What bugs me the most about canon violations

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

This is going to be a heavily generalizing, tarring-with-the-same-brush kind of post. If you don't think this way, then assume this post isn't aimed at you. Really, it's not aimed at any one person.

I think the worst thing about canon violations, continuity errors, whatever you want to call them, is that for some Trekkers (here, on Facebook, Twitter, et al) it's okay when previous Trek series or films have committed them but not when the prequels do.

I actually had a guy on Facebook tell me that the prequels wrecked continuity, which prior to them existing was a pristine vase without a crack in its surface. I told him that literally every Trek series has violated canon, multiple times, and he flatly denied that this is possible, because "each series takes place after or at the same time as the others", therefore they apparently don't step on each other's toes canon-wise. I proceeded to list several instances that TOS, TNG, DS9 and VGR violated canon and he either had excuses, rationalizations or "shut up, he explained" reasons why all of that was okay, but unforgivable that ENT had Romulans using cloaks or had the Borg show up.

I was having a read through this thread and realized that people really do get worked up over canon violations these days, when "nit-picking" used to be fun. Phil Farrand wrote four hilarious books cataloging all the various mistakes that got made throughout the franchise, but it was clear that he wasn't criticizing the shows, or angry about the violations. He thought it was great fun to find these little moments of error, and each book was quite thick. Most Trekkers still love those books, too, and still love the series despite knowing they're riddled with errors.

But ENT, and lately, DSC, are raked over the coals for such errors, major and minor. And I don't get it.

 

[Relayer1]

Fandom.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Fandom.

Yes, I'm afraid one of Trek's biggest problems is its fans.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not just Trekkies. In any fandom, some folks are going take any criticism or humor directed at their favorite shows or movies very personally.

Not too long ago, at another site, a few of us were poking some gentle fun at an old Hammer vampire movie (which I dearly love, btw). An angry fan went off on us, as though we spitting on the flag or something!

Clearly, we were not "true" Hammer fans for nitpicking an old monster movie!

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

It's not just Trekkies. Some people take any criticism or humor directed at their favorite shows or movies very personally.

Not too long ago, at another site, some of us were poking some gentle fun at an old Hammer vampire movie (which I dearly love, btw). An angry fan went off on us, as though we spitting on the flag or something!

Clearly, we were not "true" Hammer fans for nitpicking an old monster movie!

Maybe I don't pay as much attention to the other fandoms I'm part of like I do Trek. I guess I really notice it here mostly.

There's triggers in every group. For GoT fans, it's when the series diverts from the books. For Doctor Who fans...okay, there's one that's crazier than anything Trek fans have dished out. Crazy enough I don't ever, and I mean EVER, go online and discuss Doctor Who with anyone.

 

[DimesDan]

I don't care about canon, yes it would be nice if everything in a large franchise was all the same and didn't differ from one aspect to another, but I am aware that things will change over the course of time due to different creative voices and in some respects, effects and story telling techniques.

 

[Greg Cox]

Maybe I don't pay as much attention to the other fandoms I'm part of like I do Trek. I guess I really notice it here mostly.

There's triggers in every group. For GoT fans, it's when the series diverts from the books. For Doctor Who fans...okay, there's one that's crazier than anything Trek fans have dished out. Crazy enough I don't ever, and I mean EVER, go online and discuss Doctor Who with anyone.

You want to start a fight, go to a comics message board and ask who the "real" Green Lantern or Batgirl is.

Or go to a BUFFY site and ask if she belong with Angel or Spike!

See also Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, Battlestar Galactica, James Bond, the Mummy, or just about any beloved old franchise that's been revamped or revived at some point. Rest assured, if and when somebody brings back LOGAN'S RUN or FANTASTIC VOYAGE or whatever, we're going to hear the same old song . . .

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't care about fans who argue their mentally-rewritten "perfect" version of Trek as if it's the real thing, then proceed to shit all over any Trek they don't like, using unimportant continuity tidbits as "proof" of its terribleness.

