When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[BK613]

I'm of the opinion that expecting adherence to what came before was an inevitable outcome of the change in the way the audience views media. For the first seven to eight decades of movie production, and the first two to three decades of television production, audiences viewed media at the sufferance of the content providers. You could only see movies when they were in the theater and television shows when they were broadcast. Now you could see a movie more than once, while it was in the theater (orif it were broadcast on TV) and you could see an episode of a TV show again, if that episode were rerun, but you had little choice as to when those events occurred. You watched when you were given a chance to.

Today, because of the various types of home media, you can watch, rewatch, FF, rewind, freeze-frame, zoom in, etc. at your leisure and as often as you want. That is apparently part of the normal viewing experience now. That people get detail-oriented about stuff is a logical outgrowth of that change. IMO. YMMV.

 

[BillJ]

Canon and continuity missteps usually come to my attention when the stories aren't working for me.

 

[WebLurker]

I wouldn't have wanted that. Slavish recreations are okay for the occasional single story like "Trials and Tribble-ations" or "In a Mirror, Darkly," but for a whole ongoing series it made far more sense to update and innovate. I would've liked it if they'd kept somewhat more of the pilot/TOS aesthetic than they did while still updating the tech, sort of like what they did with the Enterprise in DSC season 2, but updating was definitely better than slavishly copying.

Fair enough. There was a reason I cited Rogue One and not the DS9 or ENT episodes, since they invented a lot of new stuff, but it still looked exactly like it could've come from the original movie that it was building up to. TIE Strikers and Death Troopers are brand new (unless you count the latter stealing the name from those Star Wars Legends zombie novels and putting a version of the those undead in the backstory via tie-ins and games), but they fit together in a way that the DSC and TOS ships don't. Now, bear in mind I honestly don't have a problem with the new designs (although I can't make sense of the Enterprise's DSC design fitting between the two TOS pilot designs); tech changes, design teams do different stuff. I think the two can coexist. I guess the fan in me wanted to see it look, kinda like you said, more like a version of "The Cage" then the Abramsverse stuff. I also think it's really cool seeing the different shows' stuff on the same page together in those Ships of the Line calendars, crossover stories, and whatnot, so having the Big E appear looking exactly like it did in the remastered pilots would've meant more to me personally then seeing it as an alt-designs.

I do get why they do what they do. It's more of a personal preference thing, given I like seeing the differences together and I do love the old TOS look, as kitchy as its '60s sensibilities are.

To an extent, yes. I was around when TMP completely redesigned everything, and I saw how radically TNG changed things from what we'd come to assume from the tie-ins, so I was used to the idea of Trek being reimagined. People who grew up in the TNG era wouldn't have had that same perspective, so the radical reinventions in DSC are more unprecedented for them.

May have also helped that TNG and the others borrowed the TOS movie props to represent the past and older ships and whatnot, making it feel like the updates were a part of the backstory and not just reimagining. I mean, I'd like it if the Picard series and other upcoming projects are able to use DSC stuff in "later" eras in a similar fashion; kinda creating more connective tissue. I mean, as out of continuity as it is now (if it ever was), that first DSC novel putting the Shenzou and "Cage"-era Enterprise in the same story really helped me think of DSC as a part of the Star Trek timeline as a whole and not "just" as a TV show based on it, if that makes any sense.

The point is, canon is not dictated at all. It's merely a description of what something intrinsically is, a convenient shorthand for talking about the primary work as distinct from its tie-ins and imitations.

Feels like the word had changed an awful lot over time.

Well-said. If only he had used his powers for good...

It is interesting to see different perspectives, though. The guy really loved that Franz Joseph Tech manual and disliked the old Space Flight Chronology. I read both (long after they had been rendered completely overwritten by later projects) and I found the latter to be an honorable look at expanding the franchise at the time it was written and a very interesting look at how we used to look at things. Conversely, that Tech Manual was a huge disappointment, with lots lots of pictures, but no context or real rhyme to it. I know people swear by it, but I honestly found it to be a garbage book. If anyone could explain what I'm missing from that, I would love to hear it.

It's just that some of you are laboring under the mistaken impression that visual design is the same thing as narrative. Portraying the ships and costumes differently isn't a continuity violation any more than recasting Saavik was.

