Star Trek Retcons

[Timo]

in one sentence you're saying that we don't have to accept that this fictional universe can be faulty, and in the next you're willing to remove this one event from the timeline due to "careless writing". Either everything that happens onscreen is canon, or we have to accept that this fictional universe contradicts itself from time to time.

But the logic doesn't work that way. If we accept everything onscreen without occassionally arguing that the characters are fallible, only then we must acknowledge that the universe can be faulty.

Of course the universe as written is faulty, because the writers aren't constrained by the rules that govern true universes: there is no inherent causality in the written universe, no rules of nature. And the writers certainly aren't obligated to create or obey such universal rules of their own. But a faulty universe is a difficult one to swallow, because those don't happen in reality...

So an "exception" has to be made in "Dr Bashir, I Presume", because otherwise the universe doesn't make sense. And thousands of such "exceptions" are made anyway, because in the average case we don't know the writer's intention and cannot divine it, but must simply adopt an interpretation of our own, which really is more likely to be contrary to writer intention than not - for me at least, as I never saw the sixties, and I don't hail from the United States, so I wear shades necessarily tinted differently from those of the writers.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

If we accept everything onscreen without occassionally arguing that the characters are fallible, only then we must acknowledge that the universe can be faulty.

I have no problem with suggesting that characters are fallible. It's only when it's argued that some things aren't canon because the writers are fallible that we get into a big potential mess.

For instance, who's to decide what's a mistake? Is any Trek writer free to say at any time, "whoops, I screwed up on that script, please ignore it"? Doesn't that lead to a situation where anybody who's ever written for Trek for the last 40+ years can decanonize anything they wrote?

But a faulty universe is a difficult one to swallow, because those don't happen in reality...

I honestly have no trouble swallowing that there are certain aspects of this huge fictional universe that simply can't be reconciled, ever. When I see Scotty's line about Kirk in "Relics", I just think to myself, "Oops, they didn't know about Generations", and I have a chuckle, and then I watch the episode.

Similarly, when I watch First Contact, I just think to myself, "Wow, they really should have just come up with a new character and a different historical event to base this movie on, instead of giving us this tenuous link to TOS that makes no sense." And then I watch the movie, and I can enjoy it, even though the TNG Cochrane is not even remotely the same character as the TOS Cochrane.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

For example: I'm sure when Gene Coon wrote "Metamorphosis", he fully intended for Zefram Cochrane to be the inventor of warp drive for the entire galaxy, not just Earth. And I'm sure the intention was that he really was from Alpha Centauri originally, not Montana. And yet fans are quick to ignore those original intentions. No one is saying First Contact is a mistake and should be ignored.

Not true, I've been saying just that for years now...

 

[Forbin]

We could always take things on a case-by-case basis, like real life.
That's what I usually do.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The slight inconsistency is that Spock in "Space Seed" says the 1992-96 wars were "the last of your so-called world wars", while other, later Trek claims that WWIII in the 21st century was the last world war.

Not a "slight inconsistency" but an irreconcilable contradiction (other than simply saying, "Spock was mistaken") - though all in all, pretty trivial to enjoying "Star Trek."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Because it's part of the ship's history. Since the modern Starfleet is no longer based on things like nationality, it makes no sense to exclude the aircraft carrier Enterprise just because its design predated the Federation. The reality is that the producers of ENT opened a can of worms that could have easily been avoided, and should never have named their ship Enterprise.

Sure its based on "Nationality" The UFP is a nation. Starfleet is the space exploration arm of that nation. It's count of vessels with "X" name will start with its founding. It may pay tribute to past vessels with that name, but it won't be counted as part of the UFP Starfleet's name history.

We know Earth has "starships" called Enterprise from the display in TMP. Yet its not counted in the five from that plaque.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

When I see Scotty's line about Kirk in "Relics", I just think to myself, "Oops, they didn't know about Generations", and I have a chuckle, and then I watch the episode.

How could they know about a film which had not yet been made?

As for Scotty, he was only in Generations because Leonard Nimoy declined to appear in it, and so all of his lines were given to someone else. Everything Scotty says in that film was originally supposed to be Spock. (Same goes for Chekov: it was supposed to be McCoy)

the TNG Cochrane is not even remotely the same character as the TOS Cochrane.

