My issue with Discovery was that it was used to get Star Trek fans to jumpstart their streaming service by putting new Star Trek behind a paywall they knew fans would pay for, and then they purposely created a show that threw out the aesthetic, continuity, and felt like a new sci-fi franchise with Star Trek logos and names thrown in. New people weren’t signing up for CBS All Access to see Star Trek. Life long fans were. They lured in fans but gave them a show that was not made for them. I watched every episode the day they were released. They course corrected eventually, and I loved season 5 and was sad to see it end now that they finally got it right. Want to make it different and use technology that canonically shouldn’t exist? Set it in the future. The writing could definitely be have been better… All warp technology was destroyed by a freak natural disaster? No. A maniacal villain? No. A crying child. Also, in general, STOP making prequels. Every time Star Trek does them, they can’t help pulling stuff in from the future because they want to use that “cool thing” from the TNG era… But I said this on Facebook and my comment was removed… Lower Decks had waves that changed things to how they were in another quantum reality. It changed a ship to a barge because in another quantum reality Klingons were still using sailing ships. It changed the ship and the Klingon to Discovery era versions because they were from a quantum reality where they STILL looked like that. It in no way meant that they never looked like that in Lower Decks’ quantum reality.
I agree with everything you said. Star Trek has always been used as Paramount's cash cow. UPN with Voyager is another example. Normal TV is kinda of dying because of streaming and that's the way it is going to be. The design elements of Discovery weren't such a huge issue for me, because I watch Doctor Who and with every new producer they change things up a bit. So the look never bothered me. I actually think out of all the new Trek shows Discovery is by far the one that adhered to Genes ideologies better in the end. Thank you for commenting. Your response is very thought out and I loved it.
Discovery, love or hate it, had cutting edge Starfleet technology and special effects that were movie quality. The future timeline upgrades including communicators with built-in tricorders AND transport technology was absolutely top notch. The Discovery itself was canon as even fan films used a shelf model of one during the Star Trek Continuing Voyages episode where Kirk went to the Fleet Admiral's office after the 5 year mission for Enterprise under Kirk was over. As he looked at the ship models on the shelf, a canon one of Discovery was on there. This meeting was when Kirk was given his promotion to Admiral as well, by the way. AND let us not forget, the Discovery series introduced us to Anson Mount as Captain Pike and the CBS/Paramount+ reimagined Enterprise NCC-1701 and the cast of "Strange New Worlds".
I think it's when STD producers, directors, and even actors called fans racists, haters, close minded, and "If you don't like it, it's not for you," Then complained that no one was watching it, yea, don't expect anyone to want to save something no one can even remember or were given a reason to care for.
A. None of them did. B. A lot (and I mean a lot) of the haters are racist, homophobic and transphobic. C. It was in the top ten of streaming in its final season. People watched.
@@TrekTrav 1. Jason Issacs literally generalized the every one who hated Disco, 2, While that is partly true that a huge generalization, Not every one is an Anti-Woke nutjob. 3. Top 10 on Paramount Plus really isn't the accomplishment you think it is.
You're making such a generality of a group of fans. To reuse you own words, I am one of those "white old core fans", i'm 47 but I consider myself as a person of color, yep and don't give a damn if the main characters are of color, as you say, or are of whatever sex/genre. I love Voyager, I love DS9 and I love 2nd season of Discovery, 1st was OK but the new look of the Klingons and the spore drive really bothered me (it has no scientific foundation), the rest of the seasons were pure fantasy. Most episodes had no scientific foundation, so it's not science-fiction, it became some sort of space opera à la Star Wars and action scenes were so overkill. Hence, not canon. And to prove it's so irrelevant to wokism, i hate JJA's STverse AKA Kelvin timeline, stupid action movies and Khan should have stayed Indian.
The changes in Star Trek are similar to the changes in Doctor Who in the past 12 years or so. It feels like they hire people who are more accustomed to writing shallow teen drama stories rather than interesting science fiction. Even the technobabble isn't convincing.
@MiqelDotCom I disagree. Doctor Who has writers from its prime on the show now. The problem is the older fans go in expecting the show to still be written for them, and it's not. The show is written in Doctor Who and Discovery's case for older teens and young adults. The fans however apparently hate change or anything new and different. Discovery was a production team change, Doctor Who had them all the time . Yet the base fans couldn't accept that things might look a bit different but can still hold true. Discovery in particular got more and more Star Trek and focused on the positive future as it went by. The fans got more angry and vitriolic because it wasn't exactly like TNG, and yet the reason Enterprise was cancelled was because it was too same same, like TNH
@@TrekTrav Thanks for the reply! I would argue it's possible to like things which are new, novel, and different and still feel that Discovery isn't a good show. Even watching at not as Star Trek but just as a random scifi it's still just barely mid. I applaud their efforts to make some tweaks based on fan feedback. The fact it's written *for teens* is fine, my complaint with it when it appears to be written *by teens.* Anyhow, it's not "the death of Star Trek" or whatever the doomer folks are saying. SNW, Lower Decks and Prodigy are all pretty good. 3 out of 5 isn't bad considering how difficult it is to make a tv show..
Oh I'm over it, because it is over. Now we can move on to better things. There is not a single detail about this show that makes me want to include it with the rest of the franchise. It doesn't have a single redeeming quality for me. I'm more pissed about the fungus and tardigrades than the cast. The whole thing just doesn't fit, doesn't work with Star Trek. It is stupid, lazy, pretentious writing.
I disagree wholeheartedly. It is the most progressive, good natured and original Trek of this generation of shoes. It tries to do things new and differently without constantly trying to appease a bunch of old TNG fans who just can't understand that it wasn't made for them.
Discovery sucked because it was badly written. It was not true to what the essence of Star Trek is. Voyager had the first female captain and that was a great show. Just because it has good special doesn’t make it a good show.
@@PeBoVision You always have the option to do that. You just have to get people to pay attention to your personal version of Star Trek while making it different enough from the official product to not draw copyvio suits. Zach Snyder tried that. It didn't go over too well with the audience.
@@katherineberger6329 I don't see any reason to get people to adapt to my point of view...I (and they) enjoy media in our own minds. No one has to agree or disagree with my point of view of what I watch. The world is a very subjective place.
@@PeBoVision Oh, I see! You don't ACTUALLY want to produce a version of Star Trek that you want to watch, you just want to complain that other people who aren't you, don't know you, and aren't responsible to you, are producing a version of Star Trek that you DON'T want to watch. Got it.
Canon Yes, Erased no, just put in a equal but alternative universe. Nothing wrong with that, Discovery never really made sense in the main / prime universe anyway.
@@alexanderdeburdegala4609 TrekTrav often responds to the things that appeal to him the most. This whole video is that. Blaming all the criticism of Discovery on anti-wokism and sexism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the show, including many in this comments section. I often got in debates with him and he would repeatedly ignore all my valid points and just respond with oversimplified ones. This is the problem with believing in appeals and not reason. Which is how Discovery differs from the other star treks like TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9. Discovery is to these shows what religion is to science. What misinformation is to information. It appeals to people that like misinformation which is why the cross section of people that like Discovery often does not overlap with traditional trekkies. Traditional trekkies can clearly tell that it does not carry on the original values of the show, but that doesn't matter to people that would prefer to believe in conspiracy theories and tiktok junk.
I don't care what flavor of human the captain, or any other character is. I care if it looks, sounds, and feels like Trek. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be canon. Discovery doesn't find success on any of those metrics, so it isnt canon.
@TrekTrav Did DS9 or Voyager, or even the red-headed stepchild that is Enterprise look like exacrly that? Why, no... no they didn't. Even Lower Decks manages to feel and look like Trek when it tries, and it tries fairly frequently.
These are great shows. I'm 55... And queer 😅 Love Discovery, Doctor Who, She Hulk. New Star Wars I wanted to love. But it feels like it was aimed at kids. Still fun, but juvenile plots that don't go anywhere, with cute critters clearly added for merchandising toys. Love having a woman Jedi, wish she had a chance to train to be good at the force instead of being instantly good. Same issue as live action Mulan. It robs her of accomplishments by having her born that way. It's fun but shallow power fantasy, not that men don't have plenty of those too. So I merely like instead of love
Discovery isn't bad because its woke. Its bad because it's badly written. Perhaps one of the worst written shows in TV history, next to the remakes for charmed and roswell. The only way I can reconcile star trek discovery and the huge lore breaking plot lines in literally every season was that when Burnham's mother traveled through time resulting in Burnham's adoption by Spock's dad was that she created a new timeline and Burnham's universe is an isolated timeline like the Kelvin and the Prime timeline. Btw, I am gay. So not anti woke. Reasons why Discovery is Bad: 1. Retconning the most famous character in the series is cheap 2. The seven signals of the red angel. A lazy quest. 3. Control destroying all life in the universe. Including established species like the Borg. Totally lore breaking. 4. The burn: a mutant child cried and blew up all the warp engines in the galaxy. Lazy, bad, makes no sense and is basically the same as point 3. 5. The 5 puzzle pieces that retconned and ripped off the most famous episode in TNG and turned it into an entire season arc. Same as point 2 btw and was just a lazy quest. 6. They turned point 5 into resurrection magic and not genetic engineering which is much more plausible. Reasons why Burnham was bad: Not because she was black or a woman. She was insubordinat, she caused a war, she created at least half of the problems in the series, she should never have been promoted, when she was promoted her logic was terrible and didn't make sense, the whole shows concept of logic was illogical. Example: logic extremists. Like wtf? Also she went on away missions with her boyfriend. A sensible starfleet would have reprimanded her for this. Again I am gay and a huge trans rights advocate. But the characters of Staments, Culber and Adira were also just terribly written characters. There was nothing intelligent about staments. He was a pseudointellectual. Culber's skills as a psychiatrist were basically just smiling. Adera suddenly needed parents after successfully fending for herself and getting into star fleet. And the whole trill side plot was cringe and again lore breaking. They made it so trills didn't need hosts anymore? I felt no sense of family from them. It was like someone was playing barbies and just matched up a bunch of unrelated characters and said "now kiss." The story didn't respect any of the established lore. They even ruined the breen by making them humanoid. None of this is anti-wokism and this whole anti-anti-wokism tirade completely misses the point on why critics largely universally hated Discovery easily making it the worst star trek ever written. Again: 7 signals All life destroyed All warp engines destroyed 5 puzzle pieces These were season arcs. They had 5 seasons and came up with a total of 2 concepts for season arcs. Its just lazy. I watched every episode except for the very last one. It was insulting and I had completely given up on the series at that point. I'm glad they were unceremoniously cancelled. They did not deserve a proper send off.
So, this is just genuine dislike, which is fine. I have no problem with people who genuinely don't like a show. You do mention 'lore' but the jump to your opinion of something you didn't like, which has nothing to do with lore. I'm glad you commented, it was nice to read your opinion. Although, did you forget Season 4? You don't mention anything about the Ten-C? TBH, the best thing about Stamets and Culver was they were representing the drug crazy, promiscuous gays like every other tv show.
No, I didn't just jump to my opinion of something I didn't like, trektrav. I demonstrate a nuanced understanding of star trek's legacy as well as a deep understanding of discovery's story structure and eloquently explain how discovery fails to honor this by supporting my statements with examples from the series. I focus on character development and story telling in a well supported and well reasoned manner. You just used a strawman argument. Which is what I'm used to you doing. You completely missed all the nuance in my argument yet again. Just like discovery misses all of the nuance of Star Trek. And no I didn't miss season 4. That was the season the mutant child destroyed all the warp drives in the galaxy when he screames. Burnham's boyfriend tries to genocide the 10-C, displaying extremely poor judgement on Burnham's part. She should have been demoted for that alone. Whataboutism btw. So you like Staments and Culber because they're not stereotypes? That they're just no story at all? Btw I knew that about you. You told me before and I gave you an example of decent story telling about the lgbt struggle. And you strawman fallacied that argument too.
