Uh, no. Fan fiction cannot retcon the canonical continuity, by definition. Only something canonical can retcon that.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
Just a question. 2 people sit down to play a game of monopoly. Unknown to either, each person has a different set of rules. Now a 3rd person enters the game with a 3rd set of rules, then a 4th and a 4th set of rules. How long does the game last?
If everyone can have their own continuity, how can a cohesive conversation be maintained, if in essence everyone is talking about a different show?
If everyone can have their own continuity, how can a cohesive conversation be maintained, if in essence everyone is talking about a different show?
There is a big difference between Trek's communicators and the smartphones we have now. Our phones are dependent on RF signals transmitted by a multitude of cell towers as infrastructure. Trek's communicators operate without any existing infrastructure except perhaps the ship itself. It's not even clear that communicators use RF at all, but perhaps some sort of 'subspace' carrier. Evidence is the instantaneous transmission of communication, whereas RF signals would at least a couple of seconds of lag. IMO, our smartphones are closer to tricorders (i.e. multi-function devices) than communicators.
Um, I can still talk about the show and many aspects of it without ever bringing up my own personal continuity. There are many aspects of the show to talk about.
I apologize if my posts came off that way. I should point out that back in 2012 I wrote several long comments on Trekmovie explaining why based on the evidence at hand there was absolutely no way Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan. So I'm perhaps not the best person to be speculating on the subject.
Turns out you were correct. He wasn't.
Expecting Discovery to look like a 1960's tv show, just to look Prime, makes as much sense as expecting all Robin Hood movies to look like Errol Flynn will suddenly make an appearance. Folks need to use their imagination, pretend the 2017 production version of the 23rd century was designed by Engineers from Jupiter station 200 years from now. And it would be good to recognise Starfleet is not really a club dominated by North American Terrans. As if under a United Earth major nations like China, Russia and India (especially the French) would be happy its mainly the USA being represented in space and running things? Pull the other one!
And I would like someone to come up with an in universe reason for the TOS lack of nationality and species in Starfleet that does not sound racist. Thankfully most of the modern ST novels rewrite that bit of TOS.
50 years from now Star Trek will have late 21st century production values. I can see the arguments from old fogies moaning why it does not look like Discovery lol
And I would like someone to come up with an in universe reason for the TOS lack of nationality and species in Starfleet that does not sound racist. Thankfully most of the modern ST novels rewrite that bit of TOS.
50 years from now Star Trek will have late 21st century production values. I can see the arguments from old fogies moaning why it does not look like Discovery lol
Last edited:
Might I recommend the recent Star Trek Continues episode. (Though fan films in general are not my thing) where Kirk has a west Asian friend/girlfriend who at no point descends into stereotypes. If you squint at the screen everyone even looks uncannily like the TOS crew. Though Vics Kirk voice is too light a lot of the time, and needs a bit of steel now an then. Especially as the actress in question has now also apparently been cast in Discovery. XD
Realistically, fans will get over all this nonsense, and yes, all signs that don't require reading Tea leaves and set design say Discovery is Prime Timeline.
But even though Cumberbatch looked and acted nothing like the Khan we saw in Space Seed and TWOK, he was still Khan, because the movie explicitly said so. Just like how DSC looks nothing like TOS but is still the prime universe, because the creators of the show said so.
How do you get to that reading from him saying, on screen,in surround sound 'My name is Khan'
I mean he could be anybody because he's not dressed or looks the same as he did in the sixties, so he can't be Khan.......
He cut his long hair, lightened his skin and developed a posh English accent - Section 666 remade him!
Actually it's the opposite. If you remember, the "creators" of the movie (and Cumberbatch himself) repeatedly stated that Cumberbatch was not playing Khan! Turns out they were saying the truth.
So you don't think you've ever interpreted anything in media other than how the creator intended you to interpret it?
Cumberbatch and Montalbán played the same character, more or less just the way Alley and Curtis did. The only difference was that Khan was depicted in different timelines, as opposed to the same timeline in the case of Saavik. Considering that difference, the transition from Alley to Curtis was more radical.
Alley played Saavik the way she was meant to be played - as part Romulan, with extreme emotions seething under the surface, barely in check. The novelization delved into this even more with a scene with her completely losing her shit and trashing the room containing Spock's coffin. The movie severely downplays that with giving her just a single tear during the funeral and experimenting with less-conservative-yet-still-regulation hairstyles.
Curtis played her as a full Vulcan, with far more emotional control, as if already having experienced Kolinahr. David's death would have sent Alley's Saavik into an apoplectic rage instead of Curtis' wooden "Admiral, David is dead".
To Curtis' credit, though, I heard her speak at a convention and she very much disliked that scene the way it was written and shot and wanted it to be more natural and emotional, but Nimoy wanted full-on mahogany.
Curtis played her as a full Vulcan, with far more emotional control, as if already having experienced Kolinahr. David's death would have sent Alley's Saavik into an apoplectic rage instead of Curtis' wooden "Admiral, David is dead".
To Curtis' credit, though, I heard her speak at a convention and she very much disliked that scene the way it was written and shot and wanted it to be more natural and emotional, but Nimoy wanted full-on mahogany.
Last edited:
Then, for extra fun, Curtis appeared in TNG as a completely new character.
Or at least, she says she's a new character...
True, but I daresay that Cumberbatch received different direction than Montalbán did, also.
Interesting notion. Hadn't thought of that.Then, for extra fun, Curtis appeared in TNG as a completely new character.
Or at least, she says she's a new character...
Similar threads
