All Things Star Trek

[Valka D'Ur]

I think casual fans would have been even more confused if there were 3 timelines running side by side instead of the 2 we have now.

There's the nuTrek timeline in the nuTrek movies. There's the Prime timeline (TOS-Voyager). Some people insist on including Enterprise in the Prime timeline, but that's ridiculous. Enterprise is yet another timeline, and it would appear that Disco is a continuation of Enterprise... and is NOT a prequel to TOS. There is absolutely nothing that will ever convince me that it is. I suppose there's a bare chance it could be a prequel to nuTrek, except the Klingons are different in nuTrek (never thought I would ever say that nuTrek's Klingons are better than any other sort of Klingon).

People who follow superhero comics and the movies based on them don't seem to have a problem following several timelines at once, so why wouldn't Star Trek fans be able to do this?

Unless, of course, it gets as convoluted as the "relaunch" novels. I gave up on those a long time ago, since you need both a flow chart AND all the books to make any sense of it.

 

[warpus]

Most Star Trek fans don't give a crap about timelines and just sit down to watch some good entertainment, though. I've enjoyed superhero movies and have no idea what timeline they're supposed to be in. If I need to know then the movie will tell me.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Most Star Trek fans don't give a crap about timelines and just sit down to watch some good entertainment, though. I've enjoyed superhero movies and have no idea what timeline they're supposed to be in. If I need to know then the movie will tell me.

You haven't been back to TrekBBS in awhile, have you? There are arguments about timelines that go on for thousands of posts, and that's just one thread. There are numerous threads about timelines.

 

[warpus]

TrekBBS is where the most hardcore of the hardcore of hardcore Trek fans go. I was talking about mainstream fandom

 

[Valka D'Ur]

TrekBBS is where the most hardcore of the hardcore of hardcore Trek fans go. I was talking about mainstream fandom

Well, there are definitely hardcore fans there. If you ever read any of the Best of Trek books, there's a guy named Mark Andrew Golding who wrote essays about continuity and said that if you take each inconsistency as taking place in a different timeline, the Original Series (he didn't call it that because this was pre-TNG) took place in dozens of different universes.

Golding joined TrekBBS awhile back (MAGolding), and it's quite entertaining to see that he's every bit as detail-oriented in his posting as he was in the essays he wrote 40 years ago).

It would be quite a job for him to pick apart all the series and movies that happened since his first essays.

 

[Perfection]

Some people insist on including Enterprise in the Prime timeline, but that's ridiculous.

I don't see what's so ridiculous about that. Enterprise was pretty darn faithful from what I've seen. Granted, I've only watched a handful of TOS episodes whereas I've watched most of TNG and Voyager, and all of DS9. But I haven't seen too many glaring inconsistencies (other than setting the Eugenics wars a bit later than 1996, which I find quite forgivable since it's also supposedly our future).

As you note, TOS contradicts itself, plenty of episodes of Star Trek contradict even basic logic, Discovery bit the bullet and made some contradictions for the sake of story. I think they could have probably avoided most of that, but at the end of the day these are writers who are trying to write compelling and entertaining storylines and aren't veering off completely so I cut them some slack. Still I'm much more sympathetic to being annoyed with Discovery for being inconsistent with established Trek than Enterprise (which I felt generally did a pretty good job of being faithful).

Spoiler Discovery S01e13 :

On the topic of contradictions at the end of S01E13 when they showed the map of the federation losing to the klingons, how the heck did they get that map with no contact to the Federation? That made no sense.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't see what's so ridiculous about that. Enterprise was pretty darn faithful from what I've seen. Granted, I've only watched a handful of TOS episodes whereas I've watched most of TNG and Voyager, and all of DS9. But I haven't seen too many glaring inconsistencies (other than setting the Eugenics wars a bit later than 1996, which I find quite forgivable since it's also supposedly our future).

As you note, TOS contradicts itself, plenty of episodes of Star Trek contradict even basic logic, Discovery bit the bullet and made some contradictions for the sake of story. I think they could have probably avoided most of that, but at the end of the day these are writers who are trying to write compelling and entertaining storylines and aren't veering off completely so I cut them some slack. Still I'm much more sympathetic to being annoyed with Discovery for being inconsistent with established Trek than Enterprise (which I felt generally did a pretty good job of being faithful).

