News Star Trek: Discovery – Adhering To Canon
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
You know, I should have realized those were not my words.
Lol, I've enjoyed reading you and Billj debate though
Ok, fair enough. Probably best leave it here then. It's late and I am tired.
Yes, I had an earlier quote of yours in my reply box. They got mixed.
Either the show is entertaining or it's not, and canon will have nothing to do with it.
I'm getting so frigging tired of hearing about canon horseshit that I wish they'd parade a young Spock out in a purple dress dating a male Andorian. Screw canon. If the show is good, it'll be good with or without fucking canon.
I'm getting so frigging tired of hearing about canon horseshit that I wish they'd parade a young Spock out in a purple dress dating a male Andorian. Screw canon. If the show is good, it'll be good with or without fucking canon.
Nailed it. Besides, why whine and complain about canon? Get busy drafting fan fiction to plug all the holes
I'm glad they're claiming to make an honest effort to adhere to canon as much as they can. Why make a prequel to a franchise based on continuity if you don't intend to hold to it? It's part of the fun, for frack's sake! Too many on this board get downright and unnecessarily belligerent when others say they want canon to be respected. Everyone chill.
It's not going to cost Discovery Emmy Award winning stories because some writer can't mention Romulans or the Doomsday Machine. Give them some credit to have the creativity to work wtihin the confines of the established universe. That's why they get paid the (somewhat) big bucks.
That being said, my feeling about canon and continuity is about established events and people, and not about the physical appearance of things. Honour the lore, but who cares about whether Klingons have ridges, or the Discovery bridge "looks" more advanced than a 24th century TNG ship, or even that the Enterprise (when it appears) won't be a carbon copy of TOS. As long as they wear the Delta shields, Sarek is Sarek, Spock is mentioned as Sarek's other son, any mention of Kirk is about a Lt. on the Farragut, they just heard you can't go to Talos IV, etc... I'm fine with it.
It's not going to cost Discovery Emmy Award winning stories because some writer can't mention Romulans or the Doomsday Machine. Give them some credit to have the creativity to work wtihin the confines of the established universe. That's why they get paid the (somewhat) big bucks.
That being said, my feeling about canon and continuity is about established events and people, and not about the physical appearance of things. Honour the lore, but who cares about whether Klingons have ridges, or the Discovery bridge "looks" more advanced than a 24th century TNG ship, or even that the Enterprise (when it appears) won't be a carbon copy of TOS. As long as they wear the Delta shields, Sarek is Sarek, Spock is mentioned as Sarek's other son, any mention of Kirk is about a Lt. on the Farragut, they just heard you can't go to Talos IV, etc... I'm fine with it.
TV is a visual medium. When I watch Star Trek, I watch all of it. The story, the sets, the actors. I don't get where somehow one part is more important than another part?
If the sets aren't important, then everyone should be happy with the actors doing the stories on a blank stage.
Because you can't. It's that simple.
No, it's really not. You know why? Because they said so. Just accept it. Like warp drive and transporters.
The ships have saucer hulls, NCC registries, bridges at the top (or bottom) of it, and warp nacelles. The bridge itself is circular, has a central command chair, to forward stations (ops and navigation), and the other work stations scattered around the periphery. There are transporters, phasers, tricorders, etc... that look and sound like TOS (have you heard the sound effects?). Those visual and audio cues are all I need to believe I'm looking at mid-23rd century Star Trek.
As so many have pointed out, the 60s look ain't gonna fly in 2017. Even Lorca admits it! ("We are creating a new way to fly").
That's my take on it, too.
Part of the reason for making it a same-fictional-universe prequel story is to show "origins" (not the best word, but you get my drift) of familiar ideas and aspects of the Star Trek universe that we as fans already know about. If they decide that those familiar ideas and aspects don't matter, then why bother making it a same-universe prequel?
As you said, part of the fun is seeing how the original ideas put forth in this show will fit into the established ideas of existing Trek. It's fun for the fans, and I bet it's fun for the writers -- especially if the writers were ST fans growing up, which I bet many were.
Again, you can -- but the Federation would not have contact with them. Other races and non-Federation people can have contact with them, and we the audience can be privy to that contact, even if the Federation isn't.
Or, here's another idea -- maybe a Federation outpost is attacked by the Romulans, and much of the episode keys on the Romulan characters. All Federation people in the outpost die and the outpost is destroyed, so there is no record of for the federation to gain any additional knowledge on Romulans.
If you want the Discovery to be involved in the episode, they could be reacting to the call for help from the outpost, but they would never know who attacked the outpost. We the audience would know, and if the writers do it well, we (the audience) could learn something from the actions and dialogue of the Romulans that helps us learn more about the overall motivations of the Romulans in general, and gain some insight about them.
Last edited:
But don't change the costumes or sets.
Never said it was a religion just that it was actually possible to tell entertaining stories in an established timeline.
Or use all of the new technology available to make the show!But don't change the costumes or sets.
The stories are the most important thing . . . except for all of those other things.
Similar threads
- Locked
