Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[Kemaiku]

Those comics were not canon.

I know. But it's the only Enterprise in the Kelvin universe before the 2258 one, since even the decision to build it would have been quite a few years before full construction, which would have only started around the time Discovery's novel takes place.

This is the Prime universe.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

That could just as well have been Billj's argument.

True, but I keep going back to the TMP Klingon example...

TREK FAN (in 1979): Who are those bumpy-headed aliens?

STAR TREK PRODUCERS: Those are Klingons.

TREK FAN (in 1979): How are they Klingons? They don't look like Klingons.

STAR TREK PRODUCERS: They are Klingons because we say they are.

TREK FAN (in 1979): Okay, no problem.

Similarly, if the makers of DSC tell us that DSC is in the prime universe, then it is in the prime universe, even if fans say "but the prime universe in 2255 doesn't look like that".

 

[cultcross]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

If you've nothing to add to a discussion, you can just move onto the next thread without trolling.

 

[137th Gebirg]

True, but I keep going back to the TMP Klingon example...

TREK FAN (in 1979): Who are those bumpy-headed aliens?

STAR TREK PRODUCERS: Those are Klingons.

TREK FAN (in 1979): How are they Klingons? They don't look like Klingons.

STAR TREK PRODUCERS: They are Klingons because we say they are.

TREK FAN (in 1979): Okay, no problem.

Similarly, if the makers of DSC tell us that DSC is in the prime universe, then it is in the prime universe, even if fans say "but the prime universe in 2255 doesn't look like that".

Specifically regarding the "TREK FAN (in 1979): Okay, no problem" bit - Have you been watching the "New Klingon" thread?

"Because we say so" hasn't really been an acceptable explanation to rationalize much of anything in the eyes Trek fans for some time.

 

[BillJ]

I can call your house an oil drilling platform all I want, won't stop it being a house. Calling Discovery anything other than the creators do is your own issue.

When Roddenberry said TAS was non-canon and so was Star Trek V, did you dutifully follow the company line? It is also likely he would've said the same thing about Deep Space Nine? If he had, would you have dutifully followed the company line?

I guess I wonder when Star Trek fans fell in line to such a degree?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Specifically regarding the "TREK FAN (in 1979): Okay, no problem" bit - Have you been watching the "New Klingon" thread?

"Because we say so" hasn't really been an acceptable explanation to rationalize much of anything in the eyes Trek fans for some time.

I know, but it should be acceptable.

It's not the TV show/movie producers' fault if the fans today can't just be OK with "Those are Klingons because we say those are Klingons", just like they were (generally) OK with it in 1979. Or be OK with "That's what a Star Fleet ship bridge looks like in 2255 because we say that's what it looks like".

If the producers stop enabling that kind of fan reaction by coddling them and trying to appease them (which is impossible to do anyway, so why even try), then maybe the fans would be much more willing to accept that the aesthetics will change because of advances in film making technology, makeup, or artistic direction... AND those changes do not need to be reconciled with in-universe explanations for the aesthetic changes.

 

[BillJ]

If the producers stop enabling that kind of fan reaction by coddling them...

I tend to think the producers are coddling fans that cannot accept the universe will be rebooted. Much like we saw with a contingent of very loud fans carrying on against the Abrams films.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Aesthetics should not be important. A race having what amounts to a very minor physical change should not be important.

History, story and character should be all that's important and the producers, writers and actors have all sworn up and down that it holds true to that.

I have yet to see any conclusive proof of a genuine "canon violation" that's any worse than what TOS frequently did to itself, what TNG did to TOS (and itself), and what the other series did to those two (and themselves).

Really, the only nearly unexplainable "canon violation" I've seen is that Starfleet is already using the Delta insignia, but honestly, there's even precedent for that. Officers not assigned to the Enterprise were seen wearing the Delta in TOS. And really, why would Starfleet, after centuries of using assignment patches on uniforms rather than a single Starfleet emblem, suddenly decide to do away with assignment patches, and why would it start using the Enterprise's assignment patch as a symbol for the fleet when they could have, just as easily, kept their own "boomerang swoosh" emblem and made that the universal insignia? It's the assignment patches ever existing at all that makes less sense.

As for the Klingons, I really fail to see what the fuss is about. So these Klingons shave their heads. So what? So they wear the ancient armor of House T'Kuvma. And? I know there are minor facial differences, but the producers have explained that these Klingons did not grow up on Qo'nos, and they've explained that as the series goes on, stuff will start to look more like TOS. I really don't understand the issue here. This is FAR less of a change than the 1979 change, and while I understand that drew some ire, I also understand we made piece with it.

Google "Worf Deep Space Nine Season Seven" and picture what he'd look like with a shaved head. It's shockingly close.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I tend to think the producers are coddling fans that cannot accept the universe will be rebooted. Much like we saw with a contingent of very loud fans carrying on against the Abrams films.

That wouldn't be coddling. That would be lying. Sure, Hollywood lies all the time, but this lie would only hurt the show. Contrary to popular belief, no one involved with the Kelvin films promised they would be set in the prime timeline, just that everything that seemed not to be canon had a canon explanation.

Enterprise was ragged on by many fans for "not being canon" but it seems like nowadays most accept that it was. I'm confident the same is true of Discovery.

 

[BillJ]

Aesthetics should not be important.

Why not? The people involved worked every bit as hard as the writers did to help craft the universe.

That wouldn't be coddling. That would be lying.

You can be true to dates on a calendar, yet still not fit with what came before. For one, actors are much different now. In the TOS era, every one came pretty much from a theatrical background, not so much with modern actors.

There's even a thread here about how people hope there is no melodrama, when TOS is chock full of melodrama. Do we ignore anything that is inconvenient to the current story? And, at what point is so much pared away that it is no longer like what came before, no matter how much dates line up?

 

[Noname Given]

When Roddenberry said TAS was non-canon and so was Star Trek V, did you dutifully follow the company line? It is also likely he would've said the same thing about Deep Space Nine? If he had, would you have dutifully followed the company line?

I guess I wonder when Star Trek fans fell in line to such a degree?

Paramount decanonized TAS in 1979 because there was still a legal question as to whether they would owe royalty payments to Filmatilon for any elements 'borrowed' from TAS for the feature films or TNG. Since Filmation folded an d the rights for TAS all reverted to Paramount/CBS <--- That's when TAS was re-cononized.

As for the film GR considered non-canon - I thought it was STIII:TSFS because he didn't like that Kirk self-destructed the original U.S>S.Enterprise? (Which GR considered as a 'Star Trek' character; and NO MATTER the situation, it's something the 'real' James T. Kirk would never do.)

I WISH STV:TFF didn't exist, and I tend to ignore it myself; but hey, it is what it is.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Why not? The people involved worked every bit as hard as the writers did to help craft the universe.

Roddenberry would be the first (and believe me, I'm no Roddenberry worshipper) to tell you that if you can do it better, do it better. He didn't like the look of TOS, and as soon as there was money and ability to make it look more like he had always wanted it to, he did. This isn't to take away from the craftsmanship that went into creating TOS, but to expect a modern series to look like TOS is insane.

You can be true to dates on a calendar, yet still not fit with what came before. For one, actors are much different now. In the TOS era, every one came pretty much from a theatrical background, not so much with modern actors.

There's even a thread here about how people hope there is no melodrama, when TOS is chock full of melodrama. Do we ignore anything that is inconvenient to the current story? And, at what point is so much pared away that it is no longer like what came before, no matter how much dates line up?

I don't know where to go with this one. You expect even such things as acting styles to line up with TOS? I just can't...

 

[BillJ]

I don't know where to go with this one. You expect even such things as acting styles to line up with TOS? I just can't...

If you are claiming it is the Prime universe, shouldn't it line up with how the Prime universe is portrayed? Or is the Prime universe just a series of dates on a calendar? If it doesn't line up with how the Prime universe has been portrayed in the past, then why is it so important for it to be "Prime"?

To me, Star Trek is a package. The writing, the actors, the style, the look are all important in making Star Trek what it is.

It is why rebooting was always a better option to me, and how I am treating Discovery.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

If you are claiming it is the Prime universe, shouldn't it line up with how the Prime universe is portrayed? Or is the Prime universe just a series of dates on a calendar? If it doesn't line up with how the Prime universe has been portrayed in the past, then why is it so important for it to be "Prime"?

The sort of melodramatic acting TOS had didn't even translate to the TOS films. I never expected to encounter anyone who literally believed that everything, EVERYTHING, from TOS should carry over to the other series. Acting styles are what they are. They can't be imitated and no one should try. It would look like parody.

What's important to me is that the series not try to say something happened that we already know didn't happen (such as suggesting we've already seen Romulans face to face, or that Scotty is a woman, or that Captain Pike is dead) or that something that we already know has happened didn't happen, such as trying to re-write the Klingon brow issue to suggest the augment virus didn't happen (which I will be angry if they do).

To me, Star Trek is a package. The writing, the actors, the style, the look are all important in making Star Trek what it is.

It is why rebooting was always a better option to me, and how I am treating Discovery.

Whatever makes you happy, as long as you don't insist that the rest of us see it that way.

 

[BillJ]

What's important to me is that the series not try to say something happened that we already know didn't happen (such as suggesting we've already seen Romulans face to face, or that Scotty is a woman, or that Captain Pike is dead) or that something that we already know has happened didn't happen, such as trying to re-write the Klingon brow issue to suggest the augment virus didn't happen (which I will be angry if they do).

So it is just names and dates for you, which is cool. I just have no interest in that. If the stories good, I don't care if the Romulans show up, Pike is dead or Scotty is a woman.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Basically, I don't see "canon" as a trap for writers. I think it's a guide for them to keep in mind as they write. When one travels using Google maps, you can still go places on the map you haven't gone before, and find that things look unfamiliar and odd when you get there, but it's still all on the same map, and the same guide can get you there.

Novel writers often introduce new elements, but they don't override canon to do so. It's very possible, so I don't insist that Discovery has to be a reboot just because it doesn't look like we expect.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

So it is just names and dates for you, which is cool. I just have no interest in that. If the stories good, I don't care if the Romulans show up, Pike is dead or Scotty is a woman.

Essentially, yeah, I treat it like our own history. Which means as long as you don't contradict events (and I give a bit of leeway for mistakes because the Prophets know they happen, and happen a lot), do what you will, when you will. Just make it interesting and well-written.

 

[Phoenix219]

Paramount decanonized TAS in 1979 because there was still a legal question as to whether they would owe royalty payments to Filmatilon for any elements 'borrowed' from TAS for the feature films or TNG. Since Filmation folded an d the rights for TAS all reverted to Paramount/CBS <--- That's when TAS was re-cononized.

As for the film GR considered non-canon - I thought it was STIII:TSFS because he didn't like that Kirk self-destructed the original U.S>S.Enterprise? (Which GR considered as a 'Star Trek' character; and NO MATTER the situation, it's something the 'real' James T. Kirk would never do.)

I WISH STV:TFF didn't exist, and I tend to ignore it myself; but hey, it is what it is.

Check out the Jack Marshall episode/pilot style recut of STV - it fixes just about everything that was ever wrong with the movie, brings out all the TOS elements to the fullest, and is an enjoyable 70 minute romp.

Message me for a link.

 

[Mudd]

Not really.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If someone really wanted to excuse the new look, they could say it's the Prime Universe in a post-Temporal War (when we ended up with Nazi aliens in the White House on Enterprise) continuum.

Of course, then you have to deal with the TOS you knew and loved (and TNG and DS9 and Voyager but again probably not Enterprise) no longer existing, but hey! It's just a TV show.