Star Trek and Cannon... darned confusing!

[fireproof78]

Exactly. There's the illusion that Trek is a unified whole versus the reality that it's actually seven different TV series and thirteen movies created by diverse hands over the course of fifty-plus years. So, yeah, there's some sleight of hand involved to make it look like it all fits together.

Exactly. And the problem is the constant trying to find the cracks in the thin veneer

 

[Terok Nor]

It all worked fine for me canon wise (several contradictions and retcons aside) until they started doing prequels. That's where the wheels fell off completely. No way in Hell do Enterprise and Discovery look like they came before the others. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the first 10 movies work fine as a collected Canon saga. Perhaps Enterprise can be included if you watch it after the others with allowances for it being made last and therefore looking more modern. Discovery takes the biscuit. It looks nothing like TOS and makes no attempt to look less advanced. It looks more advanced than anything seen in the other shows and not even making allowances for it being made in 2018/2019 can fit it into Canon. It simply looks out of place visually and continuity wise. Technology got worse by the time of TOS and still wasn't up to the standard of Discovery by the time TNG and the others started? My head canon jettisons it along with the Kelvin movies and, on a bad day, Enterprise.

 

[Tuskin38]

It all worked fine for me canon wise (several contradictions and retcons aside) until they started doing prequels. That's where the wheels fell off completely. No way in Hell do Enterprise and Discovery look like they came before the others. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the first 10 movies work fine as a collected Canon saga. Perhaps Enterprise can be included if you watch it after the others with allowances for it being made last and therefore looking more modern. Discovery takes the biscuit. It looks nothing like TOS and makes no attempt to look less advanced. It looks more advanced than anything seen in the other shows and not even making allowances for it being made in 2018/2019 can fit it into Canon. It simply looks out of place visually and continuity wise. Technology got worse by the time of TOS and still wasn't up to the standard of Discovery by the time TNG and the others started? My head canon jettisons it along with the Kelvin movies and, on a bad day, Enterprise.

DSC and ENT work fine with the existing canon.

 

[Terok Nor]

DSC and ENT work fine with the existing canon.

Enterprise at a push. Discovery, hell no.

 

[1001001]

Enterprise at a push. Discovery, hell no.

Discovery just started.

How do you know it won’t eventually fit?

 

[Terok Nor]

Discovery just started.

How do you know it won’t eventually fit?

Look at it. Does that look like it exists in the same era as TOS to you?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Greetings:

Since the very beginning of Star Trek (Stardate: whatever/Earth date: 1966, September 8), the back then first series were fairly consequent regarding tech, species, in general, simply said.
The last episode (Stardate: whatever/Earth date 1969, June 3), not much had changed in these runs, and movies as well followed a fairly strict code when it came to cannon.

Fast forward: Star Trek The Next Generation.
It is Septemer 28, 1987.
Captain Kirk and his fellow "barbaric" friends are too old to fly, and were replaced, as logic would enforce (we can't have a captain which can barely stand up by himself at the helm, now can we???) by a ounger, much more vital crew.
The new Enterprise as well has had, logically: as time evolves so does (technological) evolution, quite a few new tricks up it's sleeve, although, it was very much still the NCC-1701, a disk on a pole mounted to the body/warp section, which had two tilted poles on the rear holding the nacelles.
Sure, the NCC-1701 D as well as the NCC-1701 E were more streamlined, aesthetically pleasing, but still very much the original NCC-1701 (not the technologies, naturally!).
And things were still fairly well cannon, not much was called back or added (well there was the new enemies, races and spaces, of course!), all still went fairly straight-forward.
And I ignore the Battle of Wolf 359, this was a BAD episode, entirely incorrect, but well...
The exception on the rule, I guess.

Fast forward once more: Voyager.
Januari 16, 1995, Kate Mulgrew becomes the new captain in the series, no longer using the now well known Enterprise ship type Constitution Class, but the Voyager, an Interprid Class, as Captain Katherine Janeway.
Now, I have to say, the ship was a surprise, but a welcome one.
And unfortunately, there all pleasantness ended for me.

Having seen Captain Jean Luc Picard, Captain Janeway simply did not reach this level of personality.
The other crew members as well underperformed compared to the 'Picard Crew', and from early on, base values were changed in near every episode.
Conflicting data, much being this data about their Borg nemesis, but surely not ending there, I began to get lost in the series, and simply quit seeing this monstrosity called Voyager.
I need to say, I am autistic (Aspergers) with ADHD, I have need for set cannon, and I abhor changes like being thrown around in Voyager.

Well yes, the previous 2 series had a few alterations as well, but minor, not that disturbing, and these were implemented brilliantly, hardly noticable, well explained.
Not so in the latter series, where everyrthing more and more began to look like a joke more than a series.

