ST canon is inconsistent and contradictory.

[Jinn]

Doctor Who has a canon, just no one gives a shit about staying consistent with it. One of the franchise's most renowned producers is quoted saying "Continuity is only whatever I can remember."

Everyone always says that, but it's not really accurate. For the most part, time travel is just a means of transportation in Doctor Who. Very few stories are actually about time travel itself and the implications associated with it. Indeed, it's only the Steven Moffat era of 2010-2017 where that was a regular thing for the show.

At the very least, Terrance Dicks, who was the producer with the quote about continuity only being what he can remember ran the show in the 1970s during a period where the show in fact gave up time travel with the Doctor being stuck on Earth in a vaguely defined "near future." And even that they couldn't stay consistent about with it quickly being forgotten that it was supposed to be the future and not present day, which has turned into one of the franchise's more infamous in-jokes these days.

Ohhh, is that the UNIT Dating controversy?

 

[The Wormhole]

That's it, yep.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Well, it is lit-verse, but not onscreen.

Nothing in the litverse is canon by definition. Demora Sulu becoming Captain of the Enterprise-B may still be continuity for the novels, but it's never, ever been canon. VOY co-creator and producer Jeri Taylor wrote a couple of novels detailing the backstory of several VOY characters, and even those were thrown out of continuity after Taylor left the series and the show went a different way.

It could be one day, if a Short Trek is done based on her captaincy of the Ent-B. Can set it 25-30 years after the events in Generations.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It could be one day, if a Short Trek is done based on her captaincy of the Ent-B. Can set it 25-30 years after the events in Generations.

Possible but not terribly likely, IMO. And it still wouldn't make any of the books featuring Demora Sulu as Captain canon, just the fact that she became Captain of the Enterprise-B. The movies incorporated the names Winona Kirk, George Kirk, Hikaru Sulu, and Nyota Uhura from various ST books, but it didn't instantly make those books canon. Just those particular names.

 

[fireproof78]

See, this is where my view diverges. I don't need the Lit-Verse to be canon, and it doesn't need a short Trek to be an enjoyable story. Just let the books exist and don't feel the need to shoehorn in everything.

 

[Noname Given]

Makes me wonder why they were there at all, just to show off the new makeup?
Kinda reminds me of the Duras Sisters who were kinda just...there...in Generations and got killed off rather unceremoniously.

Because per Paramount - you can't have a Star Trek film without Klingons. (Even Star Trek II has the simulator scene where the ship and crew are destroyed by Klingon D-7's)

 

[diankra]

I know very little about Dr Who, but I thought there was no real canon over the 50 years or so - sorta like James Bond, in that sense.

Canon is what's onscreen. Continuity is a different matter.

 

[diankra]

Doctor Who has a canon, just no one gives a shit about staying consistent with it. One of the franchise's most renowned producers is quoted saying "Continuity is only whatever I can remember."

Everyone always says that, but it's not really accurate. For the most part, time travel is just a means of transportation in Doctor Who. Very few stories are actually about time travel itself and the implications associated with it. Indeed, it's only the Steven Moffat era of 2010-2017 where that was a regular thing for the show.

At the very least, Terrance Dicks, who was the producer with the quote about continuity only being what he can remember ran the show in the 1970s during a period where the show in fact gave up time travel with the Doctor being stuck on Earth in a vaguely defined "near future." And even that they couldn't stay consistent about with it quickly being forgotten that it was supposed to be the future and not present day, which has turned into one of the franchise's more infamous in-jokes these days.

Terrance was never producer He was script editor from 68 to 74, and yep, that was his attitude.

 

[diankra]

Canon is what's onscreen. Continuity is a different matter.

Oh, and have a watch. Nice thing is that if you don't like that Doctor, you can watch another one.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Because per Paramount - you can't have a Star Trek film without Klingons. (Even Star Trek II has the simulator scene where the ship and crew are destroyed by Klingon D-7's)

Yeah, but that was more about saving money by recycling existing footage from TMP than it was about having the Klingons in the movie in some fashion.

 

[Forbin]

Because per Paramount - you can't have a Star Trek film without Klingons. (Even Star Trek II has the simulator scene where the ship and crew are destroyed by Klingon D-7's)

Those were K'Tingas
[/nerd mode]

 

[drt]

Everyone always says that, but it's not really accurate. For the most part, time travel is just a means of transportation in Doctor Who. Very few stories are actually about time travel itself and the implications associated with it. Indeed, it's only the Steven Moffat era of 2010-2017 where that was a regular thing for the show.

Agreed. With how little it's been used formally, it's really more a fanon explanation for continuity differences.

At the very least, Terrance Dicks, who was the producer with the quote about continuity only being what he can remember ran the show in the 1970s during a period where the show in fact gave up time travel with the Doctor being stuck on Earth in a vaguely defined "near future." And even that they couldn't stay consistent about with it quickly being forgotten that it was supposed to be the future and not present day, which has turned into one of the franchise's more infamous in-jokes these days.