If you don't like something, that's reason enough not to like it. The "canon violations" don't matter.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

There's no such thing as a franchise or connected universe that has maintained absolutely perfect consistency with its canon, and expecting a franchise to do so is absurd.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I don't care about fans who argue their mentally-rewritten "perfect" version of Trek as if it's the real thing, then proceed to shit all over any Trek they don't like, using unimportant continuity tidbits as "proof" of its terribleness.

If you don't like something, that's reason enough not to like it. The "canon violations" don't matter.

There's no such thing as a franchise or connected universe that has maintained absolutely perfect consistency with its canon, and expecting a franchise to do so is absurd.

While I agree with both of these, I wanted to air my frustration with this idea that canon violations = bad series. I still see it. "Enterprise was terrible." Why? "Because its Vulcans didn't know about mind melds." Ugh.

DSC is supposedly terrible because of the holograms. Like holograms of any kind didn't exist prior to 2364, when they exist now...

 

[Balok's Decoy]

While I agree with both of these, I wanted to air my frustration with this idea that canon violations = bad series. I still see it. "Enterprise was terrible." Why? "Because its Vulcans didn't know about mind melds." Ugh.

DSC is supposedly terrible because of the holograms. Like holograms of any kind didn't exist prior to 2364, when they exist now...

Absolutely agree with you.

And specifically on that point about holodecks, I don't understand that criticism, because 1701 did have one, we just saw it in TAS, not TOS. But also, who gives a fuck? lol

 

[Balok's Decoy]

A new Star Trek show could shred the canon to ribbons, but if they were telling an interesting story with compelling characters, it's a great show in my opinion. Canon is this thing that I put aside first and foremost with a new Trek show, and only consider it as a curiosity or when it adds rather than prevents. Lethe did a great job with this with its Sarek revelations. But yes, canon should never be the basis upon which a show's quality is judged. Canon adherence =/= good show, and a good show does not require canon adherence.

 

[sbk1234]

It's not just Trekkies. In any fandom, some folks are going take any criticism or humor directed at their favorite shows or movies very personally.

That criticism is directed at me, isn't it?! I take that personally!

 

[urbandefault]

When a new show over-writes existing continuity, you should shred your DVDs. That's the only solution.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

A new Star Trek show could shred the canon to ribbons, but if they were telling an interesting story with compelling characters, it's a great show in my opinion. Canon is this thing that I put aside first and foremost with a new Trek show, and only consider it as a curiosity or when it adds rather than prevents. Lethe did a great job with this with its Sarek revelations. But yes, canon should never be the basis upon which a show's quality is judged. Canon adherence =/= good show, and a good show does not require canon adherence.

I agree in part, but I'll admit there's a "canon pornographer" in me that does want to see an effort made to hold to it. I think it's how I see Trek; as a large mythos that has many parts. I don't want one part to over-write another part. But I can accept the idea that two parts might not fit perfectly, and I can also accept that some parts might not "actually look like" what they were presented as.

 

[Jayson1]

I think not all canon violations are equal. Changing the Trill for example isn't a big deal because they had only been in one episode. When you change the Klingons though they have looked more or less the same with a few oddities since TMP and the Culture as been more of less the same once Worf basically defined them and that lasted over 20 years and was very popular.

Also some changes people can sort of, head-canon their way out of them and others are harder to do and some feel so unimportant it feels irrelevant and sometimes their is no logic to it all. It kind of bugs me for example to see Sisko wearing his comm badge in the wrong place on "DS9" for the first couple of ep's after they got the new uniforms but O'Brien going for years on "TNG" with a rank that is wrong doesn't faze me. Perhaps the only difference is in how distracting the change is more than anything else an then you have those times when they seem to be mistakes made simply because of lack of attention to the small details. Is their any reason why Riker had to have the TNG comm badge instead of the updated one when Q brought him to "Voyager" in that one ep. Seems like a simple thing to catch and fix.

