Star Trek: All of Em

[Powerboy]

"Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" practically canonizes that (although, seeing how the split was part of the Temporal Cold War, which was prevented in ENT and all the TOS stories that that episode was retconning use the correct dates, that doesn't bode well for SNW's continuing to exist, much less anyone who's life depends on the changes). Although, seeing how much modern Trek (except for Lower Decks) breaks canon but depends on the old shows as backstory, I'm not sure if there's much point to worrying about it; if the Powers That Be don't care about the franchise's internal consistency, why should I?

We then have to take "Enterprise" and all of the prequel shows as part of an alternate reality. Then again, the way Star Trek has so much time travel, and plays fast and loose with how time travel works, we could have had countless divergent realities. Apparently, the Kelvin timeline did not prevent the original reality from still existing since "Picard" is supposed to be in the original reality. Or, maybe, it is an alternate reality and that explains the glaring contradictions.

At any rate, once you have time travel in the mix, judging whether something is original or altered is impossible and moot. So, yes, Star Trek was altered from a 1960s concept of what the future will be to a 2020s concept, neither being remotely what the future will really be.

[Gray Lensman]

I may be wrong here but I thought that, during the run of TOS, the Enterprise was one of the twelve Constitution classes but not the flagship, that it became the flagship as a result of its historic five year mission.

The Enterprise wasn't originally intended to be the Federation's flagship - that didn't come about until TNG. At the time she was just meant to be one of many Starfleet ships on deep range exploratory missions.

Mind you, I'm okay with an alternate reality show changing that for its requirements.

I still think the Enterprise (and all of her class) had the ability to operate as flagships - it's not something unique to one ship in the U.S. Navy, and it makes sense that it also wouldn't be that way in Starfleet. Again going back to WWII, Admiral Spruance used a heavy cruiser as his flagship rather than any of the battleships or carriers (at least until it was sunk coming back from a solo mission). Although at that time Carriers were seen as support ships (at least when being built), so maybe they weren't built with flag facilites, or at least not very good ones.

Mind you, I'm just bringing this up to suggest that having such facilities wouldn't be out of character for the Enterprise to have on the show.

[thwhtGuardian]

We then have to take "Enterprise" and all of the prequel shows as part of an alternate reality. Then again, the way Star Trek has so much time travel, and plays fast and loose with how time travel works, we could have had countless divergent realities. Apparently, the Kelvin timeline did not prevent the original reality from still existing since "Picard" is supposed to be in the original reality. Or, maybe, it is an alternate reality and that explains the glaring contradictions.

At any rate, once you have time travel in the mix, judging whether something is original or altered is impossible and moot. So, yes, Star Trek was altered from a 1960s concept of what the future will be to a 2020s concept, neither being remotely what the future will really be.

The bolded is the true reasoning behind the changes, and all you have to do is imagine that if the TOS were made today the ships, technology, costuming and make up would look just like Discovery and Strange New Worlds. It's a fictional television show, and there's no real reason to be beholden to designs and technology from 60 years ago.

[Powerboy]

The bolded is the true reasoning behind the changes, and all you have to do is imagine that if the TOS were made today the ships, technology, costuming and make up would look just like Discovery and Strange New Worlds. It's a fictional television show, and there's no real reason to be beholden to designs and technology from 60 years ago.

Out of curiosity, what did you think of "Star Trek Continues"?

It's not a trick question. I know it was preaching to the choir and couldn't work for a large modern audience. But I note that almost everyone I've met in real life who has seen it says it's canon as far as they are concerned, regardless of what Paramount says, while arguing that the prequels are clearly alternate realities.

[thwhtGuardian]

Out of curiosity, what did you think of "Star Trek Continues"?

It's not a trick question. I know it was preaching to the choir and couldn't work for a large modern audience. But I note that almost everyone I've met in real life who has seen it says it's canon as far as they are concerned, regardless of what Paramount says, while arguing that the prequels are clearly alternate realities.

Some of the stories were pretty solid, I especially liked seeing Apollo return, but more often than not the level of overacting(especially the guy who played Kirk) and poor effects almost brought it into camp territory. It was definitely a well done fan production and not a bad way to give fans more closure to the original five year mission than the TOS gave us but as a blueprint for an actual show it's not something I'd enjoy seeing although I liked it more than New Voyages despite the fact that I think New Voyages had better effects and more original series actor involvement.