It's sort of weird why they felt the need to make the UNIT stories with Pertwee and Baker take place several years into the future. I haven't watched any of the Pertwee stuff for over 35 years, but I don't recall anything that was particularly "futuristic" that they'd need to explain away - unless there is astronaut/space mission stuff I've forgotten.

 

[Mytran]

It's sort of weird why they felt the need to make the UNIT stories with Pertwee and Baker take place several years into the future. I haven't watched any of the Pertwee stuff for over 35 years, but I don't recall anything that was particularly "futuristic" that they'd need to explain away - unless there is astronaut/space mission stuff I've forgotten.

I think there were some alien attacks, slightly futuristic inventions or otherwise slightly "heightened" technology which are more easily explained if set 5 minutes into the future.
There was also BBC3

 

[The Wormhole]

It's sort of weird why they felt the need to make the UNIT stories with Pertwee and Baker take place several years into the future. I haven't watched any of the Pertwee stuff for over 35 years, but I don't recall anything that was particularly "futuristic" that they'd need to explain away - unless there is astronaut/space mission stuff I've forgotten.

It was rather noticeable in the early Pertwee stories. Ambassadors of Death in particular Britain is operating space freighters. IIRC, there's also a story in which video communications are a regular thing. The idea was to be futuristic enough that society could be advanced with technology not currently existing, but close enough so that society could still be somewhat recognizable. But then the recognizable society part won out and everyone just assumed it was supposed to be contemporary times anyway. The whole idea was based in part on a throwaway line from the Troughton story Web of Fear, a seemingly contemporary story (meaning it would have been set in the 1960s when it aired) which refers to the 1930s as "forty years ago."

 

[1001001]

Are we talking about Star Trek or Inspector Spacetime in here?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Are we talking about Star Trek or Inspector Spacetime in here?

I personally much prefer the original Blorgon makeup.

 

[C57D]

And the CyberBorg costumes too !!

 

[ichab]

I don't know if this has been discussed before, so I'll mention it.

The other franchise is far more unified and integrated. To give one example, Rogue One has a similar feel to Star Wars: A New Hope, in terms of uniforms and fell. Our franchise, however is not, and, to give the most famous example, the Klingons look different, which leads to problems explaining why they look different. And, to give a second example, the Starfleet uniforms are also different.
Not only that, our stories tend to contradict each other, because, when TOS started, they were literally making it up as they went along. And, after that, they didn't bother to maintain a consistency. And let's not even talk about the reboot.

That may be because only one man owned it for decades, and, even now, there is a centralized story group of writers who tell that story. Ours, on the other hand, are owned by Paramount and CBS separately, with no central command to ensure consistency. And that detracts from our enjoyment of the stories.

Any thoughts?

Are we talking the same Star Wars that changes its movies every time they are released on home video?
-First it's Star Wars, then it's Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope.
-First Han shoots first, then Greedo shoots first, then they both fire at the same time, but greedo misses his target that is right in front of him,
-Boba Fett's voice has changed between two different actors
- first Luke selflessly jumps off committing suicide, next release he's screaming like a girl while falling, next release he is back to no longer screaming
-first Vader threw the Emporer down the shaft, then in the last release he yelled NOOOOOOO before picking him up to toss him....This is just a few of the numerous changes done by the one guy who had the reigns for three decades. The Star wars novels contradicted themselves numerous times and even those were all thrown down the garbage chute when Disney took over. So now they are rewriting the canon all over again.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Star Wars is many things. "Consistent" is not one of them.

Ps: Not saying that Star Trek is any better as it's been debated online ever since the internet was invented. But using Star Wars as a model of consistency is insane.

 

[Trekkie27]

Are we talking the same Star Wars that changes its movies every time they are released on home video?
-First it's Star Wars, then it's Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope.
-First Han shoots first, then Greedo shoots first, then they both fire at the same time, but greedo misses his target that is right in front of him,
-Boba Fett's voice has changed between two different actors
- first Luke selflessly jumps off committing suicide, next release he's screaming like a girl while falling, next release he is back to no longer screaming
-first Vader threw the Emporer down the shaft, then in the last release he yelled NOOOOOOO before picking him up to toss him....This is just a few of the numerous changes done by the one guy who had the reigns for three decades. The Star wars novels contradicted themselves numerous times and even those were all thrown down the garbage chute when Disney took over. So now they are rewriting the canon all over again.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Star Wars is many things. "Consistent" is not one of them.

Ps: Not saying that Star Trek is any better as it's been debated online ever since the internet was invented. But using Star Wars as a model of consistency is insane.

Good point. But, aside from the first two points you made, the others are just cosmetic dressing. The TOS Klingons and those after are also cosmetic dressing, but they were major, major changes to what that alien species was like.

As for Vader throwing Palpatine down the shaft, it's only a small matter as to whether he shouted "Nooo" or not.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Hey, Digits, can you use this?