Is Star Trek: Discovery Even Actually Canon?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.พ. 2019
- ▶Watch more Trek, Actually videos at: • Trek, Actually
Credits:
This video includes footage from the following:
"Alex Kurtzman Talks 'Star Trek' Discovery canon and second season" (TrekMovie: • Alex Kurtzman Talks 'S... )
"John Eaves - Famous Concept Artist - Interview - SLC Comic Con 2013" (Wesley Productions: • John Eaves - Famous C... )
"Star Trek's John Cho Unboxes Sulu" (Vanity Fair: • Star Trek's John Cho U... )
"Star Trek: Discovery FULL Panel at San Diego Comic Con 2018" (Clevver News: • Star Trek: Discovery F... )
"Star Trek: Discovery" (CBS Television Studios)
"Batman" (Warner Bros.)
"Batman & Robin" (Warner Bros.)
▶Listen to our Trek-themed comedy podcast, The Ensign's Log:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/la...
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th... - บันเทิง
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
Just to clarify a point I make at the end of this video: when I say believing in conspiracy theories about Star Trek leaves you open to believe in more harmful ideas, I'm not saying "Discovery isn't canon" = Holocaust denial. Obviously the latter is far more consequential, far more ignorant of history, and far more morally repugnant than the former.
But the lack of critical thinking that leads you to accept a baseless and easily disprovable claim about something frivolous like Star Trek could -- POTENTIALLY -- also lead you to accept erroneous claims that are much more serious and dangerous.
Discovery conspiracy theorists like Midnight's Edge and others who are doing basically the same act present their arguments in the same way as Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, Moon landing hoaxers, JFK conspiracy theorists, and others who push paranoid false narratives. Misrepresented facts, dismissing or ignoring contradictory evidence, insinuations, unwarranted conclusions, appeals to ignorance, incitement of suspicion -- it's all there in those "Discovery isn't canon" and "Discovery is a failure" videos.
Look at how this lot is reacting to the news of Discovery's renewal for a third season today. "Discovery is a massive failure for CBS" and "Discovery has been cancelled" are two very popular narratives among these folks that have been (again) proven false. Are they admitting they were wrong? Are they saying "Guess we shouldn't have jumped to conclusions so quickly"? No. They're saying "Ha! I guess CBS just decided to double-down on its humiliating failure! How pathetic! Star Trek is truly dead!"
In other words, there is no way for reality to penetrate their delusion. No evidence, no logic will ever change their minds. That's how a conspiracy theorist thinks. That's how conspiracy theories survive. And that sort of thinking is dangerous, even if for the moment it's only occurring in relation to something silly like Star Trek.
If you can mistake paranoia and motivated reasoning for facts and credible arguments once, you can do it again. Next time it might not be over something so silly.
I don't think ME really think like genuine conspiracy theorists because I think it's a mistake to assume ME is an honest actor here (no pun intended). They know the negativity/criticism will appeal to a certain demographic and that posting inflammatory stuff will incite people to try to argue with them or correct them (which helps them as well) but of course it's also a mistake to assume that ignoring them is the solution. I think your video (sans the holocaust reference which probably wasn't helpful) is probably the most productive you can be. It addresses their output without giving them the notoriety of even just mentioning that there is some sort of channel doing this stuff would give them. Doing anything else plays into their scam.
Indeed this "Discovery isn't Trek" hysteria is more of a sideshow to the whole "Fake News" culture we are living in today.
End of the day does it really matter if the parents of a pointy eared half-alien adopted a little girl that you need to create a wild conspiracy theory to only be accepted by yourself and already share the same opinion that she isn't *truly* canon to your favorite frictional franchise.
I mean I don't care for Star Trek Nemesis...but you won't see me trying to develop an conspiracy theory which argues it isn't really a Star Trek film that is so elaborate I would make anti-vaxxers look good in comparison
"Discovery isn't canon" = Holocaust denial" I fuckin *lol'd* when I read that.
When did ME say Discovery isn't canon? I distinctly remember them saying it is canon, but it is less straightforward as to whether it is what has come to be known as prime.
Steve Shives just brilliant could not have said it better. Been a trekky for over 40 odd years. Love the new concept of Discovery as much as I loved DSN which went in a different direction the original series. Look forward also to new up coming TV series and any new movies. Don't get me wrong love Kirk and crew but adding to the storyline is always a benefit. Its entertainment at the end of the day.
I really don't get why they didn't just set Discovery far after Nemesis. That way they could redesign everything and nobody would mind.
You do not know fans then?
Hoo boy this comment aged well. Can't tell why without spoiling season 2 lol
Because the redesigns don't matter. And to sell tickets bc of nostalgia.
Season 3 is fixing this and will be set in the future.
Yes! Especially since technology is seemingly more advanced than TNG for a supposed prequel.
Can't have Spock and Pike and FAAAAAAAAN SERVICE
Everything after The Cage is obviously not canon, since it no longer features smiling Spock.
Where No Man Has Gone Before had smiling Spock.
He also smirked in Mudd's Women and Enemy Within
He could experiment with his emotions if he wanted - earlier on.
He smiled several times throughout TOS.
Then in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" we see the grave of James R. Kirk, so every mention of James T. Kirk afterwards makes those instances non-canon.
I don't care what the Second Council of Constantinople says the book of Judas is cannon.
Takes place in the right place because the creators say so: Agreed
Saying critique of continuity between series, is without merit for a franchise that has consistently shown inter-series continuity (though not without mistakes already): Not Agreed.
I enjoy the show, but I think a lot of the discussion about it 'fitting' Star Trek, comes from this line of reasoning, that now things like holographic projectors in personal quarters, 'replicator/synthesizers' in pre-TOS being readily available, and political/historical events being different from those described in later or earlier series in the same timeline. (Historical in this use to indicate fictional events from this timeline)
In order the 'make it fit' either another timeline branch would be needed to wipe things like the mycelial drive from history out, or the drive can no longer work, or lots of small things need to happen to bring them back into continuity.
For some people I think pointing at a known different timeline is an easy way of explaining these differences to themselves to 'make it fit' not out of a desire to create conspiracy theories but because they *want* it to work.
They want it to be part of a franchise they enjoy, but are struggling to with the changes presented beyond just the visual.
I think that desire has merit, beyond just accepting, 'it be that way cause it do', or because they creators say it does, though they are well within their rights to do so.
A few things:
"holographic projectors" - they are not holograms as we understand them in TNG. They aren't photonic with physical substance. They are just projections of light, which we can almost already do TODAY.
"replicator/synthesizers" - they had similar things in Enterprise. But even then, DSC was not creating matter from energy, it was rebuilding new matter from other matter stores, much like 3D Printers we have today, just more advanced.
"political/historical events being different" ... where? What historical events are different? Thus far everything historical from before that time was where it was supposed to be. "The Cage" still happened when it happened, they even directly reference it.
As for having to having to wipe things from history out in order to make things work... why? There is no rule that says they have to. There is even precedent for multiple realities in both the Mirror Universe and "Parallels" (TNG).
I just came across this video while watching Discovery for the first time and I know this comment was made 2 years ago, but I do wanna say that I agree with everything you said.
You conveyed into words what I was thinking but didn't know how to exactly say
Not to be too much of a ball buster, if you say that they have the right to make creative decisions about their own show, why do you complain about the way Voyager treated the Borg? (incidentally, I agree with your assessment there)
They have a right to make creative decisions, but I can decide whether the results of those decisions work for me. I don't think the way Voyager handled the Borg made for very good television. But I've never tried to argue that it isn't or shouldn't be considered canon. If people don't think Discovery is a very good show, that's their right as a member of the audience. I don't think it's perfect, either. But whatever else it is, it's Star Trek, and it's set in the original timeline because that's what its producers say it is.
Steve Shives
Exactly. The only thing that could change that, is if in a few year whoever is in charge of the franchise suddenly says „Discovery didn’t happen!“ we‘re gonna ignore it from now on and make a new show or movie about Spock‘s childhood where he didn’t have a sister and he’s actually the same as Nimoy Spock!