[WebLurker]

We then have to take "Enterprise" and all of the prequel shows as part of an alternate reality.

Maybe all the post Discovery shows (Strange New Worlds is a spinoff of that show, it ties into Lower Decks, and Picard introduced the retcon that SNW tried to codify), but Enterprise is slotted pretty well in the original continuity (heck, "Regeneration" alone proves that it has to be, given how it creates a predestination paradox with all the Next Generation Borg stories). Either way, it was post-DSC that the revisionist take on the franchise became the norm.

Then again, the way Star Trek has so much time travel, and plays fast and loose with how time travel works, we could have had countless divergent realities. Apparently, the Kelvin timeline did not prevent the original reality from still existing since "Picard" is supposed to be in the original reality. Or, maybe, it is an alternate reality and that explains the glaring contradictions.

At any rate, once you have time travel in the mix, judging whether something is original or altered is impossible and moot. So, yes, Star Trek was altered from a 1960s concept of what the future will be to a 2020s concept, neither being remotely what the future will really be.

I think the major difference is that previously, time travel stories either ended with all the changes fixed, as loop, or only the unset future was changed, so the timeline as we knew it more or less remained intact. "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" actively "erased" pre-existing stories (and for no real reason, either).

[ChrisIII]

I remember when Enterprise came out, there was sort of fanon that the ships of the era were supposed to be Daedulus class ships, similar to the Constitution class but with a more tube-shaped hull and a sphere instead of a saucer. Sisko has a model of one in Deep Space Nine; the Horizon, possibly the ship that messed up Sigma Iota (Or another ship with a similar name). The design was based on an early Jeffries design for the Enterprise/Yorktown.

The model was included in the Star Trek chronology book as well, and inspired the look of the Olympic class which showed up in All Good Things (But seen briefly in DS9 and Lower Decks so it's not just from an alternate future).

The EU explanation I think is that the ship is actually a precursor to the NX-01 and outdated, but is pressed back into service during the Romulan war explaining why it doesn't appear in Enterprise.

[thwhtGuardian]

Maybe all the post Discovery shows (Strange New Worlds is a spinoff of that show, it ties into Lower Decks, and Picard introduced the retcon that SNW tried to codify), but Enterprise is slotted pretty well in the original continuity (heck, "Regeneration" alone proves that it has to be, given how it creates a predestination paradox with all the Next Generation Borg stories). Either way, it was post-DSC that the revisionist take on the franchise became the norm.



I think the major difference is that previously, time travel stories either ended with all the changes fixed, as loop, or only the unset future was changed, so the timeline as we knew it more or less remained intact. "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" actively "erased" pre-existing stories (and for no real reason, either).

How did it erase stories? All it did was provide an in universe reason for moving the Eugenics Wars further into the future and there's nothing wrong with that.

When they made Space Seed they had no idea that people would even be aware of Star Trek thirty years from its airing so they weren't thinking too hard about their fictional time line. They used 1990's not because they thought there would be a war like they described but rather because the 1990's were far enough away for the audience of the time to seem suitably futuristic but close enough to their present that it gave it a sense of reality.

Personally, I never needed an in universe handwave for why Spock's statement of the date was wrong, I fully understood that the date was just another way of saying, "the not too distant future for you folks at home!" but if you're going to give a reason then the timey whimey explanation by the Romulan agent here was decent enough.

[BeastieRunner]

Story > continuity.

It's kind of silly to hamstring a great story because one has to strictly adhere to a timeline that works to the detriment of said fiction.

Trying to write even D-level canon characters can be a task in and of itself due to having to adhere to continuity. Sometimes it's okay to set it aside for the sake of a good yarn. Then there's the evil RETCON beast... muahahaha!!!

The aesthetics debate is an entirely different issue IMHO.

I grew up on artist changes in comics, 4 different Bonds, etc.

Those things don't really bother me but I could see where that would stick in the craw of some people.

[Powerboy]

How did it erase stories? All it did was provide an in universe reason for moving the Eugenics Wars further into the future and there's nothing wrong with that.

When they made Space Seed they had no idea that people would even be aware of Star Trek thirty years from its airing so they weren't thinking too hard about their fictional time line. They used 1990's not because they thought there would be a war like they described but rather because the 1990's were far enough away for the audience of the time to seem suitably futuristic but close enough to their present that it gave it a sense of reality.

