posted
Since my 2018 thread ("Discovery Alternate Universe Confirmed") is locatable via search but "does not exist" when clicked, and to avoid derailings of other threads, I'll try posting this once more.
Kurtzman and the gang, along with fans thereof, have often suggested that the new crop of shows that began with and are connected to Star Trek: Discovery are "Prime", "canon", "prime canon", et cetera. This is taken to suggest that the new operators of the Star Trek brand are creating works that continue the Star Trek Original Universe as seen in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and related films.
Unfortunately, this is not accurate.
Obviously, Discovery and its stable-mates are influenced by the JJ Abrams Trek films, an alternate Trek universe. That's no big deal, in and of itself, and to be expected since Kurtzman came from there. Indeed, as originally envisioned by Fuller, Discovery was a "reimagine" that didn't need to be part of any universe in particular, but somewhere between marketing and the weird CBS/Paramount Trek ownership issues of the time it ended up being claimed as Prime, and here our troubles began.
The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
Put another way, the Star Trek Original Universe was Tuvok. The Trek non-canon was Neelix. The JJ-verse production folks, including Kurtzman, treated Trek as Tuvix, a merging of the two, and created their own explicit offshoot from that. The CBS Canon -- or, since that's out-of-date with the re-merger, the Discoverse? -- only takes us back to Tuvix.
However, Tuvix is not Tuvok. This is blatantly obvious from the altered histories, visual discontinuties, basic fact differences, and so on, as many have argued elsewhere ad nauseum.
When Kurtzman et al. suggest they've kept true to canon as best they could, they are not wrong. It's just that their canon differs from that of the Original Universe, and their shows inhabit a Prime universe which differs also.
This does *not* mean Discovery et al. are "not canon", "non-canon", et cetera. CBS/Paramount can claim whatever they like as canon and in-continuity. It is simply different, and that's okay. With that in mind, everyone can enjoy the shows on their own merits, avoiding the stress of trying to reimagine prior material to fit the new material or vice-versa. There's no need to seek consistency between the two, but if you're into the universe-mixing then have fun and enjoy yourself.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Canon and continuity are two different things. Canon is what the people in charge of Star Trek declare to be official, which is only what is shown on screen the last time I checked. Which includes DSC.
Continuity is how everything in those canon works are related. And in 50+ years of televised Trek, there are things that are going to be inconsistent. It's not going to match up 100%. That doesn't mean that there are two separate 'continuities' or 'universes.' Like it or not, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LDS, PRO and SNW all take place in the same universe. The main difference now is that the producers of DSC decided that they were going to reboot the visuals instead of making things look like they did in the '60's. So the Matt Jeffries TOS Enterprise design we've seen for 50+ years has now changed into that thing John Eaves designed, but it's supposed to be the same ship. And to hit us over the head with their decision, they showed that design in PIC to reinforce that this is what things actually look like, and our eyes have been fooling us all this time. Although it seems like successive shows like LDS and PRO are returning to TOS roots by showing the original Enterprise and characters like Spock, Uhura, et. al played by their original actors rather than the new actors in the newer shows. Confusing, yes.
Of course, a side-effect of rebooting the visuals is that the older shows that take place a century later (TNG et. al) now look less advanced than what we're seeing in DSC. But I suppose that can't be helped. Everything gets dated over time.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Canon and continuity are two different things. Canon is what the people in charge of Star Trek declare to be official, which is only what is shown on screen the last time I checked. Which includes DSC.
That's not what Kurtzman says. There are quotes in the link of the first post. He's quite explicit that the old rule is no more.
quote: Like it or not, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LDS, PRO and SNW all take place in the same universe.
They literally can't. I'm not talking about detail differences. I'm talking about basic rules and logic.
Yes, CBS/Paramount can *declare* a universe. We could also buy up franchises and declare Stargate and Star Trek are in the same universe. People can argue all day about the continuity headaches of that, but the simple fact is that, *regardless of continuity issues*, a new show set in the Stargate Trek universe simply isn't part of the original Stargate universe *or* the original Trek universe, logically, per the Tuvix argument.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That's not what Kurtzman says. There are quotes in the link of the first post. He's quite explicit that the old rule is no more.
Kurtzman isn't in charge of what's canon or not. CBS is. Kurtzman can be quoted (or misquoted) all you want. It doesn't mean crap.
quote:They literally can't. I'm not talking about detail differences. I'm talking about basic rules and logic.
Yes, CBS/Paramount can *declare* a universe. We could also buy up franchises and declare Stargate and Star Trek are in the same universe. People can argue all day about the continuity headaches of that, but the simple fact is that, *regardless of continuity issues*, a new show set in the Stargate Trek universe simply isn't part of the original Stargate universe *or* the original Trek universe, logically, per the Tuvix argument.
Now you're just talking silly. This is all fiction. And the people currently in charge of said fiction determine what universe it all takes place in. I just told you that it's not going to be entirely consistent, because that's the nature of a fictional TV show that's been on for 50 years.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
We (the fans) do not decide what is canon and what is not. CBS/Paramount/whoever do. They say that 3rd Generation Star Trek (Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, etc.) exist in the same universe as those shows that came before. Therefore, they do.
