How much do you care about canon?

[McAvoy]

Yeah this is what I get when I post in the middle of the night.

Ahem, canon.

But anyway, yeah internal world building consistency. Like did anyone really care that the TOS Klingons didn't look like Klingons from the movies and TNG era? Not really. It was tongue in cheek when DS9 did their crossover episode. Enterprise dedicated a whole arc to explain it and it really felt like it should have been left alone.

On the other hand, Enterprise for example using phased cannons and photonic torpedoes. While yes, generally many things said in TOS can be overlooked mainly as a product of its time, and Scotty did say it was nukes and lasers being used during Enterprise timeframe. How much different would Enterprise really be if the NX class was fitted with 22nd century versions of nukes?

Or alot of Discovery like the spore drive or Michael being an adopted sister of Spock for example. Sure you can explain around it. Spock really doesn't mention his family much and the spore drive is classified. Or what about the Klingon War in season 1?

If it was a reboot and not part of the Geneverse or Abramsverse, then this isn't an issue. Should though a pre-TOS show limit itself to within the confines of what we know? Why not? I mean it's not like much is known about the 2250's really. Plenty of stuff to write about if you have an imagination.

[Thebestoftherest]

I think the problem is that they chose stuff we are too familiar with, we seem Spock childhood so having a sister take you out. I mean they could have made her a childhood friend that he just never talk about.

[McAvoy]

I think the problem is that they chose stuff we are too familiar with, we seem Spock childhood so having a sister take you out. I mean they could have made her a childhood friend that he just never talk about.

I agree. SNW has the same problem when it came to the Gorns. There is no reason why they couldn't have just used one of those species names that we have heard but never seen and just call it a day. We know what the Gorn look like. There is a famous and well known episode that includes the Gorn in it. That isn't nerd rage. Nerd rage would be mad that Enterprise in SNW doesn't look like the TOS Enterprise.

Like Uhura being on the ship before Kirk doesn't bother me. It's more about why couldn't they just leave known characters alone and develop a crew for Pike. Like Pike having his own crew that left with him when Kirk took over. There is a background fan idea that between Pike and Kirk, the Enterprise underwent a refit. Plenty of time for crew to cycle out. But it's no big deal in the end.

Or the NX class not looking like what we thought pre-Federation ships would look like based on a simplistic model of the Daedalus class. So we base the entire 2250-2260 timeframe on just what that one ship looks like. But on the other hand, seeing that the ship is a ripoff of the Akira class is a big deal. They could have at least removed some key details like that square platform that does nothing on the saucer of the NX class for a start.

On the other hand at least for me, I cannot stand the season 1 Disco ships. To me they all look too much like post TNG era ships. For me, there should be some sort of way to figure out what century a ship is from. Of course SNW did fix that issue.

[Nealithi]

Yeah this is what I get when I post in the middle of the night.

Ahem, canon.

But anyway, yeah internal world building consistency. Like did anyone really care that the TOS Klingons didn't look like Klingons from the movies and TNG era? Not really. It was tongue in cheek when DS9 did their crossover episode. Enterprise dedicated a whole arc to explain it and it really felt like it should have been left alone.

On the other hand, Enterprise for example using phased cannons and photonic torpedoes. While yes, generally many things said in TOS can be overlooked mainly as a product of its time, and Scotty did say it was nukes and lasers being used during Enterprise timeframe. How much different would Enterprise really be if the NX class was fitted with 22nd century versions of nukes?

Or alot of Discovery like the spore drive or Michael being an adopted sister of Spock for example. Sure you can explain around it. Spock really doesn't mention his family much and the spore drive is classified. Or what about the Klingon War in season 1?

If it was a reboot and not part of the Geneverse or Abramsverse, then this isn't an issue. Should though a pre-TOS show limit itself to within the confines of what we know? Why not? I mean it's not like much is known about the 2250's really. Plenty of stuff to write about if you have an imagination.

