Sign in to follow this  
Maltz

The Federation-Klingon War in 2257 (SPOILERS)

Recommended Posts

To me it was more about growing up and disillusionment. The hobbits were children living in a land of plenty. When evil men came into their perfect world, they had no idea what to do. But when Merry, Pippin, Samwise and Frodo came home they taught the children how to fight. For Frodo, it was essentially the final day of his childhood. He spent the day begging hobbits  not to kill people for no reason. He was destroyed by what he had learned. He could never settle back because home wasn't the same for him. 

The hobbits fight and fight and when they get home their perfect life is destroyed anyway. But wait, they've learned how to fight for what they believe in. They kill off the evil people and rebuild their perfect lives a little wiser. 

The movie was too happy happy for me. Yeah we killed all the bad guys now we can live happily ever after. The scourging of the Shire shows that if you want paradise, you have to work for it. There are always people who want to destroy it. But the fight to keep what you have can end up taking it away for many people. 

I'd like for it to be in an extended scene. Most people wouldn't get it. To me, the movie was too sanitized without the final battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Journey to Babel there were 32 ambassadors on the Enterprise. There are around 400 ships in the U.S. Navy today. There's about 75 ships in the British fleet. 

Outer space is much bigger than oceans. If there were 32 ambassadors on the Enterprise, there were probably around 35 to 40 members of the Federation. If each of the smaller members adding 10 ships each and the larger richer planets added 50 or a hundred each, Starfleet could have as many as 800 or a 1000 ships, maybe more. Most of them would not be large fighting ships like the Enterprise. 

There were 10 Federation ships at the battle of the Binary Stars which was fought at the outskirts of Federation territory on short notice. If there were 10 ships out on the edges, there must be a lot more closer to the core. Some of the 10 ships probably escaped. So if 6 ships out of a total fleet of a thousand were destroyed, it would probably be considered a large skirmish. If most of the other attacks resulted in mostly damaged ships and no huge losses of life, like in the billions, the war up to when the Discovery left could be considered a large skirmish. Something on the order of 50,000 people dead and 15 ships destroyed would be minor to a Federation with a thousand ships and trillions of members. 

If we stop the war shortly after the Discovery went to the Mirror universe, the whole Federation/Klingon war might be considered the largest of many skirmishes but not a war by Star Fleet command. 

I think that everything that's happened since they came back to the prime universe was faked by the mirror universe in a plan to restart a war that had ended shortly after the Discovery left. Something like the Klingons houses started turning on each other and forgot to fight the Federation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Characters in the TNG era frequently brought up the Romulan War of two centuries earlier when Romulans were encountered.

And now we know Organia has been conquered, which flat out contradicts TOS "Errand of Mercy." Good luck reconciling that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maltz said:

And now we know Organia has been conquered, which flat out contradicts TOS "Errand of Mercy."

Where was this specifically mentioned?  I know I’m old and miss details sometimes, but I don’t remember this ever being mentioned to date.   

Maybe the Organians appear on DSC and ‘undo’ the war (and memories of the war) somehow (?).   They’re on a par with the Q, so who knows...?

Granted, it’d still be a reset button of sorts, but at least it’s not time travel...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maltz said:

Characters in the TNG era frequently brought up the Romulan War of two centuries earlier when Romulans were encountered.

And now we know Organia has been conquered, which flat out contradicts TOS "Errand of Mercy." Good luck reconciling that....

What does conquered mean in this context? Organia appeared to be a agrarian world of small villages. The Klingons probably just sent a ship. Destroyed any Federation warning buoys, declared the system to be owned by the Klingons and left. I doubt they'd bother sending any troops down to a world that couldn't defend itself and didn't have anything worth stealing. The ore had to be mined and a military ship isn't going to have the equipment on it needed to mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Founder said:

I think that's a bit of a cop out to be honest. No one is asking for the TOS writers to have foreknowledge of DSC. We're asking the DSC writers to understand and respect the source material. Make it connect. What exactly is the appeal of creating a Star Trek show closely linked to TOS both with the time frame and characters (Spock's adopted sister) only to cry foul when we see any links are specious at best?

The "understanding and respect" you call for is a matter of degree which is going to be specific to each fan. Some say respect calls for keeping the uniforms and the set designs. Some care less about the look, but don't want the writers to stray too far from what has been mentioned on screen. Some, like me, see not one thing on DSC that shows lack of respect of understanding for TOS, and in fact see writers who have a great deal of both and are using it to great dramatic effect. Where some see no point in setting the show as a prequel, others of us love all the TOS tie-ins, from Mudd to the deepening of Sarek's character, to the exploration of the nature of Starfleet at the dawn of its golden age. Some of us really want this prequel to fulfill its full potential as a prequel and think that a post-NEMESIS sequel would have had a strong chance of being directionless, frivolous, been-there-done-that, TNG again but with sets that look just like the Discovery's and sleeker non-retro phasers (I urge fans who want that sequel to consider why every single Trek property and proposed property going back almost 20 years has chosen against it in favor of playing in the sandbox of earlier time periods. There are reasons--for the curiosity's sake try for one moment to consider they might be good reasons.) 

