Star Trek Picard and Trek Taking on Modern Politics

[Yukaphile]

That could work, tbh. Honestly, there is so much potential in a world where the Romulan capital has fallen. In short, however, I don't want these writers blaming that and THAT alone for the fall of the Romulans. A supernova would be equivalent to a nuke going off in DC right now. It would shatter the federal leadership, but it wouldn't wipe us out as a culture and a race. It would come from, say, ancient hatreds springing up. The Cardassians want to expand to make up for their losses in the Dominion War, feed their own people with all the losses they've suffered, or the Klingons, finally hell-bent on settling old feuds. That would be ironic, since Martok would prove as powerless as Gowron was in terms of actual, meaningful change. Alas, I feel this will be handled poorly...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Can't wait to hear this dispute of canon resolved between the dedicated fans and the *checks notes* people that make Star Trek.

To fair only those fans that are into that actually care about that.

I can see how the disdain for the Kelvinverse can make people contempt the association of Pine Trek to Shatner/DS9 Trek, but I think it's a very intricate construct to do a soft reboot this way.

[Al-1701]

A supernova is not going to simply affect the Romulus system, the whole area is going to be eradiated and it's probably the heart of the Empire with most of the most populated and habitable worlds. It would not just be a nuke that takes out D.C. but a chain of nukes that take out the entire Eastern Seaboard.

The Romulans are also a more authoritarian culture than the U.S. We have functional state governments and a process to replace the Federal Government should it be destroyed. The loss of Romulus would likely lead to a fight for power over what's left.

[Yukaphile]

@BridgeConsoleMasher The big problem is this. Those in charge now leaped into this with no idea how to handle it. With all the dense history of Trek, even with the poor direction of the reboots, that was inexcusable. Ron Moore was kinda the Trek continuity guy back in the day, and DISCO's poor foundation seems to suggest less they wanted to tell a Trek story and more that they wanted to aggressively build their own streaming site, and get a bunch of leftists along to do so. Trek was NEVER pure hard left, yet they think it is. When you have 50 years of lore, continuity is all the more important. Granted... TOTAL CONSISTENCY is impossible. But that is no excuse not to try. I don't get the impression they were honestly trying past whatever they had heard from others, got from reading the wiki, or whatever vague memories they had from watching the stuff a long time prior. JMS proved that you could avoid a lot of the excess waste that goes into TV production with his model. Stargate had FOUR people in charge of the lore. There is no excuse for this. So yes, STP has a lot of ground to go over to win back jaded continuity fans. Can it? We will see.

@Al-1701 The interstellar distances are SO vast, I would contend that, period. My assertion in the first place was something like insisting that the Romulan Fleet vanished with the capital. I could see them saying that! The supernova that was going to "blow up a galaxy." And I don't see your problem, since the "fighting over what's left" is what I was referring to! I think if it wasn't for outside interference, then they probably could have rebuilt. But then, it all depends on where they take this. I'm actually kind of excited now, if for no other reason than I can actually have a far better debate with what they do than with DISCO. This is at least a good time for discussion of Trek, if nothing else.

[clearspira]

Can't wait to hear this dispute of canon resolved between the dedicated fans and the *checks notes* people that make Star Trek.

Have you seen Trek's viewing figures? Have you seen its merchandise sales? Thats the wonderful thing about capitalism - the public really does have a tremendous amount of power if we actually bother to not buy the product.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

True

[clearspira]

@BridgeConsoleMasher The big problem is this. Those in charge now leaped into this with no idea how to handle it. With all the dense history of Trek, even with the poor direction of the reboots, that was inexcusable. Ron Moore was kinda the Trek continuity guy back in the day, and DISCO's poor foundation seems to suggest less they wanted to tell a Trek story and more that they wanted to aggressively build their own streaming site, and get a bunch of leftists along to do so. Trek was NEVER pure hard left, yet they think it is. When you have 50 years of lore, continuity is all the more important. Granted... TOTAL CONSISTENCY is impossible. But that is no excuse not to try. I don't get the impression they were honestly trying past whatever they had heard from others, got from reading the wiki, or whatever vague memories they had from watching the stuff a long time prior. JMS proved that you could avoid a lot of the excess waste that goes into TV production with his model. Stargate had FOUR people in charge of the lore. There is no excuse for this. So yes, STP has a lot of ground to go over to win back jaded continuity fans. Can it? We will see.

