When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Spot261]

That‘s oversimplifying the situation in a way that dangerously reduces criticism to overreaction, or lumps it together with extremes so that acceptable reaction by implication becomes “praise the show or remain silent, because history says you‘re doomed to be wrong”.

With the exception of TOS (and very arguably ENT — I prefer S3 to the fan-serving S4), all the series (including the film series) are commonly seen to have generally improved with time, yet partly because of TOS it isn’t unreasonable to expect a series to be good out of the gate. Criticism of early TNG is still valid, as is that of early DS9, VGR, ENT and DSC. It is also relative — if continuity is not an issue, the focus will be on other things, like specific design choices or bland and repetitive writing. I was there when the NX-01 was revealed, but why criticize the “Akiraprise” now, retreading years of that discussion, when time is better spent on a current show such as DSC? Also, we knew it would fit with TOS because of who was making the show, but it was unprecedented then to adapt a background design for a hero ship and the same exact criticism was repeated when Discovery was revealed in 2016. That hadn’t gone away, but then of course we also had the more substantial changes as opposed to ENT’s mere compromises.

Issues which are truly difficult to resolve remain so to this day; they just become less current and are put on the back-burner. We still don’t fully understand all that happened between TOS and TMP, but at least TMP was clearly later. We can discuss TMP now, or we can leave it be and argue as I did that updating one century and famous characters just isn’t in the spirit of Star Trek, which had no problem creating an entire era without Kirk, with shows and movies that weren’t even allowed to mix on a regular basis. Therefore, whether we sweep past inconsistencies under the carpet or keep talking about them forever, the better question is if the franchise shouldn’t try to avoid them in the future? Pick a year such as 2396 and say “that’s the future ‘now’ according to the Bermanverse — now what can showrunners do that can exist without the good-old?”

I'd accept that if it weren't for at least one underlying problem in your argument.

It isn't the discussion which fades, it's the hyperbole.

Here we are on a site discussing a TV series from over half a century ago, often in excruciating detail, but the venom, the anger is all reserved for the latest iteration. No one seethes over the TMP changes now, but that doesn't mean TOS and TMP aren't still discussed, rather they are discussed with the benefit of hindsight and the perspective and balance that brings. They are familiar, known, entities and don't challenge us the way they once did.

DSC, on the other hand, is brand spanking new. It takes us out of our comfort zone by virtue of being something quite different to what came before, much as DS9 was quite different to TNG. Some of the criticism aimed at it is doubtless valid and thoughtful, but doesn't it seem just a little strange that we yet again heard so much about the fact they changed the Klingons, that the ship is too big/too advanced, that the crew behave differently to the last lot, so on and so forth.

In other words we are voicing much the same complaints time and again, seemingly willing to overlook the relevance of those complaints to each and every series which has come before.

All of this has happened before and it will likely all happen again.

 

[Damian]

Honestly, I don't know if many of the individual detractors came around

It'd be interesting to see. It's obviously not scientific in any way, but it does seem Enterprise is more accepted these days than it once was. When it was on it seemed to be regularly trashed and I don't see that as much. And it seems even people that still dislike it have come to accept it as part of the larger continuity. But that's just my impression of it (though I have read comments here and there that seem to indicate some fans who initially didn't like it came around with another viewing---that was Voyager for me--I only sporadically watched it first time around (partly because I was in college for the start of its run) and didn't care for it too much. But after a more ordered rewatch I came to enjoy most aspects of it (though I still feel there was a missed opportunity there--but it did well enough with what it did).

The franchise evolves, fandom evolves, and those who refuse to evolve with them get left behind.

Now, it's fine on an individual level if you lose interest in a show and choose to walk away. I've done that with a number of shows.

So far I haven't reached that point in Discovery thankfully. I'd hate to think there might be a time where some Star Trek show loses me. If it happens, it happens, but I do hope it doesn't.