@@TrekTrav yup. Good job. I dont come back often anymore. I think if you were able to acknowledge more of the diverse opinions out there about the show you would probably appeal to a broader cross section of viewers rather than just shooting down opinions you dont like. Look at it like a personal challenge. There are personal checks that we must all hold ourselves to in order to a) determine whether our own views are valid or not and b) in order to grow as individuals. Blaming it all on anti-wokism reminds me of Trudeau ignorantly shooting down any criticism of his government because its anti wokism even though his government lead the country into the greatest era of wage disparity in canadian history and yet he remains completely oblivious to his growing loss of support and popularity and is completely out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent or deliver information to. His hard headedness is leading him, and the country, to his/its doom. Leaving voters/viewers completely alienated and disenfranchised. This is meant to be more constructive criticism. Not a jab. Note how I had to preface i was gay 3 times in my first comment. I shouldn't have to do that to make a well reasoned argument. Which still hasn't and definitely won't be responded to.
I didn't even notice if it's woke. It's stupid. The ship, supposedly before Star Trek OST, can go anywhere in the Universe. And it's powered by a mushroom drive, which is just bonkers. The inside of the ship is a pinball game. I could go on...
Lol....I'd like to point out that the Spore drive is just as unrealistic as FTL warp drive. They are both made up things. It took me a while to get used to the Spore Drive too, but if you look at it as Discovery being a experimental ship then it makes more sense. At least in my head. I don't get the Pinball thing though.??
Disco Cultists always immediately run to people being " anti-woke " as the reason people hated the horrible writing. Then stick their fingers in their ears and go " la la la " when it comes to an reasonable debate. Also the comparison of warp drive doesn't exist so it's the same as magic mushrooms, is peak false equivalence. Warping space is grounded in actual science you know the SCIENCE part of Sci-Fi, Magic Mushroom drive is Sci - Fantasy., heavy on the Fantasy. It belongs in something like Star Wars. not Star Trek.
@@TrekTrav FTL warp drive is actually not implausible. TOS and then TNG were largely based on prevailing theories at the time, although many discredited now. They still had an air of plausibility. For example the Alcubierre drive and Lenz drive are two theories that agree with Einstein's general and special relativity that are FTL warp drives. This is exactly the problem with discovery. Its a catch all for any dumb idea. Like logic extremists. It tries to pander that any idea is equally plausible when it isn't. TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 were shows about secular values and right and wrong. There were black and white right and wrong conundrums in those shows. And it taught people how to deal with those conundrums outside of the context of religion, which is where most shows got their morals from in the 60s and 80s. When it was stated on Star Trek Voyager "There are only 5 dimensions" they were alluding to Kaluza Klein theory. Subspace is an allusion to Kaluza Klein theory. A mycellium network is just pure fiction. These aren't equally comparable concepts.
Discovery lost me when: 3. Super-Captain Bernham surfed on the back of a ship travelling at warp 2. Two straships dip their noses in the sand of a planet to save a village from an avalanche. 1. A speeder scene right out of Star Wars on a planet that look suspiciously like Tatooine. And that was all in just one episode.
If Discovery is not cannon, it can be treated like it did not exist. None of the previous episodes of other series would be affected in any way. They were used as plotpoints (fan service) to Discovery episodes and in no way alter what happened in other shows with those same plot points...they do not need Discovery to be cannon, they already were. I honestly don't understand your logic. The only show where Discovery might affect their own cannonography is Strange New Worlds, and they dropped Discovery like a hot potato in their first episode by establishing it as the "ship that may not be named" (Star Trek's Voldemort).
Lol, the episode Momento Mori. Actively inserts itself in to canon. By referencing events in TNG (Unification 3 and The Chase), it once again aligns it's timeline with TNG. As much as people dislike Discovery, it's firmly in there.
@@TrekTrav What comes after does not affect what came before. Discovery was not mentioned in Unification 3 or The Chase and therefore does not exist within them. I think, like Billy Pilgrim, you've become unstuck in time. Discovery can insert itself all it wants, if it is not cannon, those insertions are meaningless to what came before. If someone never watched Discovery, those episodes still work fine.
Multiple plot points from Discovery, from the Crossfield Class to Pike's experience with time crystals, to Burnham's very existence, are referenced in SNW. By the "dropped like a hot potato" logic, you can say that DS9 dropped the Enterprise -- shows up in the pilot and is barely mentioned again in any deep way (despite the O'Brien's presence) until Worf comes on board in Season 4. And even then? No Enterprise on screen, just referenced. For that matter, Voyager literally leaves from DS9, and that space station isn't mentioned again, because -- like all the above -- it's not relevant to the story in the spinoff.
@@TrekTrav As a life-long Trek and Holmes fan, I 1000% approve of this comment. And, given that Doyle was friends with Oscar Wilde, I'm pretty sure Spock's ancestor would approve, as well. :)
Ugg, I've had this conversation may times over the past 2 weeks. Even though I never liked Discovery, it's glaringly obvious that a single passing joke in Lower Decks doesn't "erase" a separate series from cannon. That was simply a joke from the writers, not a dictum from the IP owners.
You couldn’t be further off base. It has nothing to do with race or gender. If that were the case then the same attitudes would be held for Janeway or Sisko. DS9 was arguably the best trek with the best writing. The problem with discovery is that the writing was awful. I never took into consideration the acting but yea now that I think of it that was bad too. For the most part Discovery, taking place in the 32nd century erases the evolution of humanity in the federation. Explain the mole scene with Greys new synthetic body. It was a copy of his original body, which he obviously had an issue with, but in the 32nd century they can’t remove moles?? They can do that today. The fact is that “we older men” who have been trek fans long before you have come to the expect a high quality writing with attention to detail. That’s what made trek so great. Discovery was just a disaster of holes. And as for the appearance of the Klingons if you actually watched the original shows you would know that was explained.
I've watched all of Trek. I am 39 years old, not a child. They did have a problem with Janeway and Sisko, do you not remember? If you sincerely didn't like the show because of the writing then that is fine. I have no issue with that. It does seem very VERY odd that the shows people complain about ATM are the shows without a straight white guy isn't the lead. You must admit that it's a pattern, and not a good one.
@ I don’t remember any issues with Sisko. Many older trek fans regard DS9 as pretty much the best written trek. And yes I am also gay and you do have a point about not having a gay lead but that isn’t why I dislike Discovery so much. I just feel that put up against DS9 in terms of solid writing there are too many holes. I could easily get past the over emotional crew if not for the plot holes. Even tho older trek failed in portraying gay characters I grew up watching with the notion that earth and the federation were for the most part utopian and people have evolved beyond petty differences so understanding that the show aired in the late 80s looked past that. Tho while not in lead roles there were episodes that handled that message back then with finnessy. TNG Season 5 episode 15 I believe. It was called “The Outcast”. It’s a must watch and strongly recommend you watch it if you haven’t seen it. It’s a great episode on gender. There was also an episode called “rejoined” not sure the season or episode but pleas watch that one. Also the Ferengi were used used to tell about female empowerment with Quarks mother. It’s just quality and continuity of writing for me. That’s why I dislike Discovery. All the other stuff doesn’t really bother me.
@@TrekTrav Also the problems people had with TNG, DS9 or Voy, went away... the people that bitched got over it quickly, or went away quickly, BECAUSE THE SHOWS ARE GREAT. Discovery is OVER and people STILL HATE IT with as much passion and rage as when it started. THAT is not the same as any of the other treks.
@@alexanderdeburdegala4609 TNG, DS9 and Voyager started at a time when the internet either wasn't available to the average person (TNG, DS9) or was in its absolute infancy (VOY). And there was a SHITLOAD of whiny dudebro criticism of VOY through its entire run and for years afterward, mostly aimed at the female characters who were (wait for it) unrealistic, Mary Sues, overly emotional, and so forth. This lasted for YEARS AND YEARS after the show ended.
@@katherineberger6329 No, not really. I mean you'll have nuts in any fandom, but it was a tiny tiny fraction. Sorry I was around then, I was going to cons, that just wasn't happening.
The Barge of the Dead is pretty much the main focus against this whole "DISCO isn't canon" argument; if you're saying that guy becoming a Discovery Klingon means that the show isn't canon, then Barges of Dead from Voyager are also not canon, so either Voyager or the barges are out. But then also proto-klingons are also out, since they turned into that as well. So either the Episode "Genesis" isn't canon, or TNG isn't canon.
The day you guys find it ok that darth vader will be a ewok, is the day i find discovery canon😂its a reason writers write stories. Its also a reason great stories last. Its a reason we actually have the word....canon
Actually, the actors saved the early Discovery episodes. That first season was a bit rough, with palpable changes in direction and writing. The visual reboot was thrown on top of this, along with the dark tone, and of course there was a fan backlash. But, the cast acted the Hell out of it and kept us invested, while we remembered how rough the first season of TNG was. And, we were rewarded. Season 2 onward were awesome.
Agreed. Season 1 of discovery was actually decent, and its 100% because of Jason Isaacs. I also didn't mind Michelle Yeoh's character, but again she's an amazing actress. Outside of that though, I think the following seasons are easily some of the worst written scripts in TV history. 7 signals All life destroyed All warp engines destroyed 5 puzzle pieces These are recycled season arcs and lazy quests fit for a video game for a 12 year old. I expect star wars to be better than this. And star wars is for kids.
Stopped watching at 1:14 Completely missed the point and fundamentally disregards similar experiences in alternate timelines. To hear that ST:D Is not canon is the biggest " _Eat shit_ " I can say to Discovery fans. That show was dreadfully bad. But here's the thing: What's so *BAD* About being a side-universe? I adore the Kelvin Timeline for example, and that's set in a completely alternate universe. That Discovery is now also an alternate universe, is fine. That's all I wanted to hear because I refused to accept it, being pre-TOS era. So joy for me.
Because it's not side universe. The Kelvin movies are cleaved from the prime universe by huge events in the first two movies -- the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock's mother, and the death of Christopher Pike. Spock had lines in the 2009 movies explaining the alternate timeline. No such huge events separate Discovery from the shows made before, and Discovery is loaded with references and footage from TOS and TNG.
Not only that, but let's say they did want to remove Discovery and everything else Kurtzman made from "canon" or whatever, don't you think they'd make a bigger deal out of it? I'm thinking of DC Comic's' Crisis on Infinite Earths 12-issue limited series in the 1980s which was meant to clean up their multiverse. (They've wandered back to a multiverse in the four decades since, but I digress.) That was Huge. The Kelvin Universe is cleaved from the prime universe by huge events and deaths in the first two movies. In contrast, we have five seconds of film in the Lower Decks finale. Someone who is STARTING their Star Trek with Discovery and Lower Decks before moving onto the older shows will see the LD scene and think, 'Oh, that's what Klingons looked like back in the day. And yeah, I guess the rift is dangerous.' The mere fact there's pushback means it wasn't enough. Discovery is still canon and prime universe. It hasn't changed. Oh, and I am a 60-year-old white man.
I watched Discovery all the way through. Not a huge fan. While I felt that I could connect with Paul and Hugh, I had trouble connecting with Adira and Gray. What’s frustrating is that I WANT to connect with NB characters. I want to find them relatable and I want them to be deeply humanized. For me, Adira was just sort of… there. And plot elements involving them felt… tedious. I hate that. Because I don’t want to feel that way about a character that’s trailblazing. But I did. Maybe it’s my biases or limitations. But I don’t think so. Mainly because I hope there are more NB characters. Maybe I’ll connect with one of them. Discovery never had enough time to let characters breathe. There were so many character moments in TNG - like Data reading a cat poem, or Worf having a mud bath with Lwaxana Troi - Discovery didn’t have enough time for that. Which is a shame. Maybe I would have been charmed by more of the characters if they had more time to breathe. But it’s still canon damnit!
It's really difficult in Discovery's case because they would have huge storylines for the season, less episodes, and less down time for the characters.