I disagree with that, but I will say that I think where the lines are drawn on the subject are extremely subjective, ranging from you "anything goes" to that guy who runs the "Ex Astra Scientia" website, who seems to have become overly obsessed with "visual canon," to the point where he seems to be starting down the James Dixon path. I guess I myself seem to be somewhere in the middle, where I do believe that "visual canon" is an observable thing and very fair game to analyze, but that it all should be on a case-by-case basis. Of course, I just gloss over a lot of the travel times, sector/quadrant/early TOS dating stuff as background noise to not worry about in terms of the continuity, so I can comprehend that others would do the same for the visual effects.

(Long story short, I don't agree, but I think it's a subject that should be for conversation, not laying down the law, as fun as it may be to hash out what we think is the "real" answer.)

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I would've liked it if they'd kept somewhat more of the pilot/TOS aesthetic than they did while still updating the tech, sort of like what they did with the Enterprise in DSC season 2, but updating was definitely better than slavishly copying.

I definately agree with this.

I think if they had used the Discoprise-style and uniforms from Day 1, maybe with more of a metallic rather than red accents for Shenzhou - then I think a lot of 'moderates' would have more on board with things and willing to give the series more a benefit of doubt (but obviously not the hard-core 'TOS style or bust' crowd).

 

[BillJ]

It's more of a personal preference thing...

No personal preferences allowed.

 

[Rahul]

Imagine if more mainstream sci-fi/fantasy properties had Star Trek's attitude toward continuity. If Tyrion Lannister was seven foot tall and humorless. If the Avengers were suddenly cool with slavery and genocide. If Luke Skywalker tried to murder his teenage nephew in his sleep- oh right. Fans, hardcore and casual alike would be pissed off, and rightly so.

Star Trek fandom isn't unusual for caring about continuity. It's unusual for not.

I know most of this post is hyperbole - especially the Avengers' part is way out proportions and honestly in bad taste - , but....yeah...

Luke Skywalker going lightsaber-drawn into his nephew's hut to kill him actually pissed me more off than anything DIS has ever done. DIS got a lot of stuff wrong. But, like, props and continuity errors, and dumb coincidences.

 

[Christopher]

Fair enough. There was a reason I cited Rogue One and not the DS9 or ENT episodes, since they invented a lot of new stuff, but it still looked exactly like it could've come from the original movie that it was building up to.

If there is one argument I've gotten deathly tired of hearing from fandom lately, it's "Star Wars did it this way, therefore Star Trek should do it the same way." Star Trek came first, dammit. And it's misunderstanding creativity to claim that there's only one way to do it.

May have also helped that TNG and the others borrowed the TOS movie props to represent the past and older ships and whatnot, making it feel like the updates were a part of the backstory and not just reimagining.

Which was something they did to save money, because the movie series was ongoing and the sets and props were readily available for reuse. Also because they had a few key art staffers in common with the movies (Andrew Probert, Rick Sternbach, and Michael Okuda), so their old and new designs were naturally similar. Neither of those applies here, so it doesn't make sense to expect the same thing to happen.

I think if they had used the Discoprise-style and uniforms from Day 1, maybe with more of a metallic rather than red accents for Shenzhou - then I think a lot of 'moderates' would have more on board with things and willing to give the series more a benefit of doubt (but obviously not the hard-core 'TOS style or bust' crowd).

Well, I still think it's ridiculously superficial and misguided to judge the legitimacy or continuity of a story by what the costumes and sets look like. That's not what stories are about.

 

[fireproof78]

If Luke Skywalker tried to murder his teenage nephew in his sleep- oh right. Fans, hardcore and casual alike would be pissed off, and rightly so.

No, actually. Fans might have various opinions on the matter, and they do.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Well, I still think it's ridiculously superficial and misguided to judge the legitimacy or continuity of a story by what the costumes and sets look like. That's not what stories are about.

This gets into something I’ve been noticing as I read the thread. There’s many different types of continuity. Visual continuity, like the Discoprise design, technical continuity, trivia continuity (James R. Kirk vs. James T. Kirk), etc. Most examples of these are going to be ultimately inconsequential in terms of how they affect the story. Kirk remains Kirk, whether his middle name is Raymond or Tiberius. Similarly, while I find it irksome that the Yamato has two different registry numbers, it doesn’t affect the plot.

