Because the show is pretending it's the same universe. Either follow what's been established, or pick a different time period or different universe.
shareATG6 has it correct. Part of good fiction is remaining consistent within itself. No piece of fiction is ever perfect, of course. And the more material in the universe the larger contradictions that occur.
Part of that isn't bad. If you look at real world history everything isn't consistent either. Part of that is the cynical "The winners write the history" which isn't false, but probably overrated. Much of the discrepancy traces to different points of view and different biases.
However, massive discrepancies disrupt the "suspension of disbelief" needed for good fiction. I like Discovery in itself. If it was claiming to be a different universe or a complete reboot I wouldn't have a problem. But claiming its the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT becomes a problem. It is somewhat like someone suddenly claiming the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 was won because of the colonists heavy use of M240 7.62mm Machine Guns.
Actually, I've always suspected it is in a different universe. One with a lot of parallels to the "Prime" timeline but also some glaring differences. This is A Federation, but not the one featured in most of the Star Trek series. I mean if Spock ever had an adopted sister we would've known by now. Not to mention holographic communication and other technologies even more advanced than what we saw on TNG. If they ever knew about mycelial networks or spore drives Voyager could've gotten itself home a lot quicker!
The differences in the Klingons might imply that there was more than one sentient species on their homeworld - like homo sapiens and neanderthals on Earth. In the Prime timeline one race won the war (peaceful coexistence never really being a possibility) while in this timeline it was the other guys who came out on top.
Section 31 is well known in Starfleet on Discovery. They have special black badges which people recognize. Whereas in DS9 Sisko had never even heard of such an organization. A super secret agency within Starfleet? Who else knows about this? The division going underground and pretending to be disbanded a century before wouldn't explain his ignorance. If someone showed up claiming to be an officer in the Confederate Army, you'd know what they were talking about, but either assume they were a Civil War re-enactor in character or just plain nuts. No such thing ... anymore. You couldn't find a team of writers sloppy enough that there'd be so many continuity errors on the show - unless it was deliberate, and they're not really errors.
If the makers of the show didn't constantly insist it is in the same universe, I would not have a problem with it. As I said, in and of itself I like it. It is only the insistence that Discovery comes from Enterprise and leads directly to the Original Series that causes me issues.
If that's going to be a reveal at some later point, of course they'll throw water on the idea right now. Just have to wait and see.
shareThe age of the original show is irrelevant.
sharePoor old Armus. Trying to suck the life from his betters.
shareHey, You'd feel nostalgic too if the original format was better..
There's much to be said for a show that originally had humor and a special camaraderie among the crew. Once upon a time all the main characters were likable and we cared about them..
Those qualities being absent just makes all the other details all the more glaring.
Age is irrelevant. The original series had some of the best science fiction writers at the time writing for them. It tried to tell stories that were relevant for the times it was made. But also, it had a philosophy that the human race had overcome much of it's dark and petty history. Discovery has to an extent pandered to many of the lower instincts of modern pop culture that TOS tried to get passed.
shareThey don't. They base their enjoyment on being able to continue watching this and moaning ad nauseam about how it isn't not canon.
e.g. on one of the other movie boards I see this guy posting who's been moaning about this show since the very beginning yet he's STILL watching it at the end of two complete seasons getting his jollies about moaning about it 😂
Two things combine to create a toxic result. The first is AGE. Many core ST fans are in their 40s and 50s now. They can't even properly set up their phones, how can you expect them to ' get,' DSC? These people barely have A FB account don't do tweeter or Instagram. They are waving bye bye to a train that has left them at the station!
Second thing is look at the original DSC bridge crew. How is it different from all its predecessors? What's missing? The valiant white, male heterosexual hero. What had been a staple in ALL other ST. series is completely absent in DSC.
CANON is just the convenient excuse used to decry DSC. Notice that when it comes to a Pike/Spock spin off, canon is no longer an issue. The big irony of course is that these"fans" fail to appreciate is that it is the SAME writers that created the Spock and Pike charact they drool ove, that also created the other DSC characters whom these fans love to hate.
I really can't believe that these 'males" have such fragile egos. How the hell do they think the rest of humanity survived 6 series of countless episodes and almost two dozen movies etc?
CBS ALL ACCESS, is looking to the future and they are seeing a much more diverse AUDIENCE and so they are creating shows that will appeal to thee
also!
My, how arrogant and condescending of you. Its just our poor, feeble old minds that cause us to rail against STD. And we pull some idiotic concept such as Canon to buttress our claims.
No, sorry. Most of us do fine on our phones and many have a Facebook account (neither of which indicates anything about one's imagination, technical capability, or discernment.)
