The thing with Sarek holding a grudge against Spock for joining Starfleet and not speaking to him for years could be considered less than honorable.
Kor
What bugs me the most about canon violations
- Thread starter Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai
- Start date
Kor
If I wanted to see monoliths,I'd put on 2001. I don't care if Vulcans show some personality.
You can see it that way, yes. I always constructed it as being an almost insurmountable barrier for him (to face his emotions). I have known people in real life who did similar things and whom I still don't consider 'less than honourable'- even though I strongly disagreed they did the right thing.
Getting Mad is the fun! People love to complain. I don't think most people get super unhealthy angry most of the time just that people love be hyperbolic and we all love being a drama queen at times. I think the internet sometimes doesn't quite pick up the person's true emotions. Emojo's can only do so much.
Jason
This post goes back a little bit to the 'Q Who' / 1st contact with the Borg / Hansens discussion.
I wonder how long it took for the Hansens to reach Borg territory, Ent-D and max warp would have taken them nearly 3 years to reach Federation space, I'd imagine the shuttle the Hansens were using might not have been as quick... so, for how long did they travel to reach the Borg? That part of the story is silly. Well, not only that part but... I just don't like VOY robbing TNG of the first Borg contact. And even if VOY did that, do it with some sense.
I wonder how long it took for the Hansens to reach Borg territory, Ent-D and max warp would have taken them nearly 3 years to reach Federation space, I'd imagine the shuttle the Hansens were using might not have been as quick... so, for how long did they travel to reach the Borg? That part of the story is silly. Well, not only that part but... I just don't like VOY robbing TNG of the first Borg contact. And even if VOY did that, do it with some sense.
Back in 2001-02 when I was a regular board member here (under a different username that appears to have been deleted), there were people who actually called ENT the worst series ever SOLELY because of canon violations. Most of the "violations" weren't even violations, such as the idea that the one-world gov't. on Earth was solidified in 2150 and one year later the Enterprise is already built, when it should have taken years. He would NOT be told that the gov't. formed much earlier (the 2150 date was never meant to be the date of the formation). Another user said that it was unforgivable that the Vulcans didn't know what mind melds were, as it was established to be a long-held tradition in Spock's time. He didn't stick around for the fourth season where that whole thing was explained.
They followed a Borg ship through a transwarp corridor and were lost in the Delta Quadrant.
To me that sounds like hyperbole. Few people actually stop watching. We are more like Comic Book Guy in that "Simpsons" episode were he walks out of the latest "Star Wars" movie and says something like "Worst Movie Ever! I am now going to go in and see it 3 more times!"
Jason
And yet ratings fell every year. It became the first Trek series to actually be cancelled since the first. It was the kind of series that really only appealed to Trek fans to begin with, so I strongly believe only confirmed Trek fans tuned in at all from the word go. This would explain why even its first season wasn't exactly a ratings winner.
Each season hemorrhaged viewers, and without fail when I hear a fan dissing it today (be it here or on Facebook, Twitter, et al), it turns out they stopped watching in the first or second season.
I think the ratings had more to do with casual fans not turning in and I disagree that it was a premise that only fans would be into. It had a few good things going in about. It starred Scott Bakula who everyone knew and loved from "Quantum Leap" it was sort of a spin-off of "First Contact" which was TNG's most popular movie and the past setting offered the chance for more modern characters and it was going to be set on a Enterprise which is Trek's most famous ship.
While I think it's possible that fans stopped watching it I suspect the number was low and then you have the fact that I am always kind of dubious when people say that and even if they stop you just know that at some point had to go check it out to see if they were wrong. I do think fans go through phases were they loose interest for awhile only for it to come back again later. Once you become a fan though I think you are basically a fan for life and will always have times you want to revist Trek and are always looking for the next new Trek show or movie.
Jason
When you write a prequel, you're pretty much writing something that only a fan of the existing material would have a natural interest in. I agree it wasn't a bad idea, but I do think a majority of viewers were confirmed fans, even if only casual at first.
I do know what you mean about going through phases of just not being as interested. I definitely felt like I was done with Trek when Enterprise ended, mainly because I'd been watching it for 15 years nonstop and it felt like way too much. Give me a chance to miss you, Star Trek. Well, it did, and I'm back.
I don't think casual fans think of prequels as anything more than something set before a previous show or maybe a show closer to the present day. I'm not sure they are familiar with the stuff of those era like the Earth/Romulan war, the birth of the Federation. In fact I bet when they watched the Ferengi or Borg episodes the idea of them maybe showing up to soon most likely didn't even cross their minds because things like first contact with species is one of those details they most likely forgot or don't care about.
Jason
Or, we could just face the truth that Enterprise was kind of a shit show. Don't get me wrong with that - there's a lot that I've found to like, and we've also had a lot of time to finagle with it and sort of make it fit. But really, it was a forced premise with anachronistic tech that couldn't even really be easily forgiven for being an extension forward of now rather than an extension back of TOS, and the writing staff was clearly tired and picked right back up with a lot (not all, but a lot) of the same phoned-in style of scripts that Voyager began (temporarily, thankfully) killing the franchise with. People didn't *just* stop watching because it didn't fit their expectations of *Trek*. They stopped watching because it didn't fit their expectations of entertaining, well-crafted *television*, full stop.