@Al-1701 The interstellar distances are SO vast, I would contend that, period. My assertion in the first place was something like insisting that the Romulan Fleet vanished with the capital. I could see them saying that! The supernova that was going to "blow up a galaxy." And I don't see your problem, since the "fighting over what's left" is what I was referring to! I think if it wasn't for outside interference, then they probably could have rebuilt. But then, it all depends on where they take this. I'm actually kind of excited now, if for no other reason than I can actually have a far better debate with what they do than with DISCO. This is at least a good time for discussion of Trek, if nothing else.

I would liken destroying Romulus to destroying Britain at the height of the Empire. 1/4 of the planet would still be ''British Empire'', but without London, Parliament and the Queen; what would realistically be the future? A power vacuum that is picked over by everyone else.

[Simplicius]

So let's get some things straight ...

Canon refers to a set of texts considered legitimate or genuine or official. It can be related to continuity but doesn't need to. For example, the most famous canon is the Bible but the "canonical texts" within the Bible often contain contradictions when it comes to their description of events (in fiction we call this "continuity"). So, for example, even if we narrow Star Trek canon to "live action series plus movies", we'll find plenty of contradictions that do not affect a single entry's "canonical" status.

It is also subjective. What constitutes Biblical canon, or Western canon (which contains totally unrelated "continuities") is a matter of opinion and differs from person to person. The legal owners of the intellectual property called "Star Trek" have their opinion on canon but to assert that they are its true arbiters is to make all manners of moral and philosophical claims you probably don't intend to. If the author's opinion of "canon" differs from those of the license holder, is he just as wrong as the average fan?

The problem comes, however, when license holders get high on their own farts and decide, arbitrarily, what is and isn't canon. This is usually done for continuity reasons (which is where the confusion between canon and continuity tends to emerge). For example, Jeri Taylor got to pretend her novels were "canon", whereas The Animated Series was not. This was based on a continuity claim, i.e. a reference to "what really happened" ... that is stupid because nothing "really" happened. It's fiction.

Likewise, Disney decided that a great many Star Wars novels, comics and video games weren't canon. This was based on a, deceitful, continuity claim ... based on two flawed notions. First, the assertion that Prequels + TCW + Original Trilogy + "Star Wars Stories" + Sequels represents a coherent continuity in and of itself (in fact, the various works contradict each other and sometimes themselves) and, second, that a new expanded universe could be created which would maintain a clearer and stricter continuity (which it can't).

So, this brings to the issue of the "Prime" timeline within Star Trek. A timeline is a form of continuity, it is a reference to fictional events. Principally, the "Prime" timeline features Spock disappearing in the 24th century and the alternate timeline features that same Spock appearing in the 22nd century. So, asserting that Discovery and Picard take place in the "Prime" timeline, one is making the claim that it will follow a certain continuity ... except not really. You see, producers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to treat continuity like canon, meaning that they can do and say whatever they want.

Discovery is free to undermine the continuity of TOS (and it does, loves to, in fact) and Picard is free to undermine the continuity of TNG (and it will, and will love to, in fact). So, what is the point of differentiating between two timelines when the events of either can be shifted around, contradicted and ignored at will? Well, it's to trick the audience into ascribing a sense of authenticity to works which, almost by design, are inauthentic.

There are countless continuity problems present in the "Prime" timeline, so it doesn't exist as a coherent sequence of events. In fact, take a look at the Trill. TNG establishes details about their history, abilities and appearance that are, in turn, contradicted by DS9. Discovery (which we are told takes place in the "Prime" timeline) contradicts both sets of facts. So, the only conclusion is that being in one "timeline" doesn't mean anything. It's a marketing ploy, nothing more, nothing less.