And take Discovery: what on Earth do I need to make of it?
Spore Drive, nice looking Klingons (compared to the well known ones), marvelous ships, ...
Is this still cannon?
If so, then why has there never been reference ANYWHERE?
I have the strong feeling this is more like a mirror version Star Trek, a thing on it's own.
"What the hell was that beast???"
Oh come on...
It lives on Earth, you did not recognize it???
Tres bizarre, this Discovery....

They want us to believe Trek is one massive interconnected multiverse, because interconnected universes can make lots of money - see the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which Trek did first). The mainline universe is Enterprise, Discovery, The Original Series, The Animated Series (maybe), The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and movies I-X. It's called the Prime Universe, after Leonard Nimoy's Spock Prime from Star Trek (2009). The Kelvin Universe spins off from events after Next Gen, leading to an alternate version of The Original Series characters and events. It consists of movies Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond.

But in real life, it's a lot more complex. CBS own the Star Trek television and streaming properties, Paramount Pictures the movies (hence the alternate reality premise of the recent films, freeing them of established continuity and whatever CBS subsequently does with Trek). Discovery had a very confused production, visually a reboot of the franchise - looking much more like the recent movies, and reimagining the Klingons and their ships from scratch - but they decided at some point to keep in very roughly the same Prime Universe continuity as the rest of the Trek shows. And now season two is changing the visuals a little to bring them a little closer to how Klingons and their ships used to look.

 

[Lance]

They want us to believe Trek is one massive interconnected multiverse, because interconnected universes can make lots of money - see the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which Trek did first). The mainline universe is Enterprise, Discovery, The Original Series, The Animated Series (maybe), The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and movies I-X. It's called the Prime Universe, after Leonard Nimoy's Spock Prime from Star Trek (2009). The Kelvin Universe spins off from events after Next Gen, leading to an alternate version of The Original Series characters and events. It consists of movies Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond.

But in real life, it's a lot more complex. CBS own the Star Trek television and streaming properties, Paramount Pictures the movies (hence the alternate reality premise of the recent films, freeing them of established continuity and whatever CBS subsequently does with Trek).

In hindsight, the choice to use Nimoy in the 2009 movie was pretty inspired, really, because it meant that they could tie the alternate universe to the prime chronologically, while springboarding into wholly new territory without going so far as to use or contradict concepts and ideas from the CBS side of things. Yes it's an alternative "canon", but it's also the same canon because Ambassador Spock is a direct link to Next Generation era Star Trek. They were careful to keep it vague, calling him Ambassador Spock and having him involved in Romulan affairs, without going into specifics that would have stepped on the toes of CBS. But Trek '09, and it's sequels by inference, (at least until they killed off Spock Prime in-universe) are, in a roundabout way, the last chronological pieces of Next Generation era Star Trek, through the presence of the Spock who is an Ambassador and lives on Romulus, something established in Next Gen. I personally see no split in canon, even though there is a split in continuity.

Discovery had a very confused production, visually a reboot of the franchise - looking much more like the recent movies, and reimagining the Klingons and their ships from scratch - but they decided at some point to keep in very roughly the same Prime Universe continuity as the rest of the Trek shows. And now season two is changing the visuals a little to bring them a little closer to how Klingons and their ships used to look.

I take both sides. I acknowledge there's still room for DSC to be molded and shaped into fitting into TOS, just as ENT's final couple seasons began to reflect a change into TOS. But both shows suffer from a similar peculiarity, that instead of starting from a premise of TOS is the future and working backwards, they more or less start with their own thing and gradually make changes to fit back consistently into the future they should have started with. To many viewers, such a thing feels like a cheat, even if ultimately it satisfies the consistency enough to not raise too many uncomfortable questions. It's also one of the big perils of deciding to do prequels. Kobyashi Maru? The real no-win scenario is trying to do a prequel to a 50+ year old franchise in a way that reflects modernity, but doesn't also destroy narrative cohesion. No prequel I think of off-hand has fully done this. The past is a different world to the present, and the future will be even different again. All art is reflective of its time. The only answer is for people to stop making all these prequels, but of course, the temptation to play with all of the toys in the toybox is too great...

 

[Kemaiku]

Any small nebula reachable by the Enterprise and Reliant would be too sparse to form the rocky Genesis planet--maybe tens of thousands of atoms per cubic cm. No, the nebula would have to be much larger, encompassing Regula One.

Data and Armada imply the "nebula" is composed mostly of elements high into the AMU scale, with a much greater amount of matter per cubic meter than that. So much so that it could ablate the hull if they moved at any speed. Live action has them slow to a crawl, the game forces your ship to a snails pace so you don't flay your plates off.

 

[BillJ]

Canon should be shot out of a cannon, into the Sun.

 

[Tuskin38]

But both shows suffer from a similar peculiarity, that instead of starting from a premise of TOS is the future and working backwards, they more or less start with their own thing and gradually make changes to fit back consistently into the future they should have started with.

