Season 2 Teaser

[lawman]

TOS and Mona Lisa are hardly similar culturally

Hmm.

Works of art? Check.

From a previous era? Check.

Innovative and trend-setting? Check.

Widely recognized? Check.

Much-loved? Check.

Carefully studied and oft-imitated? Check.

Something that admirers would be upset to see altered from its original form? Check.

Seems to me like that's more than enough common ground to justify the analogy I offered. Obviously there are differences as well, but that's in the nature of analogies.

At any rate, my main goal was (obviously) to use a rhetorical flourish to underscore @CorporalClegg's generalized disdain for TOS. Which he doesn't deny. So I think the point is made.

 

[CorporalClegg]

TOS and Mona Lisa are hardly similar culturally

It doesn't matter because it's a stupid analogy. Disco changing a sequence to better fit with the creators' vision isn't like painting a mustache on TOS. A best it's like painting a mustache on a copy of TOS. (But not really.)

Because, in the end, TOS is not affected in any way. Each show exists in its own bubble. And, for example,changing the captain of the Enterprise to Number One, does not alter the tone, theme, scope, concept, or conceit of either The Cage or Menagerie at all.

 

[lawman]

I think there's a certain amount of acceptance that Kurtzman and company are going to do what they are going to do.

Well, sure! Stated that way, it's a tautology. The question is, how much will "what they're going to do" match up with "what they say they're going to do," particularly in the sense of showing respect for original Star Trek? Some posters apparently don't care about that question at all; I think it's kind of central.

 

[lawman]

Each show exists in its own bubble.

So it sounds like you see every series as implicitly a reboot, and really don't care about continuity at all?

Wow. All I can say is that we approach these things very differently.

I like worldbuilding. I like intertextuality. The more skillfully those are done, the more engaging I find something. A bunch of freestanding stories just "doing their own thing" hold much less interest for me.

 

[BillJ]

I like worldbuilding. I like intertextuality. The more skillfully those are done, the more engaging I find something. A bunch of freestanding stories just "doing their own thing" hold much less interest for me.

I just want good stories, honestly. Something Discovery season one failed at for me.

I never really understood the idea that independent stories or reboots get rid of that world building? When they reboot something, the core elements don't go away. When they reboot Superman, the Daily Planet and all the other elements are still there.

 

[eschaton]

IMHO Trek as a body of work is more similar to say mythology than it is to the Mona Lisa. Mythology often contradicts itself. Even in cases where people take it quite seriously - like the Bible - people don't seem to have issue with, for example, the gospels showing different lines of descent from King David to Jesus - all of which pass through Joseph oddly rather than Mary.

My real issue with "breaking canon" is more that it can be an excuse for lazy writers who don't do their homework. If you're going to write a story in Trek, than it really should be grounded in what Trek has built before in some way. Otherwise it could just be on any other generic sci-fi show.

 

[lawman]

It's not about "core elements." You can sketch those out in a paragraph, whether you're talking about Superman or Star Trek or Sherlock Holmes. It's about the nuances, the little details and connections that create verisimilitude, the impression of a lived-in world.

 

[lawman]

Even in cases where people take it quite seriously - like the Bible - people don't seem to have issue with, for example, the gospels showing different lines of descent from King David to Jesus...

They don't? Seems to me people care a lot about that. It's one of the key examples of how the synoptic gospels are actually far from synoptic. Certainly Biblical scholars have spilled an awful lot of ink analyzing it from an awful lot of angles!...

My real issue with "breaking canon" is more that it can be an excuse for lazy writers who don't do their homework. If you're going to write a story in Trek, than it really should be grounded in what Trek has built before in some way. Otherwise it could just be on any other generic sci-fi show.

This, I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[Tuskin38]

Hmm.

Works of art? Check.

From a previous era? Check.

Innovative and trend-setting? Check.

Widely recognized? Check.

Much-loved? Check.

Carefully studied and oft-imitated? Check.

Something that admirers would be upset to see altered from its original form? Check.

Seems to me like that's more than enough common ground to justify the analogy I offered. Obviously there are differences as well, but that's in the nature of analogies.

At any rate, my main goal was (obviously) to use a rhetorical flourish to underscore @CorporalClegg's generalized disdain for TOS. Which he doesn't deny. So I think the point is made.

All of those are opinions.

 

[CorporalClegg]

So it sounds like you see every series as implicitly a reboot, and really don't care about continuity at all?

Continuty is a construct of the fandom and the CBS/Paramount marketing department. Canon is a guideline. It's not mandate or constitution. It's nice when it aligns, but it doesn't need to -- especially when inconvenient.

 

[BillJ]

It's about the nuances, the little details and connections that create verisimilitude, the impression of a lived-in world.

I've read/watched multiple versions of Batman, I always got the impressions of a lived in world. Same with Superman. The writers and artists have to sell that in every iteration whether or not it is a continuation or a reboot. I'd say the Discovery folks, for all the money they had, failed pretty spectacularly at presenting a world that felt lived in. Just lifting things from TOS doesn't make the universe feel real to me.