Canon in any fictional universe is the foundation of that universe. It defines the limits of the world and the frontiers to be explored. As I mentioned above, canon doesn't have to be absolute, just consistent. In Star Trek, how Humans, Klingons, Vulcans and other species look at their world should differ and add to the richness of the world.
However the physics of the universe and the events therein should be consistent. (that doesn't mean that people, whatever the species, won't interpret the same set of facts differently.)
Things have changed in Star Trek, of course. The physical makeup of the Klingons is the most obvious. Most of us accepted it as an expansion of the abilities of the show creators. Eventually, an explanation was developed "in-universe."
Discovery suffers because it is not paying attention to the world established by the other series. The Klingons have been radically changed without explanation or reason. Differing physical characteristics could be accepted if we saw some of what we are used to from four other series (excluding TOS here since those versions of Klingons, while the originals, haven't appeared in any of the other four)
Technology seems far too advanced given Enterprise and TOS. Using full blown holograms for intership and from planet-bound sources is far in advance of what the other series show. Even TNG and the other in the future of TOS don't use them. The explanation that the Enterprise had some sort of inherent incompatibility just doesn't hold water since no other ship or base uses them either in TOS and beyond.
Continued below.
The spore drive was also jarring. It was, first, a deus ex machina. They can go anywhere in an instant. The other series played fast and loose with speed and travel, but this was ridiculous. It removes all tension in responding to messages and alerts.
The explanation for abandoning the tardigrade was at least consistent with the tone of the overall universe, which is one of optimism. But continuing with Staments was arbitrary at best.
There are positives. Saru, in my opinion, is a great character, rich and complex. That is gratifying since the initial trailers used the rather silly "I can sense death" thing. The glimpses of other officers was also great. We saw several species very different from what we have seen before. But until the second season we knew nothing about them. And one of them, SPOILERS ............
Airiam dies, depriving us of what could be a very rich and interesting arc.
Are there fanboys who are having knee-jerk reactions to STD? Yes, there are. But don't dare to claim that many who have issues with it are feeble, ancient and stupid.
"My, how arrogant and condescending of you. Its just our poor, feeble old minds that cause us to rail against STD. And we pull some idiotic concept such as Canon to buttress our claims."
Well, to begin with you address the show as STD instead of DSC or DISCO. You don't say STTOS or STTNG or STENT. Do you see what I mean? You start predisposed to disliking the show.
"Are there fanboys who are having knee-jerk reactions to STD? Yes, there are. But don't dare to claim that many who have issues with it are feeble, ancient and stupid."
Those are YOUR words, not mine but I will say the following:
Let's start with the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" the foundation of ALL fiction. I think what YOU regard as canon mistakes/violations in DSC are merely visual re-interpretations. I can assure you the producers of DSC took great care to adhere to 'canon'. Everything is according to the technology of TOS: the phasers, communicators and transporters etc. What you and many others appear to object to is the REPRESENTATION of the TOS tech in 2019 and your objection is short sighted. You are essentially saying because TOS communication 'looked' a certain way DSC communication has to 'look' the same. That is like suggesting that the ships should look exactly the same the universe should look exactly the same too. THAT is how you are stuck in the past and this is where a certain amount of 'willing suspension of disbelief' comes in, not a lot just a little. Because, if you were born after the year 2000, you will readily understand how a show about the future can not reasonably depict people in a star ship 400 years ahead WON'T have holographic looking forms of communication, WHEN WE HAVE IT NOW!!!!!!
The Klingons you mentioned have a different 'look' for almost EVERY series or film. I haven't seen any complaints about that! So you don't like THIS particular re-interpretation of Klingon, you are welcome to that opinion but please WAIT for the explanation from...contd
...contd something you and thousand of other 'fans' NEVER did. If you had, you wouldn't be complaining.
"Discovery suffers because it is not paying attention to the world established by the other series. "
"Technology seems far too advanced given Enterprise and TOS."
I have already suggested that you are confusing 'tech' with 'the way tech looks'. We are , after all discussing a fictional universe in which A LOT is taken for granted. You also deride the Spoor Drive when in truth without a mode of transportation with the efficacy of the Spoor drive humans will NEVER be able to travel across space LIKE IS DEPICTED IN ST. Warp 1 is the how a vessel travels at the speed for A YEAR. Problem is, humans can not travel up to or past the speed of light. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE. So the Enterprise can not physically skip across the galaxy, perhaps just across our own solar system. But we 'suspend disbelief' and we allow for something with theoretical foundations (like the Spoor drive) to help us imagine. Check out Dr Paul Stammets the real life scientist on who's studies the Spoor drive is based.
