"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had a lot of nerve showing up during the Civil Rights Era.
So how important is canon, then?
- Thread starter Trekkie27
- Start date
Technically, the fan base accepts canon. It is kind of what defines the fan base. And, just like canon, the fan base changes too.
I feel your pain. Fans are like good times: They come and they go. The important thing as a fan is to always have a good time, whether here or there!
I was more a fan of Franz Joseph’s Star Fleet Technical Manual than any Star Trek television series or movie. That book was a good time for me.
Also, The Best of Trek paperbacks! Awesome!
I also liked the motion picture, mainly because of the very realistic and beautiful model of the Enterprise. That model was a good time for me.
I guess that's about it for me. The only canon thing I liked was the refit Enterprise and her crew. We went everywhere.
At the end of the day, for me, where canon is concerned, there is the original Star Trek and the rest. If a latter series changes something, I'm still going to go with what TOS did in my head. Which means I treat it as a multiverse, everything counts (even the shows I don't much care for), but it doesn't represent a single continuous timeline.
Part of it is that they are just so wildly different from each other. Could anyone see 23rd century Michael Burnham in a Uhura-style miniskirt in a 21st century show?
I'd also recommend the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology by Stan and Fred Goldstein with illustrations by @Rick Sternbach. You can still find copies circulating on the used market for around $20 (US).
Part of it is that they are just so wildly different from each other. Could anyone see 23rd century Michael Burnham in a Uhura-style miniskirt in a 21st century show?
I'd also recommend the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology by Stan and Fred Goldstein with illustrations by @Rick Sternbach. You can still find copies circulating on the used market for around $20 (US).
That book is quintessential Trek fandom for me. Always a fantastic fun imaginative of possibility.
I tend to agree with this. Some of the earliest stuff I ever published was sparked by me noticing things that didn't jibe and trying to make it jibe.
Here I'm not sure I agree. There's something of a straw man that the anti-consistency folks use, which amounts to "The things you notice are insignificant and small." Aside from the fact that what's important to one person is irrelevant to another, there are indeed consistency issues which alter the overall story and change the characters.
I could, though I get what you mean. With SNW being a kind of bridge between both eras, I am very curious to see how that goes.
I could, though I get what you mean. With SNW being a kind of bridge between both eras, I am very curious to see how that goes.
She has pants on underneath. I'm talking about going full-Uhura.
long tunic and trousers has a cool neo-medieval look to it. The skant would have worked if it had included boots and pants.She has pants on underneath. I'm talking about going full-Uhura.
Was that one ‘dress’ Picard wore considered a skant? I always felt that it looked significantly better than TNG’s other attempts at genderless dresses, mainly due to the pants.
I'm not trying to be dismissive of the people value consistency because there are obvious inconsistencies that pop up in fictional works, as is going to happen. Even Tolkien, while writing the Hobbit, messed up eye color and his son called him out in a letter in their correspondence. So, I recognize this and perhaps "nitpicky" was not the best word choice given its obvious negative connotation. I think would use is consistency conscience, for lack of a better term. Those things that stand out, that make people, like Christopher Tolkien, more immersed in the world.
My biggest question when it comes to consistency is how much weight does it take away from the story? As you say, that will vary from person to person, but for me the inconsistency has to be very large in the characters or setting for me to notice. Now, the difference for me is two fold: One, I don't binge shows (for the most part), so any inconsistencies really need to pop out to carry weight, and two, in the world of streaming and replays and such it is much easier to pick up on these details than ever before. Even uniform colors.
So, I'm always curious as to what amounts as a big enough consistency that it cannot be rationalized away or takes away from the story?
I agree with you on those two points.
Of course, the other way is to not care about small contradictions in a 55 year old story and just enjoy the ride.
Could be. The only potential issue I would have with that is the definition of the word "small". As I pointed out to someone else in the thread, that tends to be a straw man used to negate the detrimental value of any and all consistency issues; it's all just "little stuff". While that is frequently true, it's not always true, and some things which are insignificant to one person might be critical to another.
Agree with this point.
Non-Trek example: WW84. No fighter plane in 1984 had the one-way range to fly from DC to Egypt without multiple refueling stops, and definitely could not do a round trip. Never mind that the NASM doesn't keep the exhibits fueled and ready to go in the first place.
Aww, shot counters. I'm beginning to understand.
Sounds like the dress uniform. I don't think anyone has ever described it as a skant.
Kor
^^Boimler did
Nope. I just know a lot about military aviation and knew what i was seeing was wrong without having to give it any thought. Probably not the only one that noticed either.
Similar threads
