OMG! - you mean Star Trek ISN'T 100% internally consistent with itself over the last 55 years...STOP THE PRESSES!
...
Oh, wait...I don't think the above is new news to anyone who's watched more than 3 episodes of any incarnation of Star Trek...
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
...
Oh, wait...I don't think the above is new news to anyone who's watched more than 3 episodes of any incarnation of Star Trek...
OMG! - you mean Star Trek ISN'T 100% internally consistent with itself over the last 55 years...STOP THE PRESSES!
We all know that it isn't internally consistent. I just don't get the big deal out of my wanting to treat it as a multiverse. People come across as plain fucking offended that I'm not dropping on my knees at the mere mention of "writer intent". If this was a singular narrative written by one person over the course of years, I could see it being a natural interpretation.
Star Trek isn't a singular narrative, it has been written by hundreds of people, all with their own intent on how the universe plays. Are all of their intentions universal facts that cannot be argued?
I remember it being fact that Data couldn't speak with contractions, except when he did.
Because the Trekverse is unique in that sense, compared to the various Batman, Superman, 007, etc... incarnations. Though TOS itself was never self-referential and was largely episodic, with the advent of TMP -- and much moreso with TWOK -- the writers and fans alike adopted the idea that this was all one single timeline. That was hammered home with TNG and its spinoffs. Even Abrams acknowledge that in order to preface his own story!
You can treat it as a multiverse if you want, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against your interpretation.
This is a good point. The current showmakers have potentially created a slippery slope situation.
Current showmakers: "We had to change the TOS Enterprise, because the original version doesn't fit with modern production values."
Next group of showmakers: "We agree, but we don't like their version."
Just to play Devil's Advocate why is the writers' "Prime Universe fact" not accepted on face value?
Also, to play Vulcan advocate, technically Spock doesn't have any full siblings. He has a half-brother, and a adopted sister/ward.
Good. Let them.
Also, to play Vulcan advocate, technically Spock doesn't have any full siblings. He has a half-brother, and a adopted sister/ward.
.
I mean, Spock literally gave that excuse to Kirk as to why he never mentioned Sybok before!
With the current generation of shows, I think it's become more like when they do "soft reboots" in the comics...e.g., continue a character's ongoing storylines uninterrupted, but do a new miniseries that completely changes their origin.
Because, from my perspective, Discovery and TOS simply don't fit together, on pretty much any level. Obviously it is a mileage may vary situation, but I doubt if the writers and artists had done a better job on Discovery these conversations would be no where near as prevalent as they are. There wouldn't be the constant need of proclamations from the writing staff about how it is Prime.
The evidence? Not really. How people interpret it is.
Call it a multiverse. Call it overwriting timelines. Call it the same thing and it just looks different. I honestly don't care. My personal (as much as I hate the term) head canon is that we've seen several iterations of the timeline. We don't know how much mucking around its done, but it explains, at least to me, why things look different, why there are all of these internal inconsistencies, why even in-series, there are things that have changed. But at the end of the day, all I care about is that I'm entertained. I gave up a long time ago with attempting to fit the whole thing together, because while the overall picture is fairly consistent, you look closely, you see the cracks. And there's a lot of them.
So how does the original Enterprise look in this one timeline and when did the Federation first encounter the cloaking devices?
Perhaps people have different definition of 'timeline' than I, but to me it is like history, and in one continuous history things can only be in one way.
The thing is, you do more work trying to explain away the contradictions (trust me, I did it for a long time) than you do simply treating it as a multiverse.
I don't think it is anymore. Current 'prime continuity' is more like the 'continuity' of pre-Craig Bond films. I.e. falls apart under even moderate scrutiny.
Yes, I know, I agree with you. It no longer can be one continuity in a meaningful sense.
How?
If someone thinks it works fine as one, that is their interpretation of it. No harm, no foul.
The same way it doesn't for you?
In terms of a long narrative, there are some inconsistencies. In terms of visuals, visuals come and go with the production.
I never expected it to look the same. I grew up with TOS, watching it from probably age 4 on, but it's not the ideal platonic form of Star Trek. There isn't one.
Ultimately I think we mean different things with 'continuity.' To me continuity cannot have contradictions, canon can.
My thinking might be affected by running a lot of RPGs, I tend to think setting as a coherent, consistent whole. So If I'm running a Star Trek RPG set in 2262, then the question "does Starfleet have knowledge of cloaking devices" can have only one answer in that setting. A setting where there is a different answer to that question is a slightly different setting with a slightly different history.
Last edited:
I don't believe that for one second. They could have recreated TOS down to the screws and there would have been complaints.
This is helpful. I think both can have contradictions and their breaking point will vary from individual to individual.
