Online Series: Star Trek: Discovery - Topic II

[Osprey]

Because canon is defined by events, the sequence in which those events take place, the time at which those events take place, and the existence and actions of the characters who participate in them.

The way Klingons look does not fall into that criteria. Nor does the specific technology used.

Canon is simply defined as what is accepted. It's not as narrowly defined as you're making it. Most people would likely agree that Klingons looking like hairier Humans is not canon because they recognize the limitations of 60s makeup, but I think that it's accepted (i.e. considered canon) that they have some amount of hair. Making them completely hairless is just too much of a violation of the accepted Klingon appearance. Imagine if, instead, Discovery portrayed all Humans as bald. That, too, would be a pretty egregious violation of canon, since there'd be no good excuse for it and no reconciling how Kirk and crew had fine heads of hair just 10 years later.

As for technology, that can be canon. For example, it's canon that the Romulans invented cloaking technology and traded it to the Klingons. If a Star Trek series were to re-write history and make it so that the Humans invented it, that'd be a violation of canon. Similarly, if Zephram Cochrane were made the discoverer of spore drive technology, instead of warp drive technology, that'd be a violation of canon. Though not set as much in stone as those, I'd argue that it's always been accepted that warp drive is the fastest method of starship transportation that Starfleet has ever had (not counting things like Q snapping his fingers or natural phenomena like wormholes).

You might argue that the spore drive doesn't technically violate canon because its existence is never explicitly contradicted by the series that take place after, but that doesn't excuse it. If it did, then you could excuse the introduction of Humans being able to shape shift in the 23rd century by arguing that it's never been explicitly mentioned that they couldn't. It's just accepted that they can't; therefore, for all intents and purposes, it's as good as canon. Similarly, it was accepted that instantaneous cross-universe travel was never something in Starfleet's repertoire, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be argued that its introduction is a violation of canon.

 

[The Nemesis]

Captain Rixx in TNG's "The Conspiracy" was Bolian, so there's precedent, however minor, for non-human captains in Starfleet.

There's also been the captain of the Saratoga seen in the DS9 pilot. He was Vulcan (and played by the dude who played Martok). Garth of Izar from TOS was a fleet captain and though he looked human he was from another planet (he may have actually been human. I can't recall if they ever made an issue of it. Also the Vulcan captain that had the rivalry with Sisko and played the baseball game against him (and in fact his whole crew was also Vulcan)

As was said, the biggest meta-reason there haven't been more non-human captains is simply down to other shows not wanting to blow budget on those characters when they usually have a less significant impact on the story than specialist officers or non-starfleet characters.

 

[KirkOut]

haven't read much of the thread so idk how much this has been discussed but one thing that really took me out of it was how freaking clean and shiny and technologically advanced everything looked. FFS it looked on par or better than Voyager. Like, I get that it's 2018 and all, but at least try to make it line up with the technological timeline we have in our brains

 

[Osprey]

Let's be honest here, the entire reason there hasn't been more aliens in the series in the past is because of the budget, and that's it.

Would Roddenberry have put more aliens in TOS if he'd had a much larger budget? That's possible, but I, personally, don't think that that excuses retroactively introducing more aliens to make up for it, since it has become part of the accepted makeup of Starfleet at that time. I also think that there's a very good in-world reason for the limited number of aliens, and that's that Starfleet was naturally all Human at one point, so you'd expect there to be a point when there were relatively few aliens in it, as well.

Star Trek is meant to be our future and an allegory for our modern society, after all. Aliens in Star Trek represent other races and cultures today. There's a nice allegorical parallel between how blacks and females were breaking barriers in our culture in the 60s and how TOS had Spock breaking a similar kind of barrier as one of the few aliens in Starfleet. By the late 70s, there was more acceptance and the very first movie reflected that by having a few more aliens. By the late 80s, there was even greater acceptance in our culture and TNG reflected that by having even more aliens in Starfleet. You can say that the conscious reasoning was budget, but it could be argued that it was also a subconscious reflection of societal attitudes towards outsiders.

Imagining TOS as a time when there were only a few aliens in Starfleet helps place that series in a historical context, IMO, which is very helpful and important in making it seem like a realistic future (which, in turn, helps the allegory). Perhaps it was kind of by accident, so to speak, because of budget limitations, but I think that it's an important thing to keep in Star Trek, since it's sort of part of the franchise's heritage.