I agree on principle, as many of us do: Don't do anything that blatantly kills your imagination's ability to hold elements together in your head. But every fan will have a different standard, so it is impossible to expect the show runners to be successful even if they wanted to try to please the largest common denominator of fan opinion. They need to try to tell the best stories they can while respecting and co-opting what has come before. For me, DSC hits the sweet spot. For others, there are too many grating inconsistencies. Some don't watch the show. Some must hate-watch the show but fortunately these people don't post on Trek Core. Others are only mildly annoyed and are still able to enjoy watching. I say DSC links up very smoothly with TOS. Other's say no way. Neither of these statements are facts. They are opinions and equally valid. Where we disagree, we are all going to have to agree to disagree. Especially since DSC will probably have 4 or 6 more seasons. If 13 episodes have kicked up this much canon controversy, I just don't have it in me to keep up this discussion that long.    

Trek fans are so literal-minded, and as the franchise ages I predict we're going to have to be less literal. Trek canon is not a math equation. It is an expression of many creative minds crafting art. Here is how I watch: any given episode, you are pulled into the bubble of its story. That story is enhanced by the background knowledge you bring to it. Many DSC episodes have layers of meaning for me because I believe in its connection to previous Trek. Watching TOS episodes like Journey to Babble or Errand of Mercy or Arena or  I Mudd are similarly enhanced--I don't think about how the sets are different or how the character portrayals aren't exact, because I am in the bubble believing in the reality of what I see on screen while also accessing memories from other shows about those characters or situations. This approach works for many of us. 

Ira Behr summed up what I am trying to say in a quote about why they kept recasting Ziyal:  "From then on, I always wanted to have the opportunity to just play with the audience's minds. Because it really doesn't matter on a certain level. And so, for various reasons, we changed the part once, and then we had to change the part again." Smiling, Behr continued, "[In an ideal world,] I would have changed the role of Ziyal every single time – just to keep reminding the audience that this is all a construct."

  From a literal perspective, it's absurd to accept that all the different Ziyals were the same character; or that the Continues characters or Kelvin characters are the same as their TOS counterparts; or that all the Sareks are the same; or that the DISCO and the 1701 are in the same fleet; or that the Klingon versions are the same species, etc. But they can all be the same, because when you are in the bubble all that matters is the story you chose to let into your imagination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just seen the last episode, I will double down. Nothing in DSC's Klingon war contradicts either the letter or the spirit of TOS canon. In fact it enhances the threat of the Klingons on TOS, making episodes like Errand of Mercy more powerful, and making Star Trek VI a different film, maybe a better one. Having Klingons who killed millions of Humans and nearly conquered Earth makes them a bit more interesting than a race that only fights skirmishes in boarder systems and poisons grain shipments. There are also implications to enhance and deepen the themes explored in DS9 Klingon arcs, when the Klingons again became the threat to Earth we are seeing on DSC.   

I don't care that this war is not mentioned with specificity in previous Treks (though if you open yourself to the possibility, you will find allusions to it in the others shows by sheer coincidence and the power of the imagination). It is an absurd standard that Trek's writers must limit their stories to having such small in-universe impact that fans can be comfortable with never having heard of it before. The desire of some fans for this standard to be upheld is a strong emotional reaction that is fed by their fear. We all fear that a pack of hot shot Hollywood producers will buy our beloved toy from CBS/Paramount and smash it, ruin it beyond recognition. We also fear that culture is moving on from us, chasing other (younger) audiences. This is not an irrational fear. But DSC and its producers have proven they are not deserving of that fear. They have honored so many important and delicate aspects of Trek. They are enriching and strengthening canon while also building on it. We are so lucky to have them. My hope is that after DSC season 1 is over and we've all had some weeks or months to reflect, the "not my star trek" crowd will come to trust the DSC team and put their fears to bed.           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of in the middle with canon.

On one side the writers can ignore canon so much that the show isn't Star Trek anymore. On the other hand you're so tied to canon that you can't enjoy the show without checking though hundreds and hundreds of hours of video to double check every single line of dialog it kind of makes storytelling difficult. 

Even if you set the show a hundred years past the last episode, you still would have the problem that if you mentioned anything that occured in the past, you might contradict something somewhere for the people who are hard core about their canon. But if you never mention anything in the past, you're wasting the opportunity to make the shows as a group into a future history. 

To me, they solved the problem of the spore drive. It's a one of a kind ship that the Federation doesn't want anyone to know about for very good reasons. I never really worried about the looks of the ships or the uniforms. Other than the spore drive there's only a few tech things that are too advanced and I'm willing to ignore them. They are there because real world science has outrun ST science. Communicators that looked cool in 1967 look obsolete in 2018. 

The only thing that annoys me is a major war that seems to be forgotten about. I'm willing to give the writers a chance to clear it up. If they don't it will annoy me but it really won't stop me from enjoying the show. Every long running Science Fiction tv shows, movies or books have canon problems. The more complicated and realistic you try to make the world, the more likely you're going to have canon problems. If the show's good enough, I'll ignore them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Having just seen the last episode, I will double down. Nothing in DSC's Klingon war contradicts either the letter or the spirit of TOS canon. In fact it enhances the threat of the Klingons on TOS, making episodes like Errand of Mercy more powerful, and making Star Trek VI a different film, maybe a better one. Having Klingons who killed millions of Humans and nearly conquered Earth makes them a bit more interesting than a race that only fights skirmishes in boarder systems and poisons grain shipments.