Well the Borg Queen is still a big mistake IMO, but yeah I see what you're getting. Given that, information on say the Hansens (first nothing to do with Star Fleet on their own explorers to later Borg experts WORKING for Star Fleet) and Star Fleet's knowledge of the Borg got changed during the same series itself, and that IS an issue. But yeah, drones pushing buttons is I believe always a staple since the first regular episode of the Borg (Scorpion).
@@normanbuchwald I like the Borg queen, but I think I get why others don't.
The sequence where they are assembling her and her organic head and shoulders come down into the robot body I thought was a nice visual.
I think they could have made her a little better if she was more like the avatar of the collective and less like a individual tyrant. A little less emotionally expressive perhaps.
ManateeGag because it sucked... duh. It doesn’t change the fact that they had the right to do it... because they own it.
As a full on sufferer of Disco Fever (if it's an STD it needs a catchy name), I have to say I'm really happy with this portrayal of Christopher Pike. The original pilot was good but we didn't get all that much insight into Pike's personality, and the Abrams film made him fun, though again he didn't have all that much screen time, but Discovery's actually making me _care_ about him as an awesome Trek captain. Anson Mount is nailing it! 🖖
Pike seemed a little off at the beginning of Strange New Worlds. Specially given all its backstory on Disco S2.
All around I am really really happy on how his character was explored, specially on the last 2 episodes of SNW S1.
I love it that they make an unapologetic comparison between Kirk and Pike. No regrets...
This is just like with Star Wars. It's fine to hate the sequels, but some sequel haters swear up and down that the sequels aren't canon. They swear that Disney is soon going to announce that they are wiping the sequels from canon and redoing them. They also swear that they're is a super secret legal deal in which George Lucas gets a % of the profits for Star Wars _he_ made, so Disney is therefore seeking to tarnish and discredit classic Star Wars characters like Luke so that kids will want to buy Rey toys instead of Luke toys - since Disney created Rey and they'd keep 100% of the $ and George Lucas gets nothing. Lol.
These people are _so_ gullible. They even believed George Lucas legit planned to reveal Jar Jar to be the evil mastermind Sith behind it all but that Lucas chickened out after the backlash to Jar Jar. Someone forgot to tell them that the Darth Jar Jar theory was a joke. haha
Even in your example the star wars fans are being more realistic. They're at least acknowledging that what they dislike is *currently* real.
Which if you think about it is the worst condemnation of all. Star trek fans acting LESS reasonable than star wars fans.
I used to think that Disney was going to retcon the sequels…but that was before I realised how much of a douche Disney is and have recently given up on most visual Star Wars Media.
I love how these guys have grandfathered _Enterprise_ into the "official" cannon despite it being loudly criticized at the time and being cancelled halfway through what the producers expected to be a seven year run. I think they just fundamentally don't like change.
The average fan both Loves and loathes change... they want something they do not yet "know", but in a way they have come to expect from the product... deviate either direction and they will storm your ramparts over the offense.
@@Ugly_German_Truths Chocolate icecream can come in a million varieties all wonderful. But there still has to be chocolate inside otherwise you would be right to be annoyed if bought it and got vanilla. Very few people have luxury of a pleasant job, most work hard for much too little pay and have to be very selective about what they can spend money on. Now if you buy a DVD to new show from a beloved franchise and they changed everything you have the right to be be upset. You didnt buy that DVD because you liked the actor, or the producer or the story or anything of that sort. You bought it because of the Star Trek label. Now do I think torching CBS and hanging the CEO is an appropriate response? No. But not buying anymore seasons and leaving a bad review? Well thats what reviews are for and you are supposed to be honest. People didnt come in the millions to watch the new Star Wars trilogy because they saw the trailer and just had to know how Reys story went. No they bought the tickets because of the Star Wars logo and the promise of bringing back all the old guys and being super respectful to the character. Then every character is killed off but not before behaving like shit and dissapointing an entire generation, actually almost three that grew up idolizing those characters. So yeah being pissed off is bloody well allowed and if youve got a problem with that shove youre PC crap up your ass. (Sorry I disabled the hyphon again somehow... and I dont mean to insult.)
@@Ugly_German_Truths well put. In a decades time there will be a new Star Trek for the malcontents to hate and they will be use to discovery and play down how much grieve they gave it. Happens in all fandoms these days.
@@RedSoulYo Not just play down, but full-on hypocritically claim "I never had anything bad to say about it, I supported it from the very beginning", just like the Enterprise detractors did, even just like the TNG detractors did (and they were downright HOSTILE, they just didn't have an internet to magnify their hostility)
@@Ugly_German_Truths kinda like a perfect shit you don't know it until you see it or experience it
At times like this, I take comfort in the lyrics of the MST3K Love Theme, "...repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, I should really just relax.'”
Now and forever, the best advice any fan of a franchise like Star Trek can get.
It works really well for Star Wars fans too lol
@@SteveShives So what other things are important to you so i could minimize them in such a way? Like sincerely, what things in your life do you have a strong and passionate affinity and consideration for so i can throw a 'just' its way.
@@abanana5289 Works well for any form of love and affection. Crying child wailing over a toy given to them by a family member who lives far away? Its just a fucking toy. Its not like they're dead. They can get a new one. Having a hard break up? Its just a fucking person. There are over 7.7 Billion people on the planet. They're just people. Its just a relationship. You aren't gone, you can have more. When you lack empathy and consideration for the feelings of others you can apply this to anything! Its easy! Whatever it is you love, is just a thing, and isnt fucking important. Those feelings you're having reading this? Are just that. Hell these are just words. Wtf is wrong with you people? Stop being sociopaths, for a fucking moment. Please.
@@abanana5289 That would be nice,... but unfortunately no. Where Star Trek fans bitch about things not being exactly like the original show, Star Wars fans bitch about things not being exactly like EU and forever hate Disney for de-canonizing... what was actually just fan works to begin with.
My big thing on this subject is like... if Star Trek wanted to create yet a THIRD timeline to write this new story in, they could have just DONE it, you know? Why keep it a secret? That woulda been a great promotional point for when the series released. They could been like "New timeline! ANYTHING could happen!" They coulda made that work. But they didn't, they're writing in the Prime timeline, they SAID they were writing in the Prime timeline and like... yeah, no need for deception or subterfuge.
I'm willing to bet one of the factors was fan films, and they were desperate to make sure none of them fit into recognized canon. Discovery eliminated virtually everything about Axanar, Star Trek Picard eliminates virtually everything about Renegades, and the new Pike series will likely do the same to Pacific 201.
"Star Trek is far from the first franchise to radically alter its production design without an in-universe explanation. Want to see my favourite example of this?"
My brain instantly screamed "STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE!"
As far as I'm concerned Discovery is both Canon/Prime. It's just that the look of Canon/ Prime was rebooted in 1979 to be more cinematic....or does anybody really believe everything would completely change in the roughly 3 years between the five year mission & the Vger incident.
It's funny because some people are still upset that the Klingons changed in TMP.. and yet will compare Discovery Klingons to the TMP, TNG etc ones.
Ex Astris Scientia even went "so I suppose two wrongs make a right???" on his website, yet he doesn't decry Worf as being non-canon. It seems very hypocritical to me.
Especially since that website in particular catalogues all the set and makeup changes that happen with no explanation and goes "oh well, it's production" but is EXTREMELY PISSED about Discovery's doing the same thing. He says the difference is in the magnitude but says TMP gets a pass because "they said it's a refit!", never mind how surely some space stations showed in that movie wouldn't have been changed from the TOS starbases...
@@dalekinnear9709 Discovery is Prime to me as well, you just gotta cut out TOS. If you look at it as set after Enterprise and before The Motion Picture then it generally fits in pretty nicely with what's already established. It's because TOS looks like a low budget 1960's TV show that it throws everything off. I still remember people saying that ENT looked too advanced to be set 100 years before TOS. I don't think it's possible to look less advanced than TOS.
It's like everyone forgets Enterprise was a show two.
Sure, it wasn't very good until the last season but it didn't spark the same hate that Discovery does for messing with canonical production design.
