7 ms·
‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Officially Erased From Canon
- lupusreal 2y ago"Canon" makes sense in the context of religious documents where adherents believe some documents to represent reality and others not. But in the context of works recognized by all who care to be fiction, its just a senseless thing for internet quibbling. "This fiction is more valid than that fiction, because the legal entity presently holding the copyright says so." Get a grip.
- croes 2y agoSome fans react in the same way that some religious people react to those they consider heretics.
- throwpoaster 2y agoPeople value good stories, correct.
- darkxanthos 2y agoNot all fiction is equivalent. When you are actively world building making explicit revisions is useful for those trying to follow along. If you'd prefer a different word you should say so.
- croes 2y agoSomehow the people had less pf a problem with the Klingon change between TOS and TNG. Or that the things that happened in one episode had little impact on the next.
- lupire 2y agoAs the canon grows, people care more about it. In the US at least. Doctor Who doesn't worry about this.
- krapp 2y agoThe thing is, Trek canon was never that rigid or coherent to begin with, even within individual series.
- tboughen 2y agoI think that’s because the change wasn’t between TOS and TNG. It was between TOS series and TOS films; new style Klingons were in Star Trek 3 (1984) and Star Trek 4 (1986) before TNG started.
- throwpoaster 2y agoImagine for the sake of argument TOS and TNG are 99% aligned on storytelling and need a patch to make the 1% agree, and that patch is provided in TNG retroactively. Versus a new show comes along that is 20% aligned and would need an 80% patch to bring it into alignment. As an executive trying to revitalize a property where fans are complaining about lack of alignment, do you understand why you might just erase the 20% rather than create 80% more of an otherwise-failed project?
- krapp 2y ago>As an executive trying to revitalize a property where fans are complaining about lack of alignment, do you understand why you might just erase the 20% rather than create 80% more of an otherwise-failed project? If you're an executive, you understand that the purpose of these properties is to make money. Discovery makes money. It has fans. It sells merchandise. You don't erase money because of the rancor of some pedantic nerds, most people do not care.
- throwpoaster 2y agoBut it got canceled.
- krapp 2y agoCancellation is not the same as "erasure from canon." Lot of popular shows get cancelled all the time - Lower Decks got cancelled as well. Despite the narrative, Discovery was popular. It was a success.
- throwpoaster 2y agoBut Discovery got both cancelled and deleted.
- krapp 2y agoIt was not "deleted" in any sense I'm aware of. Discovery is still canon. The premise of this thread is a conspiracy theory which is not factual. Star Trek Discovery is still a part of the Star Trek franchise. You can still purchase official Discovery memorabilia. You can still stream it. It has an official Blu-ray release.
- hx8 2y agoIt sounds like you don't take fiction seriously, and are showing contempt for people that do. The issue of canon really occurs when different groups of people work on a singular fictional world over a long period of time. The people who work on these worlds have to take fiction seriously, and need a way to communicate with the fans which other works they are going to building on. It is a bit tiresome and over played, but is a natural consequence of large corporations handling these fictional universes.
- croes 2y agoAnd if the fans don’t like it they stop watching it. That’s how it works. Harassing people because they don’t like how it’s done is plain wrong. Sometimes you have to realize it’s not always to make existing fans happy but to try something new to get new fans. Otherwise is always the same in repeat.
- big-green-man 2y agoBut they don't stop watching it, their identities are invested in it. There's sunk cost fallacy going on there. They don't want it to suck, they want it to keep getting better. And it doesn't. And they complain. But they keep watching anyway. I know a guy that watched every episode of discovery, complained how bad it was, then watched the next one. It didn't matter that it sucked, you can't miss knowing the canon! They're entirely captured by the corporations that produce this stuff. Their minds are trapped arguing over the validity of literal nonsense because it's profitable to some company for that to be the case.
- throwpoaster 2y agoAnother way of saying this is that they share creative ownership with the corporation managing the commons, like open source software.