Beg to differ, but Kirk would’ve mentioned a widespread Klingon occupation of the Federation in “Errand of Mercy.”  Yet he and Kor seemed to gripe only about strangling trade and border disputes.   Kirk says, “They’ve (Klingons) boasted that they’ll take over half the galaxy” instead of “Ten years ago, they occupied our Federation and killed thousands of us!”  

Slamming the Klingons for ‘boasting' is not quite as much of a ‘gotcha’ moment as a mention of them actually occupying Federation territory.  Kirk WOULD’VE mentioned it.  It's against human nature not to carry a major grudge against a war/occupation that took the Klingons so deep into Federation territory like that.  That’d be a bit like Russia and the US entering into new weapons negotiations without mentioning past decades of Cold War history.  

Errand Of Mercy was implicit (if not explicit) that all-out war between Earth and the Klingons had NOT happened yet; hence it being prevented by the Organians in the first place.  With the talk of border disputes and trade issues, it was clear (at least to me) that Errand of Mercy was a metaphor for the Cold War; a war that never saw Russians/Americans occupying each others’ countries.

Changing the nature of the Klingon/Federation cold war of the 23rd century retroactively changes all of ST’s previous cold war metaphors, including STVI, Errand of Mercy, etc.   

However, in my head canon, DSC is an alternate universe anyway, so it’s all good. ;)  

But it would’ve worked a lot better if set post-VGR.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 8:30 PM, Justin Snead said:

The "understanding and respect" you call for is a matter of degree which is going to be specific to each fan. Some say respect calls for keeping the uniforms and the set designs. Some care less about the look, but don't want the writers to stray too far from what has been mentioned on screen. Some, like me, see not one thing on DSC that shows lack of respect of understanding for TOS, and in fact see writers who have a great deal of both and are using it to great dramatic effect. Where some see no point in setting the show as a prequel, others of us love all the TOS tie-ins, from Mudd to the deepening of Sarek's character, to the exploration of the nature of Starfleet at the dawn of its golden age. Some of us really want this prequel to fulfill its full potential as a prequel and think that a post-NEMESIS sequel would have had a strong chance of being directionless, frivolous, been-there-done-that, TNG again but with sets that look just like the Discovery's and sleeker non-retro phasers (I urge fans who want that sequel to consider why every single Trek property and proposed property going back almost 20 years has chosen against it in favor of playing in the sandbox of earlier time periods. There are reasons--for the curiosity's sake try for one moment to consider they might be good reasons.) 

I agree on principle, as many of us do: Don't do anything that blatantly kills your imagination's ability to hold elements together in your head. But every fan will have a different standard, so it is impossible to expect the show runners to be successful even if they wanted to try to please the largest common denominator of fan opinion. They need to try to tell the best stories they can while respecting and co-opting what has come before. For me, DSC hits the sweet spot. For others, there are too many grating inconsistencies. Some don't watch the show. Some must hate-watch the show but fortunately these people don't post on Trek Core. Others are only mildly annoyed and are still able to enjoy watching. I say DSC links up very smoothly with TOS. Other's say no way. Neither of these statements are facts. They are opinions and equally valid. Where we disagree, we are all going to have to agree to disagree. Especially since DSC will probably have 4 or 6 more seasons. If 13 episodes have kicked up this much canon controversy, I just don't have it in me to keep up this discussion that long.    

Trek fans are so literal-minded, and as the franchise ages I predict we're going to have to be less literal. Trek canon is not a math equation. It is an expression of many creative minds crafting art. Here is how I watch: any given episode, you are pulled into the bubble of its story. That story is enhanced by the background knowledge you bring to it. Many DSC episodes have layers of meaning for me because I believe in its connection to previous Trek. Watching TOS episodes like Journey to Babble or Errand of Mercy or Arena or  I Mudd are similarly enhanced--I don't think about how the sets are different or how the character portrayals aren't exact, because I am in the bubble believing in the reality of what I see on screen while also accessing memories from other shows about those characters or situations. This approach works for many of us. 

Ira Behr summed up what I am trying to say in a quote about why they kept recasting Ziyal:  "From then on, I always wanted to have the opportunity to just play with the audience's minds. Because it really doesn't matter on a certain level. And so, for various reasons, we changed the part once, and then we had to change the part again." Smiling, Behr continued, "[In an ideal world,] I would have changed the role of Ziyal every single time – just to keep reminding the audience that this is all a construct."

  From a literal perspective, it's absurd to accept that all the different Ziyals were the same character; or that the Continues characters or Kelvin characters are the same as their TOS counterparts; or that all the Sareks are the same; or that the DISCO and the 1701 are in the same fleet; or that the Klingon versions are the same species, etc. But they can all be the same, because when you are in the bubble all that matters is the story you chose to let into your imagination. 

I don't want to beat a dead horse on this, but I talked about this in one of the topics about DSC. I agree there is almost a spectrum of fans that have their own personal limits on what to accept and what not to. Some fans are grossly unreasonable and the slightest change is deemed a "betrayal" of Star Trek. However, on the other side of that spectrum, are fans that accept anything that comes from these writers even at the cost of what has been established. If some are the point where it is all being rationalized away as "a parallel time line" or saying that it is better to take what came before and making it fit with DSC (rather than DSC making itself fit with canon) - then the show is not in a good place.

