Star Trek Canon Problems

[Dukhat]

This is how I usually justify any "inconsistencies" in the Star Trek saga. What we see is obviously not a live recording of events. Let's say that they are reconstructions, like a docudrama, of events that really happened. Obviously the style of these reconstructions depends on the era in which they were made. So inconsistencies are due to this. To give another example:

This is Robin Hood


And this is Robin Hood


Assuming that he was a real character, it is obvious that any movie that tells his story will reflect the period in which it was filmed.

Same for Star Trek. If the Romulians appear different between series, it is not an inconsistency, it is an artistic choice by those who wanted to reproduce historical events for television.

And that's a perfectly valid way to view this fictional universe. An equally valid way is to accept what we see on screen at face value when it is purportedly stated to be in the same reality, come up with explanations (or not) as to why everything doesn't exactly fit together all nice and tidy, and judge that the really different stuff could potentially take place in a reality different than what was seen before.

 

[evilchumlee]

It's not a claim. It does take place in the shared universe.

I've seen lots of attempt.

This

Becomes This

In about 5 years.

They are similar. Quite similar even. But also very much not the same thing, which if the two things that are the same thing are not the same, can't exist in the same world as each other... since... they are not the same thing, but are, but not.

Rather, these two things are different versions of something from a story. That's ok... it's great to have multiple retellings and what not of a story. They are very clear to anyone with eyes that they are not the same thing.

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's ok for things to just be a retelling / new thing. Just let it be its own thing. That's not a negative. Let it take the characters and situations and do its own thing. That might even be better!

EDIT -

The OP shows two pictures of Robin Hood, who are very clearly *NOT* the same person or even version of the character. That seems to answer the question clearly.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think I've ever seen a Sherlock Holmes fan argue that all of these contradictions MUST mean that certain adventures take place in an alternate reality, though. Instead, Holmes fans try to come up with creative but reasonable explanations for these contradictions. Most of them find it a fun challenge.

Exactly so. There are inconsistencies across TOS and TNG, and it's history, yet no one claims that's not canon to each other.

This is how I usually justify any "inconsistencies" in the Star Trek saga. What we see is obviously not a live recording of events. Let's say that they are reconstructions, like a docudrama, of events that really happened. Obviously the style of these reconstructions depends on the era in which they were made. So inconsistencies are due to this. To give another example:

Yup, exactly. Shared mythos and world building is exactly how to treat Star Trek. It's like real world history in that we don't have a full, unbiased, viewpoint. It's different parts of information that we assemble together, while recognizing biases.

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's ok for things to just be a retelling / new thing. Just let it be its own thing. That's not a negative. Let it take the characters and situations and do its own thing. That might even be better!

Because any differences are treated as "separate continuity" so it becomes a point of contention.

 

[HotRod]

This

Becomes This

In about 5 years.

They are similar. Quite similar even. But also very much not the same thing, which if the two things that are the same thing are not the same, can't exist in the same world as each other... since... they are not the same thing, but are, but not.

Rather, these two things are different versions of something from a story. That's ok... it's great to have multiple retellings and what not of a story. They are very clear to anyone with eyes that they are not the same thing.

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's ok for things to just be a retelling / new thing. Just let it be its own thing. That's not a negative. Let it take the characters and situations and do its own thing. That might even be better!

EDIT -

The OP shows two pictures of Robin Hood, who are very clearly *NOT* the same person or even version of the character. That seems to answer the question clearly.

No.

This:

Is This:

Simply presented in a different, more modern visual aesthetic.

Star Trek is not a period piece. It doesn't need to look historically accurate.

 

[BillJ]

The Star Trek issue is that it is clear that not everything takes place within a single, shared universe... but the creators insist that it is so, making the idea of "canon" to be a tricky issue.

It makes continuity tricky. Canon is just what's on screen. Everything on screen, that has been produced by the content owners, is canon.

 

[Tuskin38]

Star Trek isn't a historical documentary, it doesn't need to be 100% consistent between eras.

I treat the SNW and TOS Enterprises the same way as a recasting.

 

[BillJ]

This:

Is This:

For me, the above would be far more interesting without trying to shoehorn it into the bottom.

 

[Tuskin38]

Lower Decks has shown both the TOS Connie, and the SNW Connie. As has Picard.

While Prodigy hasn't shown the SNW Connie, it has shown the Discovery in a line up with the TOS Connie.

I guess technically Discovery has also used both Connie designs, because they used TOS footage in a previously on segment.

 

[HotRod]

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's ok for things to just be a retelling / new thing. Just let it be its own thing. That's not a negative. Let it take the characters and situations and do its own thing. That might even be better!

Because some of us like the fact that we are dealing with THE characters we know and love.