Here’s what everyone on all sides of this debate keeps getting wrong: It’s not about canon. It’s about continuity. Canon and continuity are NOT synonymous; they are NOT the same thing. Yes, you are correct that Discovery is still canon. The proper question is not whether it’s canon, it’s whether or not it’s still in the same CONTINUITY (or timeline) as The Original Series, et al. While you are correct that you can’t just erase Discovery, the same should be said for The Original Series-which a fair number Discovery fans have openly called for its deletion from canon, the very cornerstone of the canon itself. So, set all that nonsense aside, and I don’t care about the politics; let’s just look at this rationally from a strict continuity perspective-and it’s here where we find legitimate problems, and I don’t just mean the visuals, but clear obvious problems with the chronological narrative itself, which can’t be so easily lampshaded just by calling it “classified.” It’s all so classified that Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Chapel never even heard of the Gorn in TOS, after three of the four were serving on a the same Enterprise actively engaged with them only a few years prior. There are legitimate issues here that go beyond “the visuals have changed” and “Burnham cries too much” But what has been recently presented in the shows themselves is a chance to make everyone happy, but clearly isn’t. In other words, could “Discovery” and “Strange New Worlds” be in a separate timeline from The Original Series and 90s Trek? Again, I’m talking about timelines, ergo continuity, not canon. It’s ALL canon. And the answer is-possibly. And, if so, why is that a bad thing? Everyone is obsessed over a single sight gag in “Lower Decks,” but “Strange New Worlds” had already basically admitted onscreen that Discovery and SNW were actually set in an alternate timeline from TOS, in the episode “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow.” In that episode, Mary, Queen of Scots-erm, I mean, Sera, the female Romulan agent-strongly implies that she was from the “original” TOS timeline, and that she was sent back to the 1990s on a mission to kill Khan. The problem was, not only was he not in power by the 1990s, he hadn’t even been born, yet, and the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s never took place-dramatically altering the history of the Star Trek timeline that she knew. Fast forward, thirty years later, Sera has been marooned on Earth since the 90s-and is now aware of a child living in Toronto in 2023, whose name just happens to be Khan Noonnen Singh, suggesting that the Eugenics Wars will now take place in the 21st century. Obviously, this changes everything we know about “Space Seed” and “Star Trek II: Thr Wrath of Khan.” (Are THEY no longer “canon?”) And how did this all come about? The Temporal Cold War (reference “Star Trek: Enterprise”). These were her words, not mine-and they were stated onscreen, meaning it’s canon. So, what do we make of this? Forget the sight gag in the animated “Lower Decks.” The live-action, fully canonical “Strange New Worlds” is basically admitting, or at the very least, strongly suggesting that SNW (and by extension, “Discovery”) exist in an alternate timeline from The Original Series. Is that a bad thing? No, it actually provides a means of perplexed TOS fans like myself to be able to ENJOY Discovery and SNW without having to worry about whatever anachronistic things the writers come up with to seemingly overwrite The Original Series. In another words, by allowing a “Discovery-verse” timeline to coexist parallel to a separate “TOS-verse,” it PRESERVES the canon of both TOS and Discovery/SNW, not erases it. So, unless the goal is erase TOS from canon, why is this a bad thing? It ought to make EVERYONE happy. Finally, you were mentioning a number of events from TNG, etc, asking, wouldn’t those be erased from canon as well? No, not at all. The whole pop culture idea of a multiverse, be it in TV, movies or comics, is that similar or even identical events can happen in multiple timelines, parallel to each other-and that characters in multiple universes sometimes look alike and sometimes they don’t (and that totally doesn’t have anything to do with them being played be different actors). We simply accept it as a “multiverse.” All that said, a lot of uproar would have been dramatically lessened if the writers of Discovery and SNW had simply paid attention to the continuity to begin with.
I actually did a video called 'The Ultimate Timeline' and another called 'First Contact Theory', basically discussing that every time travel episode in Trek alters details slightly. Meaning that the correct way to watch Trek is in creation order. Specifically in First Contact, the Borg incursion changed the Enterprise timeline, which altered other timelines etc. It's a very interesting topic. Thank you for commenting😁
@@TrekTrav - It is very interesting, indeed. The First Contact scenario is interesting because the question arises, did it change the “original” timeline or was that what “secretly” happened all along? Did Q truly introduce the Borg and Federation to each other when he flung the Enterprise-D across the galaxy? Or did he simply make Picard and crew aware of something the Federation was secretly already aware of, as the Hanson expedition seems to suggest? It remains an open question. My frustration with Discovery was never whether or not Burnham should exist as Spock’s adopted sister (I defended her existence on my own channel) or who is or isn’t gay (I couldn’t care less). But I admit I am a stick in the mud when it comes to adhering to continuity-and yes, for me, that does include honoring visual continuity, as well as (and especially) making chronological EVENTS line up in a logical manner. It’s possible to not be overjoyed by the narrative direction a story takes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it breaks continuity. Disney Star Wars has had its writing issues, but I have openly praised Disney for honoring and meticulously recreating the look and feel of 1970s sci-fi. We know that, the TOS Enterprise and the 60s visual esthetics and hairstyles of that era existed in the 2260s, because TNG “Relics,” DS9 “Trials and Tribble-ations” and ENT “In a Mirror, Darkly,” all reconfirmed and celebrated it, without the use of “cardboard” as has been often snarked. SNW, to its credit, has gone to great lengths to bring back a sense of that look and feel-which I appreciate. But as I mentioned above, the Gorn being the major Big Bad in a not-at-all subtle or ambiguous way, is a very concerning issue if this is supposed to be a direct prequel to TOS. That was my primary issue with Discovery. Why say that you’re writing a direct prequel to a beloved series if you’re just going to ignore it? What’s the purpose of that other than to deliberately piss off your existing fanbase? And I don’t adhere to strange logic of some that you win a windfall of new fans by telling your existing fans to eff off. That doesn’t make any sense. I’m a fan of a number a pre-existing franchises, because my parents were fans of them-and I’m actively introducing things that I love to the next generation, and the kids love them. Don’t think for a second that kids don’t adore old Hanna-Barbera cartoons just because they were made fifty to sixty years before they were born. They love them because they are timeless. And Star Trek is timeless. There were two things they could have done with Discovery. They could have taken the same basic storyline, and set it post-Nemesis, and no one would’ve batted an eye in terms of continuity. A “spore drive” that could instantly send you anywhere in the universe would be a great storytelling device in that context, without Janeway opening a classified file and yelling, “Wait! WTF!?” LOL! Or…second option, the thing I was really excited about in 2016-ish, would have been to do an actual TRUE prequel to TOS, set in the Cage-era, instead of an unrecognizable mess from writers who seemingly never watched the series they claim to be writing a prequel to. And if the goal is to attract new fans in addition the old ones, then why base your whole premise on such a “deep cut” as the Cage-era? Novice fans don’t know or care anything about The Cage-era, but old timers like me certainly do-and they’re effectively telling me to eff off. So, who was it for? It never made sense. I think the primary difference between the 90s Berman era and the current Kurtzman era, wasn’t that the writers back then got everything right, but they at least made an attempt to work within the existing continuity and reconcile existing errors. We Trekkies are the kings and queens of nitpickers (that’s part of the fun), but there was never any perception that they openly hated the source material. Let’s just say we get a far different impression from first season Discovery. So, the question is (perhaps similar to the First Contact scenario) is, could the events of Discovery and Strange New Worlds ultimately BECOME reconcilable with the canonical chronology of The Original Series? It’s a tall order, but not necessarily impossible. “Enterprise” basically fixed the potential continuity error when it came to Seven of Nine’s origin story, in which her family was studying the Borg, apparently years before the Enterprise-D encountered them. “Enterprise” effectively canonized a fan theory that Starfleet already secretly knew about the Borg, with a rather well written sequel to “First Contact.” The time paradox comes full circle, the existing timeline preserved. Could SNW have taken steps to repair the anachronism that is “Star Trek: Discovery?” I think they could have, and in early SNW season 1, I was cautiously optimistic that they were attempting to do just that. But then here came the Gorn in the most in-your-face way they possibly could. That’s when I basically lost hope that the writers cared anything at all about continuity with TOS. But then (to their credit??) came out with “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” in which they basically said, “Na, don’t worry about it. It’s a new timeline.” Not the solution I would have preferred, but at least it’s a solution.
@@TrekTrav Why is that not enough? We don't like it. We aren't watching it. We aren't rewatching it. What star trek fan wants the future of the federation to be a collapse caused by a crying child blowing up a load of cyrstals? How is that worthy of being canonical to the history of the galaxy? Its not. Its stupid. These shows are stupid. You must be stupid or you are not telling us your real reason for liking these shows. May I ask, are you luciferian? I've noticed alot of people who like discovery are luciferian and enjoy all the luciferian references in the show.
@@TrekTrav Stop pretending you haven't be told millions of times the reasons STD sucks over the years. It and all the other nuTrek live action shows have been decanonized / quarantined in the STDVerse. Get over it.
@@TrekTrav Numerous. I think one of the biggest reasons is that CBS keeps trying to make Trek that isn't Trek. Trek fans aren't on the edge of their seat waiting for the announcement of a cheap action flick show. Trek fans like the cerebral and episodic format of the TNG-->ENT era. Discovery tries something new, but it isn't very good at being a Star Trek show.
@curzon9619 The thing is that you can't rely on 40 year old fans completely. For a show to last it has to renew it's fan base. Just keeping the show the same means it will die eg. Enterprise.
Thank you Trav. I'm 68 and i agree with much of what you say. I like Discovery and I like all other Star Trek franchises. I enjoy watching all of it and I look forward to all the new stuff. I agree there seem to be a lot of haters out there for the shows you mentioned. Recent Dr Who and recent Trek as well. The hating Michael Burnham and the hating of Jodie Whittaker and Ncuti Gatwa to me seems like mob-like bullying toxic male crap. I think we need to get this into some perspective, so i would like to address this next bit to the haters.. It's just entertainment people. Sometimes they get right and it's wonderful and sometimes they don't. That's how the creative arts works. If you haven't enjoyed something or you feel disappointed that the show didn't meet your expectations, well, it happens. It's normal. Don't make a federal case over it. Don't pretend there are hidden agendas or conspiracies. Just write a negative review with hopeful some well thought out reasons as to why it failed and leave it at that. Then get on with your lives and let those who enjoy those shows get on with theirs. It's called live and let live. It's called respect.
Thank you for commenting. I'm rewatching Doctor Who: Flux ATM and to be honest it's really great. I did the same with Discovery, it just took time and a rewatch to enjoy it and get it.
You hit it all on the head I agree with everything that you have said I am a first-generation Star Trek fan I was born in 64 and started watching it in 68 I congratulate you on hitting it on the head
"I hate Lower Decks, its animated!" So was TAS... So was TAS... Edit: Another fav; the musical episode is rubbish of SNW. They'd totally have done it in TOS or TNG is they'd come up with it. The series has the first on screen racial kiss... I do agree DIS is more woke then ST should be, but if thats their whole issue with DIS, thats sad because there has always been a element of "woke" to ST with a Japanese, Black woman and Russian on the main crew staff during an era of the USA history when the cold war was on, they knew what they were doing. My issue with the main character is she reads like a fanfiction self-insert. But heres the thing, I didn't go off the entire franchise because of DIS. Its badly written, most agree, with some of the worst ST writing ever in places and concepts that are far out there even for ST. But its what the crew wanted to do and thats it. I came into ST off of TNG, my father was a TOS fan and thats how I became a ST fan. To this day I still like ST because of TNG. I think the series you ride in on will be the reflection of your opinions of ST. But I see people act like Scotty didn't say "I know this ship like the back of my hand" and ST has always been this conservative, joke-less serious series. Its always been cringey, camp thing. Its popularity is mostly built on out of all its era, it was the only sci-fi show prepared not to be some dystopian future where mankind screwed up. The idea of going to space and discovering new things, making peace with alien races, while faces various challenges, that was a reflection of America they wanted the series to ask. I'm British, and the message the series message wasn't lost over the pond either.
I feel like people who are harping on this and claiming Disc isn't canon didnt pay attention to the lower decks finale. The episode literally had multiple realities, hundreds if not thousands of realities where some share clear similarities and at times major differences. The disc klingon appearing was just an easter egg (lower decks' bread and butter) and not producers removing Disc from canon. Believing anything else is just desperation. Disc is probably my least favorite Trek, but it is still Trek. Personally I wish the entire series started in the 32nd century. The series really found it's footing by then in season 3. 🖖☕
I agree wholeheartedly. The Burn was cool until the end, the TenC were very Gene Roddenberry and Season 5 was amazing. I enjoyed every episode and wish we got more in the 32nd century. Thanks for commenting.
It's an awesome show, and I loved the ride. It's what Star Trek was meant to be. Discovering new worlds and new ideas. And it boldly went there. The end.