Im not watching Discovery yet (holding out for NETFLIX) so Im dodging most of this discussion for the fear of spoilers, but it occurs to me that the writers... having seen ENT go for "fatithful and consistent with canon" and get burned by it... or at least not be rewarded with fan-love... may have just said "eff canon, the canon purists are gonna hate regardless."

 

[NinjaCow64]

@Perfection

Spoiler Discovery S1E13 :

I assume it was some automated update

Well, there are definitely hardcore fans there. If you ever read any of the Best of Trek books, there's a guy named Mark Andrew Golding who wrote essays about continuity and said that if you take each inconsistency as taking place in a different timeline, the Original Series (he didn't call it that because this was pre-TNG) took place in dozens of different universes.

Golding joined TrekBBS awhile back (MAGolding), and it's quite entertaining to see that he's every bit as detail-oriented in his posting as he was in the essays he wrote 40 years ago).

It would be quite a job for him to pick apart all the series and movies that happened since his first essays.

Unfortunately there is no way to maintain perfect consistency across dozens (possibly hundreds) of writers, six TV series (seven including TAS) and fourteen movies. And ultimately I think that it would eventually become a straitjacket for the writers, making it almost impossible to make new ideas. Although I think that dedication to the lore would probably make more sense in certain contexts. For instance, I think that Discovery would make 100 times more sense if it was set post-Voyager and they were fighting the Romulans or something. I wouldn't be surprised if this was what the writers originally wanted to do. It would solve a lot of issues RE: the Spore Drive and other things too.

I think that to maintain a healthy relationship with a series like Star Trek, you've just got to pretend that certain episodes didn't happen (or at least not in the way it was filmed) because it makes no sense otherwise. Off the top of my head, I consider these episodes/plot elements non-canonical:

TOS/TAS

• Honestly probably a lot of things because frankly it wasn't anywhere near as progressive of a time. Stuff like "married women can't serve in Starfleet" and such I can't consider canon.

TNG:

• The Host because of its depiction of the Trill that completely contradicts the better depiction in DS9.

DS9:

• Anything involving the Mirror Universe was because in DS9 the Mirror Universe episodes were bad, dumb and stupid. The actors looked like they were enjoying themselves more than I (the audience) was.
• For the Uniform because Sisko uses chemical weapons on civilians for no Goddamned reason.

VOY:

• Threshold because I refuse to live in a universe where Janeway and Paris turned into lizards and had sex.

ENT:

• Probably something? I honestly can't remember Enterprise that well.

Discovery (yeah, I know already?):

• The pilot had a lot of characters doing a lot of morally questionable stuff, treating the Geneva convention like toilet paper for no reason. I consider that non-canon.

There's probably a lot of other stuff, if I spent time going through episode-by-episode I could probably pick stuff out.

Im not watching Discovery yet (holding out for NETFLIX) so Im dodging most of this discussion for the fear of spoilers, but it occurs to me that the writers... having seen ENT go for "fatithful and consistent with canon" and get burned by it... or at least not be rewarded with fan-love... may have just said "eff canon, the canon purists are gonna hate regardless."

Enterprise's fourth season was honestly masturbatory at times. Did we really need a three part episode linking Khan, the Eugenics Wars, Dr Soong and the Orion Crime Syndicate to explain why the Klingon's makeup changed between TOS and TNG? Enterprise, please.

 

[Perfection]

Overall I'm pleased with Discovery.

@Perfection

Spoiler Discovery S1E13 :

I assume it was some automated update

Spoiler Discovery S1E13 :

Automated update from what? They specifically mention not even receiving automated signals

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The thing with Discovery is that it supposedly takes place 10 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before." That's the 2nd TOS pilot (first one shown to the general viewing public) and there is no way in hell that you're ever going to convince me that Disco could ever seamlessly blend into TOS. NO. WAY.