- big-green-man 2y agoThey don't share ownership of anything. The owners do whatever they want, then lip service the fandom after the fact, and the fandom takes it because they can't cut loose from their attachment. A die hard fan that won't drop something the minute it begins to be destroyed is a sucker for abuse, and their willingness to look past it afterwards is why the owners get away with it. And they'll do it again.
- arccy 2y agoif you want to build a coherent storyline across multiple media releases, you have to be able to recognize mistakes/missteps and be able to disavow them from what future releases will build on top of
- drewcoo 2y agoAll TV series have bibles. For the sake of continuity, writers follow it. https://www.startrek.com/news/a-look-inside-star-trek-series-bibles https://www.startrek.com/news/a-look-inside-star-trek-series... It makes sense to consider a set of interlocking bibles a canon. The fans are just using industry terms (they're that into their fandom!), not inventing something new for the sake of "Internet quibbling."
- throwpoaster 2y ago"Content is king!" Canon is a platform for fiction creation.
- lupire 2y agoWhat do you mean "reality"? Religious dogma is largely about the supernatural, not history.
- throwpoaster 2y agoCanon is an imagination tool that allows consistent storytelling that increases in complexity and value over time. "Darth Vader put on the One Ring and told Frodo to go back to Endor" is not going to be something that fans take seriously enough to make economically viable. Edit: someone prove me wrong, please.
- jinushaun 2y agoI don’t think you understand what canon is if you think that. Canon is simply internally consistent story telling. It’s agreeing that A follows B and C follows B, etc. It’s agreeing that “A” and “a” are two forms of the same thing, and make the same vowel sound. You run into trouble when you say “A” makes a “k” sound and the lowercase of “a” is “w”.
- bhouston 2y agoI guess Canon versus non-Canon and the use of multi-verses crop up as you keep adding more shows and content to an IP. Happened of course to Marvel first, and Star Wars is dealing with a lot of Canon issues the last 2 decades, https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_and_Legends_(2014-) https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_and_Legends_(20... and now Star Trek is having more of these issues. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen in Harry Potter soon if it hasn't already.
- Vecr 2y agoAren't only the books in Harry Potter cannon? The movies are segregated, if anything from the overlap period fed back into the books it was probably a mistake.
- throwpoaster 2y agoIt'll be Tolkien next.
- rcarmo 2y agoThank goodness. Discovery was, in my mind, the show that Lower Decks was created to compensate for…
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- numberless 2y agoStar Trek: Discovery is... Something. In my opinion, it's one of the worst (non canon now) Star Trek shows but it does get marginally better if you can struggle through the first season or two. I would not recommend it unless you have nothing else to watch
- kyriakos 2y agoSeason 1 was better tbh, it goes downhill from there on. Not that season 1 was great.
- y-c-o-m-b 2y agoI dropped it about half-way through season 2. Even if you pretend it's not Star Trek and treat it as a stand-alone show, it's terrible. The characters are not likeable and there is no depth to the story. It seems like they just stuck together some bells and whistles to impress the modern crowd and called it a day.
- to11mtm 2y ago
- simion314 2y agoThis is not 100% true, You can interpret it if you want like it was done to shit on Discovery or you can interpret the opposite, but based on the "facts" there is no proof either way.
- lupire 2y agoInside the Lower Decks universe, the characters of the Discovery Universe appear to be in an alternative universe.
- simion314 2y ago>Inside the Lower Decks universe, the characters of the Discovery Universe appear to be in an alternative universe. Correct, but how that proves that Discovery in the main universe does not exist? We seen a Garak for an other universe and that does prove that you can have same people , same ships, same uniforms in different universes, this was shown durin TNG. So the only thing proven is that Discovery exists in a different universe, it is not proven that it does not exist in the main universe. Let me know if my logic is wrong, we can try and formalize it better using any, exists, implies etc .
- throwpoaster 2y agoInformally: Given that Lowerdecks is an extremely canon-oriented fan-service love letter to earlier shows that are known to be canon (ie, that it demonstrates consistency with obvious canon like TOS and TNG) the hypothesis that it's NOT in the main universe seems to be the one that requires a proliferation of assumptions and therefore more argumentation and data to support.