As for the comment about Ziyal - that is not the same thing at all. It's not absurd to accept they are the same character because they ARE the same character. I don't care if actors change because I am not so grossly unreasonable that I would say it ruins Ziyal. The character has not changed in the slightest in terms of her history, her personality, her current story. The loos are different but I understand that's because a new person took over the role. The same way I understand that Karl Urban is playing McCoy - despite the fact he looks nothing like DeForest Kelly. I am fine with that because A) everything else is the same and B) because I am fully away that he an actor playing a role ....

The appeal to use our imagination misses the point. I'm using my imagination when I watch a universe with pointed-eared aliens and warp drives. Even the writers don't want us to take the "imagination" approach by their constant reassurance that this takes place in the same universe and that it will all connect at some undisclosed point in the future. So they're even acknowledging that this is disconnected to what came before and they will, for whatever reason, have to clean it all up. My point is this: if thy wanted to just do whatever they wanted. Fine. No reason to say this is all the same timeline. Just say they are going full circle and like TOS, will just make an episodic show and do what they want. Done. Problem solved.

22 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

It is an absurd standard that Trek's writers must limit their stories to having such small in-universe impact that fans can be comfortable with never having heard of it before. The desire of some fans for this standard to be upheld is a strong emotional reaction that is fed by their fear. We all fear that a pack of hot shot Hollywood producers will buy our beloved toy from CBS/Paramount and smash it, ruin it beyond recognition. We also fear that culture is moving on from us, chasing other (younger) audiences. This is not an irrational fear. But DSC and its producers have proven they are not deserving of that fear. They have honored so many important and delicate aspects of Trek. They are enriching and strengthening canon while also building on it. We are so lucky to have them. My hope is that after DSC season 1 is over and we've all had some weeks or months to reflect, the "not my star trek" crowd will come to trust the DSC team and put their fears to bed.           

I don't see how this is an "absurd standard" - if writers want to get their hands on a popular franchise with an established history, but want to write a chunk of history that is not explored - then they should look to what is established already. To make it connect. Especially since these people bang on and on about how this is meant to be in the same universe/same time line as the TOS/TNG-era. I can't believe that this is being deemed unreasonable ....

I can only speak for myself .... but this has nothing to do with any type of "fear". It simply is a desire to see continuity. Not rigid continuity (ex. Tuvok is a lieutenant commander, but in ONE scene, in one episode he had lieutenant pips on his neck). I mean - important aspects that have been deemed part of Trek lore. If they have no desire to follow said continuity - then they should simply say Trek no longer has any type of canon and is now a "Black Mirror" type show. Random episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 11:58 PM, scenario said:

The only thing that annoys me is a major war that seems to be forgotten about. I'm willing to give the writers a chance to clear it up. If they don't it will annoy me but it really won't stop me from enjoying the show. Every long running Science Fiction tv shows, movies or books have canon problems. The more complicated and realistic you try to make the world, the more likely you're going to have canon problems. If the show's good enough, I'll ignore them. 

One way to think about this. If CBS set their new Trek show 10-15 years post DS9/VOY, in what ways would it have to be different in order to reflect the Dominion War, which was a more significant war than we are seeing on DSC now? Would the aftereffects of the war be some much that you just could not imagine a series not addressing it? I don't think so. I think you could have a TNG style show set post DS9 and not have to address the war at all. Not saying you would not, since the writers would be fully able to pull stories from the DS9 era. But if not, the fans would not be placed in a position to say "This universe makes no sense anymore!" 

A lot of things clearly happened in Federation history that was never mentioned in TOS. And especially since the 1701 spent most of its mission exploring on the far edges of Federation space, DSC writers have a lot of leeway to fill in gaps with their own stories. So long as they don't do things that simply could not be explained, like blowing up Earth or Vulcan, or killing Pike, things like that are red lines for me. But they don't need to get anywhere near crossing them to tell good stories that remain true to canon.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 9:09 AM, Sehlat Vie said:

Beg to differ, but Kirk would’ve mentioned a widespread Klingon occupation of the Federation in “Errand of Mercy.”  Yet he and Kor seemed to gripe only about strangling trade and border disputes.   Kirk says, “They’ve (Klingons) boasted that they’ll take over half the galaxy” instead of “Ten years ago, they occupied our Federation and killed thousands of us!”  

Slamming the Klingons for ‘boasting' is not quite as much of a ‘gotcha’ moment as a mention of them actually occupying Federation territory.  Kirk WOULD’VE mentioned it.  It's against human nature not to carry a major grudge against a war/occupation that took the Klingons so deep into Federation territory like that.  That’d be a bit like Russia and the US entering into new weapons negotiations without mentioning past decades of Cold War history.  

Errand Of Mercy was implicit (if not explicit) that all-out war between Earth and the Klingons had NOT happened yet; hence it being prevented by the Organians in the first place.  With the talk of border disputes and trade issues, it was clear (at least to me) that Errand of Mercy was a metaphor for the Cold War; a war that never saw Russians/Americans occupying each others’ countries.

Changing the nature of the Klingon/Federation cold war of the 23rd century retroactively changes all of ST’s previous cold war metaphors, including STVI, Errand of Mercy, etc.   