Are there continuity hiccups? Absolutely. I might even go so far as to say there are plenty. But as Dukhat pointed out, that's to be expected for a franchise that's over 50 years old. Especially so since 3rd Generation is being made overall by different folks.
But... this whole argument that this is a different timeline? I just don't get it, especially the way that such arguments are worded. Almost as if its "gotcha" news reporting. "Hey guys! I've figured out that STD isn't Prime! They've been lying to us all along!"
Remember the good old days when we blamed continuity snarls on the writers out-of-universe rather than conjuring entirely new universes out of thin air?
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
There's one glaringly obvious problem with this statement in that not only are the novels etc inconsistent with what was show on TV in classic Trek, the vast majority are actually directly contradicted by the new Trek...the most glaring problems being things like Data having been resurrected in an android body (specifically B4's body) in the novelverse, but we've been told directly in Picard that this wasn't the case. The portrayal of the mirror universe in Discovery also directly contradicts the novelverse, where the third generation clone of Hoshi Sato is the empress...not Georgiou. I could go on pointing out the incompatabilities, but it's fairly obvious that they're not viewing Prime canon as including anything outside of what was shown on screen. At best you've got a multiverse, where the novelverse is being treated as a seperate timeline in and of itself.
I'm not saying new Trek is perfect, because it's not. As others have said, though, new Trek is in the classic timeline whether we like it or not. It's sad that we, as a community, don't do what we used too once upon a time and try to find a way to explain away inconsistencies, rather than completely throw what we don't like away.
Besides, technically the prime timeline started deviating back in 1967...'The Squire of Gothos', after all, was set 900 years in our future according to Trelane himself.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
The recent Coda trilogy of novels is specifically written to end the novel continuity that has been the norm almost since TNG, as much of the post-NEM continuity we now know about and can consider canon is at odds with the novels. Going forward any books will be based on events in PIC (and LDS?).
posted
Not to mention that the Trek novel writers, many of whom post on the TrekBBS, were never under any illusion that their books were canon, or that the show had to follow them in any way or be consistent with them. Quite the opposite, in fact. The show dictated what was in the novels, not vice versa. That’s why they now have to end the current novelverse and start new, because there were too many inconsistencies with newTrek that they couldn’t just explain away.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Trying to reconcile current Trek & everything before is a near impossibility, though. Even Abrams with his stupid "let's blow up Romulus" idea caused issues because there's enough discrepancies to say Nimoy!Spock didn't actually come from the OG universe, but from the future of whatever one that was. Since the Discoverse clearly follows that one, it's obvious they've become the new canon. Despite all the homages & pick-me style wanting to make it work, it can't. They want to overwrite/retcon with their new stuff, fine...but that doesn't make it universally accepted.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm currently listening to the audiobook versions of the new Discovery novels, and some of those aren't even consistent with what's on screen (Saru is from a planet called Kelpia and his species live underground instead of Kaminar & living on the surface, Burnham & Spock reconcilled following a mind meld while she was still aboard the Shenzhou instead of during Season 2, etc.), so the arguement can't even be made that the canon includes the new novels.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Kurtzman isn't in charge of what's canon or not. CBS is. Kurtzman can be quoted (or misquoted) all you want. It doesn't mean crap.
That's . . . a unique point of view, to put it politely.
I'm not talking about the cutesy little insinuation you make about me supposedly misquoting. There are multiple quotes of him saying the same thing by different quoters over years at the link I gave, sometimes even with the words on video.
https://youtu.be/n6Ymoemfwsw . . . start about 5:00. It's a media event, hence the table-change calls at the end.
You may not like what I have to say regarding the meaning of what Kurtzman himself says, here, but that's no excuse for what you tried to pull, there.
Moving on . . .
The notion that Kurtzman is irrelevant is peculiar, at best. Sure, corporate ownership means the official canon policy is corporate's to dictate, but, absent a statement by some corporate suit of proper rank, folks traditionally have gone with what is communicated in interviews, media, or in relevant publications by production staff. (Much of my prior CanonWars work was getting people to recognize that rank matters when statements or facts appear contradictory, but I guess I also need to point out that the suits are authorizing these folks to speak on it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be sitting down with media.)
That said, the reality is that even if you inquired of ViacomCBS chairwoman Shari Redstone or went above her to National Amusements owner Shari Redstone (RHIP) on the topic of some brand's canon, the likelihood is that she'd defer to the relevant content development office . . . the showrunner, for a show, or the developer of the transmedia content. Even in the new era of weaponized canon policies designed to support transmedia marketing, there's a top creative dog.
Kurtzman is it, currently, and thus now effectively in the position previously held by Roddenberry and Berman. We certainly would've accepted their dictates absent Paramount brass statements, wouldn't we?