- simion314 2y agoMy point is that Lower Decks did not prove the theory that Disco is in a different universe. So it is just as much evidence as before this episode that Disco is not in the main universe. In fact tehre is no proof that TNG and TOS and Lower Decks are in the exact same universe and not in very similar parallel universes. Unless if on screen was shown that all 3 have same quantumm signature. I think it would make sense Disco is different universe , would make the fans happey too , but this episode brings no proof for it , though in a trek form or reddit I would let the fans to enoy this "fake news" , here or in Daystrom subreedit I am though expectic more logic.
- robertoandred 2y agoIt was of course not erased from anything. This is stupid clickbait that appeals to Trek haters.
- throwpoaster 2y agoAs an oldschool trekkie it warms my heart to hear Discovery was deleted from canon. Hopefully next it gets deleted from archives.
- krapp 2y agoDiscovery wasn't deleted from canon. That isn't how canon works. It isn't how media franchises work. It isn't how anything works. Even if it were the case that LD established that Discovery was part of another timeline, which it didn't, Discovery would still be canon.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoTell that to Disney and Star Wars
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwpoaster 2y agoRIP Thrawn
- robertoandred 2y agoIt was not deleted from anything.
- choeger 2y agoWhen authors ignore established facts of the universe they're writing for (vulgo "the canon"), they're most likely either lazy or ignorant or arrogant. I read quotes about Star Wars lacking "strong female figures" before Disney (cough, Mon Mothma, cough Leia) and someone even mentioned that the Klingons got redesigned in STD because of their original skin color. (But why not just using some other colors is beside me.) In all cases it's fraud. You claim to write a story inside a complex established universe but deliver something that just superficially uses some assets and then just does its own thing. Then just develop your own universe, ffs! If you want to write Star Trek or Star Wars or whatever, adhere to the canon and stay within the established constraints. If you feel that the canon constrains your creativity too much, go find some other playground.
- croes 2y agoFacts? It’s not the first time the Klingons got a new design. So why is the change between TOS and TNG ok but the change for Discovery isn’t?
- Izkata 2y agoI imagine it was an issue to some extent when it happened, but DS9 and ENT established they look different in-universe and it wasn't just a new design.
- throwpoaster 2y agoBecause TOS and TNG were awesome and canon needed a patch. Discovery sucked and got flushed.
- __david__ 2y agoThey cleared up the TOS Klingons discrepancy in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 4 episode 16, “Divergence”).
- Brian_K_White 2y ago"So why is the change between TOS and TNG ok but the change for Discovery isn’t?" Because the changes to the Klingons are too trivial to be canon or not canon. It's mere makup not writing. While the changes in Discovery are not mere makup.
- bediger4000 2y agoOh dear, why not erase Voyager? Neelix alone demands erasure. They should have left Lt Paris as an amphibian after that transwarp flight.
- y-c-o-m-b 2y agoEverybody hates on Voyager and while I think it's one of the weakest series of 2nd-gen Trek (DS9 being my favorite), I still enjoyed it. In fact, it's part of what got me into programming 25+ years ago and was the catalyst for me getting into scifi. The holographic doctor really fascinated me and I thought maybe if I learned programming, I could one day (in the far future) be part of developing one. I owe my career to it.
- MisterTea 2y agoYeah the voyager hate will always be a thing - I feel it was because DS9 raised the bar and Voyager felt like it just strolled in under the bar, not noticing it. I was a hater and never seriously watched it until well after it stopped airing. While Trek was still on Netflix I worked my way through TOS, TNG, DS9 and then - Ugh, Voyager. But I watched the whole thing for the first time and it left me actually liking it. I felt bad I hated on it for all those years but it was indeed the weaker of of the Treks up to that point.
- throwpoaster 2y agoNow we're cooking. Enterprise too. TOS, TNG, DS9, Lower Decks. Wrath of Kahn, Undiscovered Country. Maybe First Contact. I think that's the core canon.