Personally I sort of wish they just kept moving into the future. I know you've said TNG was viewed by Roddenberry as a soft reboot, but it was much easier to accept the various design and story changes because it was pretty easy to chalk it up to that it was almost a century later. Of course, in that case it would be different. If Discovery were in the 25th century--all the things I've had issues with would go away. It's the 25th century, of course it will be more advanced and appear differently. I'm still not sure why they wanted to make it contemporary to the original series. In some ways it locks them in storywise. When they are finished with Discovery they have to put the pieces back together to keep it in line with the original series (story wise at least). It'll be interesting to see how they accomplish that ultimately.

 

[Christopher]

It'd be interesting to see. It's obviously not scientific in any way, but it does seem Enterprise is more accepted these days than it once was.

Yes, that's what I'm saying -- on the whole, the series always get more accepted over time. But that doesn't mean that all the individual critics come around. A lot of them do, yet some never do. But they're less influential on fandom as a whole than they pretend to be when they're dominating the conversation with their negativity and insisting that "all true fans" agree with them, even while most fans are enjoying the new show/film and just not making as much noise as the protestors.

But after a more ordered rewatch I came to enjoy most aspects of it (though I still feel there was a missed opportunity there--but it did well enough with what it did).

I do think ENT works better on a rewatch, or a first-time binge watch. Especially season 1, since watching it straight through gives a better sense of the subtle arcs and throughlines that give it more direction and more unity than it seemed at first blush. (Season 2 was far more directionless and bland, but at least a binge gets you through it quickly.)

Personally I sort of wish they just kept moving into the future. I know you've said TNG was viewed by Roddenberry as a soft reboot, but it was much easier to accept the various design and story changes because it was pretty easy to chalk it up to that it was almost a century later.

I think that's mainly because Roddenberry wasn't in charge long enough for his original plans to come to fruition. If his health had been better and he'd stayed in control longer, he probably would've introduced more overt contradictions and changes.

I'm still not sure why they wanted to make it contemporary to the original series. In some ways it locks them in storywise.

I figure it's because Bryan Fuller wanted to do a seasonal anthology where each season moved further forward in the timeline, and the pre-TOS story would just have been season 1. Even after that plan was dropped, he said he intended to tie the season into something from TOS and that it would eventually become clear how it was setting that up. But he was fired before the show got very far, so the story probably ended up going in a different direction than he planned.

I think the greatest benefit of DSC's timeframe has been the new insight we've been given into Spock's family. "Lethe" and "Light and Shadows" are my two favorite episodes of the series. Although the most problematical issue for me was how they reinvented Harry Mudd as a cold-blooded murderer, which is completely inconsistent with his portrayal in TOS. (Although I'm not going to kick the whole series out of continuity for that one inconsistency, since there are many equally great or greater inconsistencies in the preceding half-century of Trek storytelling.)

 

[fireproof78]

In other words we are voicing much the same complaints time and again, seemingly willing to overlook the relevance of those complaints to each and every series which has come before.

Pretty much this. The irritation I feel is far more over the willingness to ignore the same issues in past shows as the current ones.

And, before it gets added in, no, I don't agree that just because it is the current show that makes the criticisms less relevant towards past shows. It's fair game.

 

[FormerLurker]

Yes, that's what I'm saying -- on the whole, the series always get more accepted over time. But that doesn't mean that all the individual critics come around. A lot of them do, yet some never do. But they're less influential on fandom as a whole than they pretend to be when they're dominating the conversation with their negativity and insisting that "all true fans" agree with them, even while most fans are enjoying the new show/film and just not making as much noise as the protestors.

Those guys, the ones that never do, are the ones that are 'No True Scotsmen'.

 

[Damian]

I do think ENT works better on a rewatch, or a first-time binge watch. Especially season 1, since watching it straight through gives a better sense of the subtle arcs and throughlines that give it more direction and more unity than it seemed at first blush. (Season 2 was far more directionless and bland, but at least a binge gets you through it quickly.)

