situation X"
Fan B "Series B and film 6 never happened in my personal head cannon, pocket universe (I'm super special) so situation X is irrelevant."
Fan A "OK...we're done here.
;-)
Also, Cochrane.
Best cardboard money could buy
So Prime means no originality?
I don't know of any poll on this subject but I'm confident that nobody at all wants "a cheesy look with cardboard sets." As for touch screens, the fact you can't operate one without looking at it seems like a clear disadvantage. Fortunately, the Shenzhou bridge appears to have plenty of buttons.
All you're saying is you have no tolerance for people that don't accept everything. This "all or nothing" approach is why it comes across as fundamentalist religious type of thinking.
I will again use the Klingons as an example. In TOS they did not have ridges on their heads. Then comes TMP and TOS and they now have ridges on their heads. That's cool I can use my imagination and believe this is how they always were supposed to look and I can take a step further and say this was how they always did look.
So I have no problem with the change and was content with no in-Universe explanation. Then some TV episode explains that the differences is due to some virus augmentation and now I'm supposed to just accept this explanation simply because it is canon when no explanation was needed for decades?
Plus, the episode contradicts other canon. In the TNG episode "Rightful Heir," the cloned Kahless has the same appearance as the "mutated" Klingons. Kahless lived long before the experiment in the canonical explanation.
So there are times I will ignore certain elements of canon and make up my own consistent continuity.
If someone wants to accept the new explanation for the change in Klingons from TOS to TNG I'm fine with your acceptance of it.
No, revisiting old situations like how Fuller described and what we're already seeing with Mudd and the Titans Enterprise means no originality.So Prime means no originality?
But we've got nothing better to do right now, or maybe it's just me that has nothing better to do right now. I need a life.
No, the cloned Kahless has the same appearance as non-mutated Klingons. The mutation caused the ridges to disappear, not appear. If you watch the episode, you'll actually know what happens in it.
Well that was what was originally intended. The other series had to go and ruin it.
Similar threads
