The Temporal Cold War in Enterprise and franchise continuity

[publiusr]

The TAS Enterprise and the Discovery Enterprise look about the same size

 

[Morgan Primus]

Many people have the opinion that Enterprise, and then later Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard, created a lot of violations of previous continuity. Some, for example, would say that Discovery isn't actually in the Prime timeline. However, perhaps there's a more subtle way to deal with inconsistencies between older and newer series. Perhaps the differences are the result of the Temporal Cold War in Enterprise. Temporal agents from the future would have gone back in time to restore the timeline to the best of their abilities, so the events of all shows before Enterprise would have generally happened the same way, but certain details might be impossible to fix completely, resulting in many small discrepancies. The result is a sort of "Cold War Prime" timeline where minor differences exist, but the overall chain of events is the same. The Kelvin timeline would actually be a branch off the Cold War Prime timeline rather than the original Prime timeline.

Anyways, just a thought. Does this work for fixing most issues in continuity between older and newer series?

I don’t think so, and trying to retcon continuity fails is fun but ultimately futile, imo.

 

[Morgan Primus]

There have always been those pesky “It's not real Trek!” discussions in fandom, most commonly when a new version of Trek was premiering. But when Enterprise aired and introduced their “Temporal Cold War” and then later when Star Trek (2009) firmly established an alternative timeline, it completely soured the discourse among fans. What the writers intended as clever plot elements is now mostly used to discount and disparage a version of Trek you don't like. It has become a way to say that a version of Trek somehow doesn't “count”. Star Trek fans can be a pathetic, childish bunch of people.

While I agree, and this isn’t meant to be a rational explanation, it’s emotional, but the actors who formed the heart of TOS are dying. The thought inspires some pretty insidious and (if pulled off properly) fashionable melancholy. Which pretty much just feels like sadness. For example:

The reboots come along in the midst of Doohan and Barrett dropping dead, 2009 Into Darkness and 2015 Beyond arrives just time for Leonard Nimoy to kroykah.

If you stand in the wrong places, the reboots creative team appear to want to capitalise off the glory of the original TOS characters, without ever having been Trek fans. But it’s ok, it’s a reboot so let’s go blow up Vulcan and Romulus too, like the last time that ever happened before. Seriously, they had to take them both? Because reboot. makes. it. all. ok. Forgot.

Because creating original characters with their own backstories is hard.

/——————-Rant Over——————-/
Not rational or reasonable because fans love Star Trek.
It was ever thus.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Because creating original characters with their own backstories is hard.

I don't know about that. It might actually be easier, because you don't have the detritus of conflicting character motivations from previous material, allowing you to start fresh and construct a backstory that fits the plot better.

 

[fireproof78]

So canon can be a burden?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

So canon can be a burden?

An every-expanding, often self-contradictory canon? Absolutely. Why do you think they reboot comics so often?

 

[fireproof78]

An every-expanding, often self-contradictory canon? Absolutely. Why do you think they reboot comics so often?

So people like me might read them?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

So people like me might read them?

Exactly. You still read them, even though they're chucking a huge amount of canon out the window and starting over. Not to say that canon can't be an asset. Well written, well planned canon can create greater investment from the fans. But poorly thought out, poorly written canon is a just a ball and chain.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly. You still read them, even though they're chucking a huge amount of canon out the window and starting over. Not to say that canon can't be an asset. Well written, well planned canon can create greater investment from the fans. But poorly thought out, poorly written canon is a just a ball and chain.

What I mean was that I never read comics because the canon was so immense that I didn't want to try. The New 32 (or whatever it was called) was my first foray in to that world. Canon can be beneficial but also highly intimidating.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Canon can be beneficial but also highly intimidating.

You just need to climb inside the canon and let it take you where you need to go.

 

[fireproof78]

You just need to climb inside the canon and let it take you where you need to go.

Oh, goodie! My boss has one of those!