Could you name any of these 'new worlds' they discovered? I can't recall any. And weren't they nororiously going about the universe not 'boldly' but emotionally and crying like teenage girls all the time.
@@TrekTrav the last episode to me that split timeline of previous zklibgon design and Discovery klingons was a 4rth wall joke. But if its canon, no wonder we have diffrent factions of the fandom at odds with eachother.
@@TrekTrav No it isn't. You've been duped. It's a satirical comedy, and you look silly trying to say it's as legit as TNG. Get over it. It's a cartoon.
My approach to Discovery is simple. If I watch Discovery I realize I'm watching Discovery and I watch it through that lens. It is what is. Worrying about canon is just too much energy. I've liked Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard Season 3 much more than the rest. I still like classic Star Trek better. But crying about Disco is just a waste of time.
Criticism of STD the characters, the technology the continuity errors the horrible writing it seemed like it was just another sci fi show, where was the hope the morality play go watch prodigy those characters grew so much due to the writers attention to detail STD did not have that it felt rushed thrown together and the characters felt like checked boxes instead of real characters they didn't have depth name something one bridge member does for fun..... ill wait
STD is not canon it is in a different universe look at it man everything is cannon till std even the kelvin time line is different and that is fine with me i didn't like it anyway..
Sorry, Discovery is Prime Timeline, I lay out the reasons in this video. Another point is they literally used footage from TOS to continue a story. Momento Mori and Captain Pike.
I started out watching discovery wanting to like new trek. I ate the woke ideology and was like I get it ok, these people do exist and they're trying to be inclusive. My biggest issue is that Michael Burnham is not an interesting character and when we have to have a 2 part "long goodbye" slog through 2 whole episodes and then not actually say goodbye...... I'm done.
@@TrekTrav Yes, a lot of focus on 'slimy' personal relationships that have no place in a Scifi series, we have soap opera's for that. Plus the religious undertone of it all, writers that seems to live in a mystical world with ghosts and creators, and on top of that of course NASA should invest in mushrooms for their next space travel means of propulsion. I don't know what's going on in the heads of the writers, but I wouldn't want to be there.
@brulaapgaapmeester8052 A. Star Trek was built on Captain Kirk and other being "slimy" B. Ghosts and creators? What are you on about? C. Warp drive is just as fanciful as Mycelium.
@@ajctrading Warp drive is absolutely as fanciful as space tardigrades. Maybe you need to read it again. The papers on the subject are very clear on the fact that warp drive as currently conceived requires multiple generations of technologies we have not even prototyped yet.
I'm sorry you're getting so much hate, here. I am a literally life-long Trek fan, in that it's my 1st memory ("Errand of Mercy", on a Black and White set), and I adore Discovery. I'm always bemused (when not enraged) by the "it's (OBJECTIVELY) Bad Writing" argument. That's in part because I had to suffer for years thru sucking down "Spock's Brain", or knowing that the painful "Turnabout Intruder" was the last (at the time!) I'd see my pals in live action. I mean, as much as we have reassessed the 1970s Animated Series, it's still got some tough ones. I mean, I remember reading people passionately defending TNG Season1 after it came out! But part of that was that Trek, back then, was a precious commodity. And, even with that, there were plenty of fans who, like the examples in your comment section today, were happy -- nay, ecstatic -- to blast TNG for not having Kirk/Spock/McCoy, etc. And...I don't get it. There's parts of this now-sprawling franchise I don't care for, as with any work of this scope and size and complexity. Sometimes it gets to me so much, I AU Trek production. There's days I wonder what Trek would be like if Gene Coon had lived to continue his contributions. Or if Gerrold had been able to put "Blood and Fire" on the air. But: Discovery was a revelation, for me. It wasn't Trek as I knew it; it was both bigger and more intimate, a scope as wide as time itself and yet -- for the first time -- focused on one person, in ways that must have made Shatner jealous. :) I loved how Discovery, once it got over the need to be edgy and cranky, found itself a deep found family. No, it wasn't The Bridge Crew, and that's OK! What it was, was people who still embodied the best of the Federation, were better than us today, and also going thru some shit. It was Emotional in ways that TOS took 2 movies to get too, and then TNG ran like hell from for too long of it's run. And I don't know why, because Kirk and Spock are openly emotional throughout TOS! It's how we know these people care, how we came to love them -- not because they were always upright and Hornblowers in Space, but because, so often, they were just extraordinary people in extraordinary situations, and unable to hold back for "rationality". Discovery leans into that. It allows these people to be both extraordinary in that ineffable Trek way, while also allowing them to just have a fuller slate of emotional reactions. That, I treasure. And, honestly? I treasure that, for one, a Trek protagonist got to have an full-blown happy ending. In a franchise that oftentimes mines people for decades of angst (I see you, Seven!), I feel that, er we ever see Burnham again (and I hope we do!), we know she's at least in a great place, beloved and loved. This is long enough, so I'll close on this, even as I risk my Inbox blowing up here: I have real and distinct and thought-thru reasons to love this show. I'm not just saying the above out of reflex, or ignorance. I've put a lot of hours into reading both critical panning of Discovery, and thinking thru the reactions...and I don't get it. Not enough to see these massive waves of reactions on anything that even hints that this show is, in fact, Good TV, and Good Trek. They are all, welcome to their opinions. They are, however, not showing the best of Fandom, much less anything like IDIC, in how they seem to want to demand debate and engagement, with you. For that, I am sorry -- I don't own this fandom, but as part of it, well-considered opinions like yours deserve more respect, and not just because I agree :)
Thank you so much for writing such a beautiful response. I'm genuinely happy when I see someone loving Discovery. When I watched the first season, I was very weirded out by the whole thing and didn't know how I felt. In the last few years I rewatched and fell in love with the show. Thank you so much for commenting❤️
I don’t think you realize the definition of an alternate reality. If discovery is part of an alternate reality just because there are similarities or parallels between the prime reality does not mean that they actually go together. And if you erase discovery, that does not mean you have to erase all of the others because there are similarities. I actually do like this theory because it would explain why discovery is so different. And yes, I think discovery is one of the worst Star Trek ever created… yes even worse than enterprise. My main complaint is how they designed the Klingons. Second is with Michael. It has nothing to do with her being a female or a person of color. It has everything to do with how the character developed. Think about it, she was raised by Vulcans from a young age, and she joined a military organization. But yet she is the only character that is hyper emotional none of that makes sense. Now I would understand if they wrote her to cry a couple episodes a season, but it ends up being the majority of episodes she is crying. Next I hated Tilly as a character. I hated her from the beginning. The burn was an interesting storyline that ended in the worst way. It was so anticlimactic and dumb. And lastly, Star Trek has covered so issues, including gender, LGBT, slavery, etc., but they always did it in a smart and interesting way without actually talking about that issue. Every single series prior to discovery did this discovery made it so overt that even me, as a gay man, felt overloaded by all of the LGBT stuff they were throwing at you. There was nothing subtle about this TV show, and you didn’t really have anything to fall in love with unlike the other characters and other shows like Janeway, the doctor, 7 of 9, data, Worf, Dax, Kira, Uhura, La Forge, Riker, Guinan, just to name a few. They drew you in. So no keep your “they only hated because they are minorities” crap. We hated these shows because they were trash and only made to make money rather than make a good TV show. And I think you are forgetting how much flack Enterprise got. It was said that was and some may still consider the worst Trek. That was a white male lead hahaha! There goes your whole theory!
@ and you’re wrong hahaha your arrogance is annoying. Truth must really hurt. Not used to people with actual arguments eh? Nah uh isn’t a response hahaha
i will never.. ever... view captain weep and cry every SINGLE episode ... as Spocks sister. it will never happen. i dont care what you think or say.... you are young. you will learn.
Before i comment i wonder if discovery will be looked on more fondly in a few years like Enterprise. I liked discovery but it has massive problems, star picard season 3 was actually fantastic to me for context. I liked they moved it into the future that was a good move, Iiked the exploration of the mirror universe ect but it just never seemed to know what it wanted to be every time it got into a rhythm it kinda just changed or went of plot. Its hard to exsplain 😂 but it felt like it was trying to be star trek without it being star trek but it was star trek in a lot of episodes, but some it felt like something else. The last season was decent as a last season and your right is does personify a lot of the ideals of what a star trek show should be. one thing i will point out is the way it was filmed put people of a little ths lens flares the gloss some muddy cgi you can tell especially last season ect they went with a different approach like strange new worlds less of that JJabrams style ect. Everything had colour again. Also people instantly got put of from discovery being a prequel just that time when it started people were just not interested in a prequal and then there was confusion whether itvwas kelvin or prime 😂 i remember all that. In the end it was a 7/10 show decent but does not do enough for me as a star trek fan to ever rewatch maybe in 20 years who knows right now no.
As much as I love old trek, One of its glaring flaws was the lack of diversity. Sure it broke ground in some areas but why are their no gay people in the future? Why are there only like 2 different genres of music? Like... It stood out as pretty weird. Honestly its just a good practical choice to have more representation, It makes the world feel more real.
I've never really cared that much about Canon. if I really cared that much I probably wouldn't like lower decks as much as I do cause it's goofy with canon, I just want the show be interesting to watch, Discovery's first season was in my opinion the worst season of any Star Trek series ever and the only reason I decided to keep giving it a chance was because famously Star Trek first season usually aren't the greatest, And while I do think the show got better Over time I don't think it got much better and is The least entertaining least interesting most annoying Star Trek series easily in my view and I don't like it.
I agree wholeheartedly. What helped me was thinking of it like Doctor Who. When a production team changes they want to put their own stamp on things. I think that is what Bryan Fuller wanted with Discovery. Sadly change is a bad thing to a lot of people now.
Rusty-1-A.N.S. I agree with you. I like Discovery. It IS definitely Star Trek. Fuck Cannon. Those haters should go make their own syfy spaceship TV show! Or watch reruns of 60s Trek. Star Trek Discovery says "Boldly Go Forward"! "INFINITE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE COMBINATIONS". Let's leave the Ignorant Knuckle Dragging Throwbacks behind!!! WOKE FOREVER FORWARD ⚡️ENERGIZE FORWARD⚡️
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
My issue with Discovery was that it was used to get Star Trek fans to jumpstart their streaming service by putting new Star Trek behind a paywall they knew fans would pay for, and then they purposely created a show that threw out the aesthetic, continuity, and felt like a new sci-fi franchise with Star Trek logos and names thrown in.
New people weren’t signing up for CBS All Access to see Star Trek. Life long fans were.
They lured in fans but gave them a show that was not made for them.
I watched every episode the day they were released.
They course corrected eventually, and I loved season 5 and was sad to see it end now that they finally got it right.
Want to make it different and use technology that canonically shouldn’t exist? Set it in the future.
The writing could definitely be have been better… All warp technology was destroyed by a freak natural disaster? No. A maniacal villain? No.
A crying child.
Also, in general, STOP making prequels.
Every time Star Trek does them, they can’t help pulling stuff in from the future because they want to use that “cool thing” from the TNG era…
But I said this on Facebook and my comment was removed…
Lower Decks had waves that changed things to how they were in another quantum reality.
It changed a ship to a barge because in another quantum reality Klingons were still using sailing ships.
It changed the ship and the Klingon to Discovery era versions because they were from a quantum reality where they STILL looked like that. It in no way meant that they never looked like that in Lower Decks’ quantum reality.
I agree with everything you said.
Star Trek has always been used as Paramount's cash cow. UPN with Voyager is another example.
Normal TV is kinda of dying because of streaming and that's the way it is going to be.
The design elements of Discovery weren't such a huge issue for me, because I watch Doctor Who and with every new producer they change things up a bit. So the look never bothered me. I actually think out of all the new Trek shows Discovery is by far the one that adhered to Genes ideologies better in the end.
Thank you for commenting. Your response is very thought out and I loved it.
Oh, and definately need to stop making prequels.
Discovery, love or hate it, had cutting edge Starfleet technology and special effects that were movie quality. The future timeline upgrades including communicators with built-in tricorders AND transport technology was absolutely top notch.