- big-green-man 2y agoImagine caring about this at this point. Some corporation dictates to you what lore youre allowed to remember. "Canon." I will never understand fandom. I used to love star trek. I have a good friend whos a hardcore trekky. He would talk like this, and I just thought, the mental hoops people jump through to give corporations money, like they're so invested in a story that they'll justify anything. He would talk about how much he hates discovery, and then watch the next episode. I just turned it off. I gave up on star trek entirely. Who cares? They've destroyed an entertainment staple. They can backtrack if they want. They'll do this again in a few years. These things aren't made to last forever. They call them "properties" for a reason. Novel stories will be way more interesting if anyone wants to try to create some.
- jclulow 2y agoI feel like it's actually alright for people to like what they like and care about what they care about, and that it is entirely separate from the struggle between art and commerce and the perils of capitalism and corporate malfeasance?
- big-green-man 2y agoIs that a question? It's alright for people to like what they like. It's alright for me to point out that they're mentally captured by a propaganda corporation.
- Retric 2y agoCannon only matters from a depth perspective. 40k is intended to be a silly franchise from a lore perspective. But consistency goes a long way to making even the most ridiculous settings something people can engage with. Autobots v Decepticons, Tom v Jerry, etc all rely on people being more engaged with what they would be based on what’s on the screen in that moment.
- throwpoaster 2y agoYeah, if you don't care about the art of storytelling then you don't value good storytelling. Makes sense. And you're making the point for yourself: you just turned off of Star Trek. That's a business loss. That's why execs should care.
- lupire 2y agoIs Marvel's multiverse "non canon" simply because the universes are different?
- theogravity 2y agoThe ads on that page are worse than a fandom wiki. Try this link instead which seems to extract some of the original article https://www.reddit.com/r/trektalk/comments/1hk8c34/opinion_giant_freakin_robot_star_trek_just_erased/ https://www.reddit.com/r/trektalk/comments/1hk8c34/opinion_g...
- lakomen 2y agoHonestly it has been a clusterfuck from the start, cringe af. It got better over the seasons, but it still had facepalm moments galore. Ugh. In some Stockholm syndrome kind of way I'm missing it now however, quite schizophrenic. I still haven't seen season 5, now I know what I'll do in the next days lol
- throwpoaster 2y agoIKR. The only thing I'll miss about Discovery are the "Disco" t-shirts. Those were great merch.
- dlcarrier 2y agoI've never been able to really get into any Star Trek series, with one major exception: Lower Decks I'm sad to see it isn't getting renewed, but glad to see that it gets to stay canon, especially considering that it constantly mocks the extremes of what is Star Trek canon.
- throwpoaster 2y agoIt's a love letter to those extremes. There are jokes they make that show deep nerd love.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoWe now need a show exploring the Great Koala. How is it that more Federation members don't return from the dead.
- ruthmarx 2y agoThis blog article is nonsense reasoning trying to find a way to argue their personal desire has happened, but in fact, it hasn't. The LD finale absolutely did not make Discovery non-canon. It simply showed that Discovery style klingons exist in other universes. Assuming that because the Discovery klingons were shown in an alternate universe therefore Discovery must be an alternate universe would mean assuming everything shown from any multiverse that could map to another series would mean that series was also in an alternate universe. Which is nonsense. Very shoddy reasoning.
- toxicunderGroov 2y agoLower Deck's final gift. I did enjoy some parts of Discovery but it never really Trek't for me.
- __david__ 2y agoThe problem is that if you consider Discovery non-canon then it has to follow that Strange New Worlds (which spun off from Discovery) is also non-canon and that would be a shame. It (and Lower Decks) are the only new Trek shows that feel like they actually truly understand Star Trek.
- fsckboy 2y agoaccording to what i think i read here, Lower Decks revealed that Discovery was on another timeline, so in that sense it would remain canon (for that timeline) and just would not effect the prime timeline
- Izkata 2y agoThing is, Strange New Worlds is a direct continuation of Discovery, and Strange New Worlds had a same-universe time-travel crossover with Lower Decks.