Could it seamlessly blend into nuTrek? On the one hand, no. The movies and Disco have profoundly different versions of Klingons. On another hand, yes. Disco rips off nuTrek in some pretty noticeable ways. Get rid of the Disco Klingon storyline and the show might be marginally tolerable.

I shudder to think what kind of people Disco-Kirk and Disco-Spock are. I'm morbidly curious to see which version would be more objectionable - Disco or Captain Frat Boy and Pathologically Uptight nuSpock Who Constantly Looks Constipated.

 

[NinjaCow64]

The thing with Discovery is that it supposedly takes place 10 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before." That's the 2nd TOS pilot (first one shown to the general viewing public) and there is no way in hell that you're ever going to convince me that Disco could ever seamlessly blend into TOS. NO. WAY.

Could it seamlessly blend into nuTrek? On the one hand, no. The movies and Disco have profoundly different versions of Klingons. On another hand, yes. Disco rips off nuTrek in some pretty noticeable ways. Get rid of the Disco Klingon storyline and the show might be marginally tolerable.

I shudder to think what kind of people Disco-Kirk and Disco-Spock are. I'm morbidly curious to see which version would be more objectionable - Disco or Captain Frat Boy and Pathologically Uptight nuSpock Who Constantly Looks Constipated.

I mean, to an extent I don't think that later TNG and all of DS9/VOY/ENT seamlessly blends with each other or TOS/TAS that well. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to contradict what came before. Canon can be a straight jacket sometimes. Like with all things, it depends on how they do it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Unfortunately there is no way to maintain perfect consistency across dozens (possibly hundreds) of writers, six TV series (seven including TAS) and fourteen movies. And ultimately I think that it would eventually become a straitjacket for the writers, making it almost impossible to make new ideas. Although I think that dedication to the lore would probably make more sense in certain contexts. For instance, I think that Discovery would make 100 times more sense if it was set post-Voyager and they were fighting the Romulans or something. I wouldn't be surprised if this was what the writers originally wanted to do. It would solve a lot of issues RE: the Spore Drive and other things too.

Agreed. And I am so beyond sick and tired of people sticking their noses in the air and insisting that modern audiences couldn't relate to a show set in the TOS timeline that actually looks like TOS. All this sneering about "plywood sets"... what do they think theatre sets are made of? Naturally the '60s series went with what was available and affordable. They did a pretty good job, considering that the budget for each episode was approximately $185,000 and that had to pay for EVERYTHING. And given the popularity of the Star Trek Continues fan films, it's obvious that modern audiences do still relate to the visual aesthetics of TOS.

Honestly probably a lot of things because frankly it wasn't anywhere near as progressive of a time. Stuff like "married women can't serve in Starfleet" and such I can't consider canon.

Cripes, it's a pain to try to quote bullet points.

Consider the time in which TOS was made. In many fields it was simply taken for granted that single women would quit after they married. I'm not excusing it, just stating a fact. Any woman who didn't marry was considered to have something wrong with her, or was just not doing her "duty." It's been awhile since I got that "Why didn't you ever marry and have kids?" spiel, as though I did something wrong that needs to be fixed ASAP.

However, note that in "Balance of Terror" there was no suggestion that Angela Martine planned to resign her commission after marrying Robert Tomlinson. Mind you, he died, so the issue never came up. It's interesting to note that an earlier script had them go through with the wedding ceremony anyway, as an act of faith that everything would turn out okay. It was rather poignant in Blish's version that Angela had been engaged, married, and widowed, all on the same day.

 

[Arakhor]

As regards Discovery:

Spoiler S1xE14 :

I'm wondering how they're planning to retcon the immense Klingon damage dealt in this episode and what's going to happen with the Georgiou twist.

 

[Perfection]

Agreed. And I am so beyond sick and tired of people sticking their noses in the air and insisting that modern audiences couldn't relate to a show set in the TOS timeline that actually looks like TOS. All this sneering about "plywood sets"... what do they think theatre sets are made of? Naturally the '60s series went with what was available and affordable. They did a pretty good job, considering that the budget for each episode was approximately $185,000 and that had to pay for EVERYTHING. And given the popularity of the Star Trek Continues fan films, it's obvious that modern audiences do still relate to the visual aesthetics of TOS.

