When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Christopher]

I think in a way you're both right. I think part of it is sometimes fans, including myself, don't always understand all the ins and outs of what goes to make a show.

That's true enough. Audiences only see the finished product, so they see it as a singular thing and have a problem with changes. Creators, though, understand that the finished product is the result of a process of experimentation and revision, the final draft of a series of drafts or the final edit of a series of edits. So we're open to further revisions to improve it as we go, even if they're retroactive.

You could probably find an equal number of people that would love it if they threw everything out, made Klingons amorphous blob people and give Vulcans 3 heads.

If I could reboot ST from scratch, I'd make aliens like the Klingons, Andorians, and Cardassians nonhumanoid. I'd also set it much further in the future so that humanoids like Vulcans would be human colonists genetically engineered to fit new environments and developed into distinct, independent cultures over a millennium or two. Which would make it easier to justify interspecies hybrids like Spock or Troi, although K'ehleyr or B'Elanna would be out of the question.

 

[fireproof78]

Which would make it easier to justify interspecies hybrids like Spock or Troi, although K'ehleyr or B'Elanna would be out of the question.

Except on the Internet

 

[Vger23]

Spoiler: Season Finale of Discovery

Season 3 is set 930 years in the future, why should the cultural attitude of genetic engineering of human beings of the 21set century still rule the Federation? They would consider such values as primitive, think of the medical procedures we take for granted now whose ideas would be considered heresy and treated as witchcraft 930 years ago, such as transplants, IVF, etc

I'm kind of hoping that not only are they 950 years in the future, but they're also far enough away from where the former Federation existed (out by New Eden?), that everything is brand new and has no ties to anything else.

If you're going to go for a setting change, go big and commit 100%.
No interest in seeing the made-up future of a made-up future society.​

It's ironic and sad. This sense of ownership started out as a good thing that kept Star Trek going during the lean years of the 70s. It was originally what informed a community, and now it's a cancer.
.

Sad, but unfortunately true. It went from a "tight-knit family" kind of thing to a very unhealthy entitlement.

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

If there is, I'm going to find it and raise hell in there.

 

[1001001]

People, PEOPLE!!



Let me once again remind you that we are not anywhere near the six month point for the finale of Discovery.

Please do not post spoilers anywhere in this forum without spoiler tags.

Thanks.

 

[Christopher]

No interest in seeing the made-up future of a made-up future society.

I wonder how many people said that when TNG was announced...

 

[Soong-type Android]

If I could reboot ST from scratch, I'd make aliens like the Klingons, Andorians, and Cardassians nonhumanoid.

It would be good to see aliens look genuinely alien. Also better convey the idea that some of these civilisations may have evolved thousands or even millions of years ahead of Earth's.

 

[Damian]

It would be good to see aliens look genuinely alien. Also better convey the idea that some of these civilisations may have evolved thousands or even millions of years ahead of Earth's.

I wouldn't mind seeing more elaborate aliens. As a continuity junkie I don't really want to see Klingons, Cardassians, etc. drastically changed. But bring in some new aliens that look dramatically different. I'd get into that.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

Or professional wrestling. I've actually seen it.

 

[1001001]

 

[Christopher]

As a continuity junkie I don't really want to see Klingons, Cardassians, etc. drastically changed.

I'm talking about starting over with a whole new continuity reimagined from scratch, which wouldn't change anything in the original continuity. I prefer a single continuity to stay as consistent as possible, but that's the good thing about creating separate, alternative continuities -- they can go in any direction they want without the original version being affected.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Which is silly. We didn't need an alternate universe to explain why the Enterprise changed appearance between the 2260s and the 2270s. The gap between "The Cage" and Discovery is roughly equal in length to the gap between "Turnabout Intruder" and ST:TMP, so it's ludicrous that anyone thinks it's impossible to reconcile the changes. Has fandom gotten dumber today than it was back then? Or just more determined to find excuses to attack and be negative, so that they don't want to use the obvious rationalization that ships get refitted from time to time?