However, in my head canon, DSC is an alternate universe anyway, so it’s all good. ;)  

But it would’ve worked a lot better if set post-VGR.  

I'm almost to Errand of Mercy on my TOS rewatch (damn lot of episodes in season 1), so I concede your point. However, you're really arguing about Kirk's semantics. It's a good point to argue. Because Kirk's implication is all we have to go on. (This makes me think: So much of Trek canon probably rests on actors inflections of certain lines of dialogue, which fans have thought about so much we've carved the lines on stone tablets in our head canon.) 

I will have to watch the episode, but one possible reading I will take is that Kirk was speaking about the present political situation. Wars are dynamic. We don't talk the same way today about Afghanastan or Iraq or Syria or Russia as we did in 2008. Now if Kirk or Kor literally said "Our peoples have never fought against one another in a battle" that would be a pretty clean cut canon violation. I think we are just talking about implications, vague feelings about how things played out in the history. I am not willing to eject DSC from my TOS canon over that. I enjoy the idea of them being the same universe. That's my preference and I don't force it on others. Does that mean that Errand of Mercy might have a few wrinkles? Sure, but I can live with that. Especially since other aspects of Trek history, particularly Trek VI, take on so much more depth of meaning.   

Something I have been wondering about your parallel universe head canon: in your version of the Trekverse, do TOS stories happen in the near-future DSC universe?  

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 9:23 PM, The Founder said:

I don't see how this is an "absurd standard" - if writers want to get their hands on a popular franchise with an established history, but want to write a chunk of history that is not explored - then they should look to what is established already. To make it connect. Especially since these people bang on and on about how this is meant to be in the same universe/same time line as the TOS/TNG-era. I can't believe that this is being deemed unreasonable ....

I can only speak for myself .... but this has nothing to do with any type of "fear". It simply is a desire to see continuity. Not rigid continuity (ex. Tuvok is a lieutenant commander, but in ONE scene, in one episode he had lieutenant pips on his neck). I mean - important aspects that have been deemed part of Trek lore. If they have no desire to follow said continuity - then they should simply say Trek no longer has any type of canon and is now a "Black Mirror" type show. Random episodes.

As I said somewhere, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree. Though I have enjoyed taking the time to articulate the way I view canon. Maybe it's my English Major and writer background that makes it easier for me to not be so literal with canon. Don't get me wrong, maintaining canon is essential to Trek. Without it, Trek becomes "random" like you said, a place where anything can happen so everything has less value. This is why I don't care for the alternate universe fix, and prefer to think of DSC as the Prime timeline. But I don't think telling a big story in Trek's past that was not mentioned in Trek series that predate it being written and filmed by definition breaks canon. My canon is more flexible than that. And to argue that writers of DSC should only concern themselves with Kodos and Garth Axanar and other pieces of established canon, it's just way too limiting. There SHOULD be limits. We all just draw the line in a different place.   

The point of the Behr quote isn't about changing actors. He's telling us to lighten up, to not be so rigid in our interpretations of the sacred texts. To be open to the artistry behind the screen (this is a man who wanted to turn all of Trek canon into the imaginings of a Harlem Renaissance sci-fi pulp magazine writer). That's where I'm comming from, and so to me DSC is not just a great show, it's a great prequel.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Justin Snead said:

One way to think about this. If CBS set their new Trek show 10-15 years post DS9/VOY, in what ways would it have to be different in order to reflect the Dominion War, which was a more significant war than we are seeing on DSC now? Would the aftereffects of the war be some much that you just could not imagine a series not addressing it? I don't think so. I think you could have a TNG style show set post DS9 and not have to address the war at all. Not saying you would not, since the writers would be fully able to pull stories from the DS9 era. But if not, the fans would not be placed in a position to say "This universe makes no sense anymore!" 

A lot of things clearly happened in Federation history that was never mentioned in TOS. And especially since the 1701 spent most of its mission exploring on the far edges of Federation space, DSC writers have a lot of leeway to fill in gaps with their own stories. So long as they don't do things that simply could not be explained, like blowing up Earth or Vulcan, or killing Pike, things like that are red lines for me. But they don't need to get anywhere near crossing them to tell good stories that remain true to canon.     

If Discovery was exploring and meeting new civilizations, they wouldn't need to mention the war. But if the had an episode where Dominion species showed up, it wouldn't seem right not to mention the war, especially if the entire episode was about a possible war between the Federation and the Dominion. 

There could have been a war between species not in the Federation and I wouldn't have thought anything about it. Klingon vs Romulan might not have been mentioned. 

Bottom line, I've reached the point that I have decided that I like the show and that my annoyance at a war just kind of appearing is not stopping my enjoyment of it. I still think of it as an alternate universe which doesn't affect my enjoyment of it at all. If they can figure out a way to tone the war down in the next episode so that it wasn't quite as big, it would make it easier to accept it in the prime timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Something I have been wondering about your parallel universe head canon: in your version of the Trekverse, do TOS stories happen in the near-future DSC universe?  

In some similar-but-different way, perhaps.

Kind of like the Kelvinverse IDW graphic novels; for a while, they were adapting TOS episodes into the Kelvin timeline.   They did KT versions of “Where No Man...”  “Galileo Seven” “Return of the Archons” and even a very loose version of “Trouble With Tribbles.”   Roberto Orci had stated that those books were canonical to the KT movies, so I imagine DSC having some altered-but-familiar versions of the TOS stories as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

In some similar-but-different way, perhaps.