I warmed to Enterprise more quickly than Voyager. I know this will be shocking, but I was kind of hoping to see smooth headed Klingons from the outset since it was pre-original series--however, as we all know, that would be addressed downt he line.

Season 2 was up and down. There were some episodes I really enjoyed and others that were a bit meh. But I kept remembering it took TNG and DS9 until about the 3rd season to really find their groove so I chalked some of that up to growing pains.

I did enjoy season 3 a lot. It's probably the first time the Berman team really tried to do something radically different. I liked Berman-era Trek overall--but I do feel some of the complaints that they were getting a bit complacent, or even stale, maybe had some merit. Enterprise needed to do something different and they did. I really enjoyed that year--and I liked how they intermixed a few standalones with the overall Xindi arc. That was always there but on occasion they took a break. And the Xindi were a pretty unique alien species--adding some non humanoid aliens to the mix for a change. Season 4 was a lot of fan service, yes, but as a fan I loved it. It still saddens me that we never reached one of those pivotal moments of Star Trek on screen, The Romulan War. I watch those prelude episodes to the Romulan War in season 4 and keep thinking we were so close. I, of course, liked "Affliction/Divergence" and the Terra Prime episodes as well. Archers speech at the end of the Terra Prime would have been a perfect ending--if the show had to end in season 4. I always looked at TATV as a coda--and it remains one of the only episodes of any Star Trek series that I really don't like---and in fact thanks to "The Good that Men Do" I view it as revisionist history thanks to Section 31.

I think the greatest benefit of DSC's timeframe has been the new insight we've been given into Spock's family. "Lethe" and "Light and Shadows" are my two favorite episodes of the series. Although the most problematical issue for me was how they reinvented Harry Mudd as a cold-blooded murderer

I'll be interested to see what happens to Spock in season 2. "The Enterprise War" at the end indicated events of that story impact Spock in the show. I'm actually glad I read it before seeing season 2. I'll have some of the backstory before seeing it, instead of after.

Agree about Mudd though. Mudd is dangerous, and I can see him being the cause of someone else dying, maybe not purposely, but just in the manner of how he advances his own ends. But he seems to me to be more squeamish. I can't imagine him actually killing people himself. He's a swindler, a liar, a thief and con-man. But cold-blooded murderer, no.

 

[fireproof78]

Agree about Mudd though. Mudd is dangerous, and I can see him being the cause of someone else dying, maybe not purposely, but just in the manner of how he advances his own ends. But he seems to me to be more squeamish. I can't imagine him actually killing people himself. He's a swindler, a liar, a thief and con-man. But cold-blooded murderer, no.

I attribute that to the psychiatric treatment he received prior to Kirk's encounter with him

 

[The Old Mixer]

I’m so glad this thread is back.

We should have a whole forum dedicated to this never ending hamster wheel of a topic, and rope in some poor sucker to moderate it.

 

[Christopher]

I attribute that to the psychiatric treatment he received prior to Kirk's encounter with him

That's my retcon too -- it must've been really effective at curing his homicidal tendencies -- but it still conflicts with the recitation of his criminal record in "Mudd's Women," which doesn't mention any homicides.

 

[1001001]

We should have a whole forum dedicated to this never ending hamster wheel of a topic, and rope in some poor sucker to moderate it.

Who do we dislike that much?

 

[Silvercrest]

Who do we dislike that much?

What's Richard Arnold doing these days?

 

[fireproof78]

That's my retcon too -- it must've been really effective at curing his homicidal tendencies -- but it still conflicts with the recitation of his criminal record in "Mudd's Women," which doesn't mention any homicides.

Good point.

 

[yotsuya]

That's my retcon too -- it must've been really effective at curing his homicidal tendencies -- but it still conflicts with the recitation of his criminal record in "Mudd's Women," which doesn't mention any homicides.

As we know, one's criminal record does not always reflect what a person has actually done. Considering what we see Mudd get away with, it is possible that some events may not be on his record (or at least his record with the Federation). And he may have turned on his charm and weaseled his way out of some serious charges. Maybe a plea bargain of treatment instead of charges.