If there is currently a "Star Trek Office", Kurtzman would have the big corner room. While he's technically the leader of a production company with a contract, and there is a corporate liaison or overseer, that individual, to my knowledge, isn't publicly chatty on the topic, nor are they likely to contradict Kurtzman unless he had some sort of verbal aneurysm, if even then.
quote: I just told you that it's not going to be entirely consistent, because that's the nature of a fictional TV show that's been on for 50 years.
And I just told you that this has nothing to do with continuity or storyline consistency. That debate is long-won; no one realistically tries to claim the new stuff, a "reimagine" per the original creator, is entirely consistent -- even Kurtzman. Beyond folks just giving up on continuity, as you do, one also might get silly arguments about cardboard sets and old Trek being racist and sexist and other nonsense as a way to justify the changes, but in the end the *perceived* trump card is the claim that ViacomCBS considers it to be the same universe, as per statements by Kurtzman et al.
What I have shown is that it isn't a trump card at all, because they don't mean what folks think they mean, and never did.
If you draw a box around part of a brand's total branded content and say it is the canon, then the box is your canon policy and it delineates the canon universe and, if applicable, its continuity. If you pull a Ron Moore and reimagine Battlestar Galactica then you make a new, separate box and new universe, with the ole box merely a vague cloud. But if you cut out a bunch of, or tremendously add to, the contents of the original box, you have not merely changed the shape of the universe. You have made a different one, and it is that new box you are expanding with new content. It gets weirder if your new content is a "reimagine" of the old . . . ideally you'd just go with a separate box, but if you're wanting to market it as a continuation then maybe a squiggly/hazy arrow inside the old box will suffice, though I am unaccustomed to dealing with such comic-book levels of policy behavior.
To our subject specifically, the "Prime" universe they are expanding is not the universe of the Star Trek Original Universe, but a mixture of it and other works previously excluded (which is part of why they find it so impossible to be consistent). It's a new box. Yes, they include the STOU material amongst what they consider prior canon, but by making it only part of a vastly larger whole they created a new, modified Trek universe to spring from, along with their reimagining. That's what they are telling you when they say it is the same universe as the prior shows, but simply is not a direct continuation of the Original Universe.
This is not a tough concept, but I see that some of the resistance involves confusion about it. I was working on doing some decent-quality visual aids but don't have adequate time right this second, not having been prepared to spend the time to respond to the original attack in another thread, so maybe I'll try to whip up some quickie versions later.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: Remember the good old days when we blamed continuity snarls on the writers out-of-universe rather than conjuring entirely new universes out of thin air?
That's because there was, if you will, a continuity of canon policy, and no attempt to reimagine the universe. Neither of those are true for the new material.
The "conjuring" happened before I approached the question. I'm simply relaying facts and explaining their clear meaning.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
There's one glaringly obvious problem with this statement in that not only are the novels etc inconsistent with what was show on TV in classic Trek, the vast majority are actually directly contradicted by the new Trek
Kurtzman did say it was impossible to be consistent, though they have pulled details from novels for use in the new material. But, again, this is not a consistency-based argument. Those can be fun, but ultimately futile under the conditions of a "reimagine" also declared to be "Prime".
This is strictly a matter of declared policy, which those aforementioned detail-pullings would seem to confirm.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Not to mention that the Trek novel writers, many of whom post on the TrekBBS, were never under any illusion that their books were canon, or that the show had to follow them in any way or be consistent with them. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Exactly why Kurtzman noted the impossibility of maintaining consistency with their Prime canon.
quote: That’s why they now have to end the current novelverse and start new, because there were too many inconsistencies with newTrek that they couldn’t just explain away.
I don't know if they're being required to, but just as a matter of tie-in marketing logic it hardly makes sense to write the umpteenth book of a series of Calhoun and Shelby on an Ambassador (or whatever continuing storyline they'd been selling lately) if you're trying to sell to fans of the new material. I mean, that's a case of whiplash waiting to happen.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Trying to reconcile current Trek & everything before is a near impossibility, though. Even Abrams with his stupid "let's blow up Romulus" idea caused issues because there's enough discrepancies to say Nimoy!Spock didn't actually come from the OG universe, but from the future of whatever one that was.
Truth. That so many want to shoehorn Romulus exploding and even the Kelvin itself into the Original Universe just makes me sad.
quote: Since the Discoverse clearly follows that one, it's obvious they've become the new canon. Despite all the homages & pick-me style wanting to make it work, it can't. They want to overwrite/retcon with their new stuff, fine...but that doesn't make it universally accepted.
Bingo. Kurtzman brought over the "Prime" canon concepts from the Paramount/JJ side of former-Viacom to CBS Studios, replacing the old RoddenBerman canon, and Fuller wanted to "reimagine" Trek. Between the two, it was always going to be a nightmare, and all they've accomplished is fracturing the fanbase. But, in the modern marketing mindset, even negative buzz is still buzz, and valuable when buzz is literally used as a metric.
On the good side, it isn't like they had to merge canon policies when they re-merged into ViacomCBS.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