Kind of like the Kelvinverse IDW graphic novels; for a while, they were adapting TOS episodes into the Kelvin timeline.   They did KT versions of “Where No Man...”  “Galileo Seven” “Return of the Archons” and even a very loose version of “Trouble With Tribbles.”   Roberto Orci had stated that those books were canonical to the KT movies, so I imagine DSC having some altered-but-familiar versions of the TOS stories as well. 

 

And when you watch TOS, is there a wall in your head canon that separates all events depicted in DSC from the TOS stories? Or is the wall permeable. Your Prime timeline has the DSC elements that fit but you weed out those that don't? Or do you just try not to think about it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Justin Snead said:

And when you watch TOS, is there a wall in your head canon that separates all events depicted in DSC from the TOS stories? Or is the wall permeable. Your Prime timeline has the DSC elements that fit but you weed out those that don't? Or do you just try not to think about it?  

I let the stories lead, and I try not to get too far ahead of them.  I don’t really imagine what TOS events happened (or how they might’ve happened) in DSC’s universe; I just wait and see which of those events will have relevance (such as the battle of Donatu V, mentioned both in DSC and “Trouble with Tribbles”).  But clearly DSC’s universe is NOT the prime timeline of TOS.  The clothes, the technology, the Klingons, etc are all just too radically reimagined to somehow magically align in 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I let the stories lead, and I try not to get too far ahead of them.  I don’t really imagine what TOS events happened (or how they might’ve happened) in DSC’s universe; I just wait and see which of those events will have relevance (such as the battle of Donatu V, mentioned both in DSC and “Trouble with Tribbles”).  But clearly DSC’s universe is NOT the prime timeline of TOS.  The clothes, the technology, the Klingons, etc are all just too radically reimagined to somehow magically align in 10 years.

If they do ever align, it's only going to be in the most elementary ways.

The sheer number of people who believe 1966 should be recreated in exacting detail boggles the mind.

If they did it, those same people would hate it in a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

In some similar-but-different way, perhaps.

Kind of like the Kelvinverse IDW graphic novels; for a while, they were adapting TOS episodes into the Kelvin timeline.   They did KT versions of “Where No Man...”  “Galileo Seven” “Return of the Archons” and even a very loose version of “Trouble With Tribbles.”   Roberto Orci had stated that those books were canonical to the KT movies, so I imagine DSC having some altered-but-familiar versions of the TOS stories as well. 

 

When I started watching TOS on my local channel in the early 1970's the episodes were 52 minutes long. By the time TOS stopped showing on my local station in the late 1970's, the episodes were 35 minutes long. Maybe the 52 minute long shows were the original timeline and the 35 minute episodes were in the Discovery timeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

As I said somewhere, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree. Though I have enjoyed taking the time to articulate the way I view canon. Maybe it's my English Major and writer background that makes it easier for me to not be so literal with canon. Don't get me wrong, maintaining canon is essential to Trek. Without it, Trek becomes "random" like you said, a place where anything can happen so everything has less value. This is why I don't care for the alternate universe fix, and prefer to think of DSC as the Prime timeline. But I don't think telling a big story in Trek's past that was not mentioned in Trek series that predate it being written and filmed by definition breaks canon. My canon is more flexible than that. And to argue that writers of DSC should only concern themselves with Kodos and Garth Axanar and other pieces of established canon, it's just way too limiting. There SHOULD be limits. We all just draw the line in a different place.   

The point of the Behr quote isn't about changing actors. He's telling us to lighten up, to not be so rigid in our interpretations of the sacred texts. To be open to the artistry behind the screen (this is a man who wanted to turn all of Trek canon into the imaginings of a Harlem Renaissance sci-fi pulp magazine writer). That's where I'm comming from, and so to me DSC is not just a great show, it's a great prequel.    

 

Ultimately - I agree that we have different "limits". And that is ok. I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" to like this show. I too can stretch my imagination (up to a point). After all, I love DS9 - the show that "re-imagined" Trills radically from TNG.

However, DSC has gone far beyond any limits of making the show link up to a prime universe. I'm not a fan of saying it's an alternate universe or time line unless the story says so. However, it is impossible to believe this will lead up to TNG/DS9/VOY. Hell, I find it hard to believe it will lead up to even TOS...

They really should just say this is a reboot.

I understood Behr's point. ;) Like I said, I wasn't strict with DS9 changes. I understand fully that this an art form to a degree and requires less rigid interpretations. But again - I am not calling for that with DSC. I am asking for what they sold this product as before it aired - prime universe ten years before The Cage.

Once thing I will say to your credit - a lot of you know TOS better than I do. So I am unfamiliar if DSC has cross the lines with the Klingon war. Honestly, from what little I know of TOS, I understood it as a war did occur with the Klingons. Picard (before Enterprise screwed this up) even said that first contact with the Klingons was disastrous and led to DECADES of war with the Klingons. My understanding was that it wasn't "skirmishes" and a "cold war" until Kirk's era. Even Axanar (I know - not canon) depicted a brutal, devastating war with the Klingons.

But I feel we're kind of going in circles on this topic .... so as you said - agree to disagree.