Probably has nothing to do with how diverse the cast of Discovery is even by Trek standards.
@@kaitlyn__L The Klingons in TOS didn't have ridges due to budgetary restrictions. It wasn't a creative choice. That is the difference.
This just begs the question, why didn't they set Discovery in the Kelvin timeline?
That question actually points out another absurdity in this "Prime timeline isn't really the original timeline" conspiracy theory.
As I understand it (and again, someone who knows better can correct me if I'm wrong), even though CBS owns the brand, because Paramount owns the film library, if CBS wanted to use elements that are unique to the movies in its own production, it would need permission from Paramount to do so. Which means it would actually be more difficult (though far from impossible, I'd guess) for CBS to set Discovery in the Kelvin timeline (or the "Prime timeline" if that were an off-shoot of the Kelvin films as the conspiracy theorists say).
But yeah, it's more than a little ridiculous to suggest that CBS is secretly setting the show in an off-shoot of the Kelvin timeline, because if they were willing to get whatever permissions necessary to use part of the Kelvin movies in their new series, why not just set the show in the Kelvin timeline outright?
Because those same fans that are mad that it looks different would be mad about that to.
I imagine that would make any crossovers with Enterprise crew logistically difficult, since it could be hard to get a movie star to show up on TV. Then again, maybe that's why they have to tease us so much for Spock--it's actually Zachary Quinto. /s
Obvious answer. Because the current year of Discovery predates the changes that would happen in the Kelvin timeline, so by default unless we're in a separate Worf parallel universe it is the prime timeline, just as the Mirror universe in this one is very likely the same mirror universe of Enterprise/TOS/DS9.
@Alistair Shaw Not just each series. I mean, even if every time they go back in time, they fixed everything perfectly (which they absolutely do not. Just ask Gabriel Bell.) It's still a "different timeline" even if the changes are all at the subatomic level. There's a timeline where Tasha Yar was on the Enterprise C and one where she wasn't, meaning that even if the new timeline's Enterprise C exploded in the exact same place, there is now another Denise Crosby worth of carbon atoms in the universe, plus all the elements in her equipment and uniform. Just because the differences to the timeline are imperceptible does not mean its the same. Star trek has a number of timelines equal to the number of times people have time traveled, plus 1. And since Star Fleet bothers with a Temporal Prime Directive, we know this isn't something that only happens to the ships on the series.
There, now literally every plot hole, continuity error, or inconsistency is explained forever. The timeline is just constantly in flux. That's why Data's cat keeps changing. I don't know about you guys, but I feel a lot better.
Is it sad that the fact the changes made in Discovery were creative and not legal in conception actually makes me feel worse about the show?
No feel the same.
I guess that would depend on what changes you're talking about.
Yes.
all this could have been avoided if discovery showrunners either placed Discovery its own timeline, or did What discovery season 2 did and actually respected fans a little better
@@keithcraig506
I think we're talking about ship design, sets and costumes.
This is like saying classic Mega Man and X, Zero and ZX aren't in the same timeline because the art style changed a few times.
Bad example. Megaman takes place in the year 20XX (the 2000's), Megaman X in the 21XX's (roughly 100 years later), Zero about a century later, and ZX two centuries after Zero. Makes sense that the art would change to show the tech change.
While I love discovery, I'm kinda sick of shit being set in the start trek past. I want to see where the federation goes post dominion war/post Borg crippling. I want more future future!
They tried that with Star Trek Picard,... and the bitching not only didn't diminish,... it INTENSIFIED.
YEah I agree I'm read for post-Voyager Trek now
Discovery DOES leave a lot to be desired BUT it's not the abomination that a small section of fandom has made it out to be. Even TNG and DS9 took a while before finding their voice and are now considered classics. Thank you for this video, Steve
The conspis: "BuT DiScoVeRy wAs aN InSiDe jOb!"
Me: "Yeah, exactly, they (CBS) own it."
"disgruntled fanboy horseshit" is the most accurate description I have heard for all this conspiracy non-sense.
Found it funny that the the episode released a week after your video
had a Previously on... segment featuring only scenes from "The Cage" making it very clear that Discovery and TOS takes place in the same timeline.
Star Trek isn't a documentary--it's a best guess interpretation of a fictional hypothetical future made in a nonfictional world with creative and technical limitations. These real world limitations to the production of a fictional universe shouldn't limit the production of that fictional universe decades later when our real world methods of interpreting that universe have progressed so much.
They didn't have to limit themselves with making something set before the others, given sufficient time after voyager almost anything they did could have been accepted and consistent.
I really like Discovery, it embodies everything Star Trek stands for, it just isn't in the same timeline that results in the Original Series. That's fine, the Original series was 'a, best guess interpretation of a hypothetical future' that diverged from our real timeline when our technology improved. Discovery might be set in a timeline descended from now.
TOS history didn't include smart phones.
Disco history possibly did include smart phones.
@@rarrmonkey But it IS set in the same timeline, didn't you listen to the video at all?
well said Uejji.
Furthermore, any real life change, specially in technology, should affect the portrait of the fictional universe. No one would accept a computer mechanical voice saying "computing computing" while gear noises are heard...
@@rarrmonkey unless you claim that TOS took place in a galaxy far far away...
Oh my goodness. Lincoln had access to iPhone technology? What else did my teachers lie to me about!?
Seriously expected him to be like 'you'd know it wasn't a real picture, cause Lincoln was an Android guy'. Just say it completely deadpan and move on.
And all the sheeple will refuse to believe Lincoln had an iphone despite all the “evidence!” They must have been brainwashed and aren’t we clever to see through the conspiracy? ;-)
As someone who has watched every episode of all star trek variants (including cartoon) and seen all the movies, for me, the biggest difference between Discovery and the rest is that Discovery is watchable without cringing 75% of the time.
Just wait for the final episode of STD to be Riker and Troi on the holodeck...
I feel that this video, while correct, misses the point. Yes, the conspiracy theories are wrong, and yes, CBS has the legal right to make whatever they want to be canon into canon, but should they? Consider a somewhat inverted example that also made people angry, the Enterprise finale. They had the right to incorporate TNG into the show in that manner because they both exist in the same universe, but many felt it cheapened the finale. Consider all the changes Lucas has made to Star Wars, or the recent case of J.K. Rowling tweeting out addendums to Harry Potter.
They CAN do all those things, but should they? Obviously that's not a question you can answer because it's purely subjective, and you did touch on the fact that people don't have to like it, but art doesn't just belong to its creator, and just because they have the right to change it doesn't make it a good idea.
Interesting point. But in that case people either (however grudgingly) accept Lucas and Rowling's assertions as canon or...simply ignore it. You will never convince me that wizards didn't figure out plumbing before muggles did. But that goes into a larger point and, as you say, art is subjective and doesn't necessarily belong to its creator. Just because CBS have declared something canon doesn't mean you have to. Ultimately, how you engage with the media in front of you is the most important thing. The only canon that matters is the one you make for yourself. Just so long as you accept that others may differ.
Nah, you can say its bad and you might be right but I am 100% against death of the author. I don't think any fiction belongs to fans whether its LotR, Star Trek, Harry Potter or what have you.
Gauss STO Dude, "Star Trek is imaginary." It's a fictional universe owned by an American media corporation. They hire writers and producers because they think the material will sell well. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch. But you don't have even the tiniest say in what they do. You are welcome to talk about whether their decisions were good or not, but dude, no one in their right mind thinks you have any right to a say in how the franchise owned by an American media corporation goes. Fucking deal with it.
In a business, say, software, if you created a system five years back which was the best if its kind, perfect and beloved by users, should you change anything, even if it is a drastic change? For me, the answer is yes. Sometimes, you have to do the radical thing and hope it brings a new generation of customers. It's a business: stagnate and die.
The ENT finale really emphazised its role as a prequel.
A crossover episode would've been a neat idea if it wasn't for the finale after a 4 seasons run. "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) was well recieved by the fandom and so were most other crossover episodes. I believe DSC would pull it off much better than ENT.
