Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
- Thread starter Astrostars2025
- Start date
The details & nuances is what makes all the items & goods in this world differentiate from each other.
Would you just buy a "Random Smart Phone", or do your due dilligence and figure out what is best for you?
They all look very similar right now, but there is significant difference between each model.
Yes. There is clearly a difference. I have eyes. But the intent behind the design is absolutely clear.
Strange New Worlds and The Original Series both portray basically the same time period in the Star Trek timeline. The visual differences are simply a matter of art style. SNW is a modern reimagining of the 23rd century filtered througt the production values of today, and not the 1960s.
It's that bloody simple.
Yes, I know that.
But at that point, it's safe to say with all the changes; SNW can be considered it's own TimeLine and nothing bad would come from that.
Especially with the confirmation of the changes in the time-line to Khan and all the other Time-Travel Shenanigans.
It's not a bad thing, it's just different, and that is OK to have.
But it's not. The people that have the authority to say what it is, all say it's the Prime Timeline. And not you, or me have any say in the matter.
Every single series has had "time-travel shenanigans." No doubt there have been multiple changes throughout the franchise. But they're all still considered to be the same timeline. That's the official stance. The only stance that matters.
What gibberish is this? Retconned by who? Starfleet? How does it confirm anything other than the show used the TOS design?
Relics is mid at best.
So when was Khan Noonien Singh supposed to be born?
- Mid 20th Century?
- Early 21st Century?
When was the Eugenics War supposed to happen?
- 1990's
- Some Time in the 21st Century?
When was WW3 supposed to start?
- 2026
- 2050's?
Critical events happened during very different times.
That means the TimeLine has changed, no matter what the folks that run the series state.
Their actions are quite different.
To you, that's the only stance that matters.
I'm basing it on what I see and what they show on screen.
TimeLines have clearly changed.
If you want to say that the current TimeLine is "Prime", that's fine.
We can focus on the SNW TimeLine as "Prime".
I'm all cool with that.
But don't try to deny the existence of the events that was well established by previous Trek Canon.
Critical Events in Human History were supposed to take place in different times.
People look different, technology looked different.
That's okay & fine IMO.
Just add another TimeLine, it doesn't hurt anybody.
At that point, you're not trying to tell the audience that they're stupid with a bald face lie and expect them to believe them.
We're far smarter than that and you're insulting our intelligence at this point.
The last one
The last one
The last one
Why? Because that's how long running fiction works. Treating it like history is a fool's errand. Heck, even history allows for revaluation when new evidence is found.
Don't care. The last time we saw Khan, it was the early 21st century. Works for me.
I enjoy how you bullet point all these inconsistencies, but you'll ignore the fact that The Original Series established these two events as being the same thing.
So I'll ask you the question, when did World War III / The Eugenics War start?
Was it in the 90s? As TOS suggested? Or was it in the 21st Century as has been the case since the very first episode of TNG in 1987?
We don't own on control the franchise. You can have whatever head canon you want. No one can stop you from having that. But the official stance is The Official Stance.
Every single series has inconsistencies with continuity. Strange New Worlds, or any of the modern series, are no different from the rest in that regard. It's science fiction, It's not a period piece. It all falls apart if you look at it close enough.
Removing it from the prime timeline absolutely hurts somebody. It hurts the characters. It destroys the character development that many of the characters from The Original Series desperately needed. To separate them would be doing those characters a great Injustice.
There's also the fact that the second you make something different, a certain segment of the fandom will inherently view it as "less than." That segment of the fandom, The Gatekeepers, are best left ignored. Catering to their demands is the last thing anyone involved in production should do.
Show me a reputable dictionary that recognizes this usage, and I'll reconsider.
Until it does become recognized usage, that ship hasn't sailed, much less long-since.
Or when there are Time Travel Shenanigans that move events around.
Good for you, you eat up the company line.
And the "Official Stance" still contradicts it's prior works w/o any explanation.
That's where we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Some of us Trekkies treat ST as a Sci-Fi Period Piece.
It doesn't fall apart when we can rationalize what happens based on on-screen evidence.
How so? I already treat TOS version of characters and SNW version of characters as seperate Time-Line variants of the same characters.
It doesn't make them More/Less IMO since they're two Time-Line variants on the same person.
There's going to be more segments of "The Fandom' than what you see.
Those GateKeepers are just one of many, you won't be able to satisfy everybody.
Just do the best that you can do.
LOL . . . that's not how dictionaries work. Dictionaries are word usage recording devices and they are typically not that quick with updates . . . it was only in October 2024 or so that they added "true crime", for instance, a genre that is at least a century old. While a helpful resource in that way, they are not defensive fortifications against the insidious forces of quasi-neologisms, as you seem to suggest here. Otherwise, "computers" would still be human.
Don't get me wrong . . . I appreciate the impulse. I hate the use of "drone" to refer to remotely piloted quadcopters and the use of "artificial intelligence" or even "large language model" to refer to simple associative token models that possess no more inherent comprehension than the system or occupant of Searle's Chinese Room.
However, "period piece" to refer to a fictional period doesn't come anywhere remotely close to those abuses, because it isn't an abuse at all . . . it's a perfectly valid minor extension of the term. If you wish to use it with an adjective to try to preserve the original limited definition, feel free to do so, but everyone is going to (and already has) understood the meaning when used in relation to TOS. Ergo, again, the ship not only sailed . . . it's gone to warp.
Yeah, don’t do that passive aggressive shit.
Bottom line, the ones who own the rights and make the show are the ones who dictate what is and isn’t canon. Any other debate is meaningless fanwank.
Now if it had one with the SWN bridge for comparison....
But there's always been changes in the timeline. By your logic, every single time there has ever been a single instance of time travel, we've switched to a different timeline. Hey! Maybe the removal of George and Gracie from the timeline in the 80s is what delayed the Eugenics War! Or maybe it was Kirk talking to that cop in City on the edge of Forever? Yes, the timeline will have been changed countless times, but Star Trek's rules of time travel, with its literal Timecops, seems to be that the one timeline bends and moves, but stays "close enough" to whatever it's "supposed to be".
It's the only line that officially matters.
Because after 60 years, there's gonna be some contradictions. Again, I'll ask.... When was World War 3? What's Kirk's middle initial? Sometimes shit happens and we have to accept it's a fictional TV show and not a historical record.
Good for you. It's not. But good for you.
You treat them however YOU want. You do you. But the official position is that they're the same characters.
Seems to be that's exactly what they're doing.
Last edited:
Absolutely correct. And, unless and until whoever / whichever groups own / owns whatever the company/companies that own Star Trek are called today decides to start spouting off about the canon policy, then any logical system of rank considerations would likely fall on Kurtzman as the best 'speaker of the house' and the person running the closest equivalent to the Star Trek Office.
This is why I find it absolutely singular that so few actually pay any attention to what he says.
Similar threads
