Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk, Picard, Laforge, Riker/Troi, the Crushers, Worf, the O'Briens, Sulu, Chekov and Paris/Torres all had kids. So did Spock and Saavik if you count OTOY. Data has many "children".

 

[Doctorossi]

Worf stated he was raised on the Farming colony of Galt in TNG S1 Heart Of Glory but from TNG S4 Family and every subsequent episode where Worf's family history comes up Worf and his foster parents say he grew up on Earth.

You've never been to Galt, New Jersey?

 

[Nerys Myk]

You've never been to Galt, New Jersey?

Or California.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Data stated he was a graduate of the Academy Class of '78 (assuming 2278) in TNG S1 Encounter At Farpoint even though we learn he was discovered 26 years prior to TNG Season 1 which takes place in the year 2364 per TNG S1 The Neutral Zone. It was mean Data was discovered in 2338.

Worf stated he was raised on the Farming colony of Galt in TNG S1 Heart Of Glory but from TNG S4 Family and every subsequent episode where Worf's family history comes up Worf and his foster parents say he grew up on Earth.

Getting a few facts wrong early on is just early-installment weirdness. Though they really could've done better here as it would've made zero difference if the years had been correct. Put it in the Nitpicker's Guide.

ALSO - in TNG S4 The Host it was stated Trills COULD NOT use Transporters as the transport process would kill the symbiont - and it was a plot point of the episode. That fact was conveniently forgotten by the time DS9 S1 The Emissary was broadcast.

The change in the Trill was so crazy and blatant that I have to assume that they were convinced that people only had the vaguest recollection of The Host. To be fair they were probably right.

Trek is completely full of these "illusion-breaking" elements, though. For example:

• Translation of alien languages. Even if we presume the semi-magic UT works, it wouldn't change people's mouths to match what's being said in English. Plus dialogue which takes place on alien worlds with no Federation crew member present is still translated. It's just there for audience convenience.
• Recasting: Are we meant to believe that characters get cosmetic surgery every so often to totally change their faces?
• Dramatic Lighting: The sort of dark, moody, stark lighting we often see in more modern Trek productions would be a huge work hazard. We can presume it's just there for show, and a real bridge wouldn't be nearly dark.

These are things that we all see as normal as they are within the norms of a TV production. However, they aren't "realistic" - and aren't things we would expect would take place within the actual Trekverse.

Are you trying to convince me that I don't get immersed in TV series? The UT is one of those things you just have to go with, like the FTL drive and the gravity plating, for there to even be a series at all. I can imagine that there's an explanation for it so clever that I'd never think of it. So I'm not going to think about it.

Recasting is a necessary evil and I don't like it.

Dramatic lighting is like any aspect of TV production: it's only unrealistic when I notice it. Star Trek: Picard s3 was lit absurdly dark and it looked ridiculous, and those shots where Kirk's eyes are perfectly lined up with a mysterious spotlight are hit and miss. When they tried it with Deanna in Star Trek Nemesis it was a very obvious miss.

Trek is not a franchise you watch for happy romantic endings. Seriously.

I don't really want to watch the loveable cast in a slow motion train wreck though.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Getting a few facts wrong early on is just early-installment weirdness. Though they really could've done better here as it would've made zero difference if the years had been correct. Put it in the Nitpicker's Guide.

"Facts"?
Its a TV show, they just changed their minds.

 

[Yistaan]

It seems to be "common knowledge" that Piper is CMO in 2265 but I'm not aware of any dialogue actually stating this in Where No Man has Gone Before. For all we know he's a doctor under M'Benga who's offscreen in WNMHGB. I'd say maybe McCoy is possibly around in WNMHGB but that may his contradict his line that he's been CMO for 27 years in ST6 depending on if WNMHGB really is in 2265 or 2266

 

[Nerys Myk]

It seems to be "common knowledge" that Piper is CMO in 2265 but I'm not aware of any dialogue actually stating this in Where No Man has Gone Before. For all we know he's a doctor under M'Benga who's offscreen in WNMHGB. I'd say maybe McCoy is possibly around in WNMHGB but that may his contradict his line that he's been CMO for 27 years in ST6 depending on if WNMHGB really is in 2265 or 2266

MITCHELL: Department heads, sir. You wanted everybody on the Bridge before we left the galaxy. Jones.
SMITH: The name's Smith, sir.
SULU: Astro sciences standing by, Captain.
SCOTT: Engineering division ready, as always.
PIPER: Life sciences ready, sir. This is Doctor Dehner, who joined the ship at the Aldebaran colony.