The Discovery itself was canon as even fan films used a shelf model of one during the Star Trek Continuing Voyages episode where Kirk went to the Fleet Admiral's office after the 5 year mission for Enterprise under Kirk was over. As he looked at the ship models on the shelf, a canon one of Discovery was on there. This meeting was when Kirk was given his promotion to Admiral as well, by the way.
AND let us not forget, the Discovery series introduced us to Anson Mount as Captain Pike and the CBS/Paramount+ reimagined Enterprise NCC-1701 and the cast of "Strange New Worlds".
I think it's when STD producers, directors, and even actors called fans racists, haters, close minded, and "If you don't like it, it's not for you," Then complained that no one was watching it, yea, don't expect anyone to want to save something no one can even remember or were given a reason to care for.
A. None of them did. B. A lot (and I mean a lot) of the haters are racist, homophobic and transphobic. C. It was in the top ten of streaming in its final season. People watched.
@@TrekTrav 1. Jason Issacs literally generalized the every one who hated Disco, 2, While that is partly true that a huge generalization, Not every one is an Anti-Woke nutjob. 3. Top 10 on Paramount Plus really isn't the accomplishment you think it is.
@drsamquantum Top Ten in overall streaming. Not just paramount.
@@TrekTrav please provide a source.
@drsamquantum x.com/TripTrav1985/status/1782298831436284170?t=lyvxQvOyLpLBIN-6Qj6t5w&s=19
You're making such a generality of a group of fans. To reuse you own words, I am one of those "white old core fans", i'm 47 but I consider myself as a person of color, yep and don't give a damn if the main characters are of color, as you say, or are of whatever sex/genre. I love Voyager, I love DS9 and I love 2nd season of Discovery, 1st was OK but the new look of the Klingons and the spore drive really bothered me (it has no scientific foundation), the rest of the seasons were pure fantasy. Most episodes had no scientific foundation, so it's not science-fiction, it became some sort of space opera à la Star Wars and action scenes were so overkill. Hence, not canon. And to prove it's so irrelevant to wokism, i hate JJA's STverse AKA Kelvin timeline, stupid action movies and Khan should have stayed Indian.
I understand what you are saying. All I'm pointing out is the pattern of hatred the seems prevalent on Facebook from a certain demographic
The changes in Star Trek are similar to the changes in Doctor Who in the past 12 years or so. It feels like they hire people who are more accustomed to writing shallow teen drama stories rather than interesting science fiction. Even the technobabble isn't convincing.
@MiqelDotCom I disagree. Doctor Who has writers from its prime on the show now. The problem is the older fans go in expecting the show to still be written for them, and it's not. The show is written in Doctor Who and Discovery's case for older teens and young adults.
The fans however apparently hate change or anything new and different. Discovery was a production team change, Doctor Who had them all the time . Yet the base fans couldn't accept that things might look a bit different but can still hold true.
Discovery in particular got more and more Star Trek and focused on the positive future as it went by. The fans got more angry and vitriolic because it wasn't exactly like TNG, and yet the reason Enterprise was cancelled was because it was too same same, like TNH
@@TrekTrav Thanks for the reply! I would argue it's possible to like things which are new, novel, and different and still feel that Discovery isn't a good show. Even watching at not as Star Trek but just as a random scifi it's still just barely mid. I applaud their efforts to make some tweaks based on fan feedback.
The fact it's written *for teens* is fine, my complaint with it when it appears to be written *by teens.*
Anyhow, it's not "the death of Star Trek" or whatever the doomer folks are saying. SNW, Lower Decks and Prodigy are all pretty good. 3 out of 5 isn't bad considering how difficult it is to make a tv show..
Oh I'm over it, because it is over. Now we can move on to better things. There is not a single detail about this show that makes me want to include it with the rest of the franchise. It doesn't have a single redeeming quality for me. I'm more pissed about the fungus and tardigrades than the cast. The whole thing just doesn't fit, doesn't work with Star Trek. It is stupid, lazy, pretentious writing.
I disagree wholeheartedly. It is the most progressive, good natured and original Trek of this generation of shoes.
It tries to do things new and differently without constantly trying to appease a bunch of old TNG fans who just can't understand that it wasn't made for them.
Discovery sucked because it was badly written. It was not true to what the essence of Star Trek is. Voyager had the first female captain and that was a great show. Just because it has good special doesn’t make it a good show.
How wasn't it true to the essence of Star Trek?
The cost or making ST:D 'not canon' is worth it.
Sure
Remove Paramount+ from Star Trek, and Disney from Star Wars. Problem solved.
@@PeBoVision You always have the option to do that. You just have to get people to pay attention to your personal version of Star Trek while making it different enough from the official product to not draw copyvio suits.
Zach Snyder tried that. It didn't go over too well with the audience.
@@katherineberger6329 I don't see any reason to get people to adapt to my point of view...I (and they) enjoy media in our own minds. No one has to agree or disagree with my point of view of what I watch.
The world is a very subjective place.
@@PeBoVision Oh, I see! You don't ACTUALLY want to produce a version of Star Trek that you want to watch, you just want to complain that other people who aren't you, don't know you, and aren't responsible to you, are producing a version of Star Trek that you DON'T want to watch.
Got it.
Canon Yes, Erased no, just put in a equal but alternative universe. Nothing wrong with that, Discovery never really made sense in the main / prime universe anyway.
It wasn't erased at all. In order for it too be then you would have to erase SNW, TNG, TOS, and a million other things.
I didn't say it was erased? I literally said the opposite? You seem confused.
Agree 100%
@@alexanderdeburdegala4609 TrekTrav often responds to the things that appeal to him the most. This whole video is that. Blaming all the criticism of Discovery on anti-wokism and sexism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the show, including many in this comments section. I often got in debates with him and he would repeatedly ignore all my valid points and just respond with oversimplified ones.
This is the problem with believing in appeals and not reason. Which is how Discovery differs from the other star treks like TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9. Discovery is to these shows what religion is to science. What misinformation is to information. It appeals to people that like misinformation which is why the cross section of people that like Discovery often does not overlap with traditional trekkies. Traditional trekkies can clearly tell that it does not carry on the original values of the show, but that doesn't matter to people that would prefer to believe in conspiracy theories and tiktok junk.
@@Jamex07 All the straw all the man.
I don't care what flavor of human the captain, or any other character is. I care if it looks, sounds, and feels like Trek. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be canon. Discovery doesn't find success on any of those metrics, so it isnt canon.
Because they should all like 60s cardboard sets?
@TrekTrav Did DS9 or Voyager, or even the red-headed stepchild that is Enterprise look like exacrly that? Why, no... no they didn't. Even Lower Decks manages to feel and look like Trek when it tries, and it tries fairly frequently.
It's got nothing to do with it being canon, race or gender.
Discovery, like The Acolyte, is just a badly written and badly acted show.
Sure
Nope. I think I’ll go right on saying it sucked. Because it sucked.
Mature
These are great shows. I'm 55... And queer 😅
Love Discovery, Doctor Who, She Hulk.
New Star Wars I wanted to love. But it feels like it was aimed at kids. Still fun, but juvenile plots that don't go anywhere, with cute critters clearly added for merchandising toys. Love having a woman Jedi, wish she had a chance to train to be good at the force instead of being instantly good.
Same issue as live action Mulan. It robs her of accomplishments by having her born that way. It's fun but shallow power fantasy, not that men don't have plenty of those too. So I merely like instead of love
I honestly don't get the She-Hulk hate. It's such a fun show.
Discovery isn't bad because its woke. Its bad because it's badly written. Perhaps one of the worst written shows in TV history, next to the remakes for charmed and roswell.
The only way I can reconcile star trek discovery and the huge lore breaking plot lines in literally every season was that when Burnham's mother traveled through time resulting in Burnham's adoption by Spock's dad was that she created a new timeline and Burnham's universe is an isolated timeline like the Kelvin and the Prime timeline.
Btw, I am gay. So not anti woke.
Reasons why Discovery is Bad:
1. Retconning the most famous character in the series is cheap
2. The seven signals of the red angel. A lazy quest.
3. Control destroying all life in the universe. Including established species like the Borg. Totally lore breaking.
4. The burn: a mutant child cried and blew up all the warp engines in the galaxy. Lazy, bad, makes no sense and is basically the same as point 3.
5. The 5 puzzle pieces that retconned and ripped off the most famous episode in TNG and turned it into an entire season arc. Same as point 2 btw and was just a lazy quest.
6. They turned point 5 into resurrection magic and not genetic engineering which is much more plausible.
Reasons why Burnham was bad:
Not because she was black or a woman.
She was insubordinat, she caused a war, she created at least half of the problems in the series, she should never have been promoted, when she was promoted her logic was terrible and didn't make sense, the whole shows concept of logic was illogical. Example: logic extremists. Like wtf? Also she went on away missions with her boyfriend. A sensible starfleet would have reprimanded her for this.
Again I am gay and a huge trans rights advocate.
But the characters of Staments, Culber and Adira were also just terribly written characters. There was nothing intelligent about staments. He was a pseudointellectual. Culber's skills as a psychiatrist were basically just smiling. Adera suddenly needed parents after successfully fending for herself and getting into star fleet. And the whole trill side plot was cringe and again lore breaking. They made it so trills didn't need hosts anymore? I felt no sense of family from them. It was like someone was playing barbies and just matched up a bunch of unrelated characters and said "now kiss."
The story didn't respect any of the established lore. They even ruined the breen by making them humanoid.
None of this is anti-wokism and this whole anti-anti-wokism tirade completely misses the point on why critics largely universally hated Discovery easily making it the worst star trek ever written.
Again:
7 signals
All life destroyed
All warp engines destroyed
5 puzzle pieces
These were season arcs. They had 5 seasons and came up with a total of 2 concepts for season arcs. Its just lazy.
I watched every episode except for the very last one. It was insulting and I had completely given up on the series at that point. I'm glad they were unceremoniously cancelled. They did not deserve a proper send off.
Also the skeleton crew isn't terribly written and I enjoy that show.
So, this is just genuine dislike, which is fine. I have no problem with people who genuinely don't like a show.
You do mention 'lore' but the jump to your opinion of something you didn't like, which has nothing to do with lore.
I'm glad you commented, it was nice to read your opinion.
Although, did you forget Season 4? You don't mention anything about the Ten-C?
TBH, the best thing about Stamets and Culver was they were representing the drug crazy, promiscuous gays like every other tv show.
No, I didn't just jump to my opinion of something I didn't like, trektrav.
I demonstrate a nuanced understanding of star trek's legacy as well as a deep understanding of discovery's story structure and eloquently explain how discovery fails to honor this by supporting my statements with examples from the series. I focus on character development and story telling in a well supported and well reasoned manner.
You just used a strawman argument. Which is what I'm used to you doing. You completely missed all the nuance in my argument yet again. Just like discovery misses all of the nuance of Star Trek.
And no I didn't miss season 4. That was the season the mutant child destroyed all the warp drives in the galaxy when he screames. Burnham's boyfriend tries to genocide the 10-C, displaying extremely poor judgement on Burnham's part. She should have been demoted for that alone. Whataboutism btw.
So you like Staments and Culber because they're not stereotypes? That they're just no story at all? Btw I knew that about you. You told me before and I gave you an example of decent story telling about the lgbt struggle. And you strawman fallacied that argument too.
@Jamex07 ohhhhh....now I know who this is. Welcome back.
@@TrekTrav yup. Good job. I dont come back often anymore. I think if you were able to acknowledge more of the diverse opinions out there about the show you would probably appeal to a broader cross section of viewers rather than just shooting down opinions you dont like. Look at it like a personal challenge. There are personal checks that we must all hold ourselves to in order to a) determine whether our own views are valid or not and b) in order to grow as individuals.
Blaming it all on anti-wokism reminds me of Trudeau ignorantly shooting down any criticism of his government because its anti wokism even though his government lead the country into the greatest era of wage disparity in canadian history and yet he remains completely oblivious to his growing loss of support and popularity and is completely out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent or deliver information to. His hard headedness is leading him, and the country, to his/its doom. Leaving voters/viewers completely alienated and disenfranchised.
This is meant to be more constructive criticism. Not a jab. Note how I had to preface i was gay 3 times in my first comment. I shouldn't have to do that to make a well reasoned argument. Which still hasn't and definitely won't be responded to.
People whining about a bunch of imaginary stuff, lol. If you liked discovery then watch it. If you didnt, then don't.
