Does canon really matter?

[BillJ]

You can't really reboot Star Trek without mass hysteria.

Well, you can. Like the Abrams films, that mass hysteria comes from a small corner of the interwebs. The Discovery folks are going to pick and choose what works, and ignore what doesn't (they aren't going to keep anti-matter blowing up the universe from "The Alternative Factor"). Along with the visual redesign, it pretty much says reboot to me.

Everyone's mileage will vary.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's no hysteria because of Kelvin. Some minor grumbling, but that's it. Probably the dialogue in ST09 about Kelvin being an "alternative" timeline (rather than overwriting the existing one) helped a bit.

If ST09 had been a 'hard' reboot (like nuBSG) that involved no time travel whatsoever, it'd have been even better.

 

[starmike]

I think the problem I have with a reboot is that I think Trek would need to have an "end". For example, what has all this led to? What if there was more info on The Preservers or Sargon's race, or what was seen-but-not-named in "The Chase". Put a cap on the bottle, and then reboot it. I think that would be the only way to really make it happen.

But, I'm still not for it. I'd like a post-Voyager show someday. There's a lot out there to tell stories about.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ No story "needs" to have an end.

 

[starmike]

^ No story "needs" to have an end.

When it runs 50+ years and has a rabid fanbase, I think you do. When you spend so long running around the galaxy, I would think there needs to be a point to it all; a greater purpose. If not, then you're just a lame comic book-type show on TV.

 

[Ovation]

Well, you can. Like the Abrams films, that mass hysteria comes from a small corner of the interwebs. The Discovery folks are going to pick and choose what works, and ignore what doesn't (they aren't going to keep anti-matter blowing up the universe from "The Alternative Factor"). Along with the visual redesign, it pretty much says reboot to me.

Everyone's mileage will vary.

Hey. Hey! HEY!!! Whoa!

I'm good with different visuals, retconned bits here and there, etc. But disrespect the genius of Lazarus' theories of matter/anti-matter interaction?

I'm totally boycotting the show and will spend the rest of my days making them rue the day...

 

[Ovation]

When it runs 50+ years and has a rabid fanbase, I think you do. When you spend so long running around the galaxy, I would think there needs to be a point to it all; a greater purpose. If not, then you're just a lame comic book-type show on TV.

Sorry, but no. No art, commercial or otherwise, owes anyone a particular outcome or satisfaction. Whatever "meaning" it might have is up to the audience to provide for itself. Real life has no purpose beyond what one gives it, why should it be different for art?

 

[starmike]

Sorry, but no. No art, commercial or otherwise, owes anyone a particular outcome or satisfaction. Whatever "meaning" it might have is up to the audience to provide for itself. Real life has no purpose beyond what one gives it, why should it be different for art?

Because you can't leave threads hanging.

What if "Return of the Jedi" never happened?

 

[cultcross]

Which threads were left hanging? We had What You Leave Behind, Endgame and Nemesis. All the 24th century shows had an ending. Sure, you could resurrect that time and start a new story, or tell a 'relaunch' or whatever, but that's not Return of the Jedi, that's Force Awakens. It continues the story, but it isn't a necessary conclusion to one already running.

 

[starmike]

Borg
Preservers
Gamma Quadrant
Romulans
Bugs (Conspiracy)

...and you have the whole Beta Quadrant for new stories.

Besides, who wants to sit through a whole reboot? Not me.

Why do you think Vic is finishing up TOS? Because he's giving the show a proper ending.

 

[Ovation]

Because you can't leave threads hanging.

What if "Return of the Jedi" never happened?

Life would have continued?

I don't object to the idea of individuals wanting resolution to a story. I object to the idea that such resolution is owed them. It isn't. Moreover, the 50+ years of Trek guarantees it cannot be fully resolved (barring a depiction of the universe dying, thus killing every unresolved plot simultaneously).

The Preservers? Sargon? An incredibly tiny number of viewers would know who they were and fewer would care. I'd much rather know more about the fate of the Romulan commander from the Enterprise Incident, or how Bailey fared after Corbomite. Others no doubt have their own preferences. There's no way to "bottle cap" it to majority satisfaction--not worth the effort.

 

[cultcross]

Borg
Preservers
Gamma Quadrant
Romulans
Bugs (Conspiracy)

...and you have the whole Beta Quadrant for new stories

Nothing there is a dangling story thread. They had hundreds of hours of TV to bring back the weird bug things from an early not-that-great TNG episode, and chose not to - the conclusion to that story is they never came back. Ditto the Preservers, nobody cared enough to do another story about them in 50 years. The aliens in The Chase were just a sledgehammer metaphor for everyone being the same deep down, and a bit of explanation as to why everyone in Trek is basically humanoid. It's a self contained story.

The others are just elements of the Trek universe, short of some event which literally ended the universe there's no way to show every further event involving everything that's ever been shown or mentioned in Star Trek. That's not how stories work. Each iteration of 24th century Trek got a chance to wrap up what the storytellers saw as important, and got their Happily Ever After. Anything else we do in that time period is just starting a new series. I don't necessarily object to that, and I certainly don't object to others wanting that, but you can't pretend we left the 24th century on some kind of nailbiting cliffhanger.

 

[Blamo]

With all the time travel going on, there's bound to be some variance in the time line. That's how I see it anyway.

Also, you know, TV moves on and it's moved on a lot from around 50 years ago.

 

[Tuskin38]

https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/888875905594019841

"We are all huge fans of the original series and obviously we want to be accurate. We are within canon." #SDCC2017

 

[BillJ]

I don't object to the idea of individuals wanting resolution to a story. I object to the idea that such resolution is owed them. It isn't. Moreover, the 50+ years of Trek guarantees it cannot be fully resolved (barring a depiction of the universe dying, thus killing every unresolved plot simultaneously).

I would so love this.

 

[BillJ]

https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/888875905594019841

"We are all huge fans of the original series and obviously we want to be accurate. We are within canon." #SDCC2017

They obviously aren't, because they've changed the look. Like it or not, the visuals are important to some folks.

 

[Tuskin38]

They obviously aren't, because they've changed the look. Like it or not, the visuals are important to some folks.

By canon they mean the lore/story.

I don't think they should be using canon as the word.

 

[BillJ]

By canon they mean the lore/story.

I don't think they should be using canon as the word.

Let me rephrase, they are within canon. Canon is anything produced by CBS and/or Paramount. They aren't within continuity of TOS.

 

[{ Emilia }]

They could just say: "Of course it's the exact same world. It just looks differently because it's 2017 and we can make creative decisions."

 

[Tuskin38]

Let me rephrase, they are within canon. Canon is anything produced by CBS and/or Paramount. They aren't within continuity of TOS.

They're within the story continuity. They're not going to contradict anything from TOS story wise. Visual wise, sure, but they're not going to kill off Kirk or anything.