I think most people complaining about Discovery not being part of the continuity didn't watched or don't remember Enterprise, the whole timeline changed because of the time war, when the Xindi attacked earth changing/creating the current timeline.
Yah it's almost like star trek Canon is flexible as fuck
I'll see your Time War and raise you -- everything in Trek following Generations is all part of Picard's Nexus fantasy.
Oh... I can do one better: Everything after The Voyage Home is an alternate timeline created by transparent aluminium and that phaser they left behind.
Everyones forgetting Enterprise happens before, Both Janeway and/or Picard (we know Picards didn't) parents could've died on the xindi attack negating or changing the existance of the voyager and next gen crew.
Great video. Fun fact Gene: Gene Roddenberry considered ST:V to be 'apocryphal" and non-canon. He also wanted ST:VI to be considered non-canon was well since he thought that in the future, humans would display the bigotry that they did.
Gene even said when making TNG that he had no desire to treat TOS as absolute canon. He also tried to sabotage both Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock by spoiling the fact Spock dies and the Enterprise gets destroyed. Both times Paramount just leaned into it and basically went "yeah, that happens. Deal with it"
They even said "Join us on the FINAL voyage of the Starship Enterprise" in the trailer for Star Trek III, showing it burning.
Fun Fact: Robert April is mentioned in Disco during a scene when Saru asks if he has similar qualities to the highest decorated captains of Starfleet. Therefore TAS is canon 😎🖖
CBS added it to Canon after a internet fan poll voted to have it added. Another Fun Fact is that Rod Roddenberrry Gene's Son is a EP on all of the new CBS All Access Trek Shows and the Nick Star Trek cartoon.
I just want to see the Red Angel be an Iconian.
I've been saying that EP1 if season 2, it has to be the Iconians. But if it isn't, I'm sure I will be happy with whatever it is.
The Red Angel is Michael's mother with a time-travel-suit. There you have your spoiler.
Doesn't fit the Iconian style though. Iconians aren't so... blatant. Or helpful. And certainly don't give any damns about the lives of lesser beings.
Oh, and since its over half a year since the second season ended... Red Angel is Michael. I felt they rushed the time travel plot a bit, but oh well. Its sci-fi, and was themed around them being the cream of the crop science crew pressed into desperate times. So I let it slide.
I’ve got one caveat and it’s rooted in a basic knowledge of copyright and conversations with people who work for licensees of Star Trek.
The Paramount and CBS rights are licensed separately. This is not as earth shattering as some conspiracy theorists allege. The Decipher trading card game in the 90s started off with a TNG only license. They quickly picked up DS9 and Voyager. They were unable initially to get the TOS license because a competitor had it. So they used TOS characters and assets based SOLELY upon their appearances in DS9’s Trials and Tribble-ations. Paramount brought in lawyers. Decipher consulted with lawyers. It was decided that, for Decipher’s purposes, they COULD use Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Scotty, and the classic Enterprise but they could only acknowledge the details from their DS9 appearance. No references to anything else. This was resolved a bit further later with Decipher gaining a TOS license.
Now, with the CBS/Paramount rights split: Paramount owns TMP through Nemesis and the Kelvin movies. They can build on the chunk of the IP they own. Paramount can’t reference individual TV episodes however without CBS approval. So every TOS or TNG or DS9 reference like Harry Mudd or Section 31 or tricolor uniforms has to be approved by CBS because Paramount doesn’t have the copyright from which those elements originate and those elements do not exist as references in any of the films Paramount does own the copyright to.
Likewise, if CBS wants to reference the destruction of Romulus in the late 24th century or the Baku or Sovereign class starships or Kirk’s death in Generations, they need Paramount’s approval unlesd those elements also appeared in CBS owned works (which might include novels or comics).
This is all not very hard because CBS and Paramount get along. They have sizable overlap in ownership. Moreover, last I heard, Alex Kurtzman had substantial approval rights at both companies. He can effectively say, “Alex Kurtzman of Bad Robot: can I show the Enterprise-E in Picard’s show even though Paramount owns it?” And then reply, “Yes, Alex Kurtzman of CBS, that would be fine.” And as he isn’t undermining other company, that’s fine for him to do.
Much of the conspiracy nonsense seems rooted in a false assumption started by haters of the 2009 film that Paramount and CBS have a contentious relationship. They DON’T. They had to tiptoe around some of Abrams’ licensing directives together which can be inferred by a few credible, sourced articles. Abrams didn’t want TOS merch to compete directly with Kelvin merch and made requests of Paramount which Paramount relayed to CBS Consumer Products, who had an interest in pleasing Abrams because CBS had movie merch rights. But CBS and Paramount are not only amicable partners, they share managerial employees and licensing and shareholders.
Despite the overlap between entities, it's still a licensing mess and a less-than-ideal situation for consumers.
So they think it's like Sony and Marvel Studios when dealing with Spidey? When it's rather two branches of the same corporation that have no opposing interests... Ah the joys of half-informed fandoms jumping to conclusions like they're galaxies far far away...
@@TheMaineSurveyor
It is ideal for copyright lawyers though.
I love that you personally say than you to your new patrons at the end of every show. It is classy! It shows you truly appreciate the contribution and is reassuring that the contribution is not just lost in a stream of cash.
Hey dude, first off, wicked channel. Second, I love that you don't talk down to your audience. The description you gave about what is canon is excellent. Presented in such a way that both my son and I understand it perfectly. Wicked! Now time to go back to your videos! Cheers.
CBS says Discovery is canon, so it is and I accept that. I'm going to exercise my right to not like it (and constantly point out the stupid ret-cons, plot-holes and those beautiful "if they had this conversation on the move, time wouldn't be an issue at all in this episode" moments to the bf).
I call it a misfire rather a canon
I really am the worst kind of person to watch shows with.
I don't need complex conspiracy theories or contrived canon-cum-history. The fact is, the tone of this show is not one that I find appealing. I like Roddenberry's utopian ideas and cerebral, modestly paced science fiction sans electrifying action. I'd watch a show about that.
This will have to get in line behind the rest of the dour action-science-fantasy stuff, of which there is no shortage.
And I don't expect the Picard show to be any different. What I want is, frankly, too niche to be relevant to an audience of the necessary size for a triple-A IP.
I'm with you--and there are many of us out here.
If you happen to wander back by this way--just curious--which of the post-2009 Trek offerings best appealed to this ideology?
In the anime fan art comunity there is the 20% rule.
You must must make your art, or fanfiction diffrent enough from the original that it is easly reconsisible as 'not source material'. This gets past copyright.
No this is not law it is more of an edict thing.
We wouldn't even be having this argument if Discovery were a halfway decent show.
No one minds the aesthetic redesign in the TOS films or in TNG because the stories were good.
We probably wouldn't care that Discovery is bad Star Trek if it weren't also a bad show.
That is demonstrably untrue. As someone who was a fan in those days, people RAILED against the motion picture, Wrath of Khan and TNG for being different. Those people eventually shut up and went away. I suspect that will happen here too, because Discovery is actually good.
It's far better than the first 2 years of TNG, you know, the show where a blind guy and a kid were driving the spaceship, and the Captain's psychoanalyst sat right next to him, and behind him the chief of security had weird flashbacks to hiding from rape gangs in our idyllic space socialist future?
For me personally, it isn't. I won't go on a long, caps locked nerd rage as to why. I just can't bring my stupid, Trek infused brain to accept it. All Trek shows went kind of loose with continuity at some point or another (because continuity wasn't really a concern at all of early Trek), and in most cases I'm perfectly able to gloss over it. DSC just exceeds my personal threshold of acceptance, I guess.
Also, I feel very strongly about Klingons, don't even get me started on that.
Robin Löhnert Im right there with you. I seriously tried but they were way too flagrant with their changes, changes that were quite unnecessary for the story they are telling. Im fine with altering continuity to make your story work IF the story is good and warranted, Discovery has not done that for me. I know people like to say those of us that care about continuity are stupid or nitpicking but Star Trek is probably the one show/franchise that not only cultivated that in its fans, it maintained it for 50 years! A show that rewarded nitpicking and appreciation of continuity is all of a sudden saying “who cares, you are a stupid nerd, get over it”! That is rather galling and insulting frankly.