So you like Saru and Airiam but lament not enough of them were shown in the first 2 seasons? Well, perhaps had you guys not bitched and moaned so much about some fictitious "canon" violation, DSC would have stayed pre TOS and we could have learned some more about them. It is okay to have you favorites, everybody does. But to demand that the producers remain trapped in the prison of 'what TOS looked like' so that they do not violate YOUR sense of the past is ridiculous.
Embrace the future. When you see something that is strange and new THAT is the future. Criticize it sure but not with a knee jerk reflexive reaction without any REAL foundation. Anyway, you should be happy now. You have your Short Treks which frequently revisit the past YOU LIKE
ST is ALWAYS going to grow and look different. Just like the original "looked" different from everything else!
Ok, first I used STD because that is the easiest acronym. Yes, we say TNG, DS9, ENT. But by that standard we would say D. That your mind went to a suggestive interpretation is your problem.
I did not begin with an assumption I would not like it. I started with an interest in that period.
You say that the look is only a different interpretation How you equate 3 dimensional holographic projects with a flat viewscreen as different interpretations of the same thing is astonishing.
Obviously the spoor drive is not the answer to transportation. No other ship in any series use it. It was a deus ex machina, pure and simple.
Cont. below
You said "The first is AGE. Many core ST fans are in their 40s and 50s now. They can't even properly set up their phones, how can you expect them to ' get,' DSC? These people barely have A FB account don't do tweeter or Instagram. They are waving bye bye to a train that has left them at the station!" How else would you interpret it. I am OLD. I can't set my PHONE. How can I "Get" STD?
The Klingons have been remarkably consistent through Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager and Enterprise, as well as the films. The only reason the original series were so different was due to budget reasons. Makeup and effects have advanced enough, and come down in cost enough (or budgets were increased enough) to make the new look possible. The new Klingons are, at best, clumsy. I could accept them as different racial groups within the Klingon species if we saw some of the familiar looks. It would be more acceptable if there were two or three different looks.
As for the ships, yes, they should be consistent. In this respect, they largely are. I have no argument with the physical look of the Discovery or any of the other federation ships.
As for people my age having issues with holograms; I hate to tell you that the concept of holograms dates from before my birth. The earliest I can think of off the top of my head (and there are likely earlier ones) are the battle tanks that Port Admiral Haynes use in the Lensman series.
Whether you think that holograms are only logical and expected from a series is only your conjecture. The in universe fact is that the Enterprise of Kirk does not use them, Enterprise D doesn't, DS9 doesn't nor does Voyager. And, actually, screens could make more sense. They take up less room. A flat screen against a wall or at the back of a desk as opposed to some type of emitter on the floor or ceiling; the projected images taking up all the space of a human (in the case of the main screens, such as the bridge) or on the work surface where nothing else can be put? More logical to me. Your opinion may be different and that is fine.
And just for information, Enterprise begins about 140 years from now. And the Original series begins about 250 years from now.
After all this, my main argument with you is that you dismiss the criticism that many of have is that we are too old (you say AGE) and that our vision is limited. That demonstrates to me arrogance and condescension. You are perfectly free to see things differently than I do. Your opinion is just as good as mine. Neither is right or wrong. But you should be able to argue your point without the ad hominem attitude.
continues below
My (and others) disagreement with you is not toxic. We have logical, in-world reasons for our criticism. I want new Star Trek series to succeed. I enjoy the universe and there is a lot of potential for stories in it. But if its set in that universe, I want it to logically connect to what has gone before. As I said above, if the creators had said this was a different, parallel universe I wouldn't have a issue with any of it. Its the insistence that this is the same universe as Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisco and Janeway that spoils our enjoyment.
share"Ok, first I used STD because that is the easiest acronym." That is a lie. If you want to pretend you don't know that (std) is the pejorative detractors of the show have deliberately chosen you are either a liar or uniformed.
After that start there seemed no point to continue to reply so I'll just say these two things. It's not you physical 'age' that is the problem perhaps is your mental age.Your MAIN complaint is that "this" doesn't SEEM right to you, or perhaps "that" is okay because, according to YOU it hasn't changed much. Perhaps your views are a little too tightly tied to YOUR little petty wishes and desires? Think about it.
The second problem is that you are STILL missing the concept of technology presentation. In TOS their was communication, right? It was NEVER presented as the holographic images we now see in DSC. Ok. That does NOT mean the images depicted on those tiny screens could not now be extrapolated as holographic images. Same technology, DIFFERENT presentation. If you are willing to "suspend disbelief" slightly it is not that hard to do. Indeed if you are a fan of the series you should be happy to make that leap BECAUSE 1) although in 1960 holograms were a reality, the technology was NOT common place as it is today when any kid's toy might present a reasonable holographic approximation. 2)Because time has caught up with ST and in order for the show to REALLY LOOK futuristic, having the actors stare into small 1970 computer like screens in 2019 to demonstrate 23 century technology is SILLY.