5 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

The sheer number of people who believe 1966 should be recreated in exacting detail boggles the mind.

If they did it, those same people would hate it in a month.

I find this interesting because in all the forums or comment sections I've read - I don't think I've read anyone advocating for it to look like the 1960s Star Trek in terms of production values. The average person is asking for what Abrams' Trek did with production values. It is what I am asking for as well.

The top picture is an "updated" version of the below picture.

6520830a3ae97c4ff6ebce7bcb92b574d2fa49e2

71f36e388283e5967a55698ff3baa18d555a22be

Even if I never saw the new Abrams' Star Trek movies - I could easily tell they are meant to be a younger version of the second picture. The uniforms are similar but "updated" with better production values. I can tell this is meant to be a modern telling of the 1960s version.

However, if someone showed me this picture with no context:

war-faith-diversity-star-trek-discovery-

There is no way in hell that I could figure out this is Star Trek (Prime time line) and a prequel at that. These uniforms match up with Star Trek: Enterprise uniforms more than TOS. That wouldn't be an issue if this was taking place ten years AFTER ENT rather then ten years BEFORE TOS. Don't even get me started on the technology that is decades more advanced than the Enterprise E.

I don't think anyone is asking for TOS as it perfectly was. (outside of the fan film fans) .... If they wanted to make a Star Trek that is aligned with the Prime time line then what is the point of all these (pointless) changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the Trekmovie writers: "On the other hand, the Starfleet shown in The Original Series seemed to be significantly smaller and less advanced than that in Discovery. A depleted Federation rebuilding after a devastating war would quite neatly deal with that." 

For me, I feel like we saw so little of the Federation and/or Starfleet on TOS that there is a lot of potential for the kind of stories DSC is telling. Im just about done with my rewatch of season 1 and there is a lot of emphasis on the idea that the 1701 is exploring the far edges of explored space.  

9 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

But clearly DSC’s universe is NOT the prime timeline of TOS.  The clothes, the technology, the Klingons, etc are all just too radically reimagined to somehow magically align in 10 years.

In your head canon. Not mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Founder said:

what is the point of all these (pointless) changes?

There's the rub! The POINT is allowing new creative energy to flow. If the show runners set a mandate that there must be perfect, slavish alignment to creative decisions that were made in 1964(!), that line of thinking must necessarily affect everything and not just the uniforms. If you're the show-runner and you actually believe (as Abrams apparently did), if you just give the fans the same uniforms they won't eat us alive, then you are going down a dangerous road. Too many potentially great stories will be tossed out because "Oh, Kirk would definitely mentioned THAT in that one episode!" The costume designer, Gersha Phillips, on DSC is a very innovative person and has been getting some well deserved online promotion for her good work. Her mirror universe costumes are excellent, inspired by "Mirror, Mirror" but she was not told by her boss that she can only create costumes that exactly match that episode. Good. The daggers are the same and the gold is there, but otherwise let's see something new. Same with the regular uniforms. There are so many in-universe explanations. 1) DSC will probably have TOS style uniforms by the end. 2) There is a familiar feel connecting the DSC and the film era uniforms. 3) During the TNG-DS9 years, Starfleet had at least two different styles of uniforms. 4) Maybe the TOS uniforms were the casual wear era of Starfleet? 5) The clothes are JUST NOT THAT important.         

In my view, the show runners have found a perfect balance of charting new creative storytelling and visual imagery, while respecting what came before. But that is just me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Founder said:

Ultimately - I agree that we have different "limits". And that is ok. I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" to like this show. I too can stretch my imagination (up to a point). After all, I love DS9 - the show that "re-imagined" Trills radically from TNG.

However, DSC has gone far beyond any limits of making the show link up to a prime universe. I'm not a fan of saying it's an alternate universe or time line unless the story says so. However, it is impossible to believe this will lead up to TNG/DS9/VOY. Hell, I find it hard to believe it will lead up to even TOS...

They really should just say this is a reboot.

I understood Behr's point. ;) Like I said, I wasn't strict with DS9 changes. I understand fully that this an art form to a degree and requires less rigid interpretations. But again - I am not calling for that with DSC. I am asking for what they sold this product as before it aired - prime universe ten years before The Cage.

Once thing I will say to your credit - a lot of you know TOS better than I do. So I am unfamiliar if DSC has cross the lines with the Klingon war. Honestly, from what little I know of TOS, I understood it as a war did occur with the Klingons. Picard (before Enterprise screwed this up) even said that first contact with the Klingons was disastrous and led to DECADES of war with the Klingons. My understanding was that it wasn't "skirmishes" and a "cold war" until Kirk's era. Even Axanar (I know - not canon) depicted a brutal, devastating war with the Klingons.

But I feel we're kind of going in circles on this topic .... so as you said - agree to disagree.

I find this interesting because in all the forums or comment sections I've read - I don't think I've read anyone advocating for it to look like the 1960s Star Trek in terms of production values. The average person is asking for what Abrams' Trek did with production values. It is what I am asking for as well.

The top picture is an "updated" version of the below picture.

6520830a3ae97c4ff6ebce7bcb92b574d2fa49e2

71f36e388283e5967a55698ff3baa18d555a22be

Even if I never saw the new Abrams' Star Trek movies - I could easily tell they are meant to be a younger version of the second picture. The uniforms are similar but "updated" with better production values. I can tell this is meant to be a modern telling of the 1960s version.