Jason

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I think not all canon violations are equal. Changing the Trill for example isn't a big deal because they had only been in one episode. When you change the Klingons though they have looked more or less the same with a few oddities since TMP and the Culture as been more of less the same once Worf basically defined them and that lasted over 20 years and was very popular.

This right here shows how different I am. I think the changes to the Klingons in Discovery are so minor as to be inconsequential. Their culture is pretty much the same. The only real difference in appearance is their lack of hair, which could be little more than ritualistic head shaving, or it could be due to various attempts over the years to cure the augment virus (which could also explain the expanded nose carapace and lip-thorn, the only genuine facial changes that look out of place). There are numerous ways one can explain, or rationalize if you prefer, the Klingon changes.

Meanwhile, there simply is no good explanation for the Trill. It wasn't just their look, either.

In "The Host", the Federation have never encountered the Trill until quite recently, while in DS9, the Trill are a Federation member race that have been in contact with humans at least since the TOS era.

In "The Host", the "symbiont" (which isn't symbiotic) is doing all the driving. The body is just the vehicle. In DS9, the hose, the symbiont and the memories of past hosts combine to form a unique identity from the last host.

In "The Host", transporting a Trill means killing them. Not so in DS9.

In "The Host", Odan immediately wants to resume his romantic relationship with Dr. Crusher. If DS9's Trill societal rules are to be believed, he would not have been allowed to, or at least it would have been taboo.

In "The Host", for some reason the symbiont occasionally gets antsy and has to be calmed down with some kind of low-energy beam. No Trill on DS9 has ever had to do this.

In "The Host", the Trill is the worm. The body is just a body. In DS9, most Trill humanoids are unjoined, and both species are called "Trill".

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some. To me, that's much worse than what DSC did to the Klingons (in fact, I feel like that's the ultimate molehill fans have made a mountain out of; it was a much bigger change what happened to them between TOS and the films).

Also some changes people can sort of, head-canon their way out of them and others are harder to do and some feel so unimportant it feels irrelevant and sometimes their is no logic to it all. It kind of bugs me for example to see Sisko wearing his comm badge in the wrong place on "DS9" for the first couple of ep's after they got the new uniforms but O'Brien going for years on "TNG" with a rank that is wrong doesn't faze me. Perhaps the only difference is in how distracting the change is more than anything else an then you have those times when they seem to be mistakes made simply because of lack of attention to the small details. Is their any reason why Riker had to have the TNG comm badge instead of the updated one when Q brought him to "Voyager" in that one ep. Seems like a simple thing to catch and fix.

Here I have to agree. I also don't think it's possible that Riker was merely 30 in TNG's second season. I think that midway through writing "The Icarus Factor" the writers forgot that Riker was abandoned at age 15 and not 15 years ago.

 

[FormerLurker]

Meanwhile, there simply is no good explanation for the Trill. It wasn't just their look, either.

In "The Host", the Federation have never encountered the Trill until quite recently, while in DS9, the Trill are a Federation member race that have been in contact with humans at least since the TOS era.

In "The Host", the "symbiont" (which isn't symbiotic) is doing all the driving. The body is just the vehicle. In DS9, the hose, the symbiont and the memories of past hosts combine to form a unique identity from the last host.

In "The Host", transporting a Trill means killing them. Not so in DS9.

In "The Host", Odan immediately wants to resume his romantic relationship with Dr. Crusher. If DS9's Trill societal rules are to be believed, he would not have been allowed to, or at least it would have been taboo.

In "The Host", for some reason the symbiont occasionally gets antsy and has to be calmed down with some kind of low-energy beam. No Trill on DS9 has ever had to do this.

In "The Host", the Trill is the worm. The body is just a body. In DS9, most Trill humanoids are unjoined, and both species are called "Trill".