I, for one, love that I can watch Nichelle Nichols in TOS and connect what I see with what I also see in SNW. It improves her character and makes her more than a switch board operator. Same with Chapel and all the other legacy characters.

It's exactly that expansion of those beloved characters that makes me love SNW. To make it a reboot, disconnects it from those beloved characters.

 

[Ovation]

Star Trek is not a period piece.

This. x100,000,000

 

[BillJ]

It's exactly that expansion of those beloved characters that makes me love SNW. To make it a reboot, disconnects it from those beloved characters.

This is where I'm different. I've been submersed in these characters since 1975. Through the episode, movies, novels, comics, video games...

For me, I want a new take on them. I don't want to know their futures, I want to be surprised where they can be taken in a modern context, unchained from 50 years of baggage.

 

[Cr0sis21]

This

Becomes This

In about 5 years.

They are similar. Quite similar even. But also very much not the same thing, which if the two things that are the same thing are not the same, can't exist in the same world as each other... since... they are not the same thing, but are, but not.

Rather, these two things are different versions of something from a story. That's ok... it's great to have multiple retellings and what not of a story. They are very clear to anyone with eyes that they are not the same thing.

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's ok for things to just be a retelling / new thing. Just let it be its own thing. That's not a negative. Let it take the characters and situations and do its own thing. That might even be better!

EDIT -

The OP shows two pictures of Robin Hood, who are very clearly *NOT* the same person or even version of the character. That seems to answer the question clearly.

I'm honestly not sure why any of that matters.
If they wanted to, they cloud go in and digitally modify EVERYTHING in TOS so it looks modern.
And then do it again in 30 years.
And again in 60.
But why? Are we, as viewers, so limited in our imagination that everything must be spelled out in black and white and match everything? I mean, for God's sake, this:

Is supposed to be the exact same bridge as this:

So, when did they move the turbolift shafts between Star Trek 5 and 6?

It's all so silly.

 

[Dukhat]

For me, I want a new take on them. I don't want to know their futures, I want to be surprised where they can be taken in a modern context, unchained from 50 years of baggage.

That's why the Abrams films were so innovative. You have the same characters, but absolutely no idea how their fates will turn out because everything has been reset. It's such a shame Paramount didn't capitalize on this more, because Paramount has their heads up their asses.

 

[BillJ]

I'm honestly not sure why any of that matters.
If they wanted to, they cloud go in and digitally modify EVERYTHING in TOS so it looks modern.
And then do it again in 30 years.
And again in 60.
But why? Are we, as viewers, so limited in our imagination that everything must be spelled out in black and white and match everything? I mean, for God's sake, this:

Is supposed to be the exact same bridge as this:

So, when did they move the turbolift shafts between Star Trek 5 and 6?

TNG Tech Manual did a pretty good job of explaining things. Bridge modules are swappable.

It's all so silly.

Not sure we should call it silly, it is just a personal preference.

 

[HotRod]

For me, I want a new take on them. I don't want to know their futures, I want to be surprised where they can be taken in a modern context, unchained from 50 years of baggage.

For me, that's what the Kelvin films are for.

 

[BillJ]

For me, that's what the Kelvin films are for.

I'm not sure that is really an option anymore. Like anything else in Hollywood, over reliance on nostalgia will end up blowing up in CBS' face.

 

[FredH]

I would have no problem with Starfleet deciding in a few years that, for the psychological benefit of its crews, they need to switch to smaller, more colorful, “homier” interiors (and try some experimental structural upgrades while they’re at it). I would also have no problem with no such thing ever happening. It’s fine either way — but there’s certainly no reason a switch to the TOS visuals can’t happen.

 

[BillJ]

It’s fine either way — but there’s certainly no reason a switch to the TOS visuals can’t happen.

I guess my question would be, why even paint yourself into that corner? Mount and Peck are quite good in their roles. Pine and Quinto were quite good in their roles. Canon seems like an artificial crutch to not do new things with the franchise. Kirk and Spock are timeless characters, they don't need that crutch, just good actors in the roles and good stories to be involved in.

 

[Tuskin38]

Because Akiva is a big fan of TOS, so he wants to play in that timeline.

 

[Cr0sis21]

TNG Tech Manual did a pretty good job of explaining things. Bridge modules are swappable.

and Deck 100? And Mode Select? And impulse-only Birds of Prey? And Vulcanians? And Pike still getting used to women on the bridge?
Point is, MOST people who watch Star Trek do not care about this stuff. If I told my wife they moved the turbolifts between Trek 5 and 6, she would not care. And of the people who DO notice it, they mostly just chuckle and move on. The folks who get up in arms over the fact that the 2024 Enterprise looks nicer than the 1966 Enterprise are very few in number and from a business standpoint not worth worrying about, partly because what they're angry about is highly selective.