 

[Blender]

Would Roddenberry have put more aliens in TOS if he'd had a much larger budget? That's possible, but I, personally, don't think that that excuses retroactively introducing more aliens to make up for it, since it's part of the accepted makeup of Starfleet at that time. I also think that there's a very good in-world reason for the limited number of aliens, and that's that Starfleet was naturally all Human at one point, so you'd expect there to be a point when there were relatively few aliens in it, as well.

Star Trek is meant to be our future and an allegory for our modern society. Aliens in Star Trek represent other races and cultures today. There's a nice allegorical parallel between how blacks and females were breaking barriers in our culture in the 60s and how TOS had Spock breaking a similar kind of barrier as one of the few aliens in Starfleet. By the late 70s, there was more acceptance and the very first movie reflected that by having a few more aliens. By the mid-80s, there was even greater acceptance in our culture and TNG reflected that by having even more aliens in Starfleet. Imagining TOS as a time when there were only a few aliens in Starfleet helps place that series in a historical context, which is very helpful in making it seem like a realistic future that is also an allegory for today's society. Perhaps it was kind of by accident, so to speak, because of budget limitations, but I think that it's an important thing to keep in Star Trek.

It was both budget and the studio. Roddenberry had to choose between an alien or a woman as first officer after the first pilot, and the studio didn't even want to give him that choice. He had to fight just to get one alien into the cast, so it makes sense that later on he had more when he (and others) had more creative control over things.

I have no problem with them introducing more alien characters into the series because the budget is much better. I'd prefer they stick to ones we know are established members of the Federation though, like where is the Andorian main character or something? What I dislike is that they have added alien characters as red shirts essentially, who have no development or personality on the show. That's just pointless.

 

[Osprey]

I have no problem with them introducing more alien characters into the series because the budget is much better. I'd prefer they stick to ones we know are established members of the Federation though, like where is the Andorian main character or something? What I dislike is that they have added alien characters as red shirts essentially, who have no development or personality on the show. That's just pointless.

I agree that, if they're going to introduce more alien characters, they should be established members of the Federation. I don't have a big problem with an Andorian being on the Starfleet Council, as is portrayed in Discovery, since you'd expect one of the founding races of the Federation to have a seat on it (and the Council. It's more the newly invented races like the Kelpians and whatever robot girl is that are pointless, as you said. It would've been a bit better if Saru had been Andorian and robot girl had been Vulcan. I still wouldn't have been very pleased, but it would've been more consistent with what we know of the Federation around this time period.

 

[Tawnos]

Canon is simply defined as what is accepted. It's not as narrowly defined as you're making it. Most people would likely agree that Klingons looking like hairier Humans is not canon because they recognize the limitations of 60s makeup, but I think that it's accepted (i.e. considered canon) that they have some amount of hair. Making them completely hairless is just too much of a violation of the accepted Klingon appearance. Imagine if, instead, Discovery portrayed all Humans as bald. That, too, would be a pretty egregious violation of canon, since there'd be no good excuse for it and no reconciling how Kirk and crew had fine heads of hair just 10 years later.

As for technology, that can be canon. For example, it's canon that the Romulans invented cloaking technology and traded it to the Klingons. If a Star Trek series were to re-write history and make it so that the Humans invented it, that'd be a violation of canon. Similarly, if Zephram Cochrane were made the discoverer of spore drive technology, instead of warp drive technology, that'd be a violation of canon. Though not set as much in stone as those, I'd argue that it's always been accepted that warp drive is the fastest method of starship transportation that Starfleet has ever had (not counting things like Q snapping his fingers or natural phenomena like wormholes).

You might argue that the spore drive doesn't technically violate canon because its existence is never explicitly contradicted by the series that take place after, but that doesn't excuse it. If it did, then you could excuse the introduction of Humans being able to shape shift in the 23rd century by arguing that it's never been explicitly mentioned that they couldn't. It's just accepted that they can't; therefore, for all intents and purposes, it's as good as canon. Similarly, it was accepted that instantaneous cross-universe travel was never something in Starfleet's repertoire, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be argued that its introduction is a violation of canon.

Obviously, there’s a line between what’s ridiculous and what’s not.

By the way, CBS and Paramount both have defined Star Trek canon by “events” for years. And the only things that are actually canon are the events of the TV shows and movies. It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of the people in charge of the show.

 

[Osprey]

Obviously, there’s a line between what’s ridiculous and what’s not.

By the way, CBS and Paramount both have defined Star Trek canon by “events” for years. And the only things that are actually canon are the events of the TV shows and movies. It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of the people in charge of the show.

