Discovery - Timeline, continuity and other canonical issues [ SPOILERS ]

pixelburp · 09-11-2017 5:51pm

Evade wrote: »

I don't agree. If we invented FTL drives tomorrow I wouldn't expect Star Trek to try retcon that fact into its history, the same goes for everything else. They can tell all kinds of stories via allegory or alien civilisations or quantum nonsense. Or in the 25th century where artificial intelligences are already established and cyberisation could be easily explained as being an off shoot of Borg tech research.

I think cybernetic augmentation isn't a stretch here. Honestly, I found the presence of holograms in Discovery a bit jarring even if I kinda got on with it; but given there are already humanoid robots in The Original Series (as used by Harry Mudd no less), brain transplants, and Geordi leForge later demonstrating a slightly hokey approach to cybernetic enhancement, the precedent already feels strong enough that the canon can accommodate human beings wanting to augment themselves during the pre-Kirk era.

Goodshape · 09-11-2017 5:53pm

Evade wrote: »

I don't agree. If we invented FTL drives tomorrow I wouldn't expect Star Trek to try retcon that fact into its history, the same goes for everything else. They can tell all kinds of stories via allegory or alien civilisations or quantum nonsense. Or in the 25th century where artificial intelligences are already established and cyberisation could be easily explained as being an off shoot of Borg tech research.

Then you really are getting away from the spirit of Star Trek as a (usually) optimistic look at humanity's future. Turning into just another fantasy world with it's own fantasy history and fantasy rules to adhere to.

It's a marmite issue, obviously, but I like seeing our possible future in Star Trek. It's not Star Wars; I don't want to pretend it has it's own version of history – with a eugenics war in the 1990s and technology we have today not being invented for hundreds more years. Those are just things which made sense in the 1960s.

CramCycle · 09-11-2017 5:55pm

Evade wrote: »

I don't agree. If we invented FTL drives tomorrow I wouldn't expect Star Trek to try retcon that fact into its history, the same goes for everything else. They can tell all kinds of stories via allegory or alien civilisations or quantum nonsense. Or in the 25th century where artificial intelligences are already established and cyberisation could be easily explained as being an off shoot of Borg tech research.

I am in two minds myself, it is not our universe, it is fiction, it does not have to follow our level of development. On the same note, if there are items that can be added that were not noticeable in the other series but do not strongly impede on the other series, I don't see the harm.

The Eugenics wars were not in Voyager, and they really should have been, or they should have had the time trip go further back in time. i don't buy this, it just didn't happen in that city, rubbish.

Augmentation is one that I cannot see an issue with, you can say at different points in history it was more or less in vogue, so in some periods you see bracelets rather than implants, or maybe only some people liked having them and they were not a large percentage of people, hence, it is their but it doesn't really need nitpicking. maybe some ships happened to have alot of augmented individuals, and others had none. i don't want people going round "Star Wars"ing it and adding in background characters and equipment to the classics and rereleasing them just to make it seem more in line.

Evade · 09-11-2017 6:04pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think cybernetic augmentation isn't a stretch here. Honestly, I found the presence of holograms in Discovery a bit jarring even if I kinda got on with it; but given there are already humanoid robots in The Original Series (as used by Harry Mudd no less), brain transplants, and Geordi leForge later demonstrating a slightly hokey approach to cybernetic enhancement, the precedent already feels strong enough that the canon can take human beings wanting to augment themselves during the pre-Kirk era.

Spock's Brain and I, Mudd were both due to alien technology and I think that would be a good way to have these issues brought up. Just don't have them be long standing full fledged members of Starfleet. Even a mysterious alien that signs up on the Discovery could be a way around it.

I think Mudd's time distorting device is a good example of how this sort of thing should be done.

pixelburp · 09-11-2017 6:22pm

Evade wrote: »

Spock's Brain and I, Mudd were both due to alien technology and I think that would be a good way to have these issues brought up. Just don't have them be long standing full fledged members of Starfleet. Even a mysterious alien that signs up on the Discovery could be a way around it.

I think Mudd's time distorting device is a good example of how this sort of thing should be done.

But the source of the technology doesn't negate its presence in what could be considered the ... I dunno, topology of Trek. Even if we ignore the real-world advances in transhumanism for the sake of pristine canon, the precedent of similar(ish) tech already within the realm of existing Trek continuity means that it's not a stretch to think that augmentation found its way into the Federation & its citizens. Is it not probable / possible that alien tech might find its way to the Federation, be it sanctioned or not? I'm sure not everything needs to be as legally problematic as cloaking devices (though it was interesting how quickly the supposedly required Romulan officer disappeared from the Defiant bridge in DS9; canon is verbatim! Uh, until it isn't

)

Evade · 09-11-2017 6:43pm

pixelburp wrote: »

But the source of the technology doesn't negate its presence in what could be considered the ... I dunno, topology of Trek. Even if we ignore the real-world advances in transhumanism for the sake of pristine canon, the precedent of similar(ish) tech already within the realm of existing Trek continuity means that it's not a stretch to think that augmentation found its way into the Federation & its citizens. Is it not probable / possible that alien tech might find its way to the Federation, be it sanctioned or not?