I don't think it's any bit of a smeer on TOS to say that it doesn't look that futuristic anymore. It's a 50 year-old show. Ultimately Star Trek has the premise that it's showing us our future as well as being in the same timeline as the other series. I think it's fair to overhaul some of the aesthetics to make it more futuristic looking.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Enterprise's fourth season was honestly masturbatory at times. Did we really need a three part episode linking Khan, the Eugenics Wars, Dr Soong and the Orion Crime Syndicate to explain why the Klingon's makeup changed between TOS and TNG? Enterprise, please.

So you agree with me then, yes? ENT's attempt to wedge itself into the established cannon was pointless, irrelevant and futile... kind of like resistance to the borg

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think it's any bit of a smeer on TOS to say that it doesn't look that futuristic anymore. It's a 50 year-old show. Ultimately Star Trek has the premise that it's showing us our future as well as being in the same timeline as the other series. I think it's fair to overhaul some of the aesthetics to make it more futuristic looking.

After 1996 came and went, I think it should be obvious that Star Trek is not our future. It may be one possible future of a different universe, but that isn't ours. If a show is going to claim to be a prequel to TOS, it had better not look like post-Nemesis, with "Klingons" that look and talk like Doctor Who monsters instead of TOS-era Klingons.

Discovery isn't in the TOS timeline; that much is obvious. I don't care what the showrunners claim; they will never convince me that this is going to lead to the same TOS that was on in the '60s. There would need to be too much removal of knowledge and technology, a full redesign of starships and uniforms, and Sarek would need to be replaced with somebody who is actually the Sarek of TOS, not this one who is chummy with a human ward who joined Starfleet but who ostracized his own son for 18 years because he joined Starfleet. The Disco version of Sarek is a hypocrite who would fit in more with the Enterprise timeline (wasn't there a story arc in Enterprise that showed a younger T'Pau as a terrorist of some kind?).

 

[NinjaCow64]

So, Season One of Discovery is over. Its probably going to take me a little while to compile some coherent thoughts on the season. Right now I'm rating it slightly above Enterprise. However, there are some caveats. First Seasons for Star Trek are almost universally terrible. I feel like there is a good show deep within Discovery that is trying to break free through all the stupid choices, executive meddling and obvious rewrites (and stupid platforms if you have the misfortune of living in North America). Perhaps the dips in quality was a bit more painful considering it was (for the most part) a continuous story as opposed to one-offs in previous series, but I hope that next series that they start getting a better idea of what they are doing. Things are looking bad, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay, I watched the season finale. The posters at TrekBBS who predicted the appearance of a particular ship will be happy.

But what's the point of it? Apparently the new season doesn't start until 2019?

I need a better reason than that to keep paying extra $$ for the channel subscription.

Maybe if they don't include the "Klingons". But of course this is Disco, some alternative universe that the showrunners are pretending is a real prequel to TOS, so of course they will find some other way to screw it up.

 

[Serutan]

Consider the time in which TOS was made

How dare you suggest that context is meaningful when evaluating past events !

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How dare you suggest that context is meaningful when evaluating past events !

It's just annoying when people complain about how TV shows portray characters, when it's a fact that the context and time in which the show was made does influence the attitudes of the writers, and consequently the attitudes and actions of the characters.

It's especially annoying when it's said by people who weren't alive in whatever decade they're complaining about, and try to "'splain" it to those of us who were alive then and remember how things were.

My own take on Janice Lester and her "women can't be starship captains" attitude is either that she had negative experiences with male Starfleet officers/instructors who honestly did think that women shouldn't be starship captains, or that she could have been a captain but for some reason failed her command school classes. There's actually a fanfic about that, in which she and Kirk are rooming together while both in command school, and she gets sidetracked by a growing interest in archaeology. Kirk is increasingly annoyed by her increasingly dismissive attitude toward how serious he is about being a captain, and they break up.

Fast-forward to "Turnabout Intruder" and we see a Janice who flunked out of command school and for some reason decided it was all Kirk's fault.

Or she could just be basically BS!C.