Yup! It wasn't needed.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
Yup! It wasn't needed.
Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are technically the same continuity as Batman and Batman Returns. Now, I like Batman Forever a lot (and I love Uma and Arnie in B&R... and literally nothing else), but I consider the second two movies separate from the first two. They feel very different. I can't see the Bruce Wayne of Batman Returns, bonding with Selina Kyle over their mutual f-dupness, becoming George Clooney's Bat-credit-card/Batnipples/Batfamily version.
That's my Bat-head-canon. I suspect I'm going to consider Discovery separate from The Original Series and the Kelvin movies in a similar way (and hopefully nothing in Discovery or any Trek movies will ever echo the horror of Batman and Robin)
That's my Bat-head-canon. I suspect I'm going to consider Discovery separate from The Original Series and the Kelvin movies in a similar way (and hopefully nothing in Discovery or any Trek movies will ever echo the horror of Batman and Robin)
my "head canon" contains an episode that says your "head canon is stupid". Those are the arguments we are getting into once you say people have their own. Your free to like or not like various sources, but you can't just say "oh that didn't happen". Something is prime timeline or kelvinverse or mirror based on what the creators say it is. I'm not a huge ENT fan either or TOS fan, but I can't just make up a head canon that only includes TNG, DS9, and VOY. Instead I say it's all canon but the three series I listed are my favorite source material for the universe. By the way I watched TOS and ENT because I wanted more information on the broader trek universe. Same reason I look forward to DISC.
I love Batman Forever a lot and I see it exactly like you do! I think I may like Batman and Robin more than you do though. You made excellent points!
But you can say "it didn't happen" fans do it all the time. There is no thought police, Paramount or CBS isn't going to arrest you if you do. You are free to do it and that's my basic point. You may not want to do it and that is fine but no one should tell you, me or another they can't do it.
What's true about a franchise is determined by the creators. You can "think" whatever you want because as you said no thought police. But what you think is irrelevant in terms of the canon and continuity of the franchise.
Even Don Quixote would admit there are some windmills you just can't tilt at.
Not liking an episode, or film, or series, is one thing. But you can't make it go away. It's still there and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Attempting otherwise would be like a Cleveland Indians fan pretending that their team won the World Series last year.
Not liking an episode, or film, or series, is one thing. But you can't make it go away. It's still there and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Attempting otherwise would be like a Cleveland Indians fan pretending that their team won the World Series last year.
Last edited:
I certainly do not deny what is canon or continuity. But for fun and my own enjoyment I have my own made up continuity.
It harms no one, It affects no one, I don't try to force anyone to accept my view of my personal continuity, I never really talk about it with anyone other fans included.
I'm a big Trek book and comic readers, and that makes it really hard to just dump stuff I don't like. Some of the books and comics have actually managed to improve on things I don't like or at least use them in interesting ways, so if I tried to pretend some things didn't happen, that would make it hard to enjoy the books or comics that use it.
As I said, I rarely talk about my own personal canon or continuity and believe me will never do it again around here!
No, revisiting old situations like how Fuller described and what we're already seeing with Mudd and the Titans Enterprise means no originality.It really doesn't have to mean that.
Until you publish your CBT theory of Star Trek canon. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting thatAs I said, I rarely talk about my own personal canon or continuity and believe me will never do it again around here!
By the way, a definition of terms would go along way in the future to avoid the parsing.
Last edited:
He also exists in the Mirror universe, and likely many other timelines.
Sure I can. Because none of it actually happened. Its fiction, there is no master plan, no single universe. This is more to placate fandom than any internal master plan. The Discovery folks will do anything they please and it won't matter one iota if it conflicts with what came before.
The "D" can travel 10,000 light years a year, next two series it takes a year to cover a thousand light years, then we go back to faster speeds in Enterprise and can get to Kronos in four days when it would've taken the "fastest" ship of the 24th century 36 days to cover the same distance.
Last edited:
Haha, I totally understand speculation and theorizing-- it's fun! But the way your initial posts framed it, it sounded like you're angry about it. It's subtle, and maybe I'm overthinking your language, but you could have phrased it as a question "Is Discovery really in the Kelvin timeline?" and debated the evidence for and against it.
Instead, you said it's "all but confirmed" and you seem adamant about not having a discussion, but trying to prove that it's in the Kelvin timeline, despite very little evidence.
Well, you're both right and both wrong. The TOS appearance of Khaless in "The Savage Curtain" was based on Kirk's (and possibly Spock's) personal mental image of Khaless. If Kirk had never seen a picture/holograph of the original Khaless or up to that time had never seen a 'Ridged' Klingon - of course Kirk's mental image would make Khaless was a 'non-ridged' Klingon.
With all due respect, nothing I said was wrong since Gojira cited only the clone from TNG, not the Excalbian duplicate from TOS. Perhaps he misspoke.Well, you're both right and both wrong. The TOS appearance of Khaless in "The Savage Curtain" was based on Kirk's (and possibly Spock's) personal mental image of Khaless. If Kirk had never seen a picture/holograph of the original Khaless or up to that time had never seen a 'Ridged' Klingon - of course Kirk's mental image would make Khaless was a 'non-ridged' Klingon.
I don't really have a problem with "head canon" or "personal continuity". The idea that creators completely own their creation is so last century considering postmodern thought. Many postmodern artists believe that they put their creation out there and then the meaning isn't just up to the creator but up to everybody's interpretation. Meaning can be created by the viewer, not just by the creator. The creator's interpretation isn't even inherently more valid than anybody else's.
For all intents and purposes what happens on screen is obviously what's canon and in theory it's only the creators who control that. But they can't control the audience's interpretation and the meaning they assign to what's on-screen so if you ask me, people can see in it whatever the fuck they want.
And as long as they don't try to tell everybody else that their view is the only legitimate reading of the creation, I couldn't care less.
It's certainly not something I'd argue about or treat people who have a "head canon" with condescension for no evident good reason.
For all intents and purposes what happens on screen is obviously what's canon and in theory it's only the creators who control that. But they can't control the audience's interpretation and the meaning they assign to what's on-screen so if you ask me, people can see in it whatever the fuck they want.
And as long as they don't try to tell everybody else that their view is the only legitimate reading of the creation, I couldn't care less.
It's certainly not something I'd argue about or treat people who have a "head canon" with condescension for no evident good reason.
Bat-quoted for the Bat-lulz.
I tend to ignore some aspects of Trek, in particular Star Trek V, Code of Honor, Sub Rosa, Threshold and Profit and Lace, because they're so irretrievably awful and taint the rest of it by their sheer existence as a creative endeavour. I suppose that counts as a 'head canon'. Although generally when I use the term I'm referring to the bits I fill in or extend in my head to explain things or tie things together in ways they weren't on screen. Head fanon, I guess.
Similar threads