Well, we knew very little of Cochrane in TOS anyway. He appeared in, what, one episode? And even then, he'd been "rejuvenated" by the Companion anyway. ST:FC had free reign to do with Cochrane as it pleased.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Cochrane was a bit of an ass in TOS and a bit of an ass in "First Contact". He was a bland boring ass in TOS though.

 

[Cyke101]

Cochrane was a bit of an ass in TOS and a bit of an ass in "First Contact". He was a bland boring ass in TOS though.

I would maintain that the First Contact Cochrane was on his way to becoming the bland boring guy from TOS. When Cochrane saw Earth after warp for the first time, and when he was the first unofficial ambassador to the Vulcans, we see a not so cynical side for the first time. Also, the hopeful, inspirational Cochrane we see at the beginning of Enterprise is much more in line with TOS Cochrane, proving that character arcs in Trek really do exist

 

[Cyke101]

Because, in this case, one of the powers that be (for that matter, one of the head honchos) outright confessed to an honest mistake and told viewers how it should have been. How many times does THAT ever happen on any given TV show, let alone something as continuity-heavy as Trek, where the head writer goes, "oops, you viewers were right all along?"

Once again, if we use the intent of the writers to determine what's canon, then nothing will make sense. "I meant to say 400 years, not 200 years" is Ron Moore's intenet. Gene Coon's intent was "Zefram Cochrane is from Alpha Centauri and invented warp drive for the whole galaxy".

Arthur Singer's intent in writing "Turnabout Intruder" was that women really were not allowed to be starship captains, not that Janice Lester was nutty and didn't know what she was talking about.

When Ron Moore wrote TNG "Relics", his intent was that Kirk was still alive at the time Scotty got stuck in the transport buffer. Not that Scotty was so addled that he couldn't remember seeing one of this closest friends die.

Again, if you use the writer's "intent" to decide what's canon or not, things get messy real fast. I see no need to make an exception in the case of "Dr. Bashir, I Presume".

Because in this case, the writer's intent was to maintain continuity, not disrupt it or change it or modify it and expect future writers to adhere to it. Heck, even sources after Doctor Bashir, I Presume say the wars were in the mid 1990s, so clearly no one was listening to Moore's unintended retcon. For that matter, they could be retconning a retcon, which would then fall under your line of logic, that Enterprise reestablished the 1990s date.

 

[Unicron]

Sure its based on "Nationality" The UFP is a nation. Starfleet is the space exploration arm of that nation. It's count of vessels with "X" name will start with its founding. It may pay tribute to past vessels with that name, but it won't be counted as part of the UFP Starfleet's name history.

I'd be more inclined to say the Federation is a union rather than a single nation, in this context, although I agree it acts as a single interstellar state. But it seems incredibly silly to me that we'd see tributes to the aircraft carrier and sailing vessel, both of which were significant in Earth's history, but Archer's vessel is conveniently ignored because it was nonexistent when TNG was produced. This is the same Enterprise that, according to "In A Mirror, Darkly" was the most distinguished Earth explorer of its day. How is that not worthy of mention if the goal is to pay tribute where it's due?

* shrugs *

I stand by my opinion that among ENT's mistakes was the name. It really shouldn't have been used, because it's not something the creators could have just retconned easily.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

The problem with ENT isn't that they named the ship "Enterprise," but that they classified it as a "starship." The 1701-D was the fifth Federation starship named Enterprise. In TOS there seemed to be a destinction between Space Ships and Star Ships. In fact, it would seem--looking at the 1791's dedication plaque--that the 1701 was Starship-Class Spaceship. Had TBTB not begun using Starship as a generic term for any ship we encounter this may have been much simpler.

 

[jamestyler]

I stand by my opinion that among ENT's mistakes was the name. It really shouldn't have been used, because it's not something the creators could have just retconned easily.

There's plenty explanation on both sides of the debate, but because there's so much reason either way it shows how easy it is to retcon it.

The 'fifth ship to bear the name' line is valid as the NX-01 wasn't in the 1701 lineage and pre-Federation, the only thing it directly effects would be when Scotty asks the Holodeck to show the bridge of the Enterprise and only the 1701's are on file and the display in TMP.