 

[eschaton]

Are you trying to convince me that I don't get immersed in TV series? The UT is one of those things you just have to go with, like the FTL drive and the gravity plating, for there to even be a series at all. I can imagine that there's an explanation for it so clever that I'd never think of it. So I'm not going to think about it.

But that's the point. "Don't think about it" operates on a sliding scale here. If you're not a Trek superfan, you're not going to notice a lot of the minor continuity errors across the shows.

Speaking personally, when Trek screws up real-world science, it pisses me off much more than when it contradicts itself internally. Like how not a single person who worked within Berman Trek seemed to know how DNA and/or evolution worked. Or how in Discovery's pilot episode, somehow Sarek knew about a "new star in the sky" as soon as the beacon went on, not taking into account the whole speed of light thing. This stuff just showcases the writers couldn't be arsed to do their homework.

I don't really want to watch the loveable cast in a slow motion train wreck though.

There's no reason why SNW needs to concentrate on downer breakups/negative plot arcs like Scotty's descent into alcoholism over the next few years, though.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

"Facts"?
Its a TV show, they just changed their minds.

Every story is built on facts, unless there's an unreliable narrator. Otherwise it's just unreliable writing.

Speaking personally, when Trek screws up real-world science, it pisses me off much more than when it contradicts itself internally. Like how not a single person who worked within Berman Trek seemed to know how DNA and/or evolution worked. Or how in Discovery's pilot episode, somehow Sarek knew about a "new star in the sky" as soon as the beacon went on, not taking into account the whole speed of light thing. This stuff just showcases the writers couldn't be arsed to do their homework.

Oh man, don't remind me. I was a literal child when I watched TNG and I even I was cringing at how they used DNA.

There's no reason why SNW needs to concentrate on downer breakups/negative plot arcs like Scotty's descent into alcoholism over the next few years, though.

I'm not worried about Scotty. An old Aberdeen pub crawler like him is even better at drinking than he is at lying about it

 

[fireproof78]

"Facts"?
Its a TV show, they just changed their minds.

Not historical documents?


It's rather interesting what fictional facts are easily dismissed while others are problematic.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Every story is built on facts, unless there's an unreliable narrator. Otherwise it's just unreliable writing.

Yes and newer stories can change those "facts". Character X is dead...nope he's alive. You can't do Y...nope you can because of this unknown thing. Here's a new character and they're related to character Z.
Fiction is mutable and has been since the first stories were told. Authors from Doyle to Tolkien to King have revised their own works, changing the "facts". New authors are constantly adding and subtracting "facts" from serial fiction on TV, in film and in print. Fiction is mutable.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Yes and newer stories can change those "facts". Character X is dead...nope he's alive. You can't do Y...nope you can because of this unknown thing. Here's a new character and they're related to character Z.
Fiction is mutable and has been since the first stories were told. Authors from Doyle to Tolkien to King have revised their own works, changing the "facts". New authors are constantly adding and subtracting "facts" from serial fiction on TV, in film and in print. Fiction is mutable.

And no one likes it when they do that! People have been telling them to stop.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And no one likes it when they do that! People have been telling them to stop.

Nah, just the people uncomfortable with change.

 

[Tuskin38]

And no one likes it when they do that!

All the people disagreeing with you say otherwise.

Tolkien retconned the Hobbit in a few places when he wrote the LOTR trilogy, and he's considered one of the best writers ever.

 

[Noname Given]

And no one likes it when they do that! People have been telling them to stop.

You don't seem to m8nd when it occurs on TNG.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

All the people disagreeing with you say otherwise.

Tolkien retconned the Hobbit in a few places when he wrote the LOTR trilogy, and he's considered one of the best writers ever.

Once, in 1954, people weren't bothered by the changes to a children's novel.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Once, in 1954, people weren't bothered by the changes to a children's novel.

And shouldn't be by changes to a SF TV show in 2025 either. The time or genre is irrelevant.

 

[Tuskin38]

Once, in 1954, people weren't bothered by the changes to a children's novel.

I was just giving a single example, but there's probably tons in a bunch of famous books and series.

Arthur C. Clarke's Odyssey Trilogy had retcons in all three novels. He ignored what he wrote in 2001 in the second book because he preferred the movie version over his own written work lol. And 3001 ignored/changed a few things from both.

Retcons are a perfectly normal thing in any fictional universe.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It being normal just means that writers keep doing something wrong! Minor revisions can make sense, movie/TV adaptations can work like an extra draft to improve the overall story, but no one is impressed when a writer has to change the backstory to make their latest chapter work. I certainly didn't see any point in reading past 2001 myself.

 

[Campe]

Ian Malcolm dies in the novel Jurassic Park but is perfectly alive in the novel The Lost World.