There are inconsistencies of story, plot and character which can have a relatively large effect on our perception of what’s going on and who’s doing what. I’m going to provide an example from my own experience.

“Requiem for Methuselah” is not, in my experience, a fan favorite episode, but I like it, for many reasons. It tries to be epic, and even when it fails, like “Sucker Punch”, I can see the greatness that could have been there. I will freely admit, though, that I’ve never found it compelling that Kirk would have fallen so completely in love with Rayna. Part of this is due to the limitations of 60s TV, and part of it is due to the writing itself, which passes up some opportunities to allow that relationship to grow in favor of providing exposition.

My personal interpretation of the episode is that, having lost Edith Keller tragically, Kirk is more vulnerable to her programmed charms. We’ve established that he’s lonely in the command role that he sought, and being on a prolonged space assignment keeps his options for a meaningful relationship limited.

So, and this is a huge WHAT IF…what if Requiem had McCoy, instead of saying “I wish he could forget her” (or whatever he said, possibly not an exact quote)… what if he said “I wish he could find love. He’s never had it, and it would help him be the Captain he feels he has to be.”

That would be a continuity error that would change my entire interpretation of a lot of things, most importantly my view of Kirk. If I can believe that he’s been increasingly having issues facing what he had to allow to happen to Edith in order to save the future, I can feel sorry for him, and I can applaud when Spock does his final mindmeld. If, on the other hand, there was no Edith, then my takeaway from Requiem would be that he’s a weak-willed man, immature at least in the ways of romantic relationships, probably not really fit to be in command of s starship.

 

[Christopher]

This gets into something I’ve been noticing as I read the thread. There’s many different types of continuity. Visual continuity, like the Discoprise design, technical continuity, trivia continuity (James R. Kirk vs. James T. Kirk), etc. Most examples of these are going to be ultimately inconsequential in terms of how they affect the story. Kirk remains Kirk, whether his middle name is Raymond or Tiberius. Similarly, while I find it irksome that the Yamato has two different registry numbers, it doesn’t affect the plot.

There are inconsistencies of story, plot and character which can have a relatively large effect on our perception of what’s going on and who’s doing what.

Yes -- that's well-said. There's a difference between the story itself and the way the story is told. Every staging of Hamlet is going to change the way the characters and sets and costumes look and how the lines are delivered and how the action is staged, but the words and the story and the ideas are still the same, and that's what makes it Hamlet.

That's why DSC episodes like "Lethe" and "Light and Shadows" are so powerful for me in the way they give new insights about Sarek's relationship to Spock. On the level of execution, I think James Frain was terrible as Sarek, a really poor casting choice that failed to capture what worked about Mark Lenard's performance. But on the level of story, on the level of the words and ideas that underlie his performance, I think those episodes capture Sarek and his relationship with Spock perfectly, and their new revelations fit in smoothly with what came before and add new layers to it. So the fundamental rightness of the ideas lets me look past the flaws in the execution.

“Requiem for Methuselah” is not, in my experience, a fan favorite episode

Really? I've always loved it. For all its conceptual flaws, it's a beautifully written and acted episode with a lot of poignancy.

I will freely admit, though, that I’ve never found it compelling that Kirk would have fallen so completely in love with Rayna. Part of this is due to the limitations of 60s TV, and part of it is due to the writing itself, which passes up some opportunities to allow that relationship to grow in favor of providing exposition.

Its main problem could've been quite easily fixed if they'd changed the deadline for curing the disease from "four hours" to "four days." Changing that single word would've made it enormously more plausible that Kirk could've fallen in love with Rayna.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Its main problem could've been quite easily fixed if they'd changed the deadline for curing the disease from "four hours" to "four days." Changing that single word would've made it enormously more plausible that Kirk could've fallen in love with Rayna

I agree that that would have helped, but I still think more story time was needed to convince me that he's as head-over-heels as the story suggests he is.

 

[WebLurker]

If there is one argument I've gotten deathly tired of hearing from fandom lately, it's "Star Wars did it this way, therefore Star Trek should do it the same way." Star Trek came first, dammit. And it's misunderstanding creativity to claim that there's only one way to do it.

