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.
Well the illusion was SHATTERED with DISCO and SNW.
Sure TOS has some internal continuity issues. They were still figuring it out. The UESPA was mentioned once. Then they fleshed things out with the federation. UESPA was referenced one more time I think in Voyager.
Well the illusion was SHATTERED with DISCO and SNW.
No worse than TOS contradicted itself sometimes, or than the movies or TNG contradicted it. It's just that we've had decades to rationalize or gloss over the older contradictions in our minds, so the newer ones seem more blatant. Every single time a new Trek incarnation has come along over the decades, there have been fans who insisted it was impossible to reconcile with previous Trek. Really, they just hadn't tried.
I get what you are saying. I acknowledged that TOS had internal errors. ALL tv shows do. I don't think I know of one TV show that doesn't have them. I always felt that TOS-ENT worked pretty well. But tptb on SNW/DISCO have gone out of their way to change things on a level I don't remember with the other shows.
A lot of it could have been avoided by just not having Pikes crew basically half of the TOS crew. There was so much they could have done with the show with new characters. But they just keep pushing this weird style of having to Introduce something "first" (that the other shows clearly did) and then burying it with a single line of dialogue..
...( Metrons, holo communication, trelane, khan etc.)I wish they would have done their own thing instead of constantly mining TOS and changing what we saw on screen.
I just hope we finally get a true Reboot of Trek now. I would love to see a clean slate. No ties at all to previous shows or films. No alternate reality NOTHING. Basically approach it like a brand new Franchise. I would hope they would just keep it at film level also. The shows don't seem to be working anymore and tbh 10 episode seasons kinda suck. Especially when they leave it on a cliff hanger and we have to wait 12-24 months for a new episode.
I mentioned this is another thread. They could do what Cruises Mission Impossible films did with that franchise. 8 films or so already across a 30 year period. Well 20 would be better. I might be dead in 30.
Like I said, people always remember the older shows as having fewer contradictions, but that's because it's the nature of human memory to smooth things over into a consistent-seeming narrative. If you actually go back and take a close look at the older stuff, you'll find inconsistencies most of us have forgotten. The only difference with the newer stuff is that there hasn't been time for the smoothing-over process to happen.
For instance, early TNG was basically a soft reboot, deliberately ignoring a lot of details of TOS and frequently contradicting it. The WWIII/Post-Atomic Horror stuff from "Encounter at Farpoint" was a direct, deliberate overwriting of "Space Seed" putting the last world war (the Eugenics Wars) in the 1990s (which was way too close to the present in 1987). Data was treated as unique and unprecedented, ignoring the multiple different androids that had appeared in TOS. "Home Soil" claimed that silicon life had never been discovered or contemplated as a possibility, which blatantly contradicts "The Devil in the Dark." "Where Silence Has Lease" went out of its way to state that no Starfleet vessel had ever encountered anything remotely like the zone of darkness that was almost identical to the one from "The Immunity Syndrome." If anything, early TNG made a point of disregarding TOS continuity as much as possible. But later seasons drew more explicit continuity ties with the past, so we chose to remember the connections and gloss over the inconsistencies.
I remember all those. They are easier to forgive to me anyways.
I found them very annoying back in the day, but over the decades, I kind of forgot about them. Which is my point. It's usually easier to forgive things in retrospect than when they're fresh. The complaints you're making about the current shows are identical to the complaints I heard about Enterprise when it was new, and the same kind of complaints were raised about TNG and the movies in their days. Yet every time, fandom ultimately comes around and accepts it as part of the unified whole that's supposedly being egregiously contradicted and disrespected by the next new incarnation.
Which is a double standard.
I remember yelling at the screen about the Horta during Home Soil and I remember yelling at the screen over Romulan cloaks in Enterprise, but I got over it.
Something that I thought was funny was people complaining that Discovery showed Klingons with cloaks 10 years before Balance of Terror crying continuity error, when that ship sailed 20 years previously with Enterprise. I'm not going to fault one Trek series for doing what other Trek series did on a regular basis.
Last edited:
Which I always find hilarious, given that entire books where written by several different authors exclusively about the contradictions and other goofs of TOS, TNG and DS9.
Last edited:
There are many cloaking discrepancies in Trek, like cloaks being detectable by motion sensors in "Balance of Terror" but not in "The Enterprise Incident," or cloaks being penetrated in TUC but still impenetrable in TNG, or the Mirror Universe Klingons having cloaks in "Crossover" (or was it "Through the Looking Glass?") but not in "The Emperor's New Cloak." But I find them easy to reconcile, because logically, cloaking would not be a single technology, but many. There would inevitably be an ongoing arms race between stealth and detection. Every time a given cloaking technology was penetrated, it would become useless, and thus would presumably be abandoned until a new, better cloaking technology was invented.
Similar threads