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

In my headcanon, they're representative of two different Trill cultures, from either the same planet, or at least the same system. The worms are common to both, but each has their own 'breed' of worm, and the differences in the transporting and such stem from that. The difference in appearance is, obviously, the difference between the two cultures/Trill host races. But that's just my headcanon. YMMV.

 

[Jayson1]

This right here shows how different I am. I think the changes to the Klingons in Discovery are so minor as to be inconsequential. Their culture is pretty much the same. The only real difference in appearance is their lack of hair, which could be little more than ritualistic head shaving, or it could be due to various attempts over the years to cure the augment virus (which could also explain the expanded nose carapace and lip-thorn, the only genuine facial changes that look out of place). There are numerous ways one can explain, or rationalize if you prefer, the Klingon changes.

Meanwhile, there simply is no good explanation for the Trill. It wasn't just their look, either.

In "The Host", the Federation have never encountered the Trill until quite recently, while in DS9, the Trill are a Federation member race that have been in contact with humans at least since the TOS era.

In "The Host", the "symbiont" (which isn't symbiotic) is doing all the driving. The body is just the vehicle. In DS9, the hose, the symbiont and the memories of past hosts combine to form a unique identity from the last host.

In "The Host", transporting a Trill means killing them. Not so in DS9.

In "The Host", Odan immediately wants to resume his romantic relationship with Dr. Crusher. If DS9's Trill societal rules are to be believed, he would not have been allowed to, or at least it would have been taboo.

In "The Host", for some reason the symbiont occasionally gets antsy and has to be calmed down with some kind of low-energy beam. No Trill on DS9 has ever had to do this.

In "The Host", the Trill is the worm. The body is just a body. In DS9, most Trill humanoids are unjoined, and both species are called "Trill".

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some. To me, that's much worse than what DSC did to the Klingons (in fact, I feel like that's the ultimate molehill fans have made a mountain out of; it was a much bigger change what happened to them between TOS and the films).


Here I have to agree. I also don't think it's possible that Riker was merely 30 in TNG's second season. I think that midway through writing "The Icarus Factor" the writers forgot that Riker was abandoned at age 15 and not 15 years ago.

For me the biggest change with the Klingons is the makup is to much in the face area and it hurts the actors give a good performance and also I think they lack the sense of fun the older versions have. The culture stuff seems fine with the different houses at war with each other but what is missing is them being able to basically have swagger and laugh and even be kind of funny at times. These new Klingons ae basically super serious prudes and Worf could be a prude as well but they also gave him all the funny lines and basically used him for comic relief. Plus he was very good at keeping his anger in check.

Jason

 

[Bad Thoughts]

In "The Host", the Federation have never encountered the Trill until quite recently, while in DS9, the Trill are a Federation member race that have been in contact with humans at least since the TOS era.

In "The Host", the "symbiont" (which isn't symbiotic) is doing all the driving. The body is just the vehicle. In DS9, the hose, the symbiont and the memories of past hosts combine to form a unique identity from the last host.

In "The Host", transporting a Trill means killing them. Not so in DS9.

In "The Host", Odan immediately wants to resume his romantic relationship with Dr. Crusher. If DS9's Trill societal rules are to be believed, he would not have been allowed to, or at least it would have been taboo.

In "The Host", for some reason the symbiont occasionally gets antsy and has to be calmed down with some kind of low-energy beam. No Trill on DS9 has ever had to do this.

In "The Host", the Trill is the worm. The body is just a body. In DS9, most Trill humanoids are unjoined, and both species are called "Trill".

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some. To me, that's much worse than what DSC did to the Klingons (in fact, I feel like that's the ultimate molehill fans have made a mountain out of; it was a much bigger change what happened to them between TOS and the films).

And although I recognize the inconsistencies, I find them unimportant. The characteristics of the Klingon were established over dozens of episodes by dozens of characters before being changed ... and changed again ... . The characteristics of the Trills were present in only one episode. I think that the writers are allowed to refined or alter concepts that don't work the first time out.

And I'm more or less ok with changing the characteristics of the Klingons as well as the Trill.