However, if someone showed me this picture with no context:

war-faith-diversity-star-trek-discovery-

There is no way in hell that I could figure out this is Star Trek (Prime time line) and a prequel at that. These uniforms match up with Star Trek: Enterprise uniforms more than TOS. That wouldn't be an issue if this was taking place ten years AFTER ENT rather then ten years BEFORE TOS. Don't even get me started on the technology that is decades more advanced than the Enterprise E.

I don't think anyone is asking for TOS as it perfectly was. (outside of the fan film fans) .... If they wanted to make a Star Trek that is aligned with the Prime time line then what is the point of all these (pointless) changes?

The uniforms bother me the least. Go google uniforms of the U.S. Navy (or any other country with a navy). The first page had a half a dozen different types of uniforms. The Enterprise and the Discovery are different type ships on different type missions. It's not unreasonable that they have different type uniforms. Ships built to be long distance explorer/military/science vessels have one type of uniform but experimental science vessels have a different one. It's like the navy vs the coast guard or the special forces vs a regular sailor but both under Starfleet Command. 

Look at the pictures for the British army. At any one time they had lots of different type uniforms. Desert uniforms were greyish. Jungle uniforms were greenish. The uniforms changed because of its purpose. 

The technology is annoying but I think that's more a problem of today's technology rather than Trek technology. TOS technology looked really advanced in a time when there were no cell phones, computers took up a whole room and cost $10,000 a month to rent, and things like touch screens weren't even thought of yet. The tech difference between 1967 and 2018 is bigger than the tech difference between Enterprise and Voyager. There really is no way to do it right. 

I read a lot of science fiction. Every once in a while, I pull out a book written in the fifties. It's pretty common to read something like this set on a spaceship 300 years in the future, "Oh darn, a vacuum tube just blew out. Go replace it Iernfmei." Most people much younger then me don't even remember vacuum tubes. They stopped using them when I was a kid. The stories were sometimes pretty good but if you made a movie and showed an actual vacuum tube, people would laugh.  

Edited by scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, scenario said:

The uniforms bother me the least. Go google uniforms of the U.S. Navy (or any other country with a navy). The first page had a half a dozen different types of uniforms. The Enterprise and the Discovery are different type ships on different type missions. It's not unreasonable that they have different type uniforms. Ships built to be long distance explorer/military/science vessels have one type of uniform but experimental science vessels have a different one. It's like the navy vs the coast guard or the special forces vs a regular sailor but both under Starfleet Command. 

Look at the pictures for the British army. At any one time they had lots of different type uniforms. Desert uniforms were greyish. Jungle uniforms were greenish. The uniforms changed because of its purpose. 

The technology is annoying but I think that's more a problem of today's technology rather than Trek technology. TOS technology looked really advanced in a time when there were no cell phones, computers took up a whole room and cost $10,000 a month to rent, and things like touch screens weren't even thought of yet. The tech difference between 1967 and 2018 is bigger than the tech difference between Enterprise and Voyager. There really is no way to do it right. 

I read a lot of science fiction. Every once in a while, I pull out a book written in the fifties. It's pretty common to read something like this set on a spaceship 300 years in the future, "Oh darn, a vacuum tube just blew out. Go replace it Iernfmei." Most people much younger then me don't even remember vacuum tubes. They stopped using them when I was a kid. The stories were sometimes pretty good but if you made a movie and showed an actual vacuum tube, people would laugh.  

I remember playing with vacuum tubes when I was a kid. In the 90s. I had a lab in my basement where I pretended I was a Starfleet officer or Doc Brown depending on my mood. And I love reading old sci-fi, especially from the 1800s.

Anyway, something Ive been meaning to drop since I recently watched "Return of the Archons". There was hologram technology used in TOS, just not by Starfleet. 

image.thumb.png.5d3bfaff796caaac6204b97feb097e3c.png 

And since we're talking about clothes. It makes total sense that these aliens dress just like early to mid 19th Century humans, with a wardrobe that would work with a 1960s Western movie set. image.thumb.png.da6af3c93981a4b52dec80a57861a086.png

Edited by Justin Snead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Here is one of the Trekmovie writers: "On the other hand, the Starfleet shown in The Original Series seemed to be significantly smaller and less advanced than that in Discovery. A depleted Federation rebuilding after a devastating war would quite neatly deal with that." 

For me, I feel like we saw so little of the Federation and/or Starfleet on TOS that there is a lot of potential for the kind of stories DSC is telling. Im just about done with my rewatch of season 1 and there is a lot of emphasis on the idea that the 1701 is exploring the far edges of explored space.  

In your head canon. Not mine. 

And if you can?  Hey, more power to you.

Personally, I think trying to reconcile a push button, knob-dial analog tech ‘future’ of 1966 with the far sleeker ‘pre-future’ of 2018’s DSC is not possible.  Not to mention that Vulcan ambassador Sarek went from a Starfleet-disapproving diplomat to a mind-meld interrogating Starfleet operative (?!?).   He’s more Tuvok than Sarek.

But if you’re imagination is more up to the challenge than mine, I say go for it.

For me, it’s just far easier to accept that it’s another reality than the EXACT same one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this