The Federation, sure, it's possible but a Starfleet officer? I can't buy that.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm sure not everything needs to be as legally problematic as cloaking devices (though it was interesting how quickly the supposedly required Romulan officer disappeared from the Defiant bridge in DS9; canon is verbatim! Uh, until it isn't )

Benjamin "I forgot to get clearance for attempted ethnic cleansing" Sisko breaking the rules seems pretty canon to me. But more seriously the Defiant's cloak and it's use in the Alpha Quadrant is a plot hole but Star Trek having plot holes in its previous 600+ hours of content doesn't give STD a pass.

server down · 09-11-2017 7:14pm

Evade wrote: »

The Federation, sure, it's possible but a Starfleet officer? I can't buy that.

Geordi La Forge.

Look, for someone who wants canon you dont seem to know basic canon. As it happens we dont know how many other people had some hidden augmentations .
I am sure there are plenty of humans in the star trek future with hidden augments, I know some in the present with fake knees.

Evade · 09-11-2017 7:27pm

server down wrote: »

Geordi La Forge.

Look, for someone who wants canon you dont seem to know basic canon. As it happens we dont know how many other people had some hidden augmentations .
I am sure there are plenty of humans in the star trek future with hidden augments, I know some in the present with fake knees.

I should have been a bit clearer I was referring to the level of augmentation Airiam appears to have. It seems rather more advanced that Geordie's VISOR, Picard's heart, or Tuvok's elbow.

I have no problem with the implant Keyla Detmer appears to have as it looks like a less advanced more invasive version of the VISOR.

Maybe I should have said Geordi's VISOR is a good example of what the limits of 24th century augmentation are. Oh, wait...

Evade wrote: »

Geordi's a good illustration of the level of augmentation that could be achieved in the 24th century.

silverharp · 09-11-2017 8:06pm

^^

Id imagine by the 24th C they will be able to grow eyeballs in a lab if not have perfectly serviceable "bionic eyes"

Sad Professor · 09-11-2017 8:35pm

The_Valeyard · 09-11-2017 11:05pm

i was under the impression that the Romulans decided they didnt need an officer on the Defiant, just all access to ship logs, mission data when cloak used and all info gathered on the Dominion.

Evade · 09-11-2017 11:08pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

i was under the impression that the Romulans decided they didnt need an officer on the Defiant, just all access to ship logs, mission data when cloak used and all info gathered on the Dominion.

I think that's the idea the writers had but it's never explicitly stated on screen.

seamus · 09-11-2017 11:18pm

Thing is, this is all splitting hairs while we have no idea what the augmentation actually is. Or whether it's actually an augmentation.

For all we know she was horribly injured in an accident or due to an illness, and a system of plates, synthetic grafts and robotics was the only way to save her life.

By the 24th century, medical technology has moved on from such drastic measures, so this kind of restorative augmentation is as foreign to the TNG crew as an iron lung is to us today.

That speculation is just as valid as any other

PhiloCypher · 10-11-2017 12:48am

Evade wrote: »

The Federation, sure, it's possible but a Starfleet officer? I can't buy that.

Benjamin "I forgot to get clearance for attempted ethnic cleansing" Sisko breaking the rules seems pretty canon to me. But more seriously the Defiant's cloak and it's use in the Alpha Quadrant is a plot hole but Star Trek having plot holes in its previous 600+ hours of content doesn't give STD a pass.

I think the argument is more , if this similar plothole didn't ruin TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY for you why are you acting like the sky is falling in Discovery . I think that's a perfectly valid point tbh .

Evade · 10-11-2017 1:41am

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I think the argument is more , if this similar plothole didn't ruin TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY for you why are you acting like the sky is falling in Discovery . I think that's a perfectly valid point tbh .

It's the volume of inconsistencies. Other Trek might have had one or two minor things every few episodes but STD just keep piling them on and so far a lot of it just seems to be change for the sake of change.

Kirby · 10-11-2017 4:24am

Plot holes and inconsistencies are only important if you make them important. Every piece of fiction, particularly fantasy and sci-fi, is riddled with them.

Just sit back and enjoy it. Quirks/retcons of canon should be welcomed to be honest. There are aspects of trek that should be forgotten about at this stage tbh.

I'm not in love with how the klingons for example, are being portrayed here by any stretch of the imagination. It's very unlike what we have seen of klingons in every other show. But whatever....the show is new. Roll with it.

