The Intersection of Canon and the Prime Timeline

[pst]

That's not really a strong analogy, because with LOTR you do have distinctions about what is and isn't canonical. The novels by Tolkien are the canon. Everything else is an adaptation.

yeah totally fair. i probably should've selected something other than tolkien and literature. but i hope something i said in there is salvageable from the point of psychologically reconciling discovery, what's on screen and what the producers' intent is stated as being.

 

[lawman]

...psychologically reconciling discovery, what's on screen and what the producers' intent is stated as being.

Heh. That sums it up pretty well. Shame that this is a task we even have to contemplate just to enjoy something we're fans of!...

 

[CaptGrumpy]

And it's not my fault that you feel the need to slavishly believe everything CBS tells you.

Except CBS is the IP owner and they decide what is and isn't Prime Universe.
Your head canon, and what you think is prime universe doesn't matter. You didn't create DISCO. The creators are the arbiters on this. Not some people who are pissed that this isn't what they wanted.

EDIT:
So, it is canon and in the Prime Universe.

But actually it kinda doesn't matter either.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

It might not look like it fits in TOS, but the story and lore does fine.

Yup, DSC and TOS story and lore fit together just like Batman '66 fits together with Batman Begins.

You go to the doctor for a heart transplant, and they give you a kidney. They explain, "I told you I'd give you an organ from another human and this is an organ from another human. It's not like I put a balloon animal in your gut instead. Kidney and heart are quite similar. They're both human organs. In fact, from now on I'll be calling the kidney a heart, let's just call all human organs hearts. You'll be fine."

It's Trek, none of our lives depend on it, so the fun is in our enjoyment and our discussions. I like Batman '66 and Batman Begins pretty similarly. And yes, the lore can be fitted together with a minimum of mental gymnastics. There doesn't need to be consistency with prior Trek, so there's no need for trying to pommel horse DSC to functionally or tonally fit with TOS.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yup, DSC and TOS story and lore fit together just like Batman '66 fits together with Batman Begins.

You go to the doctor for a heart transplant, and they give you a kidney. They explain, "I told you I'd give you an organ from another human and this is an organ from another human. It's not like I put a balloon animal in your gut instead. Kidney and heart are quite similar. They're both human organs. In fact, from now on I'll be calling the kidney a heart, let's just call all human organs hearts. You'll be fine."

It's Trek, none of our lives depend on it, so the fun is in our enjoyment and our discussions. I like Batman '66 and Batman Begins pretty similarly. And yes, the lore can be fitted together with a minimum of mental gymnastics. There doesn't need to be consistency with prior Trek, so there's no need for trying to pommel horse DSC to functionally or tonally fit with TOS.

None of those examples are comparable.

Batman '66 and Begins never tried to be the same thing.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

None of those examples are comparable.

Batman '66 and Begins never tried to be the same thing.

What part of DSC is trying to be anything like TOS? Names and (star)dates do not a premise make.

 

[Butters]

Batman '66 and Begins never tried to be the same thing.

And yet, somehow, they are.

Batman is Batman.

 

[ITDUDE]

With Trek, the rule of thumb is that everything shown on screen is part of the canon. DSC is part of that, not merely an adaptation.

Could have fooled me. Looks and feels kinda like Trek but not quiet. Adaptation is a good description of how it feels.

 

[BillJ]

It is, and it all co-exists in a bizarre way.

Why does it all have to exist in a bizarre way? Why can't it all exist in a multiverse? It is all there, all similar, and has the advantage of doing anything it wants without contradicting other shows.

 

[Tuskin38]

Names and (star)dates do not a premise make.

Yes they do? Enterprise did that and it's prime universe, and it clearly would not evolve into the 60's aesthetic.

 

[BillJ]

Except CBS is the IP owner and they decide what is and isn't Prime Universe.
Your head canon, and what you think is prime universe doesn't matter. You didn't create DISCO. The creators are the arbiters on this. Not some people who are pissed that this isn't what they wanted.

See, I disagree. People get can read or watch the same thing and get totally different things out of it. Why should CBS be the arbiter of what I get out of Star Trek?

 

[Tuskin38]

See, I disagree. People get can read or watch the same thing and get totally different things out of it. Why should CBS be the arbiter of what I get out of Star Trek?

Because they own the franchise, saying other wise would be lying to yourself.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

See, I disagree. People get can read or watch the same thing and get totally different things out of it. Why should CBS be the arbiter of what I get out of Star Trek?

EDIT:
Your experience is your own, true.
You can take or leave anything you want...for yourself. But, in fact, you can not determine what is fact, you are the consumer. The creator decides what the parameters are.

 

[Kemaiku]

Why does it all have to exist in a bizarre way? Why can't it all exist in a multiverse? It is all there, all similar, and has the advantage of doing anything it wants without contradicting other shows.

In order to stop the pollution of the greater multiverse, the Trek universes where uniquely forced by Something Important to all co-exist within the slot usually reserved for one, so they all grow in and out of each other in a riddled entangled mass.

Probably to stop their hidious fungal infection spreading to other realities.

 

[Dukhat]

Except CBS is the IP owner and they decide what is and isn't Prime Universe.
Your head canon, and what you think is prime universe doesn't matter. You didn't create DISCO. The creators are the arbiters on this. Not some people who are pissed that this isn't what they wanted.

EDIT:
So, it is canon and in the Prime Universe.

But actually it kinda doesn't matter either.

First, I never said it wasn’t canon. It’s absolutely canon. Second, I was once in the camp that whatever Paramount, CBS, Netflix, or whoever owns the IP to Star Trek proclaims their show or movie is, it is. No longer. I’m not some dumbass who can’t see the forest for the trees. I’ll believe whatever I want, because it’s all just fiction anyway and can be retconned/changed/deleted at anyone’s whim. What CBS says today may not be what CBS says two years from now.

 

[Butters]

See, I disagree. People get can read or watch the same thing and get totally different things out of it. Why should CBS be the arbiter of what I get out of Star Trek?

This is very true.

Some people watch Ricki Gervais, for example, and see a comedian. Some go even further, and laugh.

It’s a funny old world.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

First, I never said it wasn’t canon. It’s absolutely canon. Second, I was once in the camp that whatever Paramount, CBS, Netflix, or whoever owns the IP to Star Trek proclaims their show or movie is, it is. No longer. I’m not some dumbass who can’t see the forest for the trees. I’ll believe whatever I want, because it’s all just fiction anyway and can be retconned/changed/deleted at anyone’s whim.

Never said that you were a dumbass, just not the creator, who has the sole discretion to determine the truth of where the show lays. If you don't like it, ok. That doesn't change it, tho

 

[BillJ]

You can take or leave anything you want...for yourself. But, in fact, you can not determine what is fact, you are the consumer. The creator decides what the parameters are.

You realize those parameters only apply to the people working on Star Trek? It is in no way binding to the consumer.

 

[Dukhat]

Never said that you were a dumbass, just not the creator, who has the sole discretion to determine the truth of where the show lays. If you don't like it, ok. That doesn't change it, tho

The creator doesn’t even have that option though, if someone else comes along in the future who then holds the IP of Star Trek and proclaims that whatever that creator did in the past is now invalid. That’s exactly what happened with TAS.

 

[XCV330]

What part of DSC is trying to be anything like TOS? Names and (star)dates do not a premise make.

You might not like the visualization, but you can't get more TOS than the Enterprise.
And for those who want to nitpick it cause it didn't look like it fell off the Desilu lot, to quote Lorca, "I still don't give a damn"