Now we are focusing more on Disco not the general idea of canon. Enterprise tried to show things that were less advanced than TOS. Some things hit and some missed. Chuck pointed out they treated the hull plating like shields. More a faux-pa than a canon dismissal though.
Disco rubbed you wrong in so many ways. The ships were all bigger. (I will hold this till the day I die. the original Enterprise was Not small!) The way they worked everything was higher tech than TNG and the show felt like it was a scifi show that slapped Star Trek on it to borrow a fan base. The spore drive and many elements would have fit better as a post TNG show. Oh look they took them to the future.

Normally I like to see a show do its thing and judge it by its own merits or lack there of. Disco it felt was not simply making an error here and there but pissing on their own legacy label. Many feel that the Orville is a better Trek than it. And Orville is not a Trek series.

Is there bunches that could be done in a prequel? Sure. Just respect what is supposed to be coming next. Like the mirror universe is over used now. And running around with things that surprised Kirk or Picard like it is common knowledge takes away from the concept of a prequel. Star Wars did pretty well with their prequels. I really don't see anyone saying they utterly invalidated the previous movies.

[Nealithi]

[Hang on I have an issue here. How are cannons boring but practical? People love battleships and ships of the line etc. So they are not 'boring'. And modern missiles have made the art of naval cannons almost obsolete. So how do they remain practical?

Have you ever worked with a cannon before? I have and let me tell you they are REALLY boring to work with. It's a long slow process of loading the thing and it takes forever to aim and fire. In other words, boring.

But compared to other weapons they still get the job done cause even if you don't hit the target you're still likely going to to a lot of damage so they do their job no matter what which makes them by comparison to other weapons pratcial.

But more importantly, I was pocking fun at McAvoy misspelling Canon so I decided to be silly and I'm still recovering from this damn cold I have so my brain is only half here. OH LOOK PINK ELEPHANTS!!!


youtu.be/jcZUPDMXzJ8

I think most things sit back to be basically boring, and I was just poking some light fun at the concept of cannons being boring. Especially when media likes to use them when missiles would make more sense. But missiles don't look as cool.

also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl3YXl_m0uk

[Madner Kami]

Canon matters a lot until it doesn't. If things are made an explicit plot-point, I do expect them to come up later and if something happens that contradicts that, it irks me drastically, especially if it comes back time and again as a plot-point. Beaming through shields for example. It was largely consistently established, that this doesn't normally work. Though I always was befuddled about why you can't partially lower your shields to get it done, if, at the same time, the shields can be depleted partially by enemy fire or reinforced partially, which implies there being different "sectors" to a given shield supplied by different generators. E.g. First Contact Enterprise beaming the Defiant-survivors over even while fighting the Cube and being under fire. The Enterprise could feasably be between the Defiant and the Cube, so lowering the shields on one side, while keeping the other side up or even reinforced. The same wouldn't work if you were trying to beam someone from a ship you're currently under fire from, for obvious reasons. Now when this actually suddenly works without any drawbacks, it raises an eyebrow and can become grating when internal rules are being broken frequently. And I feel it's largely an issue of just that: Is canon largely adhered to, then you feel the writers and showrunners do care about what you care about. It's very different, if canon is largely ignored, as it makes you feel like the writers and showrunners don't care about what you care about or worse, disdain it and try to make something "theirs", which very obviously isn't something they want to have a part in the first place (see recent Star Wars or even recent Star Trek). It's easier to accept mistakes, then it is to accept and forgive willful ignorance. I'll still complain about the earlier, but I can come to terms. I can not with the later.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well putting the onus solely on the writer in question can be assertive. There's a considerable difference between innovative concept for storytelling and technical consistency. Yes it's a plot point, but as far as narrative is concerned it is rather trivial on my own list of things. I very much like to keep things in a cloud that begs the question of what is tangible narrative, but really if there is a sudden shift in alliance between two alien races without any narrative explanation then that would be very weird imo.

I'd personally appreciate some consulting to my work if it was inconsistent. The shield inconsistency sounds like something that can very easily be written around for the same narrative resolution. Nicolas Meyer was not a very big Star Trek fan when he made Wrath of Khan, but I'm sure had backup of some sort.

[Nobody700]

Honestly for me, canon matters in three regards.

1. Who cares canon. For one, who cares if Kirk sleeps in deck 3 or 7. Is it kinda goofy? Sure, but it is VERY pedantic to care. It's a mistake but one I don't care for and if someone does, that's fine. I'll just ask why.

2. Important lore. This one is higher up. Say, Kirk said he used to be a cadet on the Kelvin, and than he saw the Kelvin blow up, this impacted him. His first ship he was on blew up. But than, in another episode, he declares he never had a ship blow up on his watch. One can argue, as a captain sure, but it's defeating the point of him watching his first ship blew up. It informed him, and the series, that these things matter and impact the characters. So if in another episode he says the Kelvin will always be in his mind, and than next season he says his first ship was the Nelson... it's just confusing and bad for the show and character.

3. Essential canon. Stuff like, that if you remove... it breaks the show. If Kirk DIED in one episode, and than was alive the next for NO reason... the show breaks down and so does the story. Something HUGE just happened... and you ignore it? That tells me the show has no important things happen for the next. Fine for a screwball parody, not for a show taking itself seriously.

[McAvoy]

Yeah this is what I get when I post in the middle of the night.

Ahem, canon.

But anyway, yeah internal world building consistency. Like did anyone really care that the TOS Klingons didn't look like Klingons from the movies and TNG era? Not really. It was tongue in cheek when DS9 did their crossover episode. Enterprise dedicated a whole arc to explain it and it really felt like it should have been left alone.

On the other hand, Enterprise for example using phased cannons and photonic torpedoes. While yes, generally many things said in TOS can be overlooked mainly as a product of its time, and Scotty did say it was nukes and lasers being used during Enterprise timeframe. How much different would Enterprise really be if the NX class was fitted with 22nd century versions of nukes?

Or alot of Discovery like the spore drive or Michael being an adopted sister of Spock for example. Sure you can explain around it. Spock really doesn't mention his family much and the spore drive is classified. Or what about the Klingon War in season 1?

If it was a reboot and not part of the Geneverse or Abramsverse, then this isn't an issue. Should though a pre-TOS show limit itself to within the confines of what we know? Why not? I mean it's not like much is known about the 2250's really. Plenty of stuff to write about if you have an imagination.

Now we are focusing more on Disco not the general idea of canon. Enterprise tried to show things that were less advanced than TOS. Some things hit and some missed. Chuck pointed out they treated the hull plating like shields. More a faux-pa than a canon dismissal though.
Disco rubbed you wrong in so many ways. The ships were all bigger. (I will hold this till the day I die. the original Enterprise was Not small!) The way they worked everything was higher tech than TNG and the show felt like it was a scifi show that slapped Star Trek on it to borrow a fan base. The spore drive and many elements would have fit better as a post TNG show. Oh look they took them to the future.

Normally I like to see a show do its thing and judge it by its own merits or lack there of. Disco it felt was not simply making an error here and there but pissing on their own legacy label. Many feel that the Orville is a better Trek than it. And Orville is not a Trek series.

Is there bunches that could be done in a prequel? Sure. Just respect what is supposed to be coming next. Like the mirror universe is over used now. And running around with things that surprised Kirk or Picard like it is common knowledge takes away from the concept of a prequel. Star Wars did pretty well with their prequels. I really don't see anyone saying they utterly invalidated the previous movies.

Disco is just easier to remember off hand right now.

There will be always internal consistency issues especially starting out. TNG for example having Data state Class of 78. We know that to be wrong. TNG started in 2364. Yet it was never mentioned again, or attempted to fix that in some way. Just ignored. But this could have been considered Canon, if they kept on using that year for Data for example.

I can't really think off hand when DS9 violated canon blatantly. It's more of small time consistency issues that would only matter to Star Trek hardcore fans like the Defiant's size. Or the lack of shields in fleet battles.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Honestly, after a recent post reminded me of the retcons about Spock's family prior to Discovery, I'm a lot less put off by the Michael Burnam adaption scenario. Spock having one full Vulcan sibling and one full human sibling has a kind of balance to it, and after the first ass-pull sibling how much does one more matter?