Optimus Prime · 10-11-2017 11:17am

At the start i was getting annoyed with all the changes and plotholes, especially the klingons. After a few episodes i kept hoping all the plothole and changes would be explained to bring them into line with previous shows. I think at this point after seeing early holodocks, different klingons, different ships, attitude of star fleet officers, ridiculous distance mind melds and so on that its pretty obvious the writers wont be lining everything up and just are doing their own thing from scratch ignoring previous canon.

I can accept that and watch the show for what it is. But i personally think its stupid and the same TV show could have been achieved while respecting whats come before very easily. They just chose not to and are aiming the show at new trek fans that went to see the JJ films and to me, they just went for the new audience, the most watches and ultimately how they can make the most money. which is fine and understandable, I just personally wished they paid more respect to the previous shows.

Im enjoying the show for what it is but cant help think how better it would be if simple things where just changed to keep it in line with whats come before. Thats just my opinion on it.

Goodshape · 10-11-2017 12:37pm

Optimus Prime wrote: »

They just chose not to and are aiming the show at new trek fans that went to see the JJ films and to me, they just went for the new audience

I resent being thought of as a "new Trek fan" or as someone who wants to see more JJ-Trek

I'm just happy to have a Star Trek that isn't bogged down in 50-years of messed up half-baked 'canon' and has the courage to refresh the franchise in a way that Enterprise so miserably failed to do.

I think that would have been a more difficult task in the 24th century, and going forward would only make things more ridiculous, so I'm not at all upset about the 23rd century setting.

And I really don't see how the adventures of the USS Discovery negate the adventures of the USS Enterprise in any way.

Evade · 10-11-2017 12:47pm

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm just happy to have a Star Trek that isn't bogged down in 50-years of messed up half-baked 'canon' and has the courage to refresh the franchise in a way that Enterprise so miserably failed to do.

So you want a reboot then? That's fine, I can see the argument for one but STD is supposed to be set in the universe that has all that messy canon so I don't see the problem in holding it to it.

Goodshape · 10-11-2017 1:10pm

Evade wrote: »

So you want a reboot then? That's fine, I can see the argument for one but STD is supposed to be set in the universe that has all that messy canon so I don't see the problem in holding it to it.

Not a reboot, just a series that isn't bogged down in 50-years of messed up half-baked 'canon' and has the courage to refresh the franchise in a way that Enterprise so miserably failed to do.

That's as opposed to a reboot, which I'd take to mean a restart, which would throw out and/or remake the existing stories.

I see the difference in Discovery vs TOS to be "we're making this series 50 years later", not "we're rebooting the franchise and those old stories didn't happen anymore".

PhiloCypher · 10-11-2017 1:13pm

Evade wrote: »

It's the volume of inconsistencies. Other Trek might have had one or two minor things every few episodes but STD just keep piling them on and so far a lot of it just seems to be change for the sake of change.

I guarantee TNG had just as many inconsistencies with what had been established in TOS when it started, but because that show ended up being a great success whatever canonical changes became the new normal. To the point everyone uses TNG as their frame of reference on canon issues not the more logical TOS considering thats the era Discovery is set.

Optimus Prime wrote: »

At the start i was getting annoyed with all the changes and plotholes, especially the klingons. After a few episodes i kept hoping all the plothole and changes would be explained to bring them into line with previous shows. I think at this point after seeing early holodocks, different klingons, different ships, attitude of star fleet officers, ridiculous distance mind melds and so on that its pretty obvious the writers wont be lining everything up and just are doing their own thing from scratch ignoring previous canon.

I can accept that and watch the show for what it is. But i personally think its stupid and the same TV show could have been achieved while respecting whats come before very easily. They just chose not to and are aiming the show at new trek fans that went to see the JJ films and to me, they just went for the new audience, the most watches and ultimately how they can make the most money. which is fine and understandable, I just personally wished they paid more respect to the previous shows.

Im enjoying the show for what it is but cant help think how better it would be if simple things where just changed to keep it in line with whats come before. Thats just my opinion on it.

I think Klingons aside most of the other things you brought up were inspired by less well known corners of Trek , Holodecks on TOS :The Animated Series , Vulcans have been shown to be able to make telepathic contact across light years in The Motion picture (Spock with V'ger) and in the immunity syndrome in TOS where he senses a ship full of vulcans dying from light years away. In other words just because you're unaware of where they cribbed the idea doesn't mean they pulled it out of their arse.

Optimus Prime · 10-11-2017 1:28pm

I dont want to get into a debate over canon issues, i did state many times in my post that was just my opinion on it. I think its pretty obvious from looking at the show that for something thats set between Enterprise and TOS its pretty out of place not just technology wise, but the morality of the crew.

I think its a case of accept it and enjoy it, i Personally.. just wish they had of kept it more consistent with the other shows. Especially the klingons for me too to be honest. They are just so... different... the look, the ships, if they didnt make those drastic changes i dont think anyone would be debating stuff like holodecks or mind melds, id accept them a lot easier.

