Nope. Terrarium is a prequel to Arena, like TNG's The Naked Now was a sequel to The Naked Time.
Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series
- Thread starter Quinton
- Start date
You're confused. I was talking about the Kelvin timeline films starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc. That's a separate subject from the Prime timeline television series such as Strange New Worlds.
Star Trek: Year One is already bound to prime TOS continuity (SNW remade "Arena").
You can't tie yourself to TOS continuity while saying, "We're not bound to TOS continuity!" at the same time.
You're either bound to it or you're not. It's like someone saying they're a little bit pregnant.
The way I see it, it's both bound by Continuity, and it's not bound by it.
Schrodinger's Canon.
At this point, we're heading into Dr. Who territory, which for Trek makes sense, despite the dreadful crossover I never wanted to see happen.
Fiction is never "bound" by continuity -- except for licensed tie-in fiction, because it has to follow the canon's lead. But any ongoing series is free to reinterpret its own continuity as the story requires -- like how TOS changed its original concept of the Enterprise as an Earth ship by inventing the Federation, or how Marvel Comics maintains a sliding time scale so stories originally published in the '60s are always just 10-15 years in the past.
Continuity is not a straitjacket. It's just one of the tools that serve the goal of telling the story. Yes, you want the story to sell the illusion of a consistent reality, so you maintain continuity as best you can, but sometimes that's less important than other priorities, so it gives way when the story needs it to. Sometimes you have a better idea that just can't work unless you fudge the continuity. So the continuity in any long-running series tends to be impressionistic, more about broad strokes than exacting detail.
Continuity is not a straitjacket. It's just one of the tools that serve the goal of telling the story. Yes, you want the story to sell the illusion of a consistent reality, so you maintain continuity as best you can, but sometimes that's less important than other priorities, so it gives way when the story needs it to. Sometimes you have a better idea that just can't work unless you fudge the continuity. So the continuity in any long-running series tends to be impressionistic, more about broad strokes than exacting detail.
Honestly, all the niggles that have popped up through the years, has for me anyway, been one of the best parts of being a Trek Fan.
It's fun to try and squeeze all the different explanations/changes into the canon in a semi-coherent way.
It doesn't always work, but most of the time one can find a way to make things at least seem connected and logical.
And we can sometimes reach a consensus.Honestly, all the niggles that have popped up through the years, has for me anyway, been one of the best parts of being a Trek Fan.
It's fun to try and squeeze all the different explanations/changes into the canon in a semi-coherent way.
It doesn't always work, but most of the time one can find a way to make things at least seem connected and logical.
Sometimes...
Kinda like the Space Jockey, the mystery of it was what I'd prefer to have than an answer, in "Alien".
I'll never know what a Dinosaur really looked like, just a reconstruction.
I like continuity changes.
One camp was complaining about the scale of the Defiant, and how it couldn't dock at DS9, and imo,
In that production, the Defiant didn't always appear at a perfect scale.
I'll never know what a Dinosaur really looked like, just a reconstruction.
I like continuity changes.
One camp was complaining about the scale of the Defiant, and how it couldn't dock at DS9, and imo,
In that production, the Defiant didn't always appear at a perfect scale.
Yeah, Enterprise J is still a prequel. And it ain't leaving the galaxy.
J shouldn't leave drydock.
Similar threads