@Zhong Ping The thing is, DISCO is actually utopian and bright. Series 1 was basically the DS9 episode In the Pale Moonlight, but 15 episodes long, and with the main character choosing to uphold Starfleet's values at the end instead of justifying their immoral actions.
Head Cannon is a thing. On a personal level that's fine. It's the crazy attempts to "prove" it in direct opposition to the rights holders. I think Discovery could have been updated with modern production values without looking almost nothing like Star Trek but ignoring that is MY head cannon.
I realise with Steve's definition of canon, what I really meant when thinking about Discovery and canon is that the apparent continuity tensions and advanced tech in the episodes of Discovery I've seen are stretching my suspension of disbelief a bit too much for it to properly fit in the prime universe.
Hadn't realised people were claiming the creators of Discovery or CBS are somehow lying and have secretly set Discovery in another universe.
I also feel it exceeds my threshold. But I have fewer problems with it as reboot, visual or otherwise.
Saying that Discovery is not canon is like me saying that Steve Shives' series "Steve and Stuffie's episode 4 is not canon" I can't do that, cuz that series belongs to Steve Shives and not me. Same with Star Trek, CBS owns it and says whats what. If ya don't like it, ya don't have to watch it.
You get to decide for yourself what is and what is not canon, regardless of CBS's ownership. You cast your vote by what you choose to watch or ignore.
@@TheMaineSurveyor No... that's really not how that works. You, the fan, have no control over them, the producers, and only a truly minute fraction of control over the profits of the media in question. You can do whatever you want in your headcanon, but you cannot shape the franchise itself. Canon is not a democracy, and you cannot "cast your vote" on anything.
@@TheMaineSurveyor That is at best a description of "Fanon" or "Headcanon", a pale imitation of the true deal.
In church law (where the term canon[ical] originates) the pope and his councils decide what is official church law. The congregants can be unhappy about it or leave the church (stop watching TV) but they cannot overturn the official decision on legality of sources or doctrine.
"You're working way too hard to miss the point" is one of the best phrases I've ever heard!
The first time I heard the "main/prime/kelvin" timeline explanation(s?) was on Midnight's Edge. Do you know the channel and what do you think of their output?
I know them mostly by reputation. I watched a couple of their videos in preparation for this one because they seem to be the major proponents of the conspiracy theory I'm talking about. Based on what little I've seen, I think they're deeply full of shit.
@@SteveShives Thanks for answering! Stay cool and LLAP
I don't think that the concept of internal consistency is canonical in Star Trek. ;-)
Aech, just turn the Heisenberg Compensators up to 11. That'll do.
@@altrocks Remember when Voyager traveled back to 1997 and there were no signs of the devastating Eugenics Wars of 1992? It must have been an alternate reality...
@@GeeVanderplas I was in high school in 1992. I didn't see any signs of the devastating Eugenics Wars, either.
Neither is the concept of good writing. Actually-good writing _is_ internally-consistent.
Great analysis Steve! I enjoy Discovery and feel it is doing its best to honour the past. Sure its made a few stumbles, but it IS Star Trek. Anyway, it isn't hard to imagine the TOS Enterprise in one's mind's eye in a Discovery context. Gene would have absolutely leveraged today's effects given the chance.
I am sure others may have pointed this out, but it seems to me that if there was actually a 25% rule, it would have been much more likely for it to have been about creating a distinct variant of the ship to sell more merchandise to fans notoriously known for collecting premium merchandise.
Thank you Steve, I love your videos and I love how you address realities but make the hard truths easier to swallow with jovial commentary.
I understand the ferocity that people cling to the fabricated future history of Star Trek though.
It's good to have stories about a future that someone would want to live in. So much science fiction creates nightmarish futures, and it's worth a lot to be able to imagine that not being inevitable.
I do enjoy the depth of the video. A part of me thinks that science fiction universes are generally set in the same universe for the sake of consistency and trying to distinguish the difference between shows.
It seems like there's three different time lines: Original Timeline, Prime Timeline and the Kelvin Timeline.
This is due to technology, aesthetic differences and the lack of connection between the Original and Prime. The gap in the show needs further explanation to merge the gap between them all.
I have been enjoying the recent episodes of Discovery. The first few seasons of a series tend to be the worst for all of the shows.
I've been avoiding this video for the past few weeks, as I was worried it was just another Red Pill Rant about how terrible Disco is. Color me surprised, and impressed, at the (not so) common sense used to develop your arguments. I enjoy disco just as much as I enjoyed both voyager and enterprise. My wife, who has never seen star trek, loves Disco. In my opinion, CBS has done a good job of both acknowledging the past of star trek, and modernizing the imagery to attract today's audience.
By the same 'it looks more modern' logic, Star Wars 1-3 are in an alternate timeline than the original SW 4-6 trilogy.
Do you apply the argument you make at 21:17 ff to the creative choices George Lucas made in altering Star Wars?
35 seconds in, no need to watch any more. Great job!
None of this matters. I like Star Trek before 2009 and I just disregard anything that came after reboot movie. I don't complain about it. I just got on with my life. Star Trek has run it's course and I'm okay with that.
Thank you Steve! I wish there were more sensible people like you making Star Trek content. It seems like every other Star Trek related video nowadays is some sort of Discovery-bashing, and I'm sick of it. I didn't care for the design changes in Discovery at first, but at one point I quit listening to these hateful people online, sat down and watched the damn show, and decided that it's pretty freakin awesome.
it was spoken of in series bc they said that it was an experimental ship and pike said i see u have different uniforms here on discovery
Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I thought Star Trek Discovery was set in the Kevin Timeline, which is why We Need to Talk About Kevin. Doesn't the whole thing occur in Kevin's mind as he stares at a Star Trek Star Globe? Isn't that why they are going to cross over with the Camus/Marvel Imprint and battle the Phantom Stranger? C'mon, Steve Shives! Quit dancing around the subject! I need answers!
Everything is set in the TOS AND Kelvin timeline. They go together perfectly. And Discovery happens at the same time as TOS Pike/Enterprise. Spock served under Pike 11 years 4+ months.
Steve, while I love Discovery and reject these conspiracy theories I am in fact someone that argues the Schumacher Batman movies take place in a different universe from the Burton ones.
It looks like the producers of the DCEU will make the Burton and Schumacher Batman universes officially distinct from each other
within the DC multiverse. They share a common history and certain characters are played by the same actors in both the Burton
and Schumacher films. But soon, those differences in set design and actors will be explained away as being due to the events of
the first two Batman films taking place on a parallel Earth to the latter two films.
The funny thing is, the answer isn't "easily discoverable". Everyone assumes this rule that "all live action TV and films are canon" is the official position of CBS, but in reality CBS don't even have an official Star Trek canon policy - or at least, if they do, they have not made it public. Individual writers and producers have offered opinions on canon, but the company as a whole have not given us a statement or policy on the issue. The most recent official article or statement on Star Trek canon I can find was way back in 2006(!) as an FAQ answer on StarTrek.com, back when Star Trek was owned by what was then Paramount. This article currently doesn't exist on StarTrek.com but is archived on the waybackmachine and some Trek fansites.
You can look up the whole statement online but basically it states the "rule of thumb" that TV and movies are all canon. However it also muddies the waters by mentioning the semi-canon status of the animated series, that some elements of the movies have been considered non-canon, and even states that the novels written by Voyager writer Jeri Taylor ("Mosaic" and "Pathways") could be considered canon because she was a writer on the show.
It also states that "Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind."
Seems to me that, if we accept that the owners of Star Trek are the only ones who get to define what canon is, ironically their most recent statement, from 13 years ago, tells us that they don't even have a firm policy on what is or isn't canon and they are happy for fans to decide their own definition.
You opened my eyes. I was watching STD the other day and Burnham had a huge arrangement of candles going in her quarters. Candles in quarters is a long held Star Trek trope that I have always found ridiculous. Why would people put big elaborate arrangements of candles in the quarters of a Starship? It is a lot of effort for something that can go wrong in so many ways. It was then revealed that the candles were in fact holograms giving me a smile and a chuckle. That was a nice little contribution to Star Trek Canon.