YMMV.

 

[lawman]

All of those are opinions.

Yes. Almost everything posted on these forums is opinions; we're not doing math or science around here. That something is opinion hardly means it's irrelevant. The question is, is any given opinion logical and well-founded?

Hell, you might as well say that everything argued in courts of law is irrelevant because it's all just "opinion" — it always involves competing interpretations of things, after all. Or everything argued in philosophy books and courses. Or every work of literary criticism. Or, well, pretty much everything other than math and science. But that would make for a pretty boring world.

So what's your point?

 

[BillJ]

Certainly Biblical scholars have spilled an awful lot of ink analyzing it from an awful lot of angles!...

But most of the rank-and-file Christians care very little from everything I've seen.

We are the Trek scholars () here. Most of the rank-and-file viewers want to be entertained.

 

[lawman]

I've read/watched multiple versions of Batman, I always got the impressions of a lived in world. Same with Superman. ... YMMV.

Yes, my mileage does vary, a lot. Because I've found some versions of those characters and their world(s) much more engaging than others!... just as you do (and I don't disagree) with DSC versus other versions of Trek.

And even within any given version, I typically find stories whose details are consistent with and build on the established "world" to be far more engaging and satisfying than those that undermine it.

 

[lawman]

But most of the rank-and-file Christians care very little from everything I've seen.

Probably true. So? Who gives a damn about what "most of the rank-and-file Christians" think? Most ordinary Christians probably couldn't even tell you what the word "synoptic" refers to. I care about what people who've paid attention and thought carefully about things think. I'm personally an atheist, but I can confidently say that I'm more conversant in Biblical theology, history, and textual criticism than the vast majority of practicing Christians.

We are the Trek scholars () here. Most of the rank-and-file viewers want to be entertained.

Same basic answer!...

 

[BillJ]

And even within any given version, I typically find stories whose details are consistent with and build on the established "world" to be far more engaging and satisfying than those that undermine it.

Beyond names and dates, Discovery simply isn't and can't be the same as TOS. Every creator associated with TOS has either passed or are close to the end.

Anson Mount's Pike won't be anymore Jeff Hunter's Pike than Bruce Greenwood's was. That isn't the fault of the actor other than they are simply from a different generation that has had different experiences, much like the writers. It is a disservice to the actor to expect that.

TOS is dead and buried, as much as I love it. Its day is over. Slapping TOS names on new characters and trying to pass them off as the TOS versions is a disservice to those creators who basically invented the wheel where televised serious sci-fi is concerned.

 

[eschaton]

I've read/watched multiple versions of Batman, I always got the impressions of a lived in world. Same with Superman. The writers and artists have to sell that in every iteration whether or not it is a continuation or a reboot. I'd say the Discovery folks, for all the money they had, failed pretty spectacularly at presenting a world that felt lived in. Just lifting things from TOS doesn't make the universe feel real to me.

Agreed.

DIS had everything going for it in terms of developing a "big universe" feel. They had the money. They had an established backstory arguably larger than any other sci-fi series except Dr. Who. They had the ambition of telling this big quadrant-spanning story about a war which brought the Federation to the brink of defeat. They gave the crew access to a near-magic technology which let them travel to any place, in any time, in any universe.

Yet the result was this cramped story where only maybe a dozen characters (or their MU counterparts) matter in any sense of the term. Where the crew barely even got off the ship. Where the halls of the Discovery often seemed empty. Basically, for all the money, DIS felt far more like a stage play, and less like a TV show - let alone a view into the life of the Federation - than any earlier iteration of Trek.

 

[eschaton]

Probably true. So? Who gives a damn about what "most of the rank-and-file Christians" think? Most ordinary Christians probably couldn't even tell you what the word "synoptic" refers to. I care about what people who've paid attention and thought carefully about things think. I'm personally an atheist, but I can confidently say that I'm more conversant in Biblical theology, history, and textual criticism than the vast majority of practicing Christians.

That was exactly my point dude. If people can deal with conflicts in literal religious canon and still have absolute faith that - despite the internal discrepancy - both are literally true, we should be able to square away inconsistencies in the world-building of an entirely fictional series of TV shows and movies.

 

[lawman]

Slapping TOS names on new characters and trying to pass them off as the TOS versions is a disservice to those creators who basically invented the wheel where televised serious sci-fi is concerned.

To be clear, I don't mind seeing the work of new actors (or writers) handling familiar characters or concepts. As I said, I'm a fan of intertextuality, and there's always room for new interpretations.

However, those new interpreters still need to keep in mind the nature of what they're doing. I'm not usually one for sports analogies, but it's akin to one team member being substituted onto the playing field for another mid-game — you may be able to make some helpful or even innovative plays, but you shouldn't expect to be able to change the rules of the game.

 

[BillJ]

...and there's always room for new interpretations.

If everything is new interpretations, then it really can't be the same universe as TOS. We've had new interpretations of the Klingons, the D-7, the Enterprise, Harry Mudd, Sarek, Amanda, Pike, Number One, Spock...