Like it or hate it, Discovery already clearly has a lot more care and craftsmanship in what they're doing.
I'm getting a bit off topic, but... It's a classic scene.
I remember the Comic Book Guy walking out of a movie theater after watching "Cosmic Wars".
I believe it was a joke on the Star Wars prequels.
He commented: "Worst Cosmic Wars ever! I will only see it four more times... today."
I think part of the issue is we live in a different time and expect more in terms of continuity from our shows. Go back to say the 1960's and you would have to watch shows live so a week or more could pass between episodes airing. It wasn't until the 1980's and the advent of VHS that most people could re-watch shows without waiting for a repeat or record several episodes and watch them in one go. Now with the DVD's, DVR's, streaming services people can binge watch shows so issues with continuity can become more apparent.
That being the case, shows starting now that know they will or want to have an ongoing continuity/storyline will have to be more careful to keep their canon straight from the beginning. By my observations, The Orville is at least attempting that. I can't say about Discovery, as I haven't seen any of it yet. But shows like Riverdale are doing their best to do it as well.
It all just seems lazy, like not bothering or like making a WW2 movie but giving the Americans AR-15s because they are "kewler" than Garand M-1s and then saying, "Look, it's just a movie, and the story is more important."
At the same time, there are concessions. WW2 movies may use the wrong tanks or whatever simply because the real ones don't exist and they don't have the budget to make them. Or they may make an honest mistake.
It's all about world building and how much effort someone wants to put into it. With Star Trek, fans are notoriously picky about details and seem to have a lot of time to go over them. At the same time, they can create elaborate and not always convincing rationalizations for why there are inconsistencies in the franchise.
At the same time, there are concessions. WW2 movies may use the wrong tanks or whatever simply because the real ones don't exist and they don't have the budget to make them. Or they may make an honest mistake.
It's all about world building and how much effort someone wants to put into it. With Star Trek, fans are notoriously picky about details and seem to have a lot of time to go over them. At the same time, they can create elaborate and not always convincing rationalizations for why there are inconsistencies in the franchise.
The thing that bugs me about continuity violations is....oh yeah, I don't much care.
Unblemished continuity in trek lasted pretty much until a couple of episodes into TOS and even that is being generous. Even there GR was specifically telling writers to treat the setting as a loose guide rather and prioritise the story telling over continuity. The same philosophy has largely applied since.
How being creative and imaginative is "lazy" is beyond me but apparently this upsets people a great deal despite it having been the norm throughout the franchise for fifty years. In those fifty years I can think of dozens of episodes I considered truly great for many reasons. Some owe that to drama, to character development, to meaningful real world allegory that actually makes the viewer think by being simultaneously obvious enough to get your attention but subtle enough to avoid spoon feeding the answers. However I cannot once remember watching an episode of star trek and thinking "my word, that was awesome, not one detail violated the hundreds of hours which came before."
The reason for that is simple, perfect continuity requires no brilliance, no insight, no subtlety, it simply requires the ability to recite detail. That isn't entertaining or enlightening.
Unblemished continuity in trek lasted pretty much until a couple of episodes into TOS and even that is being generous. Even there GR was specifically telling writers to treat the setting as a loose guide rather and prioritise the story telling over continuity. The same philosophy has largely applied since.
How being creative and imaginative is "lazy" is beyond me but apparently this upsets people a great deal despite it having been the norm throughout the franchise for fifty years. In those fifty years I can think of dozens of episodes I considered truly great for many reasons. Some owe that to drama, to character development, to meaningful real world allegory that actually makes the viewer think by being simultaneously obvious enough to get your attention but subtle enough to avoid spoon feeding the answers. However I cannot once remember watching an episode of star trek and thinking "my word, that was awesome, not one detail violated the hundreds of hours which came before."
The reason for that is simple, perfect continuity requires no brilliance, no insight, no subtlety, it simply requires the ability to recite detail. That isn't entertaining or enlightening.
For me it always comes down less about the mistakes or changes but whether you feel the show is still part of the same shared universe or do you think each show is in it's own continuity like the way the Tim Burton movies are not the same as the Nolan, Batman movies. I think fans will forgive much if they feel they connect and many like me think the old shows are most likely to old to ever really connect anymore unless you set a show in a time period that it doesn't have to share with one of the older shows. To me that gives you 3 possible settings. 20 to 30 years after "Enterprise", 20 to 30 years after the "TOS" movies or 10 to to infinity number of years after "Voyager."
It is possible maybe to do one of those established settings if you went with a really unique premise like a earth colony or alien planet or cargo ship etc. Anything doing with "Starfleet" or your handful of untouchable races and it becomes nearly impossible unless you want to do a "Rogue One" and do a retro but also modern look.
Jason
It is possible maybe to do one of those established settings if you went with a really unique premise like a earth colony or alien planet or cargo ship etc. Anything doing with "Starfleet" or your handful of untouchable races and it becomes nearly impossible unless you want to do a "Rogue One" and do a retro but also modern look.
Jason
Similar threads