It depends on which part of the chaotic development you look at. The Props department started with the TOS designs and went backwards according to the DVD extras.

As did the FED ship designers (where Fuller didn’t interfere)

Look at it. Does that look like it exists in the same era as TOS to you?

It’s not the 1960s anymore, no modern fans are going to believe TOS looks like the future.

And it’s 10 years before TOS, so it isn’t the same era.

But in real life, it's a lot more complex. CBS own the Star Trek television and streaming properties, Paramount Pictures the movies (hence the alternate reality premise of the recent films, freeing them of established continuity and whatever CBS subsequently does with Trek).

CBS owns all of it, including the Kelvin movies. Paramount just has the rights to make the movies, but they’re still a CBS property under the Star Trek license.

The CBS Consumer Products website lists all the KT movies as their property.

 

[Greg Cox]

Look at it. Does that look like it exists in the same era as TOS to you?

It does if you allow for artistic license and accept that changes in art direction are just . . . changes in art direction.

Do Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis look like they're the same person? Of course not. But we pretend they do because we understand that we're watching a theatrical production. The costumes and sets and props are just . . . costumes and sets and props. Just suspend your disbelief and go along with it.

 

[BillJ]

Do Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis look like they're the same person?

I think this is a bit of a bogus argument. We're talking about a character that was in two movies (and about a minute of a third) versus a look and feel that had been established as "the way things were" for fifty years.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think this is a bit of a bogus argument. We're talking about a character that was in two movies (and about a minute of a third) versus a look and feel that had been established as "the way things were" for fifty years.

Perhaps. But it nicely illustrates the point that we don't always need an "in-universe" explanation for these things. Sometimes the real-world explanation--"oh, they freshened up the look of the show because it's not 1964 anymore"--is more than enough if you're willing to accept that these are theatrical productions after all. Sometimes you update the actors or the sets or the costumes or whatever.

 

[Vger23]

Perhaps. But it nicely illustrates the point that we don't always need an "in-universe" explanation for these things. Sometimes the real-world explanation--"oh, they freshened up the look of the show because it's not 1964 anymore"--is more than enough if you're willing to accept that these are theatrical productions after all. Sometimes you update the actors or the sets or the costumes or whatever.

This one's always been really easy for me. At some point, Starfleet decided the Constitution-class ships were going to be on long-range 5 year missions, and some Starfleet psychologists studying the effects of long missions on crews determined that a really colorful environment (uniforms, lighting, walls, equipment, decor, control panels) was best for keeping the mental health at absolute peak.

So the design in the Connies was changed by a special contractor at some point to support the new mission profile.

See how easy that was? And it's perfectly plausible...that is, assuming you even need an explanation further than what you've already suggested (which I don't, because I totally agree with you).

 

[F. King Daniel]

And it’s 10 years before TOS, so it isn’t the same era.

It's the era established by "The Cage", which had a virtually identical look to TOS proper.

CBS owns all of it, including the Kelvin movies. Paramount just has the rights to make the movies, but they’re still a CBS property under the Star Trek license.

The CBS Consumer Products website lists all the KT movies as their property.

Real life is more complicated than what they put in their publicity leaflets. For example, you won't find mention of their 10 year no-compete clause which had to expire before work on Discovery could begin properly.

 

[Terok Nor]

Perhaps. But it nicely illustrates the point that we don't always need an "in-universe" explanation for these things. Sometimes the real-world explanation--"oh, they freshened up the look of the show because it's not 1964 anymore"--is more than enough if you're willing to accept that these are theatrical productions after all. Sometimes you update the actors or the sets or the costumes or whatever.

It's not just a visual change though. The technology is far in advance of anything seen in the shows that are set later. That's a huge retcon and not just artistic license.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's not just a visual change though. The technology is far in advance of anything seen in the shows that are set later. That's a huge retcon and not just artistic license.

With the holograms, replicators, infinite transwarp spore drive, they have retconned all TNG/DS9/VOY technology into the pre-TOS era.

It's only a problem if you try and take the continuity in any way seriously. To me, Discovery is it's own seperate thing, and these are only issues when discussions about it crop up here.

 

[Tuskin38]

With the holograms, replicators, infinite transwarp spore drive, they have retconned all TNG/DS9/VOY technology into the pre-TOS era.

Two of those things already existed in that era before DSC came along.

The technology is far in advance of anything seen in the shows that are set later.

It isn't.

 

[Terok Nor]

With the holograms, replicators, infinite transwarp spore drive, they have retconned all TNG/DS9/VOY technology into the pre-TOS era.

It's only a problem if you try and take the continuity in any way seriously. To me, Discovery is it's own seperate thing, and these are only issues when discussions about it crop up here.

Agreed. There are too many hoops to jump through in trying to pretend it fits into the Canon. Best to just accept it doesn't and enjoy or dislike it based on its own merits.