Similarly, if you don’t like comments about how much Discovery sucked, you don’t have to reply to them, but here we are.
Also, Woke Trek sucks.
I didn't even notice if it's woke. It's stupid. The ship, supposedly before Star Trek OST, can go anywhere in the Universe. And it's powered by a mushroom drive, which is just bonkers. The inside of the ship is a pinball game. I could go on...
Lol....I'd like to point out that the Spore drive is just as unrealistic as FTL warp drive.
They are both made up things.
It took me a while to get used to the Spore Drive too, but if you look at it as Discovery being a experimental ship then it makes more sense. At least in my head.
I don't get the Pinball thing though.??
Disco Cultists always immediately run to people being " anti-woke " as the reason people hated the horrible writing. Then stick their fingers in their ears and go " la la la " when it comes to an reasonable debate. Also the comparison of warp drive doesn't exist so it's the same as magic mushrooms, is peak false equivalence. Warping space is grounded in actual science you know the SCIENCE part of Sci-Fi, Magic Mushroom drive is Sci - Fantasy., heavy on the Fantasy. It belongs in something like Star Wars. not Star Trek.
@@TrekTrav The pinball thing references one of the more implausible scenes in startrek, the in turbolift fight.
@@TrekTrav FTL warp drive is actually not implausible. TOS and then TNG were largely based on prevailing theories at the time, although many discredited now. They still had an air of plausibility. For example the Alcubierre drive and Lenz drive are two theories that agree with Einstein's general and special relativity that are FTL warp drives.
This is exactly the problem with discovery. Its a catch all for any dumb idea. Like logic extremists. It tries to pander that any idea is equally plausible when it isn't. TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 were shows about secular values and right and wrong. There were black and white right and wrong conundrums in those shows. And it taught people how to deal with those conundrums outside of the context of religion, which is where most shows got their morals from in the 60s and 80s.
When it was stated on Star Trek Voyager "There are only 5 dimensions" they were alluding to Kaluza Klein theory. Subspace is an allusion to Kaluza Klein theory. A mycellium network is just pure fiction. These aren't equally comparable concepts.
Discovery lost me when:
3. Super-Captain Bernham surfed on the back of a ship travelling at warp
2. Two straships dip their noses in the sand of a planet to save a village from an avalanche.
1. A speeder scene right out of Star Wars on a planet that look suspiciously like Tatooine.
And that was all in just one episode.
If Discovery is not cannon, it can be treated like it did not exist. None of the previous episodes of other series would be affected in any way. They were used as plotpoints (fan service) to Discovery episodes and in no way alter what happened in other shows with those same plot points...they do not need Discovery to be cannon, they already were. I honestly don't understand your logic. The only show where Discovery might affect their own cannonography is Strange New Worlds, and they dropped Discovery like a hot potato in their first episode by establishing it as the "ship that may not be named" (Star Trek's Voldemort).
Lol, the episode Momento Mori. Actively inserts itself in to canon.
By referencing events in TNG (Unification 3 and The Chase), it once again aligns it's timeline with TNG.
As much as people dislike Discovery, it's firmly in there.
@@TrekTrav What comes after does not affect what came before. Discovery was not mentioned in Unification 3 or The Chase and therefore does not exist within them.
I think, like Billy Pilgrim, you've become unstuck in time. Discovery can insert itself all it wants, if it is not cannon, those insertions are meaningless to what came before. If someone never watched Discovery, those episodes still work fine.
@PeBoVision except SNW
@@TrekTrav I said exactly that
Multiple plot points from Discovery, from the Crossfield Class to Pike's experience with time crystals, to Burnham's very existence, are referenced in SNW.
By the "dropped like a hot potato" logic, you can say that DS9 dropped the Enterprise -- shows up in the pilot and is barely mentioned again in any deep way (despite the O'Brien's presence) until Worf comes on board in Season 4. And even then? No Enterprise on screen, just referenced.
For that matter, Voyager literally leaves from DS9, and that space station isn't mentioned again, because -- like all the above -- it's not relevant to the story in the spinoff.
You are approaching the problem like Dr. Watson when you should be approaching it like Arthur Conan Doyle.
Descriptive with gay overtones?
@@TrekTrav As a life-long Trek and Holmes fan, I 1000% approve of this comment.
And, given that Doyle was friends with Oscar Wilde, I'm pretty sure Spock's ancestor would approve, as well. :)
Ugg, I've had this conversation may times over the past 2 weeks. Even though I never liked Discovery, it's glaringly obvious that a single passing joke in Lower Decks doesn't "erase" a separate series from cannon. That was simply a joke from the writers, not a dictum from the IP owners.
Exactly
You couldn’t be further off base. It has nothing to do with race or gender. If that were the case then the same attitudes would be held for Janeway or Sisko. DS9 was arguably the best trek with the best writing. The problem with discovery is that the writing was awful. I never took into consideration the acting but yea now that I think of it that was bad too. For the most part Discovery, taking place in the 32nd century erases the evolution of humanity in the federation. Explain the mole scene with Greys new synthetic body. It was a copy of his original body, which he obviously had an issue with, but in the 32nd century they can’t remove moles?? They can do that today. The fact is that “we older men” who have been trek fans long before you have come to the expect a high quality writing with attention to detail. That’s what made trek so great. Discovery was just a disaster of holes. And as for the appearance of the Klingons if you actually watched the original shows you would know that was explained.
I've watched all of Trek. I am 39 years old, not a child.
They did have a problem with Janeway and Sisko, do you not remember?
If you sincerely didn't like the show because of the writing then that is fine. I have no issue with that. It does seem very VERY odd that the shows people complain about ATM are the shows without a straight white guy isn't the lead.
You must admit that it's a pattern, and not a good one.
@ I don’t remember any issues with Sisko. Many older trek fans regard DS9 as pretty much the best written trek. And yes I am also gay and you do have a point about not having a gay lead but that isn’t why I dislike Discovery so much. I just feel that put up against DS9 in terms of solid writing there are too many holes. I could easily get past the over emotional crew if not for the plot holes. Even tho older trek failed in portraying gay characters I grew up watching with the notion that earth and the federation were for the most part utopian and people have evolved beyond petty differences so understanding that the show aired in the late 80s looked past that. Tho while not in lead roles there were episodes that handled that message back then with finnessy. TNG Season 5 episode 15 I believe. It was called “The Outcast”. It’s a must watch and strongly recommend you watch it if you haven’t seen it. It’s a great episode on gender. There was also an episode called “rejoined” not sure the season or episode but pleas watch that one. Also the Ferengi were used used to tell about female empowerment with Quarks mother. It’s just quality and continuity of writing for me. That’s why I dislike Discovery. All the other stuff doesn’t really bother me.
@@TrekTrav Also the problems people had with TNG, DS9 or Voy, went away... the people that bitched got over it quickly, or went away quickly, BECAUSE THE SHOWS ARE GREAT. Discovery is OVER and people STILL HATE IT with as much passion and rage as when it started. THAT is not the same as any of the other treks.
@@alexanderdeburdegala4609 TNG, DS9 and Voyager started at a time when the internet either wasn't available to the average person (TNG, DS9) or was in its absolute infancy (VOY). And there was a SHITLOAD of whiny dudebro criticism of VOY through its entire run and for years afterward, mostly aimed at the female characters who were (wait for it) unrealistic, Mary Sues, overly emotional, and so forth. This lasted for YEARS AND YEARS after the show ended.
@@katherineberger6329 No, not really. I mean you'll have nuts in any fandom, but it was a tiny tiny fraction. Sorry I was around then, I was going to cons, that just wasn't happening.
The Barge of the Dead is pretty much the main focus against this whole "DISCO isn't canon" argument; if you're saying that guy becoming a Discovery Klingon means that the show isn't canon, then Barges of Dead from Voyager are also not canon, so either Voyager or the barges are out. But then also proto-klingons are also out, since they turned into that as well. So either the Episode "Genesis" isn't canon, or TNG isn't canon.
It's an excuse to pile on hate essentially. On Facebook it's the same group of people just using it to bad mouth Discovery.
The day you guys find it ok that darth vader will be a ewok, is the day i find discovery canon😂its a reason writers write stories. Its also a reason great stories last. Its a reason we actually have the word....canon
You dislike Discovery then?
Actually, the actors saved the early Discovery episodes. That first season was a bit rough, with palpable changes in direction and writing. The visual reboot was thrown on top of this, along with the dark tone, and of course there was a fan backlash. But, the cast acted the Hell out of it and kept us invested, while we remembered how rough the first season of TNG was. And, we were rewarded. Season 2 onward were awesome.
Agreed. Season 1 of discovery was actually decent, and its 100% because of Jason Isaacs. I also didn't mind Michelle Yeoh's character, but again she's an amazing actress. Outside of that though, I think the following seasons are easily some of the worst written scripts in TV history.
7 signals
All life destroyed
All warp engines destroyed
5 puzzle pieces
These are recycled season arcs and lazy quests fit for a video game for a 12 year old. I expect star wars to be better than this. And star wars is for kids.
TNG season one is a ruff ride, DS9 and VOY too
The first 2 are the same season
Stopped watching at 1:14
Completely missed the point and fundamentally disregards similar experiences in alternate timelines.
To hear that ST:D Is not canon is the biggest " _Eat shit_ " I can say to Discovery fans. That show was dreadfully bad.
But here's the thing: What's so *BAD* About being a side-universe? I adore the Kelvin Timeline for example, and that's set in a completely alternate universe.
That Discovery is now also an alternate universe, is fine. That's all I wanted to hear because I refused to accept it, being pre-TOS era. So joy for me.
Oh, well it must shit you off that Discovery is Prime Timelines and you need to get over it.
Because it's not side universe.
The Kelvin movies are cleaved from the prime universe by huge events in the first two movies -- the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock's mother, and the death of Christopher Pike. Spock had lines in the 2009 movies explaining the alternate timeline. No such huge events separate Discovery from the shows made before, and Discovery is loaded with references and footage from TOS and TNG.
@TheCNYMike nailed it
Dude, I loved Lower Decks I need more Migleemo give that guy his own series.
Just going to planets to eat and getting in to trouble...lol
Not only that, but let's say they did want to remove Discovery and everything else Kurtzman made from "canon" or whatever, don't you think they'd make a bigger deal out of it? I'm thinking of DC Comic's' Crisis on Infinite Earths 12-issue limited series in the 1980s which was meant to clean up their multiverse. (They've wandered back to a multiverse in the four decades since, but I digress.) That was Huge. The Kelvin Universe is cleaved from the prime universe by huge events and deaths in the first two movies. In contrast, we have five seconds of film in the Lower Decks finale. Someone who is STARTING their Star Trek with Discovery and Lower Decks before moving onto the older shows will see the LD scene and think, 'Oh, that's what Klingons looked like back in the day. And yeah, I guess the rift is dangerous.' The mere fact there's pushback means it wasn't enough. Discovery is still canon and prime universe. It hasn't changed. Oh, and I am a 60-year-old white man.
I watched Discovery all the way through. Not a huge fan.
While I felt that I could connect with Paul and Hugh, I had trouble connecting with Adira and Gray.
What’s frustrating is that I WANT to connect with NB characters. I want to find them relatable and I want them to be deeply humanized. For me, Adira was just sort of… there. And plot elements involving them felt… tedious.
I hate that. Because I don’t want to feel that way about a character that’s trailblazing. But I did. Maybe it’s my biases or limitations. But I don’t think so. Mainly because I hope there are more NB characters. Maybe I’ll connect with one of them.
Discovery never had enough time to let characters breathe. There were so many character moments in TNG - like Data reading a cat poem, or Worf having a mud bath with Lwaxana Troi - Discovery didn’t have enough time for that.
Which is a shame. Maybe I would have been charmed by more of the characters if they had more time to breathe.
But it’s still canon damnit!
It's really difficult in Discovery's case because they would have huge storylines for the season, less episodes, and less down time for the characters.
Here’s what everyone on all sides of this debate keeps getting wrong: It’s not about canon. It’s about continuity. Canon and continuity are NOT synonymous; they are NOT the same thing. Yes, you are correct that Discovery is still canon. The proper question is not whether it’s canon, it’s whether or not it’s still in the same CONTINUITY (or timeline) as The Original Series, et al.