According to your logic and wishes DSC should look pretty much like TOS except with a few "Customer approved changes" You guys use the club of "canon" to stifle creativity. No the very first function of a show like ST is to imagine the FUTURE, the real future of the CURRENT time NOT, the future of a long past time! So even if the viewers of that era don't want to let go of that era, DSC,yes Star Trek Discovery, has to.
Good luck, my friend
We will have to agree to disagree. My mental age is fine, thank you. I embrace technology I find helpful and don't use what I don't. I have no issues if others do.
I understand what you are saying about technological presentation. I simply believe you are incorrect. I cannot reconcile flat screens to holograms; especially since Next Gen and later HAD holograms and didn't use them for communications.
That is because you are unwilling to suspend disbelief" or accept any reasonable explanation...in that particular regard, that's why. Everything else improbable or unlikely in ST like the greater than light speed travel and the predominance of humanoid aliens you accept happily.
share"suspension of disbelief" does not require acceptance of everything. Indeed, suspension should be limited. It is generally a rule of good fiction that as much "real world" as possible be maintained, especially in fantastic fiction.
By your definition, "willing to suspend disbelief" we should be okay if the ship Discovery sprouts wings and starts dancing on the waves.
Yes, that's the definition. WILLING to CONSIDER why the ship sprouted wings...that's the whole idea. There is no prescribed range or box within which fiction HAS to operate. You are welcomed to dislike whatever change you see, but acting like ANY change you dislike or any
difference itself is sacrosanct is frankly....silly!
Ok, we're done. The concept "no prescribed range or box within which fiction HAS to operate." reveals the problem. I suggest you take a course in fiction writing.
I suggest you open your mind....it's called FICTION!!
shareI know you do not understand, but saying its fiction is not an excuse for violating the world that has been created. Indeed, violating those rules (which the author or authors have set up) is a mark of BAD FICTION!!.
Thinking you can do anything is a mark of a BAD WRITER!
Again, go take a course. It might open your mind.
you are wrong...Deep space 9 did use them several times. It was phrased as "new".
shareI take it you are referring to holograms. I freely admit to having not seen a lot of DS9 episodes. But, as you have mentioned in your comment, it was new. It would not have been available ten years before the original series.
I do agree with you, once you create your fictional world..it should be treated with respect and logic.
share"The Klingons you mentioned have a different 'look' for almost EVERY series or film" WRONG
Starting with TNG all the other shows and movies they all look basicaly the same, the minor diffences can easly explian..asians look differant then Africans.
In Discovery they look like a totally dofferant spicies.
Many core ST fans are in their 40s and 50s now. They can't even properly set up their phones, how can you expect them to ' get,' DSC?
Wrong! try boomer 1961
shareYou are not a Boomer. People in their 40s and 50s are GenX. They didn't grow up with the TOS, because most weren't even born yet when that show debuted. They grew up with ST:The Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager.
Secondly, we were in our teens and 20s when all of this digital/internet technology dropped, so why wouldn't we be able to set up our phones or use Facebook? This is typical ageist nonsense from stupid millennials and GenY. These generations are the first to contribute absolutely nothing in the digital age, and yet these morons think they're the only ones who know how to use it because they think they're the ones who invented it.
Yet they wouldn't have lasted a day in our world. Before Facebook, we had MySpace, and with MySpace, you had to learn how to code (use HTML and CSS) to customize your profile page. Millennials and GenY are so lazy and stupid, Mark Zuckerberg did away with the "inconvenience" of adding your own images, background colors and music clips by not giving you any options at all. All of social media is designed the same way, giving users a tiny set of custom presets because the new generations of kids and teens who came after us were too lazy and stupid to cut and paste code into profile pages and take the time to personalize them.
But we're he ones who can't handle smartphones and Facebook? Whatever.
1961 is at the tail end of the boomers. I am almost 60 and have the advantage of having seen it all! I can program all my phones and computers and am conversant with everything from My space to Twitter. I also had the benefit of an EDUCATION so I know when someone is out of a solid, reasoned argument and merely has to rely on 'Ad Hominem' attacks to create logical fallacies. I started watching TOS from it's start and have seen every series since. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that most of the negative reaction to DSC is based on the simple fact that a lot of the fans close to my age are unable or unwilling to adjust their thinking to accept the new reality and imagine the 'new' future which DSC is trying to present. I am NOT making a blanket assertion about everyone at ANY age.
share