Being reasonable is no way to earn fake internet points
»We wanted to create a more modern experience...«
I don't know. Probably we should stop making new Star Trek movies and only create plays. Might boost the content.
Watching TNG makes you think of sitting in a theatre. Low budget and bad effect do no harm to the series because it's about what Star Trek creates in your head.
That's why I say he's an idiot--has totally NO IDEA about why the series is beloved.
I've been watching your vids for a bit now, and this one MADE me a subscriber. I'm very thankful someone see's it like me. I understand people will not like it, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Is it the star trek I grew up with? NO. Is it Star Trek? YES.
Do I personally believe that it lines up with the Star Trek I grew up with? NO. Will I still watch it as a fan of Star Trek? YES.
P.S. I will NOT be making my comment 25% different to line up with an "Alternate License" :p
As someone with zero vested interest in the conspiracy theories, and a lover of Trek (all Trek) because it's Trek, I want to thank you for explaining that this whole licensing "thing" isn't a real thing. Honestly, so many people were saying it, I just passively absorbed the information without giving it a second thought.
Please continue doing what you do. Your perspective mirrors my own and it's refreshing to hear your opinions on the show and politics. Like a brain massage.
The last season of Discovery totally lost me. In the end I couldn’t care less. I will watch the third season only because it’s Trek. I watch all Trek, the excellent, good, bad and dreck.
How are you getting on with it?
You also have the video from season 3 where burnham watches Spock’s speech. That is even more powerful proof than the picture
So does Enterprise (the show) live if both time lines as the events take place before the remake movies?
The fact is, the creators of Star Trek have never overly concerned themselves with making the joins between the different series and movies seamless.
They're well known for putting creativity first and feasibility second.
@@clintonwilcox4690 But they also went to great lengths to insert anachronistic 24th century tech and alien speces into Enterprise whenever they could, whether it made sense or not.
@@clintonwilcox4690 Does it really look more primitive, though? One can kind of imagine how they fit together, but when Enterprise was new everyone was saying the same things they're saying about Discovery, including that it must secretly be in its own timeline caused by the Borg incursion in First Contact. (Once again relating it to a recent movie production at the time).
Everything from "but TOS said subspace radio wasn't in use at that time!" to "but settlers from a few decades after Enterprise didn't know about transporters in TNG!" to "Romulans shouldn't have cloaking devices yet" to "but I thought first contact with the Klingons was in the 23rd century?", "shouldn't they have lasers or stick to plasma, not phase pistols?" and many, many, many more. The Discovery situation is in many ways a repeat of what Enterprise went through, but now people tend to hold Enterprise up as an example of doing it right. I hope Discovery ends up similar in the future.
@@clintonwilcox4690 also they try to explain why the Klingons look like Humans in the Original Series.
Discovery must be a different timeline.
Maybe in this timeline experiments with the DNA of Superhuman makes the Klingons look like this now.
@@kaitlyn__L it's the timeline after the Movie the First Contact.
They never explained if this makes a difference.
So maybe Q saved the alpha and beta quadrant.
Because they show them the Borg before.
Maybe the Borg was just on the way to earth
Sha Ka Ree is at the center of the Galaxy. The Enterprise went there. Cannon.
Yep. There's also a planet that is an exact geophysical duplicate of Earth, the existence of which was hand-waved as an example of parallel planetary development. Canon!
@@SteveShives Isn't there more than one of those Earth duplicates?
Exactly
No, Shakira is the center
An unpopular, but correct and well-thought out argument. That being said, while the owners of a fictional franchise have every right to say what is canon, there's what they MAKE canon and what fans (who seem to know Star Trek better than the STD writers dio) recognize LOGICALLY as canon. And while I agree that the show's tech obviously has to be updated from TOS's flipped switches, there's a VAST difference between something like more external lights on a more streamlined Enterprise and freakin'holographic communications or point to point beaming throuout the ship (which couldn't be done until TNG...in Canon.)
I think the "writers", set designers and costume designers of STD shot themselves in the foot numerous times:
They went too far with the tech. The holographic comms were too much. They could have had them buggy and abandoned by Starfleet. The small, one-person craft that behaved like fighter craft were too much. The point-to-point intra-ship transporting was too much...and by canon, too early.
I'm good with the cybernetics. Both augmented crew members worked (although the writers should have spent more time with the heavily-cybernetic woman so the audience could get to know and feel for her before the episode she died and they crammed everything into that episode.
I'm good with the jump drive. I can even see how the Federation would eventually label it off-limits tech (like the cloaking device that allowed phasing through solid matter in TNG.
Everybody watching knew almost from the start of season two that Mikey Spock would be the Red Angel, so the show should have leaned into it with the audience seeing that from the season opener and having the characters work toward that knowledge.
Having Michael be Spock's "sister" is debatable, but undoubtedly the worse decision was to go with that terrible uniform. ALL the other Star Trek uniforms through the years looked UCH better (even the TNG 1st season uniform.) I couldn't put my finger on why the STD uniform looked so bad until I saw the Enterprise crew's u iform in season two (and why were their collars messed up?) The reason the STD u iform looked SOOO bad was that they looked like track suits...down to the reflective running shoes. (I'm talking about that period in the '80s when a lot of people wore track suits - that they never exercised in - as fashion. I'll own up to having one.) That was the most basic self-inflicted wound. If - instead of someone trying to leave their mark on Star Trek like a dog on a fire hydrant - the designers/show runners had just gone with the black pants, black boots and colored shirt look, fans would have identified the show with Star Trek and perhaps have been more forgiving.
As it stands, the show almost went out of its way in season one to present as "not your daddy's Star Trek" the tried to make up for that in season two with all the memba berries ("Remember Spock? Remember COT Pike? Remember Number One? They're all here! See? We're the same old Star Trek!") Then in the last few episodes, the show tripped all over itself (unconvincing) to get rid of the jump drive, holographic communications, any mention of Mikey Spock and company...and the track suits.
I know next season will shows us the Discovery's adventures in the far future and what led to her being abandoned by the crew for 1,000 years (though I have a feeling they'll return to the ship through more time travel shenanigans...and that the now-sentient ship will become a physical crew member ala Andromeda.) If CBS is smart though - big if - they'll lock down the actors they need to do a Captain Pike show...and maybe a Michelle Yeoh Section 31 show as well (or combine them.)
Awesome Video Steve.
Deal with the retcon or don't. No conspiracy, just a bad show.
I find excessively ignoring/changing continuity breaks my belief in a world/universe. Sure, there will always be small inaccuracies between episodes and series, but when they are as extreme as Discovery's, I can't hold both truths as real. Either one happened, or the other, but not both.
Based on this, my thought is that some of those trying to put Discovery in a different timeline actually want to be able to accept it. If it is on a different timeline, then the blatant contradictions and changes that the series puts forth do not interfere with the older canon. This keeps the legitimacy of both worlds intact.
So as was said, it's all fictional, and if it helps some people accept the series what's the harm? Let them have their excuse to like it.
The aesthetic choices made in discovery do not work for me. I understand cbs can do what they want. But prior to discovery Star Trek always kept the look of past time periods. Episodes like relics, yesterday’s enterprise, cause and effect, tapestry, troubles and Tribble-ations, flashback, and in a mirror darkly come to mind.
Even the large visual change from tos to tmp was addressed in universe as an upgrade in tech over several years and not just as a visual retcon that stated everything always looked this way.
Don’t get me wrong there’s plenty of things that don’t add up in the trek timeline (like klingons in tmp), but there was an effort to keep the established narrative and visual history cohesive that I feel is lost in discovery.
If Disc was placed post NEM I think I would enjoy it much more, as it stands I view the decision to place it in the Tos time period despite all the visual/narrative changes as just a money grab to try and play into the nostalgia factor as much as possible.
Just my take on it of course. :)
Big fan of your trek vids, Jericho and DS9 gets religion right vids are among my favorites. Hope to see more on DS9! It’s my second favorite series after tos.
