In your opinion, not in reality.
The Intersection of Canon and the Prime Timeline
- Thread starter Jinn
- Start date
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"
I still like the TOS and TMP Enterprises better* -- with the TMP Enterprise being my absolute favorite -- but this is an Enterprise that doesn't look out-of-place on Discovery. In the context of DSC, it works for me as much as it doesn't work for others.
Last edited:
This is a fictional show. That is not reality. People lie to sell product. That's reality.
I stated two objective facts :
1) Updating a thing is, by definition, a change to that thing.
2) A thing that has been changed is no longer the same as before it was changed.
Which of those things do you believe is not a part of reality?
Discovery is canon and in the Prime timeline, because that's how the showrunners want it, even if it doesn't make a lick of sense.
FIFY
Well, that's easy. Let me know if I got it right:
"Canon" simply means what's on the screen. In that regard, DSC is part of the Star Trek canon, as is TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and all the Star Trek films. However, that does not mean that they all have to be internally consistent. That's something different. That's...
"Continuity," which simply means that whatever it is you're creating should be consistent in every way to whatever creation you're basing it off of. And in that regard, DSC does not have continuity with what it's supposedly based off of.
Simple enough?
Not to open a can of gagh but the main reason that DSC looks so different from the rest of the TOS timeframe is because the series was legally required to implement the "25% different" rule in order to keep CBS and Paramount from going all Defcon 1 on each other and destroying the show. I have no doubt that the series would have looked even more "modern" than ENT appeared because it's now the late 2010s and no longer 2001, but I sort of doubt the differences would be this extreme were the 25% changes rule not in effect and enforced at CBS.
No, not really. Canon is simply what is on screen--it need not be consistent with other iterations, nor even coherent. It merely needs to be made by the IP holder and screened for viewing.
Edit: see Dukhat's post (no. 168) for more details.
Now that would be an example of a subjective opinion, rather than an objective fact.
And that's the only way I can swallow some of DSC's ship designs and other visuals. By ignoring them and just pretending that they look more like the designs we're used to from the original Prime run of 1964-2005.
@Ovation is spot on. Things don't have to fit together to all be canon. Now whether they fit together as a consistent narrative is a different argument.
Wrong. The notion of "canon" comes from canonical law. Canonical law is defined by the institution which has the authority to do so. In the case of Trek, the IP holder (the authority) has decreed that what is on screen is "canon". That is a fact. What you are arguing is DSC does not conform to "prime" continuity. That argument is debatable, but what constitutes "canon" in Trek is not.
CBS said that wasn't true.
Reminds me of the Red Letter Media review where Mike said he enjoyed Discovery by pretending it was in the post TNG era of a different universe. Such mental gymnastics are beyond me, so I guess I'm lucky that I don't feel compelled to swallow STDs ship designs in the first place.
Another subjective opinion.
If it wasn't true then that's even more reason to be skeptical of them. They weren't constrained but decided to "super kewl" up everything to extreme levels for no reason other than "super kewl."
Any particular reason that you believe them?
Similar threads
- Poll