While you are correct that you can’t just erase Discovery, the same should be said for The Original Series-which a fair number Discovery fans have openly called for its deletion from canon, the very cornerstone of the canon itself. So, set all that nonsense aside, and I don’t care about the politics; let’s just look at this rationally from a strict continuity perspective-and it’s here where we find legitimate problems, and I don’t just mean the visuals, but clear obvious problems with the chronological narrative itself, which can’t be so easily lampshaded just by calling it “classified.” It’s all so classified that Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Chapel never even heard of the Gorn in TOS, after three of the four were serving on a the same Enterprise actively engaged with them only a few years prior. There are legitimate issues here that go beyond “the visuals have changed” and “Burnham cries too much”
But what has been recently presented in the shows themselves is a chance to make everyone happy, but clearly isn’t. In other words, could “Discovery” and “Strange New Worlds” be in a separate timeline from The Original Series and 90s Trek? Again, I’m talking about timelines, ergo continuity, not canon. It’s ALL canon. And the answer is-possibly. And, if so, why is that a bad thing?
Everyone is obsessed over a single sight gag in “Lower Decks,” but “Strange New Worlds” had already basically admitted onscreen that Discovery and SNW were actually set in an alternate timeline from TOS, in the episode “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow.” In that episode, Mary, Queen of Scots-erm, I mean, Sera, the female Romulan agent-strongly implies that she was from the “original” TOS timeline, and that she was sent back to the 1990s on a mission to kill Khan. The problem was, not only was he not in power by the 1990s, he hadn’t even been born, yet, and the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s never took place-dramatically altering the history of the Star Trek timeline that she knew. Fast forward, thirty years later, Sera has been marooned on Earth since the 90s-and is now aware of a child living in Toronto in 2023, whose name just happens to be Khan Noonnen Singh, suggesting that the Eugenics Wars will now take place in the 21st century. Obviously, this changes everything we know about “Space Seed” and “Star Trek II: Thr Wrath of Khan.” (Are THEY no longer “canon?”) And how did this all come about? The Temporal Cold War (reference “Star Trek: Enterprise”). These were her words, not mine-and they were stated onscreen, meaning it’s canon.
So, what do we make of this? Forget the sight gag in the animated “Lower Decks.” The live-action, fully canonical “Strange New Worlds” is basically admitting, or at the very least, strongly suggesting that SNW (and by extension, “Discovery”) exist in an alternate timeline from The Original Series. Is that a bad thing? No, it actually provides a means of perplexed TOS fans like myself to be able to ENJOY Discovery and SNW without having to worry about whatever anachronistic things the writers come up with to seemingly overwrite The Original Series.
In another words, by allowing a “Discovery-verse” timeline to coexist parallel to a separate “TOS-verse,” it PRESERVES the canon of both TOS and Discovery/SNW, not erases it. So, unless the goal is erase TOS from canon, why is this a bad thing? It ought to make EVERYONE happy.
Finally, you were mentioning a number of events from TNG, etc, asking, wouldn’t those be erased from canon as well? No, not at all. The whole pop culture idea of a multiverse, be it in TV, movies or comics, is that similar or even identical events can happen in multiple timelines, parallel to each other-and that characters in multiple universes sometimes look alike and sometimes they don’t (and that totally doesn’t have anything to do with them being played be different actors). We simply accept it as a “multiverse.”
All that said, a lot of uproar would have been dramatically lessened if the writers of Discovery and SNW had simply paid attention to the continuity to begin with.
I actually did a video called 'The Ultimate Timeline' and another called 'First Contact Theory', basically discussing that every time travel episode in Trek alters details slightly. Meaning that the correct way to watch Trek is in creation order.
Specifically in First Contact, the Borg incursion changed the Enterprise timeline, which altered other timelines etc.
It's a very interesting topic.
Thank you for commenting😁
* round of applause * Masterfully said , Thank you moon moon.
@@TrekTrav - It is very interesting, indeed. The First Contact scenario is interesting because the question arises, did it change the “original” timeline or was that what “secretly” happened all along? Did Q truly introduce the Borg and Federation to each other when he flung the Enterprise-D across the galaxy? Or did he simply make Picard and crew aware of something the Federation was secretly already aware of, as the Hanson expedition seems to suggest? It remains an open question.
My frustration with Discovery was never whether or not Burnham should exist as Spock’s adopted sister (I defended her existence on my own channel) or who is or isn’t gay (I couldn’t care less). But I admit I am a stick in the mud when it comes to adhering to continuity-and yes, for me, that does include honoring visual continuity, as well as (and especially) making chronological EVENTS line up in a logical manner. It’s possible to not be overjoyed by the narrative direction a story takes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it breaks continuity.
Disney Star Wars has had its writing issues, but I have openly praised Disney for honoring and meticulously recreating the look and feel of 1970s sci-fi. We know that, the TOS Enterprise and the 60s visual esthetics and hairstyles of that era existed in the 2260s, because TNG “Relics,” DS9 “Trials and Tribble-ations” and ENT “In a Mirror, Darkly,” all reconfirmed and celebrated it, without the use of “cardboard” as has been often snarked. SNW, to its credit, has gone to great lengths to bring back a sense of that look and feel-which I appreciate. But as I mentioned above, the Gorn being the major Big Bad in a not-at-all subtle or ambiguous way, is a very concerning issue if this is supposed to be a direct prequel to TOS. That was my primary issue with Discovery. Why say that you’re writing a direct prequel to a beloved series if you’re just going to ignore it?
What’s the purpose of that other than to deliberately piss off your existing fanbase? And I don’t adhere to strange logic of some that you win a windfall of new fans by telling your existing fans to eff off. That doesn’t make any sense. I’m a fan of a number a pre-existing franchises, because my parents were fans of them-and I’m actively introducing things that I love to the next generation, and the kids love them. Don’t think for a second that kids don’t adore old Hanna-Barbera cartoons just because they were made fifty to sixty years before they were born. They love them because they are timeless. And Star Trek is timeless.
There were two things they could have done with Discovery. They could have taken the same basic storyline, and set it post-Nemesis, and no one would’ve batted an eye in terms of continuity. A “spore drive” that could instantly send you anywhere in the universe would be a great storytelling device in that context, without Janeway opening a classified file and yelling, “Wait! WTF!?” LOL!
Or…second option, the thing I was really excited about in 2016-ish, would have been to do an actual TRUE prequel to TOS, set in the Cage-era, instead of an unrecognizable mess from writers who seemingly never watched the series they claim to be writing a prequel to. And if the goal is to attract new fans in addition the old ones, then why base your whole premise on such a “deep cut” as the Cage-era? Novice fans don’t know or care anything about The Cage-era, but old timers like me certainly do-and they’re effectively telling me to eff off. So, who was it for? It never made sense.
I think the primary difference between the 90s Berman era and the current Kurtzman era, wasn’t that the writers back then got everything right, but they at least made an attempt to work within the existing continuity and reconcile existing errors. We Trekkies are the kings and queens of nitpickers (that’s part of the fun), but there was never any perception that they openly hated the source material. Let’s just say we get a far different impression from first season Discovery.
So, the question is (perhaps similar to the First Contact scenario) is, could the events of Discovery and Strange New Worlds ultimately BECOME reconcilable with the canonical chronology of The Original Series? It’s a tall order, but not necessarily impossible. “Enterprise” basically fixed the potential continuity error when it came to Seven of Nine’s origin story, in which her family was studying the Borg, apparently years before the Enterprise-D encountered them. “Enterprise” effectively canonized a fan theory that Starfleet already secretly knew about the Borg, with a rather well written sequel to “First Contact.” The time paradox comes full circle, the existing timeline preserved.
Could SNW have taken steps to repair the anachronism that is “Star Trek: Discovery?” I think they could have, and in early SNW season 1, I was cautiously optimistic that they were attempting to do just that. But then here came the Gorn in the most in-your-face way they possibly could.
That’s when I basically lost hope that the writers cared anything at all about continuity with TOS. But then (to their credit??) came out with “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” in which they basically said, “Na, don’t worry about it. It’s a new timeline.”
Not the solution I would have preferred, but at least it’s a solution.
No it's not canon, it's crap
Any legitimate reasons other than you don't like it?
@@TrekTrav Why is that not enough? We don't like it. We aren't watching it. We aren't rewatching it. What star trek fan wants the future of the federation to be a collapse caused by a crying child blowing up a load of cyrstals? How is that worthy of being canonical to the history of the galaxy? Its not. Its stupid. These shows are stupid. You must be stupid or you are not telling us your real reason for liking these shows. May I ask, are you luciferian? I've noticed alot of people who like discovery are luciferian and enjoy all the luciferian references in the show.
It was just an awful show.
Careful, your racism is showing.
Any particular reason?
@@TrekTrav Stop pretending you haven't be told millions of times the reasons STD sucks over the years. It and all the other nuTrek live action shows have been decanonized / quarantined in the STDVerse. Get over it.
@@TrekTrav
Numerous.
I think one of the biggest reasons is that CBS keeps trying to make Trek that isn't Trek. Trek fans aren't on the edge of their seat waiting for the announcement of a cheap action flick show. Trek fans like the cerebral and episodic format of the TNG-->ENT era. Discovery tries something new, but it isn't very good at being a Star Trek show.
@curzon9619 The thing is that you can't rely on 40 year old fans completely. For a show to last it has to renew it's fan base.
Just keeping the show the same means it will die eg. Enterprise.
Thank you Trav. I'm 68 and i agree with much of what you say. I like Discovery and I like all other Star Trek franchises. I enjoy watching all of it and I look forward to all the new stuff.
I agree there seem to be a lot of haters out there for the shows you mentioned. Recent Dr Who and recent Trek as well. The hating Michael Burnham and the hating of Jodie Whittaker and Ncuti Gatwa to me seems like mob-like bullying toxic male crap. I think we need to get this into some perspective, so i would like to address this next bit to the haters.. It's just entertainment people. Sometimes they get right and it's wonderful and sometimes they don't. That's how the creative arts works. If you haven't enjoyed something or you feel disappointed that the show didn't meet your expectations, well, it happens. It's normal. Don't make a federal case over it. Don't pretend there are hidden agendas or conspiracies. Just write a negative review with hopeful some well thought out reasons as to why it failed and leave it at that. Then get on with your lives and let those who enjoy those shows get on with theirs. It's called live and let live. It's called respect.
Thank you for commenting. I'm rewatching Doctor Who: Flux ATM and to be honest it's really great. I did the same with Discovery, it just took time and a rewatch to enjoy it and get it.
You hit it all on the head I agree with everything that you have said I am a first-generation Star Trek fan I was born in 64 and started watching it in 68 I congratulate you on hitting it on the head
"I hate Lower Decks, its animated!"
So was TAS... So was TAS...
Edit:
Another fav; the musical episode is rubbish of SNW.
They'd totally have done it in TOS or TNG is they'd come up with it.
The series has the first on screen racial kiss... I do agree DIS is more woke then ST should be, but if thats their whole issue with DIS, thats sad because there has always been a element of "woke" to ST with a Japanese, Black woman and Russian on the main crew staff during an era of the USA history when the cold war was on, they knew what they were doing. My issue with the main character is she reads like a fanfiction self-insert. But heres the thing, I didn't go off the entire franchise because of DIS. Its badly written, most agree, with some of the worst ST writing ever in places and concepts that are far out there even for ST.
But its what the crew wanted to do and thats it.
I came into ST off of TNG, my father was a TOS fan and thats how I became a ST fan. To this day I still like ST because of TNG. I think the series you ride in on will be the reflection of your opinions of ST. But I see people act like Scotty didn't say "I know this ship like the back of my hand" and ST has always been this conservative, joke-less serious series. Its always been cringey, camp thing.
Its popularity is mostly built on out of all its era, it was the only sci-fi show prepared not to be some dystopian future where mankind screwed up. The idea of going to space and discovering new things, making peace with alien races, while faces various challenges, that was a reflection of America they wanted the series to ask. I'm British, and the message the series message wasn't lost over the pond either.