You missed the point I was making. In fact, I never said that Star Trek should do it the Star Wars way (in fact, when they did that with the Abrams-directed movies, I hated the result). It was just the first example of what I was thinking that came to mind.

Which was something they did to save money, because the movie series was ongoing and the sets and props were readily available for reuse. Also because they had a few key art staffers in common with the movies (Andrew Probert, Rick Sternbach, and Michael Okuda), so their old and new designs were naturally similar. Neither of those applies here, so it doesn't make sense to expect the same thing to happen.

DSC will do what DSC will do. However, seeing as it seems to be the idea to loop back into TOS, I think it would be cool if we eventually get more stuff echoing those designs in some form.

Well, I still think it's ridiculously superficial and misguided to judge the legitimacy or continuity of a story by what the costumes and sets look like. That's not what stories are about.

Never said anything about "legitimacy," just that the visuals are a part of internal continuity. I would also argue that in a visual medium, that stuff is a part of the storytelling. Not the most important part, but a part, of some kind.

 

[Christopher]

However, seeing as it seems to be the idea to loop back into TOS, I think it would be cool if we eventually get more stuff echoing those designs in some form.

And we did, with the Enterprise in season 2. For that matter, even in season 1, the design of the phasers and communicators fit the period aside from the tech upgrades to the latter. The phasers in particular looked like a transitional stage between the "Cage" and series versions.

I would also argue that in a visual medium, that stuff is a part of the storytelling. Not the most important part, but a part, of some kind.

Up to a point, sure, but there is room for interpretation. For instance, we can accept that the cartoon drawings and paintings in TAS are a representation of the equivalent live-action things from TOS, despite the fundamental difference in medium and dimensionality. In that case, we understand how one is an artistic interpretation of the other. It seems that some fans don't understand that live-action props, sets, costumes, makeup prosthetics, etc. are also artistic creations, and so different artists' interpretations of an alien species or a uniform or a starship can have differences in detail while still narratively representing the same thing.

 

[FormerLurker]

What's your source for that? I could've sworn that Worf's season 1 forehead showed up on a Pagh crewmember in "A Matter of Honor" in season 2.

A co-worker had access to a trade magazine in spring 1988 that reported the theft. Other things were taken, but the one that made him mention it to me was the theft of the mold for Worf's forehead. It's been long enough ago I don't remember anything more about it, except that it was a magazine I personally had no access to, but knew that he did.

 

[WebLurker]

And we did, with the Enterprise in season 2. For that matter, even in season 1, the design of the phasers and communicators fit the period aside from the tech upgrades to the latter. The phasers in particular looked like a transitional stage between the "Cage" and series versions.

I did like the phaser and communicator props. I will give them that. The season 2 trailer also showed a hologram of a TOS Klingon ship, so it can be done in the context of the new show. Guess it's a question what the filmmakers want to do and how well they pull that off.

Up to a point, sure, but there is room for interpretation. For instance, we can accept that the cartoon drawings and paintings in TAS are a representation of the equivalent live-action things from TOS, despite the fundamental difference in medium and dimensionality. In that case, we understand how one is an artistic interpretation of the other.

I can understand that (although TAS was pretty faithful to the TOS designs, fitting the conceit that it was a continuation).

It seems that some fans don't understand that live-action props, sets, costumes, makeup prosthetics, etc. are also artistic creations, and so different artists' interpretations of an alien species or a uniform or a starship can have differences in detail while still narratively representing the same thing.

I think the difference is that animation and that kind of thing is that its in a medium where artistic license is built into design presentation; it's an artistic representation of the world. One live action show to another, you don't really get that sense of that, since the mediums the same and one that hammers home the illusion that you're a fly on the wall.(Besides, a different interpretation is still an inconsistency if it doesn't work with what came before.)

 

[fireproof78]

Up to a point, sure, but there is room for interpretation. For instance, we can accept that the cartoon drawings and paintings in TAS are a representation of the equivalent live-action things from TOS, despite the fundamental difference in medium and dimensionality. In that case, we understand how one is an artistic interpretation of the other. It seems that some fans don't understand that live-action props, sets, costumes, makeup prosthetics, etc. are also artistic creations, and so different artists' interpretations of an alien species or a uniform or a starship can have differences in detail while still narratively representing the same thing.