You might be confusing the official timeline for canon. The timeline (i.e. events and years) is just part of the canon. There are plenty of elements of Star Trek that are canon that aren't related to any specific events in time.

Regardless, the opinions of the people in charge of the show are rather irrelevant to anyone criticizing what they've done with their power. The show runners will say what they need to to excuse what they've done until it's not applicable, at which point they'll change their excuse. We, the fans, need to stand up when they cross the line and not excuse them moving it each time that they do or else, eventually, Star Trek won't be recognizable. It already barely looks like Trek and this damage has taken only 10 years. Imagine how it'll look in 10 more years after Tarantino and millennial series producers get their hands on it.

 

[Cloned]

@Osprey

Tarantino is supposedly a fan of TOS, so we'll have to see where he takes the franchise. As long as he doesn't make Star Trek into Django Unchained I'll be OK.

 

[tacogeoff]

Obviously, there’s a line between what’s ridiculous and what’s not.

By the way, CBS and Paramount both have defined Star Trek canon by “events” for years. And the only things that are actually canon are the events of the TV shows and movies. It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of the people in charge of the show.

There is also Fanon which seems to be a hybrid. So everyone can be right

"The definition of Star Trek canon may vary for different fans, and therefore for a reference source like Memory Alpha, the question may become especially difficult. The term fanon is used to refer to "fan canon", of which the term is a portmanteau. It applies to certain "facts" that may have been accepted as a truth by a large number of fans, and thus either replaces an established canonical fact in the minds of those fans, becoming retroactive continuity, or fills a plot-hole. "

 

[Blender]

Obviously, there’s a line between what’s ridiculous and what’s not.

By the way, CBS and Paramount both have defined Star Trek canon by “events” for years. And the only things that are actually canon are the events of the TV shows and movies. It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of the people in charge of the show.

Even by this strict definition the look of the Klingons violates canon.

 

[Tawnos]

Even by this strict definition the look of the Klingons violates canon.

In what way does the look of the Klingons have any effect on the events the Klingons are involved in?

@Osprey as always I remain 100% against fans dictating anything to creators.

 

[tacogeoff]

Even by this strict definition the look of the Klingons violates canon.

Don't mind me if you already have researched this or know off hand. I am bored AF.

this has been done before with the switch of the Klingon look from TOS to TMP. This was due to bigger budgets and more money for production and advances in costume design. So for me the canon of the Klingon look is fluid and evolving.

Ex Astris Scientia - The Klingon Forehead Problem

They did come up with an answer though eventually. I don't think Discovery will have one.

"In the two Enterprise episodes "Affliction" and "Divergence" we learn what has to be considered the ultimate truth about the appearance of the TOS Klingons. In 2154 the Klingon scientist Antaak, supervised by General K'Vagh, devises a program to use the genetic improvements of human Augments to create a new breed of Klingon warriors. Several Klingons, including K'Vagh's son, volunteer to have themselves genetically altered. One of the side effects is that they lose their forehead ridges. But soon a new problem emerges. The Levodian flu, a usually rather harmless infection, mutates because of the human DNA and becomes airborne. The illness now threatens the lives of millions of Klingons. Based on the virus Dr. Phlox, who has been abducted by the Klingons, develops an antivirus. The antivirus takes away the genetic superiority from the Klingon Augments. Any other Klingon who is given the antivirus as a cure against the mutated virus loses his forehead ridges just like the Augments. Dr. Phlox says that the children of the so treated Klingons would inherit their look. Even if the trait were recessive, it would perfectly explain the existence of smooth-headed Klingon still more than a century
later."

"Trials and Tribble-ations"

Only one puzzle is left, but this is rather a peculiarity of DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" than a general problem. The episode was made well before the ultimate explanation of the Klingon forehead dilemma in Enterprise. Yet, it didn't stick to the silent agreement of the time that Klingons always looked the same. The DS9 episode bluntly commented on the then obvious divergence that was not supposed to exist.

 

[Blender]

Don't mind me if you already have researched this or know off hand. I am bored AF.

this has been done before with the switch of the Klingon look from TOS to TMP. This was due to bigger budgets and more money for production and advances in costume design. So for me the canon of the Klingon look is fluid and evolving.

Ex Astris Scientia - The Klingon Forehead Problem

They did come up with an answer though eventually. I don't think Discovery will have one.

"In the two Enterprise episodes "Affliction" and "Divergence" we learn what has to be considered the ultimate truth about the appearance of the TOS Klingons. In 2154 the Klingon scientist Antaak, supervised by General K'Vagh, devises a program to use the genetic improvements of human Augments to create a new breed of Klingon warriors. Several Klingons, including K'Vagh's son, volunteer to have themselves genetically altered. One of the side effects is that they lose their forehead ridges. But soon a new problem emerges. The Levodian flu, a usually rather harmless infection, mutates because of the human DNA and becomes airborne. The illness now threatens the lives of millions of Klingons. Based on the virus Dr. Phlox, who has been abducted by the Klingons, develops an antivirus. The antivirus takes away the genetic superiority from the Klingon Augments. Any other Klingon who is given the antivirus as a cure against the mutated virus loses his forehead ridges just like the Augments. Dr. Phlox says that the children of the so treated Klingons would inherit their look. Even if the trait were recessive, it would perfectly explain the existence of smooth-headed Klingon still more than a century
later."

"Trials and Tribble-ations"

Only one puzzle is left, but this is rather a peculiarity of DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" than a general problem. The episode was made well before the ultimate explanation of the Klingon forehead dilemma in Enterprise. Yet, it didn't stick to the silent agreement of the time that Klingons always looked the same. The DS9 episode bluntly commented on the then obvious divergence that was not supposed to exist.

This is exactly what I mean by the look of the Klingons being canon by events. They looked one way in TOS and another way from TMP through Voyager, with minor differences. It was established explicitly in DS9 and Enterprise that the 24th century look is the correct look of the species, but that genetic experiments warped them to look more human. These are events, it's canon by the standard @Tawnos posted.

Now Discovery has tossed that out and show us some grey rubber faced and bald creature that is supposedly a Klingon. The new Klingons are easily worse than the TNG era ones as well, because the heavy prosthetic they wear in Discovery makes emoting very difficult.

 

[Tawnos]

This is exactly what I mean by the look of the Klingons being canon by events. They looked one way in TOS and another way from TMP through Voyager, with minor differences. It was established explicitly in DS9 and Enterprise that the 24th century look is the correct look of the species, but that genetic experiments warped them to look more human. These are events, it's canon by the standard @Tawnos posted.

Now Discovery has tossed that out and show us some grey rubber faced and bald creature that is supposedly a Klingon. The new Klingons are easily worse than the TNG era ones as well, because the heavy prosthetic they wear in Discovery makes emoting very difficult.

The genetic experiments were the event. The look was not the event.

Our understanding of what Klingons look like is now revised, but that doesn’t change the fact that some Klingons would look more human because of the genetic experiments.

It sounds more to me like your problem isn’t the changing of the look, but the bad job they did of it. Although Mary Chieffo was able to emote fine. Pretty much everyone else wasn’t. I don’t disagree with that at all.

 

[Osprey]

@Osprey as always I remain 100% against fans dictating anything to creators.

No offense, but doesn't that then mean that you're 100% for excusing every decision dictated by the show runners? If you're not willing to be a critic of anything, then you're willing to be an apologist for everything.

Also, I don't consider these folks the "creators" of Star Trek. Roddenberry created this sandbox. These guys are just playing in it (and throwing sand everywhere).

Our understanding of what Klingons look like is now revised...

It's not revised for me or, I imagine, for the vast majority of Trek fans who don't accept this new species as Klingon.

 

[Tawnos]

No offense, but doesn't that then mean that you're 100% for excusing every decision dictated by the show runners? If you're not willing to be a critic of anything, then you're willing to be an apologist for everything.

I save my criticisms for two things: execution of story and value of story. The decisions dictated by the showrunners don’t fall in either of those two boxes. Which is why I’m critical of the new Klingon look (execution) and fine with them changing said look (decision). It’s why I’m critical of the plot of the episodes that took place in the Mirror Universe as being pointless (value) but I’m not critical of them going to the Mirror Universe (decision). We haven’t really gotten into my criticisms of the latter, though I assure that I have them. Mostly, I think they could have compressed those events into one or two episodes, which is also an execution issue.

 

[Blender]

The genetic experiments were the event. The look was not the event.

Our understanding of what Klingons look like is now revised, but that doesn’t change the fact that some Klingons would look more human because of the genetic experiments.

It sounds more to me like your problem isn’t the changing of the look, but the bad job they did of it. Although Mary Chieffo was able to emote fine. Pretty much everyone else wasn’t. I don’t disagree with that at all.

Well sort of. I don't mind changes, but they need to be authentic and in the spirit of the franchise, and they need to be an improvement or at the worst equal to what we had before. The change to the Klingons for example was none of those things, it wasn't authentic or in the spirit of the franchise, and it was horribly done. You're right that L'Rell wasn't that bad, but most of the Klingons were so rubbery that their face didn't even move when they talked. Compare that to the fantastic facial expressions you would get from Gowron or Martok, and the changes just make no sense. I agree with @Osprey though, my understanding of what a Klingon looks like is definitely not revised.

It's hardly the only example of changes they made that weren't in the spirit of the series and weren't an improvement either, which is where my biggest issues lie. On the other hand, as I mentioned after the finale I actually liked their version of the Enterprise quite a bit (despite even introducing it being fan service hackery) as it was in the spirit of the original design while updating the aesthetic to match the show. They didn't really take this approach with a lot of their choices though, which is a shame.

The overall writing of the season was just downright poor though, which makes me even less forgiving of the changes they made. If they had produced a fantastically written season with amazing characters, I would have let a lot more of these things slide even if I didn't love them, because the overall product was of a high quality. That isn't what we got though, so it just makes how inauthentic it was even more frustrating.

 

[Blender]

Also, I don't consider these folks the "creators" of Star Trek. Roddenberry created this sandbox. These guys are just playing in it (and throwing sand everywhere).

I think you can include Rick Berman and Michael Piller in the "creators" list as well, as those two had as much influence on this franchise as Roddenberry did really.

 

[Tawnos]

I think you can include Rick Berman and Michael Piller in the "creators" list as well, as those two had as much influence on this franchise as Roddenberry did really.

The post you quoted is a purposeful misunderstanding of what I was saying. The people running this show are not *the* creators of Star Trek. They are the people in charge of creating Star Trek Discovery. That makes them creators without the *the* in front of it.

Rick Berman and Michael Piller started out in the same place, although overall the only person involved in this project that had the potential to get to that status eventually was Brian Fuller. Not that I’m complaining, since he’s focused on the TV adaptation of my favorite book ever.

 

[Jussi]

Captain Rixx in TNG's "The Conspiracy" was Bolian, so there's precedent, however minor, for non-human captains in Starfleet.

Though not canon, in Star Trek Online, the captain of the current Enterprise is Andorran.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

The genetic experiments were the event. The look was not the event.

Our understanding of what Klingons look like is now revised, but that doesn’t change the fact that some Klingons would look more human because of the genetic experiments.

It sounds more to me like your problem isn’t the changing of the look, but the bad job they did of it. Although Mary Chieffo was able to emote fine. Pretty much everyone else wasn’t. I don’t disagree with that at all.

They look nothing like humans though, they look like lizard people. Enterprise explains the debacle quite well, there was never any intent (either by Klingons or the development team) to make the Klingons look like really bad lizard people.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Captain Rixx in TNG's "The Conspiracy" was Bolian, so there's precedent, however minor, for non-human captains in Starfleet.

TOS episode The Immunity Syndrome the USS Intrepid was a Vulcan crew only ship so it had a Vulcan Captain.
TNG episode The First Duty there was a Vulcan Captain on the board of inquiry.
DS9 episode Take Me Out to the Holosuite with the Captain of the USS T'Kumbra being a Vulcan.

That is some more instances of knowing about non-human Captains.

 

[johnjm22]

Ultimately the problem with Discovery isn't its questionable compatibility with canon.

The problem is bad writing, sub-par acting and boring characters. I like the spore drive idea, but aside from it there's nothing clever or forward-thinking in STD.

I would greatly prefer the show be more consistent with preestablished Star Trek or course, but it's not the main problem IMO.

 

[Osprey]

I think you can include Rick Berman and Michael Piller in the "creators" list as well, as those two had as much influence on this franchise as Roddenberry did really.

Rick Berman and Michael Piller started out in the same place...

I think that it made a big difference that Berman and Piller started working under Roddenberry and during the golden age of Trek (which they no doubt greatly contributed to). They and those around them understood what Trek was about. The same can't be said for those who came after them (Fuller, Kurtzman and company).

The post you quoted is a purposeful misunderstanding of what I was saying. The people running this show are not *the* creators of Star Trek. They are the people in charge of creating Star Trek Discovery. That makes them creators without the *the* in front of it.

I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. I was disagreeing with it because I don't feel that being the creators of one show gives them license and carte blanche to change the look and feel of Star Trek.