I did find his personality quite at odds with how Roger C. Carmel portrayed him, but there could be explanations. He was very mad and we may have just seen him in a calmer mood. I consider that the least of the continuity issues in Discovery.

 

[MAGolding]

...Agree about Mudd though. Mudd is dangerous, and I can see him being the cause of someone else dying, maybe not purposely, but just in the manner of how he advances his own ends. But he seems to me to be more squeamish. I can't imagine him actually killing people himself. He's a swindler, a liar, a thief and con-man. But cold-blooded murderer, no.

I attribute that to the psychiatric treatment he received prior to Kirk's encounter with him

That's my retcon too -- it must've been really effective at curing his homicidal tendencies -- but it still conflicts with the recitation of his criminal record in "Mudd's Women," which doesn't mention any homicides.

Christopher, that is not your retcon, it is your fanon. Unless you mentioned it in one of your books, which would make it your retcon, at least in any fictional universe that included that book in canon.

Good point.

As we know, one's criminal record does not always reflect what a person has actually done. Considering what we see Mudd get away with, it is possible that some events may not be on his record (or at least his record with the Federation). And he may have turned on his charm and weaseled his way out of some serious charges. Maybe a plea bargain of treatment instead of charges.

I did find his personality quite at odds with how Roger C. Carmel portrayed him, but there could be explanations. He was very mad and we may have just seen him in a calmer mood. I consider that the least of the continuity issues in Discovery.

About Mudd's criminal record in "Mudd's Women", I haven't yet paid to see the episodes of Discovery, so I don't know if Harry Mudd was ever arrested, tried, and convicted of murder in the series before "Mudd's Women" in TOS.

Here are three possible reasons why murder was not listed among Mudd's crimes in "Mudd's Women".

One:

COMPUTER: Offense record. Smuggling. Sentence suspended. Transport of stolen goods. Purchase of space vessel with counterfeit currency. Sentences, psychiatric treatment, effectiveness disputed.

It is possible that the computer limits Mudd's criminal record to offenses he has been tried and convicted for. If Mudd was arrested for murder at the end of a Discovery episode and the trial wasn't seen, Mudd might not have been convicted, and the computer might not list offenses that people are not convicted for.

Two:

Or possibly Mudd was previously convicted of murder but the psychiatric treatment he received was so through that Mudd was given a legal fresh start in life. If it was considered totally impossible for Mudd to ever commit murder again, the records of his murder conviction might have been sealed and unavailable to a mere starship captain.

These line from Dagger of the Mind might be relevant:

ADAMS: Ah, Lethe, come in. Lethe, this is Captain Kirk and Doctor Helen Noel. Lethe came to us for rehabilitation and stayed on as a therapist, and a very good one too, I might add.
LETHE: I love my work.
ADAMS: Go right ahead, Captain.
KIRK: Before you came here
LETHE: I was another person, malignant, hateful.
KIRK: May I ask what crime you committed?
LETHE: Does it matter? That person no longer exists.
ADAMS: Um, part of our cure, if you will, Captain, is to bury the past. Why should a person go on living with unbearable memories if there's no necess. Oh, I feel quite sure that you'd concur with me in that, Doctor. Helen.
NOEL: A shifting of memory patterns is basic to psychotherapy.

It is possible that the legal system considers that the homicidal Harry Mudd of Discovery no longer exists and that the treated and cured Harry Mudd is as innocent (of homicide) as a new born baby, and thus it would be totally irrelevant to list his homicide convictions.

Three:

Since I conceive of Star Trek happening in a multiverse of countless alternate universes diverging every instant I see no reason to imagine that all the hundreds of episodes and movies happen in the same alternate universe.

Instead I imagine that for the more episodic and less serialized Star Trek series almost every single episode, except for a few that are sequels to other episodes, happens in a separate alternate universe of its own different from the alternate universes of other episodes. The same should be "true" for most other highly episodic and non serialized televisions series as well.

