The problem is that up until 2005, everything mostly fit and made sense, or was explained later. Odd changes like the Trill makeup and the Romulan forehead were rare, and minor compared to what Disco changed. The Kelvin timeline allowed more drastic changes without affecting prime continuity. So what makes Disco so frustrating is that we've enjoyed pretty well maintained consistency until recently, and then suddenly (with a new creative team) we got drastic changes that don't fit anymore. If the makers had been that careless for the previous 50 years already, it wouldn't have mattered, but it's sad to see something you're a fan of lose its standards after such a long time.
Not quite true. There were people making the same exact complaints about ENT when it was on. Yes, they did explain things during the fourth season, but during the first three seasons it was exactly the same as you describe above... except worse. I stayed the Hell out of that forum. Not only because I didn't watch the show, but because (no offense to the former regulars) you'd had to have been insane to have wanted to post there. The complaints about Discovery are like a walk in the park. Newer posters (i.e. the ones who registered after 2005) just don't know what it used to be like. When they get frustrated about complaints about DSC, I just think, "You haven't seen anything." I'd rather just debate it out with people who don't like Discovery and see who wins the argument. A really good one will end in a stalemate where it ends up "my opinion versus yours".
Looking back on it now, those "discrepancies" in Enterprise were nothing compared to now. Roller coaster turbolifts and the gangway coming out the side of Discovery for instance. IMO of course.
When it came to ENT, visually I did try to mentally make it all fit, even though I didn't like what they did with the 22nd Century at the time. These days, I consider it water under the bridge. 15 years later, with DSC, when it was clear it was going to look different from TOS and it wouldn't link up, I just thought, "there's no point in visually matching up these series, at this point I'll focus on how much the story lines up in broad strokes instead". I like DSC, so it was an easy shift for me to make. I overlook more if I enjoy what I'm watching. But, yes, I own up to the fact that I did shift my thinking from one series to the next. At the end of the day, I'm a "flip-flopper".
I remember being very upset about lying Vulcans using a monastery to spy on the Andorians, attacking Archer to keep it secret. But then there was the amazing 4th season arc that showed how it fits: Under V'las, they got radical, and when his actions were exposed and the Kir'Shara was found, they were appalled and became the peaceful and cooperative culture we saw in TOS-VOY. Exactly. ENT at least had consoles and ships and equipment that looked more primitive than anything in the 24th century. Compared to TOS, it was odd, but not odd enough for me, and when they presented the Defiant as being super-advanced and 100 years ahead, they made it all fit. It made sense that the TOS ship is seen as incredibly advanced 100 years before. The one thing that didn't fit was the Klingon forehead, and that was also explained quite well in S4. I don't count minor mistakes like the D7 or the name "warbird", which the makers have addressed as mistakes, IIRC. But I am unhappy with deliberate nonsense like empty ships that are only filled with turboshafts. My headcanon says it's just an artistic way of showing us a traveling turbolift by blending out the rooms that are actually there.
it didn’t need to be explained. It was a retcon. It was intended to be a retcon all the way back in TMP when bumpy Klingons were first shown. I don’t understand why some fans require everything to be explained.
According to some users around here who were part of the Fandom when it happened, there were people upset/confused about it. It’s just without something like the internet to spread it around, it was hard to encounter, without subscribing to magazines or going to conventions.
In 1996, I took "We do not discuss it with outsiders" as a joke and didn't think anything more of it.
I've got a story. You'll like this one. My brother has started showing my six-year-old niece Star Trek. The first two episodes they watched were "The Devil in the Dark" and "The Trouble With Tribbles". My brother has a toy Klingon in his kitchen on display who looks drunk and wild. He bought it in the '90s and, of course, it has long hair and forehead ridges. My niece has seen this Klingon in the kitchen all her life. So when they saw the Klingons in "The Trouble With Tribbles", I'm told the first thing she thought was, "Those are Klingons?" My brother said he felt like he just had a "Trials and Tribble-ations" moment.
James Dixon. It wasn't posted here, but links to it were. It's in the novel-length footnotes of his (frankly amazing, although based on flawed/outdated assumptions) Fandom Star Trek Chronology v17. He threatened to kill me once.
That's a lot more tame than what Daniel posted. And he even talked with Doug Drexler about the design and his opinions.
Ah, Akiraprise butthurt, that takes me back. Although in all honesty, even though I've made my peace with it, it was incredibly lazy to take an Akira class and turn it retro. I don't care about the continuity aspect of it, but to a show's hero ship should have a bit more creativity in the design than that.