While TMP had also switched to new production design, Decker explicitly stated that Kirk didn’t know that version a tenth as well as he did, thus supporting the break in engineering continuity (which Matt Jefferies had tried to avoid in his Phase II blueprints). The DSC designers did postulate a kind of evolution towards TOS, but they didn’t address the fact that the ship had already looked like that in 2254, so not only would we have yet another redesign masquerading as a refit, but it would’ve been done there and back again (in time for the second pilot), and the same with the interior and uniforms.

Hence the precedent-breaking need to acknowledge that the TOS ship would no longer be recreated with the original production design, which of course snowballs into impact on all the other Enterprises (at 442 meters, this one would be almost Excelsior-sized in a lineup, so the others must also be longer). If I were to read a Discovery novel with a flash-forward to the 2280s, I’d be sure to keep that in mind and visualize an evolution of this production design and not the literal film era, which leads to the idea of at least two universes on the same Timeline, not just one universe with even more cognitive dissonance.

(Of course, someone may develop their own imaginary production design, and you’ve already indicated you see this more as theater, but whoever is taking live action as-is would be hard-pressed to explain the supposed pendelum effect between the TOS pilots, which brings up the possibility of a multiverse approach in the future.)

 

[fireproof78]

At some point in time a recognition of this as an art form is necessary.

 

[Lord Garth]

Most fans will probably be happy as long as Picard is still recognisably Picard and the universe can still be recognised as the one TNG inhabited. There is probably a fear of self indulgent writers wanting to use the project to win writing awards and try to make 'Picard' the next 'Logan', believing character deconstruction and subverting expectations equals a good end product. If that's the case we can inevitably look forward to seeing an embittered, elderly Picard long since given up on Starfleet and Federation ideals, which seems a bit of a cliche.

I've never seen Logan.

On another note: I was wondering if you ever posted here in the early-2000s? Your posting style seems familiar, or I'm thinking of someone else.

 

[drt]

Except that doesn't make sense, because robots and AIs are not the same thing.

No, I get that, more that there were concerns AI (including alien ones) could hijack even "dumb" robots for nefarious purposes. Don't get me wrong, i think the lack of robots is nonsense - I was just trying to headcanon my way around what appeared to be the case in Trek until Discovery. What's maybe interesting to discuss is why Roddenberry never included robots in TOS (except his fascination for human-mimicking androids), maybe he felt "regular" robots had been too goofily portrayed in kiddie scifi for a 60s audience to take seriously.

I hope DISC gets rid of that crap, banning it for the whole Federation because humans had a bad history with it, utter nonsense!

Particularly since there's zero chance you could have hybrids like Spock without it.

Hence the precedent-breaking need to acknowledge that the TOS ship would no longer be recreated with the original production design, which of course snowballs into impact on all the other Enterprises (at 442 meters, this one would be almost Excelsior-sized in a lineup, so the others must also be longer).

I don't know why there's a need for Enterprises to get bigger over time, seems like getting more advanced would also mean greater miniaturization of components, so an argument could be made for a more advanced ship to be smaller.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know why there's a need for Enterprises to get bigger over time, seems like getting more advanced would also mean greater miniaturization of components, so an argument could be made for a more advanced ship to be smaller.

If I were designing ships, and machinery did not take up as much space I would keep them the same size if not larger. This is because close quarters over long periods of time is not the best for mental health. Having spaces to stretch the legs and move about would probably be beneficial to the health and well being of the crew.

 

[Soong-type Android]

I've never seen Logan.

On another note: I was wondering if you ever posted here in the early-2000s? Your posting style seems familiar, or I'm thinking of someone else.

Nope. Just a new poster.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

View attachment 9315
I don't know why there's a need for Enterprises to get bigger over time, seems like getting more advanced would also mean greater miniaturization of components, so an argument could be made for a more advanced ship to be smaller.