I don't think it is a lack of understanding but what threshold they have for it lining up side by side. For me, Star Trek isn't just the visuals because that wasn't the primary conceit in its development. I don't think that TOS is exactly a replica of the future envisioned by GR anymore than TNG or TMP was. It was an artistic interpretation of possible future tech.

Where the disconnect comes (at least from what's described in this thread) is that visuals have to follow a certain developmental line in order to be considered "in sync" in the same world. For me, that is not necessary because Star Trek is not one unified world but an expansion upon a future vision for present humanity. This cannot be overstated, to me. If we come at Star Trek has one large world then disappointment is inevitable. If we treat it as a constant artistic interpretation of humanity's future based upon present knowledge then the issues decrease considerably.

Obviously, interpretation will vary, but one I think that is closer to artistic intention, and makes for a more satisfying experience. At least, for me.

 

[Christopher]

I think the difference is that animation and that kind of thing is that its in a medium where artistic license is built into design presentation; it's an artistic representation of the world. One live action show to another, you don't really get that sense of that, since the mediums the same and one that hammers home the illusion that you're a fly on the wall.

Which ties into a point I've raised a couple of times already -- that because modern TV and film have gotten more realistic-looking, audiences take them more literally and have a harder time recognizing them as artistic approximations.

(Besides, a different interpretation is still an inconsistency if it doesn't work with what came before.)

And that's more of a judgment call than an objective standard. Whether something "works with" something else is often just a matter of how flexible you're willing to be, or how creative you can be at reconciling them.

 

[WebLurker]

Which ties into a point I've raised a couple of times already -- that because modern TV and film have gotten more realistic-looking, audiences take them more literally and have a harder time recognizing them as artistic approximations.

Uh...

And that's more of a judgment call than an objective standard. Whether something "works with" something else is often just a matter of how flexible you're willing to be, or how creative you can be at reconciling them.

Well, that's the trick, now isn't it?

 

[Lance]

I'm of the opinion that expecting adherence to what came before was an inevitable outcome of the change in the way the audience views media. For the first seven to eight decades of movie production, and the first two to three decades of television production, audiences viewed media at the sufferance of the content providers. You could only see movies when they were in the theater and television shows when they were broadcast. Now you could see a movie more than once, while it was in the theater (orif it were broadcast on TV) and you could see an episode of a TV show again, if that episode were rerun, but you had little choice as to when those events occurred. You watched when you were given a chance to.

Today, because of the various types of home media, you can watch, rewatch, FF, rewind, freeze-frame, zoom in, etc. at your leisure and as often as you want. That is apparently part of the normal viewing experience now. That people get detail-oriented about stuff is a logical outgrowth of that change. IMO. YMMV.

I've long had a similar theory. I've had more modern-day viewers ask, for example, about continuity issues between old movie sequels, asking how no-one could possibly have cared that Kirk replaced Carol Marcus in the genesis tape reprise in the third Trek movie, for example, and "Wouldn't people have noticed?", well the reality is that no-one cared, at a time when you may not have seen the previous movie since two years ago when it was in theatres and may only half remember the details. Broad strokes continuity was all that really mattered back then, whereas now we live in a 'home media' environment where little details stand out more. Viewers kind of expect a higher level of continuity now, where we can watch something like the Back To The Future trilogy back to back in one night and notice not how well it all knits together, but instead notice the one or two tiny moments that don't.

 

[Lance]

People's expectations have changed. Or maybe its just that the internet gives a bigger platform from which to critique. I don't doubt there were people back in the day who may have baulked at, say, the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes movies taking liberties with their source material, but the vast majority of viewers (it would seem) were more pragmatic about, well, so long as it entertains... The Star Trek motion pictures were a retcon of TOS. Roddenberry himself belled the cat about that in his novelization of the first movie. Klingon foreheads were always 'meant' to have been like that. But few people cared that much. It was a non-issue. Chekov being the one who recognizes Khan garnered comment even at the time, but nobody was declaring the movie as not being canon for it. Now, both would be pilloried for their transgressions. Fandoms in general have become much more likely to stress the small stuff.