Personally, I never needed an in universe handwave for why Spock's statement of the date was wrong, I fully understood that the date was just another way of saying, "the not too distant future for you folks at home!" but if you're going to give a reason then the timey whimey explanation by the Romulan agent here was decent enough.

Supposedly, Carey Wilbur and Gene L. Coon wanted to place it a hundred years in the future because the original premise was "selective breeding, not "genetic engineering" and, either way, they didn't think thirty years was enough to bring about that kind of selective breeding, plus the cryogenic freeze. But there was a social commentary reason that Gene Roddenberry wanted it in the 1990s. He wanted Khan to have been born in the 1960s so that his warlike, aggressive attitude would be a result of the society who grew up in, which was the society of the present at the time the story was done.

I would imagine that's part of the reason the current people want his childhood to be now, so that he's a product of the society of our times, plus maintaining a loose pretense that Star Trek is our future.

[Powerboy]

Story > continuity.

It's kind of silly to hamstring a great story because one has to strictly adhere to a timeline that works to the detriment of said fiction.

Trying to write even D-level canon characters can be a task in and of itself due to having to adhere to continuity. Sometimes it's okay to set it aside for the sake of a good yarn. Then there's the evil RETCON beast... muahahaha!!!

The aesthetics debate is an entirely different issue IMHO.

I grew up on artist changes in comics, 4 different Bonds, etc.

Those things don't really bother me but I could see where that would stick in the craw of some people.

I think there's also a nostalgia factor when you start getting older. You can feel a bit like you want people to know and respect what you grew up on. It's silly because, for the most part, with TOS, I think they do. They respect it for doing the best they could with the budget and technology they had and setting the whole premise. BUT, when I was a kid, the Enterprise of TOS seemed futuristic, not nostalgic, not the outdated tech it feels like now.

There's that comic strip about Kirk and Spock beaming down to the world of 2022 or thereabouts with their communicators and people walking up and saying, "Wow! Where did you get those cool old phones? Do they really do nothing but allow you to make calls?", That is so awesomely retro!" In the same way, you don't have "computer banks" with what looks old ere movie reels, which, incidentally, according to a computer expert at the time, were running in the opposite direction of what they really ran back then. You don't have the blinking light buttons because that was a 1960s concept of being futuristic but the 2020s has different ideas. Obviously, neither will prove correct but a 2020s audience will think of computer pads and such as a realistic future.

Aesthetically, I get that they have to do these things. Even so, they give frequent nods to TOS.

Socially, okay. Let's be 100% true to TOS (he said sarcastically). No women on the bridge except as coffee servers and telephone switchboard operators. In fact, women literally cannot be Captains ("Turnabout Intruder"). No non-white captains or first officers that we ever see. Let's even have Spock goading Rand about almost getting raped because, hey, that makes for a "funny" final scene. Even in the 1970s, that already was not going over so well with the general consensus that Spock would never say anything that insensitive.

So, okay, we have to change and ignore some things. So that leaves continuity like the fact that, in "Arena", it was stated clearly that they had never met or even heard of the Gorn before. But, the Gorn appeared in one episode and were never even referenced again. Not much of a reason to throw away a good, long term plat involving them since they were popular to a degree vastly out of proportion to their one appearance.

Even so, I think most of the episodes of TOS could have still happened in some way because those issues have proven to still be relevant.

[Scott Taylor]

In TOS, their communicators were way more advanced than anything we have ever seen in human society. They don't require satellites or repeaters, like our phones do. They never seem to need charging. Their range is way farther than our stuff, even with the multi-boosting we do to all of our communications. And they have an overload and explode feature, which honestly would be an instant hit these days.

But the best and most advanced thing about Star Trek is that they don't have the internet. I suspect in their history there was some kind of Butlerian Jihad that banned it due to its ability to undermine societal productivity and happiness.

[ChrisIII]

There was sort of a Dick Tracy watch communicator in TMP, but like the phaser (although that took until Trek III) and the Tricorder it was changed back to something resembling the TOS prop for the rest of the movies, although kind of more blocky and lacking the cool looking 'speaker' circle.

[Gray Lensman]

There was sort of a Dick Tracy watch communicator in TMP, but like the phaser (although that took until Trek III) and the Tricorder it was changed back to something resembling the TOS prop for the rest of the movies, although kind of more blocky and lacking the cool looking 'speaker' circle.

The watch communicator was also in Star Trek II.

[mace11]

The Definitive Ranking of all Star Trek Shows!
The Popcast