In a long running television series, there is a statistical problem explaining how so many events that are unusual, and thus statistically improbable, enough to make interesting stories could happen to the same characters one after the other within a few short years. And sometimes there is a problem explaining how so many episodes occupying so much fictional time can happen within a few short years.

And in a long running adventure television series where the protagonists usually face danger every episode, there is a problem justifying the survival of the protagonists to the end despite the cumulative probability of their survival becoming almost mathematically zero.

If all or almost all episodes of a series happen in their own separate alternate universes, separate from those of other episodes, those problems, as well as many inconsistencies between individual episodes, vanish.

So possibly there was some sort of diverging point before Discovery. In one set of alternate universes, leading to Discovery, Mudd turned evil enough to be a murderer, while in another set of alternate universes, leading to TOS, Mudd turned evil enough to commit many crimes for profit but not evil enough to be a murderer.

Here is a link to a somewhat similar thread. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/220836/has-harcourt-fenton-mudd-ever-served-a-sentence

 

[Christopher]

As we know, one's criminal record does not always reflect what a person has actually done. Considering what we see Mudd get away with, it is possible that some events may not be on his record (or at least his record with the Federation). And he may have turned on his charm and weaseled his way out of some serious charges. Maybe a plea bargain of treatment instead of charges.

The problem is that the UFP charges against Harry in Short Treks: "The Escape Artist" did include 20 counts of attempted homicide and one count of attempted regicide.

Christopher, that is not your retcon, it is your fanon. Unless you mentioned it in one of your books, which would make it your retcon, at least in any fictional universe that included that book in canon.

I don't see any reason the word "retcon" can't be used in that way. It's just an abbreviation for "retroactive continuity," going back after the fact and establishing something new about what was presented in a story. The word tends to be misunderstood to mean a change in continuity, but the reason it's a retcon is because it's supposed to feel continuous with what was there before. It's retroactive continuity, not retroactive discontinuity. So if two existing stories have a discontinuity between them and I invent a reconciliation after the fact that retroactively allows them to fit in continuity with each other, then that fits the literal definition of the word "retcon" even if it's just my personal one.

And while I tolerate the word "headcanon," under no circumstance will I use "fanon" unless referring to a post-colonial Marxist political philosopher.

It is possible that the legal system considers that the homicidal Harry Mudd of Discovery no longer exists and that the treated and cured Harry Mudd is as innocent (of homicide) as a new born baby, and thus it would be totally irrelevant to list his homicide convictions.

That's possible, if you assume "The Escape Artist" takes place before "Mudd's Women." However, I feel (and I know KRAD agrees with me) that it has to take place after "I, Mudd" despite the use of DSC-style sets and tech.

Spoiler: The Escape Artist

It shows Harry using multiple android duplicates of himself controlled from a single central unit, exactly like the "I, Mudd" androids, and it shows one of his duplicates wearing his "royal" getup from "I, Mudd," something he probably didn't have until the androids made it for him.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Who do we dislike that much?

Alternately, we could make it our first completely unmoderated forum, and let the participants slaughter one another.

 

[Lord Garth]

TOS --> Before my time.
TNG --> I wasn't online yet.
DS9/VOY --> I didn't notice canon fights on a serious level yet.
ENT --> Then I noticed Canon Wars.
Kelvin --> The alternate timeline provided some cover...
Disco --> ... but being "Prime" did not. So I got to notice more Canon Wars that I unfortunately got sucked into because I didn't care about ENT and didn't really care about the Kelvin Films, but then I had to defend DSC non-stop during the first season because people kept complaining about "Canon! Canon! Canon!" Why can't they recognize Discovery is the single best Star Trek in a long, long, long time?! What the Hell is wrong with them?!! As if flashing, blinking lights would make the bashers hate DSC -- sorry, I mean "STD" -- any less. It's just something for them to grab onto, and, and, and

... and, yeah, so anyway, that's from my own personal experience.