I just cant forgive the klingons.. for the death of my klingons. :pac:

Goodshape · 10-11-2017 1:31pm

Optimus Prime wrote: »

I just cant forgive the klingons.. for the death of my klingons. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_QDyr5NaM

:pac:

Evade · 10-11-2017 1:53pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Not a reboot, just a series that isn't bogged down in 50-years of messed up half-baked 'canon' and has the courage to refresh the franchise in a way that Enterprise so miserably failed to do.

A reboot.

Goodshape wrote: »

That's as opposed to a reboot, which I'd take to mean a restart, which would throw out and/or remake the existing stories.

A remake.

Goodshape · 10-11-2017 2:12pm

Ah, fair enough. Semantics. You're probably right.

They've rebooted the look and feel of the thing, I guess it's correct to say that. They haven't thrown away or remade the old stories though. They still exist, they were just filmed in a different style. I'm fine with that.

Guess I was trying to underline the difference between, for instance, the superhero movie reboots we see so often these days. Batman Vs Superman has nothing to do with Batman Begins. Spiderman Homecoming nothing to do with previous Spiderman films, etc.

Discovery just looks different.

_Kaiser_ · 10-11-2017 2:22pm

It also feels different in tone, has a very different Starfleet and Vulcan (more in keeping with the JJ films), and just does not appear to line up with events that are to happen in TOS less than 10 years from now.

Oh, and remember how I said it felt more like BSG and GoT and many disagreed... well:

CBS All Access’s Star Trek: Discovery. Show-runners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg are citing Game of Thrones as an inspiration in feeling free rein to kill off . . . just about everyone.

Discovery, taken as a stand-alone show, isn't bad for the most part. I still don't like Burnham, and most of the crew are throwaways (almost no effort to develop anyone outside the top 4/5 characters), but I still don't see it as "prime" Star Trek after what, 8 episodes now.

What I find bemusing though is how personally some fans are taking criticism of the show, but I suppose that's the online era we live in too.

Evade · 10-11-2017 2:23pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Discovery just looks different.

And seems to contradict previously established things.

server down · 10-11-2017 2:36pm

Evade wrote: »

And seems to contradict previously established things.

You’ve provided very little evidence of that that hasn’t been rebutted . And every new Star Trek gets people like you whining about canon. TNG especially in its first two years.

As for the TOS - it was largely episodic even the Klingons started as aliens of the week. It has no canon to start with and a series of stories later added little consistency. The federation isn’t really fleshed out, the ship does its own adventures.

The silliest whine is the Klingons. TNG changed their look and feel - ergo there is no consistent look. (I personally wish that they hadn’t invented that ugly language - which was for the movies originally. )

Evade · 10-11-2017 2:52pm

server down wrote: »

You’ve provided very little evidence of that that hasn’t been rebutted . And every new Star Trek gets people like you whining about canon. TNG especially in its first two years.

Geordi having a VISOR therefor Borg levels of prosthetics is OK isn't a rebuttal. Granted we don't know for sure what she is but that was the premise I was arguing under.

server down wrote: »

The silliest whine is the Klingons. TNG changed their look and feel - ergo there is no consistent look. (I personally wish that they hadn’t invented that ugly language - which was for the movies originally. )

The movies changed their look, TNG just continued using it.

pixelburp · 10-11-2017 2:56pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

[...]
What I find bemusing though is how personally some fans are taking criticism of the show, but I suppose that's the online era we live in too.

Star Trek fans arguing continuity? Good lord, who'd have predicted such a thing. Stop the presses :rolleyes:

I find it bemusing that some fans are taking pains to dissect every discreet change or alteration in Discovery as some slap in the face to the franchise - it swings both ways

Trek canon as holy writ is a myth; every show has tweaked, changed, altered or retconned the internal canon since the first spin-off happened way back in 1987, and ultimately what Discovery should be judged on is whether it's actually any good. So if it was OK for Worf's human brother to suddenly appear with no prior warning, then never-ever get mentioned again, then why not a foster-sister for Spock? Where is the line drawn here, or is it all just head-canon?

Evade wrote: »

Geordi having a VISOR therefor Borg levels of prosthetics is OK isn't a rebuttal. Granted we don't know for sure what she is but that was the premise I was arguing under.

And equally, the Borg are more than just the technology; their presence and technological prowess weren't in of themselves what shocked or made Picard & pals nervous. It feels like quibbling over minutiae that somehow ANY kind of transhumanism is instantly equivalent to Borg and ... what, contradicts 'Q Who' for some reason?

Discovery - Timeline, continuity and other canonical issues [** SPOILERS **]

Comments

Discovery - Timeline, continuity and other canonical issues [ SPOILERS ]