Just watch a whole bunch of people attempt to defend it now.But almost nobody calls "Code of Honor(TNG)" good Star Trek.
For...reasons...
SNW truly respects TOS continuity!
- Thread starter C.E. Evans
- Start date
For...reasons...
It definitely fits with TOS' "we found these sets and costumes at the back of the lot - use them" approach, plus it has a colonialism/60s white saviour style.
Seems like the true successor to TOS
Canon is bullshit. And the "real keepers of canon" imposing their rigid version of "canon" are the enemies of creativity. We wouldn't have EVER had anything new to watch and enjoy and love all over again. I am as real a fan as any self-declared "keeper of canon." I've been watching since 1966. Stop telling me how I should be appreciating my goddamned shows.
So if canon is the stuff the draw from, and they ignore a bunch of things before, haven't they negated that old stuff from being canon? Doesn't that mean they have created a new canon?
Here is the thing about canon - it is supposed to have some level of agreement. If you ask what the Enterprise looked like in 2260, you shouldn't get 3 different answers depending on what series you are referencing. So by ignoring previous canon on what things looked like and character history and when certain species were first encountered, and etc., hasn't Discovery created their own canon and broken from the TOS-Enterprise canon? If they ignored the old material to create new material, isn't that what they have done? We got TWOK because Nicholas Meyers watched TOS and found Space Seed and thought he would make a great villain to bring back. We got SNW because Discovery brought Pike, Number One, and Spock back and everyone like how well they did it that they wanted more. I don't like season 2 of Discovery, but I loved those characters. So they partially mined what came before to create something new in line with Discovery.
I don't think canon is as simple as you think. I don't think it is as simple as 'everything on film' because the decisions of the producers and corporate can lead to ignoring or outright changing what was previously considered canon and in doing so they are writing a new canon. I know that Star Wars tries very hard to keep to one canon that maintains continuity (Legends, formerly EU, didn't do a good job). Doctor Who is hopeless because for 26 years they barely paid any attention to the old stories. But there is also a canon to Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Middle Earth and other written or filmed works.
I think that as long as you have a clear hand off of canon control in terms of creativity you can say things must all be canon. But when you have a clear break like Star Trek as in 2005, I think the argument can be made that what came before is its own canon that is separate from what is being made now.
And the thing is that you are arguing like I have some unique and strange opinion when I know for a fact that quite a few people consider Discovery and Strange New Worlds reboots.
Do you know another franchise that did it better? Because right now the Kenobi tv show, without spoiling much, already bulldozed the timeline placement of several canon Obi-Wan Marvel comic books. It's just as bad as the EU if not worse at continuity keeping (the EU at least had canon tiers that would address that TV overrides comic, now there's the pretense that they are all on the same level).
There's canon, what the IP owner gets to produce, distribute, make money from and declare as official continuity.
There's head canon, which can be whatever you want it to be. Have as much fun as you like with it, it belongs to you and will always be your unique concept of said fictional universe. But it's not official.
And we're done.
There's head canon, which can be whatever you want it to be. Have as much fun as you like with it, it belongs to you and will always be your unique concept of said fictional universe. But it's not official.
And we're done.
And as we have seen in Star Wars, they can declare past things no longer canon. Isn't that basically what Disovery and SNW have done to TOS?
And there you admit that I can consider Discovery/SNW a reboot taking place in a parallel universe. So why when I very clearly addressed that it was how I look at it so much of an issue? I'm not insisting anyone else do it. But that is how I do it to make sense of all the discrepancies that I see. Others may not have a problem, but I do and I know others do. I have one friend on facebook who flat out refuses to watch SNW because they changed the look.
Sure.
Nope.
No.
And you'll be hard-pressed to find a bigger critic of DSC's aesthetic choices than I. The series made some dumb creative decisions. And it still didn't decanonize or ignore TOS.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Like I said somewhere above, about all they are paying attention to from TOS is a rough timeline. The finer details that a lot of us pour over are ignored.
Which is how it has always been. The writing staff do not invest like we do. That's a near impossible task. Could they be more exacting with past Trek? I have no doubt that they could. They could create a giant room with a timeline with dates and references to support their efforts to create the perfectly historically balanced Trek like a lot of fans do some ways.
And it would not make better stories. There is a reason Roddenberry distance himself from TOS: it wasn't consistent with the types of stories he wanted to tell or the types of humans he wanted to see. Same thing with Meyer, and so on and so forth. See, these are not historians reporting on basic facts, but creative people who have a particular view of the world they want to see come to life.
My changing sets? No.
Obi-Wan is shown to have access to a lightsaber not buried and practicing the Jedi way in 10 BBY in the comics. The tv show shows him having renounced the Jedi way and having had the lightsaber buried for years as of 9 BBY.
So, it got a date wrong so canon is bulldozed?
Good grief. I've studied history papers and ancient history with more leeway for dates than fans for strict literalism.
Good grief. I've studied history papers and ancient history with more leeway for dates than fans for strict literalism.
Nope
Also nope.
Nope again. That said, has DISCO done any of those things?
The answer is
I really need to trim that image.
Actually it was Harve Bennett who watched TOS and picked Khan,
Akiva Goldsman is the one who brought Pike, Spock and Number One to DISCO, because he's a fan of TOS when offered to work on DISCO thought it was an Enterprise based showed. So he did a stealth "pitch" for SNW.
Lucky for us it worked. IIRC, not even Spock was going to be in DISCO before Goldsman showed up.It is. and nope.
Producers and corporate "changes" gave us TMP and TWOK. Are they a new canon because the Klingons were changed or Khan knows Chekov and his crew are all from a 80's hair metal band? Star Trek as we know it is the result of "corporate interference". Spock would not be the character we know if the "suits" didn't request Number One (or her actress) be axed.
All of whom have been subject to change, by their original authors, their successors and their adaptors.
So? None of that impacts canon in the least. When you or those "quite a few people" get jobs on Star Trek, let me know. Then you'll have something to say about canon.
The Enterprise looks like this in 2259, it will look like TOS from 2265-70 and then like the TMP Enterprise from 2273-85. All three are canon looks in the same continuity.
All we know is that when Bryan Fuller was showrunner there were zero plans to use the Enterprise or her crew in Season 1.
It also sounds like the Enterprise cliff hangar was a late addition to Season 1 based on when John Eaves was asked to design her.
Strictly Q&A and Cage both occuring in 2254 throw a wrench in this theory. But I'm fine with my bridge module and dress uniform explanation for now.
Or break the fourth wall and realize they really didn't have the budget for a short trek to make things different.
Similar threads