During ENT, I got to observe from afar. I wasn't in the thick of it like with DSC.

 

[yotsuya]

A retcon does not have to be official. Some official ones exist like the Klingon ridges, but most are up to fans t come up with. Fanon is something completely different. That is short for fan canon meaning that done fans include things in their personal canon that is not part of the canon material. For instance, I consider the Brian Daley Han Solo books as part of canon. Some also call it head canon. But recon is something completely different.

 

[yotsuya]

TOS --> Before my time.
TNG --> I wasn't online yet.
DS9/VOY --> I didn't notice canon fights on a serious level yet.
ENT --> Then I noticed Canon Wars.
Kelvin --> The alternate timeline provided some cover...
Disco --> ... but being "Prime" did not. So I got to notice more Canon Wars that I unfortunately got sucked into because I didn't care about ENT and didn't really care about the Kelvin Films, but then I had to defend DSC non-stop during the first season because people kept complaining about "Canon! Canon! Canon!" Why can't they recognize Discovery is the single best Star Trek in a long, long, long time! What the Hell is wrong them?! As if flashing, blinking lights would make the bashers hate DSC -- sorry, I mean "STD" -- any less. It's just something for them to grab onto, and, and, and

... and, yeah, so anyway, that's from my own personal experience.

During ENT, I got to observe from afar. I wasn't in the thick of it like with DSC.

The thing is you really don't have to defend Discovery being part of Canon because it can be its own thing. It doesn't have to be part of the grander scheme of things to be a good show. I find it lacking in certain core elements that I think are crucial to good Star Trek. But it's a pretty good show. A lot of the ship designs are really cool. But the forced redesign of 25% of everything visually really did create a reboot in many ways. And the producers and writers failed to really pay attention to the original core Cannon which creates lots of continuity errors. that didn't need to be the case. If you didn't want to watch the 79 original episodes there's always memory alpha which is about as complete as you could ask for. an Enterprise that have a lot of issues to start with, but as a prequel it had the chance to explore what might have come before and how things arrived at where we are used to in the TOS Cannon. I think the whole idea of Discovery must be in the prime timeline and must be part of the greater Cannon ignore certain facts in the production that really make it its own thing that doesn't have to be part of that. To me Discovery is in an alternate universe that is very similar to the prime timeline. so everything they try and do that follows The primetime line makes sense but everything they do that is different also make sense. There is no need for any fan to insist that Discovery must be part of the same Canon, must be part of the same universe, must be part of the same timeline. That's something for you to consider for yourself but not too foist on other people.

 

[Lord Garth]

The thing is you really don't have to defend Discovery being part of Canon because it can be its own thing. It doesn't have to be part of the grander scheme of things to be a good show. I find it lacking in certain core elements that I think are crucial to good Star Trek. But it's a pretty good show. A lot of the ship designs are really cool. But the forced redesign of 25% of everything visually really did create a reboot in many ways. And the producers and writers failed to really pay attention to the original core Cannon which creates lots of continuity errors. that didn't need to be the case. If you didn't want to watch the 79 original episodes there's always memory alpha which is about as complete as you could ask for. an Enterprise that have a lot of issues to start with, but as a prequel it had the chance to explore what might have come before and how things arrived at where we are used to in the TOS Cannon. I think the whole idea of Discovery must be in the prime timeline and must be part of the greater Cannon ignore certain facts in the production that really make it its own thing that doesn't have to be part of that. To me Discovery is in an alternate universe that is very similar to the prime timeline. so everything they try and do that follows The primetime line makes sense but everything they do that is different also make sense. There is no need for any fan to insist that Discovery must be part of the same Canon, must be part of the same universe, must be part of the same timeline. That's something for you to consider for yourself but not too foist on other people.

You missed the joke. I cranked it up to 11 because I was playing it up for laughs. That's why I went so far over the top.

It was an exaggerated version of what I really think.