I don't think theres a better name to use - a Sci Fi called Enterprise, without the Trek tag, makes it clear what the shows about. It's an iconic name, easily recognisable and a good obvious link to the Trek universe.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The problem with ENT isn't that they named the ship "Enterprise," but that they classified it as a "starship." The 1701-D was the fifth Federation starship named Enterprise. In TOS there seemed to be a destinction between Space Ships and Star Ships. In fact, it would seem--looking at the 1791's dedication plaque--that the 1701 was Starship-Class Spaceship. Had TBTB not begun using Starship as a generic term for any ship we encounter this may have been much simpler.

Fifth Federation starship.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sure its based on "Nationality" The UFP is a nation. Starfleet is the space exploration arm of that nation. It's count of vessels with "X" name will start with its founding. It may pay tribute to past vessels with that name, but it won't be counted as part of the UFP Starfleet's name history.

I'd be more inclined to say the Federation is a union rather than a single nation, in this context, although I agree it acts as a single interstellar state. But it seems incredibly silly to me that we'd see tributes to the aircraft carrier and sailing vessel, both of which were significant in Earth's history, but Archer's vessel is conveniently ignored because it was nonexistent when TNG was produced. This is the same Enterprise that, according to "In A Mirror, Darkly" was the most distinguished Earth explorer of its day. How is that not worthy of mention if the goal is to pay tribute where it's due?

* shrugs *

I stand by my opinion that among ENT's mistakes was the name. It really shouldn't have been used, because it's not something the creators could have just retconned easily.

A lot of significant ships didn't get a slot. Maybe they and the NX-01 pop up in the next "reel".

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

When I see Scotty's line about Kirk in "Relics", I just think to myself, "Oops, they didn't know about Generations", and I have a chuckle, and then I watch the episode.

How could they know about a film which had not yet been made?

It's a joke... I'm well aware that Ron Moore doesn't have a time machine.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I don't think theres a better name to use - a Sci Fi called Enterprise, without the Trek tag, makes it clear what the shows about. It's an iconic name, easily recognisable and a good obvious link to the Trek universe.

Yeah, but seeing as how they eventually added "Star Trek" to the title of the show, they could have saved everybody a lot of grief by just calling the show Star Trek: Whatever, and naming the ship something else.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Well, we knew very little of Cochrane in TOS anyway. He appeared in, what, one episode? And even then, he'd been "rejuvenated" by the Companion anyway. ST:FC had free reign to do with Cochrane as it pleased.

Retconning Cochrane did a lot more than retcon one character. It transformed the entire pre-warp backstory that was implied in TOS, that all races gained warp drive at the same time, and that humans and Vulcans met as equals. You could argue that the post-TNG version of Cochrane and First Contact and the Vulcan-human relationship is more believable or realistic, but it was definitely a big change.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Retconning Cochrane did a lot more than retcon one character. It transformed the entire pre-warp backstory that was implied in TOS, that all races gained warp drive at the same time

Which doesn't make a damn bit of sense, really.

and that humans and Vulcans met as equals

That only makes *slightly* more sense than the above.

 

[Timo]

Retconning Cochrane did a lot more than retcon one character. It transformed the entire pre-warp backstory that was implied in TOS, that all races gained warp drive at the same time, and that humans and Vulcans met as equals. You could argue that the post-TNG version of Cochrane and First Contact and the Vulcan-human relationship is more believable or realistic, but it was definitely a big change.

Which is a major argument for ignoring writer intent. Not only when doing so on a single case creates better continuity with multiple cases - but also when doing so allows for an interesting twist in the story, without actually being in contradiction with what was shown and told before.

That's why I feel very positive about STXI, too: so far, the tricks it is playing with Trek pseudohistory seem to be just this enjoyable sort of telling something unexpected that still isn't in open contradiction with what was told before.

I mean, yeah, there's the time-tampering angle. But even without that angle, the movie might have revealed to us that

Spoiler: STXI plot

Kirk was raised by a druncle after his parents died in space, or that Kirk went through the Academy several years behind schedule

.

In the same sense, it was good to learn that Cochrane was a SOB, even when the casting of somebody looking more like Glenn Corbett might have made me happier...

Timo Saloniemi