It's a bit like arguing over the parentage of Kermit the Frog isn't it?
I was curious about this*
Thanks Steve 😎😎😎
Hey Steve! rarely comment but i just wanted to say THANK YOU! in General, for all the videos but especially for this one!! Someone had to say it, calm and concise, point by point. I AGREE 100%. Thanks Again!
Oh man, your comments starting at 22:55 are beautiful and profound (and, I can say writing three years after you made them, prophetic).
Thank you for making this video! ❤ I love Disco, yes it's different but I appreciate the new creative take. I wasn't thrilled at first but it grew on me, so I am glad I stuck with it.
Kelvin Timeline violates the Temporal Prime Directive
so does Kirk. and Janeway. Constantly.
@@ManateeGag
It wasn't really a thing in Kirk's time so he gets a pass.
It just bugs me how they feel like they *need* to drastically change to the visuals. It's like they don't think people will enough it if it doesn't look modern enough. The initial reception would have been far more positive if they had banked on that retro 60s sci-fi look. Plently of fans would have watched it just for the nostalgia factor.
Unfortunately there aren't enough of the old fans left to give the viewership necessary to do the 60's sci-fi look, while at the same time alienating the very target audience they are reaching for, the same audience TOS captured - the teen and young adult audience. That key demographic that NBC was not watching during the original broadcast. If they were, it likely wouldn't have been cancelled.
You cannot base a new series on nostalgia alone. Even if you get a momentary boost, that quickly fades. The show must carry its own weight if it has a chance at long-term success. Its where TNG stumbled before finally finding its footing in season 3. Its where I feel The Orville will ultimately fail, unless they come up with something really special VERY quickly.
@@k1productions87 I'm not really sure Star Trek has a big enough potential target audience to really warrant major changes. That being said I agree that nostalgia is cool, but I don't think it's something you should base a show on, at least not from a production standpoint. A classic look is nice but you have to balance that out against making something produced in the modern era. I grew up on TNG, but that thought of where the uniforms, bridge, or sets look exactly the same never crosses my mind
The connection to real life conspiracy theories is apt. People don't believe in those things just because they saw evidence that was convincing. They latch on to them because they reaffirm and rationalize some broader feeling of fear, distrust or dissatisfaction.
I think maybe what's happening in the case of Discovery is that viewers are not being engaged by the story, because the writers don't seem to have much of a broader message or point, or don't tell a self contained story in each episode. I think these disengaged viewers can't seem to put their finger on what they don't like, and end up actively looking for superficial things that post-rationalize their dislike of something they thought they would like. It's easier to blame it on something you can see on the screen than to get into really subjective points about story structure and character development.
I only got the silly cbs online thingy just to watch discovery. I got bored after I think maybe 6 episodes in, and didn't watch the rest. Cancelled my membership before the end of my month trial. Was that a mistake? Does it get any better? Should I give it another shot?
I can't believe that we've got to the point where a guy on TH-cam has to calmly explain fully grown adults that the reason why Discovery is visually different is because Star Trek isn't actually real and that it's imagined. This Generation is hopeless.
THANK YOU, STEVE!! As a fan who has personally seen Star Trek "credulous shitheads" in action due to the fan-film I've been involved with (Starship Exeter), this is a breath of goddamned fresh air. Nicely done... sick of that crap. Well done, thank you.
Subscribed, btw, due to this very video.
Cool! Welcome aboard.
How did Exeter compare with New Voyages and Trek Continues?
Sadly happening in the Whoniverse too. Probably a similar vocal minority of loud voices.
See for yourself: www.starshipexeter.com @@chrissonofpear1384
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the comparison to the Batman films is a bit of a miss. Each film was thematically distinct because they were self-contained stories. There was no continuity to the films. For instance, if you look at Nolan's Batman, you'll see that within these three films the style, the actors, and the overarching story remains consistent. At best you could consider both Burton movies and both Shumacher movies to each be part of a series (even though Schumacher's has two different leads as Batman). There is no overarching continuity between the Burton movies, the Schumacher movies, and the Nolan movies. People don't expect there to be continuity either. When the next Batman movie comes out we know it won't be referencing the Nolanverse or Burton's Gotham, so we won't be disappointed when it doesn't.
Star Trek is obviously different. It's always been seen as one shared universe with one long continuous storyline. Since (with the exception of Enterprise) we always jumped forward in time, technological advances in setbuilding and filmmaking and special effects could be explained away as being an advance in the in-universe technology. But all these shows often shared the same actors (in cameos or movie appearances) and same history. Look at Trials and Tribble-ations, the DS9 episode where the crew is suddenly on TOS Enterprise. They masterfully managed to edit them into existing TOS footage. This seems to acknowledge that yes, the Enterprise actually looked like that in the same universe that DS9 took place in. They didn't go back in time to a (TOS) version of enterprise that suddenly looked like the TNG enterprise, or like rebuilt sets from the DS9 space-station, which they just as easily could have done and explained it away as a 'creative decision'.
When Kirk et al met with the TNG crew, they were all played by the same actors that were in the TOS show. There were no recastings or 'reimagingins' of the characters. They were legitimately the same people in the same fictional universe, wore the same attire they wore in their own movies, etcetera.
With Discovery, all these fans who nitpick at the technological differences and the visual discrepancies might be reaching, but I see where they come from. These things do not 'fall in line' with what we've known and seen from the original show(s).
That doesn't mean it's not canon if CBS says it's canon. It does however mean that CBS screwed up in terms of creating a show that takes place before TOS, but wanting to make it more visually similar to the Kelvin-timeline movies. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and pissed off a pretty big subset of fans while doing so, which in turn leads to those fans grasping at any available straws to figure out how this 'abomination' could be excempt from 'canon' status, and/or to them simply trying to point out all the issues they can find out of sheer disappointment.
The coherency of the designs is pretty easy to understand. TOS looks iike its set in a 1960s soundstage. The movies look set in 1970s soundstages. TOS looks set in a late 80s soundstage. DS9 and Voy look set in a mid 90s soundstage, and Ent looks set in an early 2000s soundstage. Its not hard to work out why DISCO looks set in a mid-late 2010s soundstage
Your best video yet and you make some great videos analyzing fictional universes. As my wife once said when I was discussing peoples unmitigated hatred of the last Jedi, “they know it’s not real don’t they? “ I guarantee if Gene Roddenberry had come back to life and started making new Star Trek’s in 2017 he wouldn’t have used the dated look and crappy special effects of 1966. Shoot me if I’m wrong but frankly I like Star Trek discovery and just get used to the new look because it is a television show period. That being said The Orville it’s pretty good if not better too. I’m not sure why you have to be in one camp or another
Orville is decent and i like the retro touch they tried, but it drives me nuts cause it refuses to decide if it's serious/drama or comedy and constantly sends all those mixed signals i have no use for... Discovery IMO was a brilliant reboot attempt in the sense of taking the old storyline / basic background and put it into a 2018 context of filmmaking... well to be fair, Abrams did the same, only in his the quality of the scripts was even more shaky and varied than with the TV series... you could not put the "mongoloid" klingons of TOS / trouble with Tribbles into a 2020s series and expect the normal watcher to get into that. It's not how consumer behavior in our times works. Stuff like Westworld, Game of Thrones or the Expanse has created certain expectations... even Dr Who that is seemingly unkillable has changed its optics between the relaunch in 2005 and now... several times.
You're right but I'd still rather pretend Discovery is it's own thing. Based on statements Kurtzman has made about going to the future freeing the writers from canon, I think they want to think of it as it's own thing too.
I mean, they've basically taken trek from a utopian setting to a dystopian one. I'll miss having a positive look at the future.
... you call that dystopian? Have you watched DS9 lately?
Here is a better question; When Time Travel is a core concept in a story what does the concept of continuity even mean?
WAIT… people think old Spock in 2009 is not the same Spock from the prime time line????? That is totally illogical
I wish Discovery was in a different timeline. Those "Klingons" are hideous.