This will eventually degenerate into circular logic, as I shall demonstrate. Let's create a scenario of a discussion between two different fans. Fan A would consider himself a "true" Star Trek fan, fan B would consider him a "mindless hater". Fan B would consider himself a "true" Star Trek fan, fan A would consider him a "corporate shill".

Random Star Trek Picard episode: "Let's ignore, contradict or distort an event from the Berman era."
Fan A: "This is crap! They said this was set in the 'Prime' timeline but it obviously isn't!"
Fan B: "You are just a right-wing misogynistic racist Trump-supporting toxic fanboy!"
Fan A: "What?! I'm just upset that they said the show took place in the 'Prime' timeline. I'd be fine if they just admitted it wasn't."
Fan B: "The 'Prime' timeline is whatever the writers say it is and you don't get to decide what's canon!"

In sum, the new shows are set in the "Prime" timeline. The "Prime" timeline is defined specifically as a sequence of events. The new shows are, however, not beholden to any particular sequence of events. Make it make sense, I dare you.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So let's get some things straight ...

...

In sum, the new shows are set in the "Prime" timeline. The "Prime" timeline is defined specifically as a sequence of events. The new shows are, however, not beholden to any particular sequence of events. Make it make sense, I dare you.

Hey!

So part of your post you are establishing an important fact that I agree with, that continuity doesn't quite make/break canon, supported by the notion that the respective franchises even might not have much integrity for canon. I'll agree with that and even posit that seasons 1 and 2 of TNG have inconsistency with what we see later. How tangible those discrepancies are I'm not 100% on, but that's what I walked away from with seasons 1/2 seeing them post 3-7. Then there's production differentials that we've talked about here regarding Klingons. Did Klingons always look as accentuated as they do or not in TOS? As of Into Darkness and Discovery we are inclined to think that they always looked that way in-universe, though there are a few things you can point to across properties that suggest or explicitly state that they didn't.

Not that I'm familiar with the accordance, but I'm guessing I'll be fine ditching Taylor's books and letting in The Animated Series. If the books don't contradict anything beyond what the level of what we've already brought up, then no harm no foul either way. The Animated Series might push the envelope on that, but its exposure and sustained regard incline me to guess it's safe.

My take on it though is that between Paramount and CBS, there isn't so much as apparent friction between the two factions. Their cohesion probably isn't that accounted for either, but it's clear that Prime distinction was put upon what was otherwise both Paramount and CBS Trek. Nobody dissociates Generations Kirk from TOS Kirk.

From what I've heard here, the particular producers is where the line comes down to for people. Whereas some people see the mumness from key producers as a lack of conductivity within the established canon, I see no reason to consider the Paramount/CBS link deteriorated.

There was perhaps a bit more you were saying with regard to the poor decisions that people make. To that regard yeah you might inflate a canon or even break it probably, but again I don't see that necessarily as the case for Trek. With Star Wars there's definitely words to discuss regarding Disney canon as of Rise of Skywalker, and I'd go so far as to call it a little disappointing with how they capstoned it.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's hard to estimate how dangerous a supernova would be to a TNG-level civilization. Wikipedia says that a type IIa supernova within 26 light years could deplete about half of the earth's ozone layer because of gamma irradiation, and that a type Ia supernova could be worse. For us, losing half our ozone would suck, but I'd think the Romulan Star Empire could just create more ozone. "Barely an inconvenience."

Then there's speed of light delay, one of the many silly things about Star Trek (2009). But Trek has always played fast and loose with speed of light delay, so I'm relatively happy to sweep under the rug the comparison of the U.S. discovering that Washington D.C. will be nuked a few years from now, and New York a decade after that.

I could see the Romulan Empire could collapse politically and economically after the homeworld was hit. We've had economic breakdowns in the U.S. even without Washington D.C. getting blown up, though I think it would be weird to have widespread starvation and the very same people can make an interstellar flight. But political infighting causing a lot of civilian casualties I can easily see happening.