I feel like people who are harping on this and claiming Disc isn't canon didnt pay attention to the lower decks finale. The episode literally had multiple realities, hundreds if not thousands of realities where some share clear similarities and at times major differences. The disc klingon appearing was just an easter egg (lower decks' bread and butter) and not producers removing Disc from canon. Believing anything else is just desperation. Disc is probably my least favorite Trek, but it is still Trek. Personally I wish the entire series started in the 32nd century. The series really found it's footing by then in season 3. 🖖☕
I agree wholeheartedly.
The Burn was cool until the end, the TenC were very Gene Roddenberry and Season 5 was amazing. I enjoyed every episode and wish we got more in the 32nd century.
Thanks for commenting.
Spot on
It's an awesome show, and I loved the ride. It's what Star Trek was meant to be. Discovering new worlds and new ideas. And it boldly went there. The end.
Agreed
Could you name any of these 'new worlds' they discovered? I can't recall any. And weren't they nororiously going about the universe not 'boldly' but emotionally and crying like teenage girls all the time.
I thought lower decks is a comedy parody of star trek and not canon.
All of a sudden what is says is scripture canon.
Lower Decks is canon. It's always been canon.
I look at it as Star Trek told from a Lower Decker's pov
@@TrekTrav the last episode to me that split timeline of previous zklibgon design and Discovery klingons was a 4rth wall joke. But if its canon, no wonder we have diffrent factions of the fandom at odds with eachother.
@@TrekTrav No it isn't. You've been duped. It's a satirical comedy, and you look silly trying to say it's as legit as TNG. Get over it. It's a cartoon.
@joemitchell2589 I think you need to watch more behind the scenes stuff. Maybe 'Those Old Scientists' in SNWs. Lower Decks is definately canon.
My approach to Discovery is simple. If I watch Discovery I realize I'm watching Discovery and I watch it through that lens. It is what is. Worrying about canon is just too much energy. I've liked Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard Season 3 much more than the rest. I still like classic Star Trek better. But crying about Disco is just a waste of time.
Agree so much! Thanks for commenting!
Worst ST show ever.
After season 2 it became a super woke communist story. Worst story ever.
A. Star Trek has always been a bit communist. B. Star Trek has always been woke.
Criticism of STD the characters, the technology the continuity errors the horrible writing it seemed like it was just another sci fi show, where was the hope the morality play go watch prodigy those characters grew so much due to the writers attention to detail STD did not have that it felt rushed thrown together and the characters felt like checked boxes instead of real characters they didn't have depth name something one bridge member does for fun..... ill wait
Stamets collects old parts and tech. Saru is clearly a bit of a botanist. Want more?
@@TrekTrav a bit of a botanist yea dont Google it from memory
Naw
Yahhh
Discovery.....🚽💩
Sure
STD is not canon it is in a different universe look at it man everything is cannon till std even the kelvin time line is different and that is fine with me i didn't like it anyway..
Sorry, Discovery is Prime Timeline, I lay out the reasons in this video. Another point is they literally used footage from TOS to continue a story. Momento Mori and Captain Pike.
It's canon
I started out watching discovery wanting to like new trek. I ate the woke ideology and was like I get it ok, these people do exist and they're trying to be inclusive. My biggest issue is that Michael Burnham is not an interesting character and when we have to have a 2 part "long goodbye" slog through 2 whole episodes and then not actually say goodbye...... I'm done.
So you stopped watching after season 2
It was slimy, sentimental crap anyway.
Slimy?
@@TrekTrav Yes, a lot of focus on 'slimy' personal relationships that have no place in a Scifi series, we have soap opera's for that. Plus the religious undertone of it all, writers that seems to live in a mystical world with ghosts and creators, and on top of that of course NASA should invest in mushrooms for their next space travel means of propulsion. I don't know what's going on in the heads of the writers, but I wouldn't want to be there.
@brulaapgaapmeester8052 A. Star Trek was built on Captain Kirk and other being "slimy"
B. Ghosts and creators? What are you on about?
C. Warp drive is just as fanciful as Mycelium.
@@TrekTrav If you think warp drive is as fanciful as space tardegrades you really need to read up on some modern up to date physics
@@ajctrading Warp drive is absolutely as fanciful as space tardigrades. Maybe you need to read it again.
The papers on the subject are very clear on the fact that warp drive as currently conceived requires multiple generations of technologies we have not even prototyped yet.
Taking Discovery out of canon doesn’t do any of the stuff you said.
Yea it does.
I'm sorry you're getting so much hate, here. I am a literally life-long Trek fan, in that it's my 1st memory ("Errand of Mercy", on a Black and White set), and I adore Discovery.
I'm always bemused (when not enraged) by the "it's (OBJECTIVELY) Bad Writing" argument. That's in part because I had to suffer for years thru sucking down "Spock's Brain", or knowing that the painful "Turnabout Intruder" was the last (at the time!) I'd see my pals in live action. I mean, as much as we have reassessed the 1970s Animated Series, it's still got some tough ones.
I mean, I remember reading people passionately defending TNG Season1 after it came out!
But part of that was that Trek, back then, was a precious commodity. And, even with that, there were plenty of fans who, like the examples in your comment section today, were happy -- nay, ecstatic -- to blast TNG for not having Kirk/Spock/McCoy, etc.
And...I don't get it. There's parts of this now-sprawling franchise I don't care for, as with any work of this scope and size and complexity. Sometimes it gets to me so much, I AU Trek production. There's days I wonder what Trek would be like if Gene Coon had lived to continue his contributions. Or if Gerrold had been able to put "Blood and Fire" on the air.
But: Discovery was a revelation, for me. It wasn't Trek as I knew it; it was both bigger and more intimate, a scope as wide as time itself and yet -- for the first time -- focused on one person, in ways that must have made Shatner jealous. :)
I loved how Discovery, once it got over the need to be edgy and cranky, found itself a deep found family. No, it wasn't The Bridge Crew, and that's OK! What it was, was people who still embodied the best of the Federation, were better than us today, and also going thru some shit.
It was Emotional in ways that TOS took 2 movies to get too, and then TNG ran like hell from for too long of it's run. And I don't know why, because Kirk and Spock are openly emotional throughout TOS! It's how we know these people care, how we came to love them -- not because they were always upright and Hornblowers in Space, but because, so often, they were just extraordinary people in extraordinary situations, and unable to hold back for "rationality".
Discovery leans into that. It allows these people to be both extraordinary in that ineffable Trek way, while also allowing them to just have a fuller slate of emotional reactions. That, I treasure.
And, honestly? I treasure that, for one, a Trek protagonist got to have an full-blown happy ending. In a franchise that oftentimes mines people for decades of angst (I see you, Seven!), I feel that, er we ever see Burnham again (and I hope we do!), we know she's at least in a great place, beloved and loved.
This is long enough, so I'll close on this, even as I risk my Inbox blowing up here: I have real and distinct and thought-thru reasons to love this show. I'm not just saying the above out of reflex, or ignorance. I've put a lot of hours into reading both critical panning of Discovery, and thinking thru the reactions...and I don't get it. Not enough to see these massive waves of reactions on anything that even hints that this show is, in fact, Good TV, and Good Trek.
They are all, welcome to their opinions. They are, however, not showing the best of Fandom, much less anything like IDIC, in how they seem to want to demand debate and engagement, with you.
For that, I am sorry -- I don't own this fandom, but as part of it, well-considered opinions like yours deserve more respect, and not just because I agree :)
Thank you so much for writing such a beautiful response. I'm genuinely happy when I see someone loving Discovery.
When I watched the first season, I was very weirded out by the whole thing and didn't know how I felt. In the last few years I rewatched and fell in love with the show.
Thank you so much for commenting❤️
I don’t think you realize the definition of an alternate reality. If discovery is part of an alternate reality just because there are similarities or parallels between the prime reality does not mean that they actually go together. And if you erase discovery, that does not mean you have to erase all of the others because there are similarities. I actually do like this theory because it would explain why discovery is so different.
And yes, I think discovery is one of the worst Star Trek ever created… yes even worse than enterprise. My main complaint is how they designed the Klingons. Second is with Michael. It has nothing to do with her being a female or a person of color. It has everything to do with how the character developed. Think about it, she was raised by Vulcans from a young age, and she joined a military organization. But yet she is the only character that is hyper emotional none of that makes sense. Now I would understand if they wrote her to cry a couple episodes a season, but it ends up being the majority of episodes she is crying. Next I hated Tilly as a character. I hated her from the beginning. The burn was an interesting storyline that ended in the worst way. It was so anticlimactic and dumb. And lastly, Star Trek has covered so issues, including gender, LGBT, slavery, etc., but they always did it in a smart and interesting way without actually talking about that issue. Every single series prior to discovery did this discovery made it so overt that even me, as a gay man, felt overloaded by all of the LGBT stuff they were throwing at you. There was nothing subtle about this TV show, and you didn’t really have anything to fall in love with unlike the other characters and other shows like Janeway, the doctor, 7 of 9, data, Worf, Dax, Kira, Uhura, La Forge, Riker, Guinan, just to name a few. They drew you in. So no keep your “they only hated because they are minorities” crap. We hated these shows because they were trash and only made to make money rather than make a good TV show.
And I think you are forgetting how much flack Enterprise got. It was said that was and some may still consider the worst Trek. That was a white male lead hahaha! There goes your whole theory!
If you say so
@ hahaha that’s all you got? Truth hurts eh?
@@TrekNerd01 What I got is in the video. Your denial is boring at this point.
@ and you’re wrong hahaha your arrogance is annoying. Truth must really hurt. Not used to people with actual arguments eh? Nah uh isn’t a response hahaha
i will never.. ever... view captain weep and cry every SINGLE episode ... as Spocks sister. it will never happen. i dont care what you think or say.... you are young. you will learn.
How old do you think I am?
Before i comment i wonder if discovery will be looked on more fondly in a few years like Enterprise. I liked discovery but it has massive problems, star picard season 3 was actually fantastic to me for context. I liked they moved it into the future that was a good move, Iiked the exploration of the mirror universe ect but it just never seemed to know what it wanted to be every time it got into a rhythm it kinda just changed or went of plot. Its hard to exsplain 😂 but it felt like it was trying to be star trek without it being star trek but it was star trek in a lot of episodes, but some it felt like something else. The last season was decent as a last season and your right is does personify a lot of the ideals of what a star trek show should be. one thing i will point out is the way it was filmed put people of a little ths lens flares the gloss some muddy cgi you can tell especially last season ect they went with a different approach like strange new worlds less of that JJabrams style ect. Everything had colour again. Also people instantly got put of from discovery being a prequel just that time when it started people were just not interested in a prequal and then there was confusion whether itvwas kelvin or prime 😂 i remember all that. In the end it was a 7/10 show decent but does not do enough for me as a star trek fan to ever rewatch maybe in 20 years who knows right now no.
As much as I love old trek, One of its glaring flaws was the lack of diversity. Sure it broke ground in some areas but why are their no gay people in the future? Why are there only like 2 different genres of music? Like... It stood out as pretty weird. Honestly its just a good practical choice to have more representation, It makes the world feel more real.
Definately
I've never really cared that much about Canon. if I really cared that much I probably wouldn't like lower decks as much as I do cause it's goofy with canon, I just want the show be interesting to watch, Discovery's first season was in my opinion the worst season of any Star Trek series ever and the only reason I decided to keep giving it a chance was because famously Star Trek first season usually aren't the greatest, And while I do think the show got better Over time I don't think it got much better and is The least entertaining least interesting most annoying Star Trek series easily in my view and I don't like it.
I loved Star Trek Discovery I know it wasn't perfect it didn't look exactly the way I would like it to look but it was Star Trek through and through
I agree wholeheartedly. What helped me was thinking of it like Doctor Who. When a production team changes they want to put their own stamp on things.
I think that is what Bryan Fuller wanted with Discovery. Sadly change is a bad thing to a lot of people now.
Rusty-1-A.N.S. I agree with you. I like Discovery. It IS definitely Star Trek. Fuck Cannon. Those haters should go make their own syfy spaceship TV show! Or watch reruns of 60s Trek. Star Trek Discovery says "Boldly Go Forward"! "INFINITE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE COMBINATIONS". Let's leave the Ignorant Knuckle Dragging Throwbacks behind!!! WOKE FOREVER FORWARD ⚡️ENERGIZE FORWARD⚡️