I disagree. Klingons change a lot from series to series, usually based on the ability of cosmetic makeup artists. Its why TOS Klingons look like Vulcans, why TMP has weird bulging foreheads, why SFS has more refined makeup closer to the TNG style, and why TUC has a variety of Klingon makeup styles all merged together. Every show changes the Klingons in some way, showing the variety that was always imagined. To think all aliens look identical is ridiculous when the show is all about how all life is worthy in its infinite variety. Klingons have ethnicity just like Humans do, and are not human. So making them less human is good, when the makeup is advanced enough for it.
Not to mention Klingons are meant to be ugly to the eyes of other species. They are wild, bloodthirsty and remorseless beings that instil dread in others - and many of the earlier styles just doesn't hit that note.
Oh, and earlier closeups have shown Klingons to have less then usual body shapes under their clothing. So it makes sense that they look different when they've all ritually shaved their hair off. Most of the Klingons in the first episode are religious zealots, and when we look at the Council members we see more variety in hair and clothing styles. And from season two onward we see them grow their hair back and they look much closer to how TNG showed them.
Also we rarely see people complain about the changes to the Gorn. Probably because you all recognise that 1960's effects were not up to the task of creating a convincing lizard alien.
I don't think my issue with modern Trek is the argument of canon. My issue is more the need to re-tell or over-complicate the timeline that's already been covered. We could easily go forward in time (25th Century) like the Star Trek Online game did, but the rights owners seem intent on retreading 23rd. It's kinda my same issue with Gotham. Why should I watch when I know exactly where the story will end?
I enjoyed the first Kelvin movie because it set up a world that could be completely different. They could kill a main cast member and that would have been fine. Instead the first thing they did was re-tell Wrath of Khan. That was my issue. It was a wasted opportunity.
Personally, I'm not ready to invest in Disco until I see that they intend to go somewhere interesting with the story. (I read the spoilers for the S2 finale, so where they go from there will determine if I invest.)
The problem is, they did go forward to the near-25th Century with Star Trek Picard, and there was still endless bitching about everything they could possibly find to bitch about. In the end, doing exactly what they were demanding CBS do did absolutely nothing. It just further proved that the fans are impossible to please.
If you are referring to Into Darkness, they did not re-tell Wrath of Khan, as not a single plot point from Wrath was in the movie. Only the character, who was far closer to Space Seed than Wrath. Hell, it had more elements in common with Search for Spock than Wrath of Khan. The problems were, 1) after 2009 there was so much buzz around a potential new Khan that Paramount could not NOT have Khan in the second film, and 2) they spent the whole time saying "No, Khan is not in this movie" only for Khan to be in the movie.
As for investing in a show, remember the Star Trek pattern - Season 3 is when things start getting good. It was true of every Trek show previous
I despise prequels in general simply because they are usually bad. I've had this argument with many people in relation to different films, and somebody always brings up Godfather II. But that's not a prequel-its a continuation of the story that also has flashbacks. Not to mention that the source material for the flashbacks was part of the original novel, so the makers of the first film already had it in mind. Nothing in the first film contradicted what we saw later in the second.
That is rare for a prequel. Most prequels take a huge risk and usually fail because we already KNOW the characters and the world, so if they mess with it too much, fans resent it.
RDR2 did it right imo, and Discovery fucked it up royally.
I always figured the 25% comment from eaves was a forgotten discussion where eaves asked for direction on fitting the enterprise in and his boss said, "uhhhh, 25% different"
Thank you for this! While I do enjoy listening to fan theories and conspiracy theories having to do with trek, just like many of your viewers, the point you make at the end is fabulous! I do not espouse to many other conspiracy theories, including the ones you mentioned, but look into them for entertainment sake like reading "The Enquirer" the "Globe" and others. And I wish most producers of these conspiracy videos saw themselves as entertainment creators - entertaining primarily and encouraging general skepticism secondarily. However, I have found that - while buying into Trek conspiracies does NOT equal buying into more consequential conspiracies - there is an excruciating correlation between the two. Seeing all things skeptically is based on a philosophy that allows one's mind to open to more ridiculous possibilities. So, in general, I appreciate your warning at the end. It is well placed, and a nice emphasis on that teeny-tiny part of Trek that plays out as IMPORTANT to the greater Society at large, apart from its general artistic and literate contributions.
Why do I get the feeling if you Clockwork Oranged these sorts of people into watching the full run of Doctor Who and then knocked on their head it would sound not too dissimilar from a bruised watermelon? This isn't a new concept in science fiction. Daytime. Soap. Operas. Have dealt with this issue more gracefully. And that's for old grandmas who are able to accept why a character aged ten years off screen and has a different backstory now xD
I mean even if you want to be REALLY cynical, like me, and assume the "25% different" rule was purely driven by merchandising, it's pretty open and shut.
How dare they make a show that looks like it was made in 2018!
That is not the problem most people who dislike the visual update have with it. It would have been possible to give the show a modern look that more closely resembles older Trek shows, but the producers chose to make it not only modern but also different and while I think that decision was 'wrong', in the end it is a question of subjective taste and it is not good to act like any criticism of STD is toxic. Some people just would have prefered a different style and there is nothing wrong both with likeing and dislikeing the show.
nobody made them do a prequel °_°
could've easily gone for a whole new story.... but played it safe with the option of bringing in the Enterprise at the end of season1
Are y'all going to police hyperbole now? Also I don't care about people who don't like it, to each their own, but I will mock those who say 'it's not canon 'cause uniforms" all I want, thank you.
@@letoanor I just think its cheeky for the creators to claim that its part of the same time line while deliberately and ruthlessly throwing the efforts made by the producers of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT to include TOS as part of one single narrative and technical visual continuity out of the window.
Its fine, if you want to make a remake then just do it. Dont make claims that are obviously contradictory to your creative decsions.
Just as someone who says 'its not canon' shouldnt go around making claims about painfully embarrasing conspiracy theories.
The only decent reason to claim DSC is part of the prime timeline is to get fans to fight with each other online to drive engagement. 'It is because we say so' is a weak argument. Why do you say so? Well.. erm... errr.. because we can. So shut up and eat your beans.
The interior looking like the USS Franklin from ST Beyond, or some similar styles, plus different lighting - would have made the contrast less blatant.
I have a feeling that the 25% in the ship design was how much leeway they could change the ship without the change affecting the instant recognition. They probably could have just used the original design, but honestly, it is dated compared to designs used in other Star Trek series. Don't get me wrong, I love the original Enterprise designs, both TOS and Cage eras.
In renovating buildings that are considered historic landmarks, a 25% change is the most you could possibly get away without doing some major image change and that change is usually in materials to mimic what was previously used.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Enterprise. It gives an in universe reason for some of the changes. Starting from the time travel in first contact and the time travel in Enterprise looks and events of things have change some.
I've always liked to consider the Star Trek as being a contemporary retelling of a larger story, much like how Tolkien considered the Lord of the Rings as an ancient work translated into modern English. In that way, the specifics of set details, models and makeup generally get a pass. Enterprise's augment retcon arc for original series vs next-gen Klingon makeup always seemed out of place to me for that reason, because I never thought it needed an explanation. The only design details that really bother me about Discovery are the uniforms and the modern Klingon ship designs, simply because I think they were poor creative choices in the context of the rest of the series. As long as a story fits into established events within a reasonable margin of error, I can give it a pass. If I'm actually going to complain about Discovery then it will be on its own merits.
I like thinking that these shows are all just recreations of whatever details we can gather from crew and captain's logs
My theory is that the aesthetic choices in the Kelvin movies turned a lot of people off. But when it was announced that CBS was going to do a prequel as well they hoped that they would do star trek right. In the end they just copied what Mr Abrams did and that was doubling down on ruining their childhood. So they search for any explanation as to why CBS would do that. Because in their mind it had to be forced on them for legal reasons not just shitty creative decisions so they can keep hope alive that later on CBS will eventually do star trek right.
oh, something I remembered. in the berman braga era of trek, they treated classic trek as a historical document to the tng era, but the current production chose not to, opting to revise and update for modern audiences.
So...they're saying that there are essentially THREE timelines? ...what a headache.