That’s just what the Enterprise lineup has always looked like, so I don’t see them introducing a bump from 225 to 442 to 305 meters. If they needed to update one ship in DSC style, it follows the same would be needed in theory for all of them, lengths included.

 

[Christopher]

No, I get that, more that there were concerns AI (including alien ones) could hijack even "dumb" robots for nefarious purposes.

But by that logic, you'd have to ban starships too, since they can do immensely more damage than a few rogue robo-janitors.

What's maybe interesting to discuss is why Roddenberry never included robots in TOS (except his fascination for human-mimicking androids), maybe he felt "regular" robots had been too goofily portrayed in kiddie scifi for a 60s audience to take seriously.

We did get a few robots, like Nomad and Flint's M-4. The fact that we didn't see more is probably largely a matter of budget, just as the preponderance of androids was. But yeah, avoiding similarities to Lost in Space may have been a factor in not doing too much with robots.

Note, though, that The Making of Star Trek described the food preparation system as automated/robotic, mechanically converting raw or preserved ingredients into swiftly cooked meals that were delivered by a robotic dumbwaiter system to the food slots. So there were robots, they were just behind the scenes and more along the lines of assembly-line robots than free-roving ones.

 

[Damian]

I'm talking about starting over with a whole new continuity reimagined from scratch, which wouldn't change anything in the original continuity. I prefer a single continuity to stay as consistent as possible, but that's the good thing about creating separate, alternative continuities -- they can go in any direction they want without the original version being affected.

I understand what you're saying. I was just saying with the continuity we do have up to this point, I'd prefer more consistency and that I don't mind non-humanoid aliens, in fact, I think that would be a great thing. Just that they be some never before seen species. I mean, if we could go back to the beginning and make Klingons non-humanoids, well, that's one thing. But they've been around a long time now so it'd be hard to completely start over with them now.

But I was going down a bit of a different track from what you were talking about.

And, well, I've always said I kind of like 80's hair band Klingons. Someone should have done a music video of Klingons in a hair band doing Poison, or Metallica if you'd prefer something heavier. They'd fit right in

 

[Norsehound]

Speaking of the Klingon death howl, how comes nobody insists that TNG isn't "Prime" or that it violates canon by inventing that whole death howl thing out of nowhere. There were no howling Klingons on TOS or in the TOS movies, so clearly TNG and everything that followed completely wrecked "canon," right? If they wanted to have howling warrior aliens with ridged heads, why did they have to call them Klingons?

Honestly, that's what a lot of the complaints about DISCO sound like to me.

What I don't understand is why "canon" has to be decided based on how TNG did it.

Discovery gave us the most fresh and unique take on the Klingons yet. If you're one to insist on averting the humanoid Klingons of the TOS era, at least do it with effort. Speaking entirely in Klingon, implied alien anatomy, crazy ship designs, all of these things are great. Come the show being on the air fans are ranting up and down that these things aren't klingon and keep pointing at things from TNG to justify what "real" klingons are. It's so bad the showrunners have to alter things in season 2 and deliver awkwardly dropped exposition as if to apologize for their "oversights".

What makes the TNG Klingons more "real" than the ones from TOS? or the movies? or Discovery? Just because the TOS klinks don't meet some aesthetic limitation doesn't make them less klingon to fans like me, who liked the subtle menace out of the performances of John Colicos and Michael Ansara. I didn't need or want it on vivid display as during TNG and DS9.

I'll admit, I was happy DISC was set back in the 23rd century because I'm really tired of everything about the 24th. 21 seasons or so of the stuff and only 5 for the kirk era? C'mon. Canon doesn't concern me so much as era and tone of the period- I don't care if the Enterprise is a different design so long as Mount's Pike is at the helm, telling great stories. I'll take more of the frontier adventurism of Kirk's day than the antiseptic moralizing of Picard's.