- markgraff 2y ago[dead]
- markgraff 2y ago[dead]
- scoofy 2y agoPeople moaning about Discovery are exhausting. Yes, much of it was terrible. Has terrible Star Trek ever stopped me from enjoying Star Trek? No! I loved all the series, in part because of the stinkers.
- Vaslo 2y agoWas Picard good?
- JojoFatsani 2y agoI’d recommend plowing thru the first season (it’s just ok but has some key moments and introduces some new characters), skip season 2 entirely, then watch the full third season. Third season was fantastic although the plot starts to thin by the end. Nostalgia and at least one great new character introduced. Second season does give closure on a few characters new and old, maybe worth watching if you got the time. But overall don’t let it stop you from getting to season 3.
- Izkata 2y agoFirst season was like "let's see which character they bring back from the old series(es) this episode just to kill them off".
- krapp 2y agoUnfortunately, IMO, no. Part of the problem with Picard is that it was for all intents and purposes a character study of Jean-Luc Picard, and what people wanted was another season of TNG. It had a lot of good ideas, particularly around the Borg, but it just wasted their potential.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoI really think it was a poorer show for indulging Patrick Stewart. Most of the things people disliked about the show were straight out of the things he asked for. No uniform, not an officer any more, no starship... They built the show around his character, but that version of the character kind of sucked. It wasn't the Picard we knew. There was even the moment where Riker was the cautious one, and Picard reckless. It was less a character study and more a character deconstruction, and I hate those.
- poisonborz 2y agoThis is a fan theory and explosion of a little fan service that Lower Decks did. Discovery is mostly bad, but based on the first half of S1, I think there was a screenwriting seed of a much better show that got mutated. Jason Isaacs's base character was wonderful, it would have been awesome to see a crew with a captain that is controversial and not liked. It would have been a great twist on ST shows where captains are always spotless role models. Clicks in the team, conflicts of interest would have been a bold new direction. Also side props for Anthony Rapp.
- thih9 2y ago> best thing Trek has done since Archer’s Enterprise That’s an unexpected statement, I thought Archer’s Enterprise wasn’t considered a good series[1]. I personally prefer others; I guess everyone has their own favorite. [1]: “Following the pilot, the critical reaction became mixed. David Segal said in The Washington Post that the series ‘has a bargain basement feel that lands this side of camp.’", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Enterprise
- krapp 2y agoEnterprise started to get good once they realized what people wanted in a prequel series was to see elements of original Trek, humans struggling to get their footing in the galaxy, and how the Federation came to be. Unfortunately they wasted time on the Xindi arc/Temporal Cold War nonsense, and the ending was just an insult. But I think that, like Voyager, it's gotten a retroactive boost in popularity. Apparently the same thing has happened for Star Wars? Lots of fans of the prequels and new trilogy, when original fans despised them.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoIn part, the "Enterprise wasn't that bad" has come as mostly in comparison to modern Trek, with the exception of Strange New Worlds and possibly Lower Decks. I liked Enterprise when it first aired. It was no where near as good as Deep Space Nine and Voyager still felt more like TNG, but as a whole, those older shows stand together. But Picard was awful (somehow, S2 didn't happen and the Borg returned), Discovery was awful (S5 was middling but better). It's the same with Star Wars. Episode 1 through 3 did suck, but were nowhere near as bad as 7 through 9. Episodes 1 through 3 made the whole series Vader's story, with Luke's echo part of Vader's own redemption. It added something. The new ones added nothing. Worse, they were the beginnings of the attempt to tear everything down (Luke bad, Jedi bad, you don't need training, you don't need self-control...).
- thih9 2y agoThis seems misleading. E.g. Wikipedia disagrees. > Generally, all live-action Star Trek television series and films have been considered part of the canon, up to the point of contradiction or material the creators consider bad. Star Trek: Lower Decks and Star Trek: Prodigy are accepted as canonical as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon