Khan and the Eugenics War

[F. King Daniel]

Here's the Word of God reasoning. It's to keep Star Trek "aspirational"

 

[Awesome Possum]

That works for some characters, but there are others where I would argue "updating" their history is both problematic and would undermine their characterization. For example, Magneto being a Holocaust survivor is a fundamental aspect of that character which informs his viewpoint. If and when Marvel Studios gets to the X-Men, I'm curious as to how they'll handle it.

It's easy, either he ages slower due to his mutation or SHIELD has him in hibernation like Bucky. He could either be a prisoner or an agent who they keep on ice in case of certain scenarios that has only come up now.

 

[Lord Garth]

My mind is fucking blown that they acknowledged that Strange New Worlds (and Discovery) is a heavily modified timeline from TOS.

I never, ever thought they'd have the balls to do it.

I knew they'd do something. I just didn't know who would do it, where, or when.

Quoting myself on January 9th, 2023:

So TOS isn't being replaced. How it's visually depicted depends on the series (which is messy, I won't deny it, but that's a different kind of problem). The events are still referred to.

Knowing Star Trek, they'll probably come up with some wacky convoluted explanation for the depictions before the Kurtzman Era finishes. Maybe the 60th Anniversary. Then there would be people who'd have wished they hadn't... but that's Star Trek for you again!

Also, it turns out SNW's take on the differences lined up with mine. Quoting myself on January 6th, 2023:

I have a different view in my personal head-canon. Due to the Temporal Wars, things changed. So, during SNW and the first two seasons of DSC, we're seeing the version of the 23rd Century that resulted from the Temporal Wars. As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek continuity has become like comic books. TOS-ENT is "Pre-Crisis", DSC and on is "Post-Crisis".

 

[Mudd]

if you can't argue a point, don't say anything.

Proposal rejected.

 

[Tomalak]

Here's the Word of God reasoning. It's to keep Star Trek "aspirational"

I find it more aspirational that the nuclear holocaust that everyone in the fifties/sixties expected to happen at some point in the future never occurred. Or at least, not yet.

Star Trek has always been a fiction and surely viewers understand that.

That said, the Eugenics Wars are ripe for retcon. It was a rare misstep for TOS to be so specific about a date given that they were so vague about when Star Trek itself was set.

I'm incredibly relaxed about this flexible timeline and the 'Temporal Wars' is an easy explanation for literally any inconsistency.

Doctor Who did it years ago with the Time War. Voyager laid the foundations with 29th century Time Agents, Enterprise doubled down on it.

It's quite freeing for writers to be able to write timely stories without being overburdened by six decades years of continuity.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Star Trek has always been a fiction and surely viewers understand that.

You're new here, aren't you?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Tomalak]

You're new here, aren't you?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Ha, touché!

 

[TerryTrek]

I knew they'd do something. I just didn't know who would do it, where, or when.

Quoting myself on January 9th, 2023:

Also, it turns out SNW's take on the differences lined up with mine. Quoting myself on January 6th, 2023:

Indeed.

I see it more like the Star Trek Prime Timeline is constantly in flux, because of the temporal wars.

You could have TOS in continuity for a while, then it switches to the Discovery/SNW verse, and then it could switch back to TOS for specific projects (like Legacy), and then back again to Discovery/SNW for 'Section 31' ...etc

It makes it difficult to map out a linear timeline for Star Trek now, but after 50 years, that's okay. Multiple continuities and canons could work. Memory Alpha already has Alpha and Beta canon, they just need a similar system for this.

Ultimately, it just allows new creatives to tell new stories if they aren't fans of what came before or don't want to be limited by it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

James Dixon was saying this stuff back in '03 but he put the divergence at First Contact leading to ENT and ST'09 somewhere he's probably celebrating one handed.

I recall being thrilled when Into Darkness kept Khan as being a product of the 20th century, but I also know there was at some point an idea floated for a Eugenics Wars show codenamed "1992". So if they're thinking of going forward with it, moving to the modern day and setting it in Canada where they film most of their stuff is economical. I'd have really loved a period piece though starting in the 60's with the initial research and testing and leading to an apocalyptic 1990's but whatever works for them.

It opens up loads of questions about Trek continuity though. We really are in X-Men movie territory now where everyone just does their own thing.

 

[valkyrie013]

I'm okay an accept them trying to make the "today World" the past of Star Trek, maybe they think if they label it "Alternate History" that people might not watch or get a bit dejected that there might not be a chance of a trek utopia.
So I'm okay with a bit of Timey Wimey, though they do have a Hard Date of 2063.. and it should still be a series by then!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Let's just say I'm old enough to remember when Iron Man's origin involved Tony Stark being captured in Nam by the Viet Cong. And when Captain America was traumatized by Watergate, after being unthawed from the ice in . . . the early 1960s. And the Hulk was created by . . . an outdoor nuclear-bomb test in the New Mexico? You know, the kind we have all the time these days.

Marvel Comics have always operated on a sliding timescale in terms of current events, so that exactly which conflict Tony Stark was injured in keeps being moved forward. Ditto for what wars Nick Fury fought in.

And, of course, to explain why Spider-Man isn't collecting Social Security Payments after being a high school kid in the 1960s.

The Amazing Spider-Gramps

 

[Nerys Myk]

That works for some characters, but there are others where I would argue "updating" their history is both problematic and would undermine their characterization. For example, Magneto being a Holocaust survivor is a fundamental aspect of that character which informs his viewpoint. If and when Marvel Studios gets to the X-Men, I'm curious as to how they'll handle it.

And for me one of Marvels biggest missteps.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Oh, I just thought of a textbook example of a movie series bumping the timeframe up just to modernize things.

The first two Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were, appropriately, set in Victorian England, complete with Hansom cabs, gaslights, etc. But then Pearl Harbor happened and the setting was shifted to the present-day (i.e. the 1940s) so that Holmes & Watson could do their patriotic duty by fighting Nazi spies and saboteurs. As I recall, this was "explained" by a title card stating that Holmes was a timeless character who could therefore join the war effort in these crucial times.

To be clear, there was no "in-universe" attempt to explain this: no time-travel, suspended animation, or suggestion that these were the descendants of the original, Victorian Holmes and Watson. The whole series was just relocated, kit and kaboodle, from Victorian times to the modern era, complete with Moriarty, Mrs. Hudson, Inspector Lestrade, etc.

And the Rathbone/Bruce movies stayed in the 1940s thereafter.

(Another war-related retcon: The Green Hornet's sidekick, Kato, was Japanese -- until Pear Harbor happened, at which point he became Filipino for the duration. Or so I understand.)

There's of course also the "sliding timescale" of 616 Marvel comics, where the events of Fantastic Four Number 1 always happened "13 years ago"

edit: oh I see, you already adressed that in an earlier post, my bad

 

[DEWLine]

Here's the Word of God reasoning. It's to keep Star Trek "aspirational"

I've read it, and I disagree with that perceived need.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's the Word of God reasoning. It's to keep Star Trek "aspirational"

Yup. As I would expect. Connected to our humanity not it's own random thing.

 

[DEWLine]

I'd have really loved a period piece though starting in the 60's with the initial research and testing and leading to an apocalyptic 1990's..."

A period piece that likely would have required location shoots in India or nearby. That might have been (a) extra-expensive in ways the current projects aren't, and (b) politically dicey over there for lots of reasons. (EG: Narendra Modi, and is Khan Noonien-Singh being repurposed as a comment on his behaviour?)

Not that I wouldn't have preferred such a project myself...

 

[Citiprime]

A period piece that likely would have required location shoots in India or nearby. That might have been (a) extra-expensive in ways the current projects aren't, and (b) politically dicey over there for lots of reasons. (EG: Narendra Modi, and is Khan Noonien-Singh being repurposed as a comment on his behaviour?)

Not that I wouldn't have preferred such a project myself...

You're telling me they can create a VR wall set for an alien world with Klingons in the first episode, but can't create 1960s/70s Asia with the same technology?

 

[DEWLine]

I'm saying that I expect that someone would say the VR wall wasn't going to be enough.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm more thinking costuming costs.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And I resent getting sandbagged by someone I usually respect, but I guess we can't all get what we want.

Sandbagged? I don’t think so.