Has the Red Angel moved the show out of the Prime Universe?
- Thread starter Hoity Toity
- Start date
Just making sure.I know what a prequel is. Thanks.
Probably the source our disagreement. He can represent something whether he believes in it or not. Maurice Hurley, the showrunner for TNG's late-first and second seasons, thought Gene's vision of the future was "Wacky Doodle!" but he still did his job anyway. In a similar way, Rod can represent Gene without agreeing with him. If he thought "Gene wouldn't approve of this and I won't stand for it!", he could walk away any time and say "I don't want to be credited as an Executive Producer, I want nothing to do with you hacks!" but he hasn't done that. Gene didn't even do that with the TOS Movies. He could've said "I don't want an Executive Consultant credit!" but he didn't. At the end of the day, it's more about Money than Vision. It's more about good PR.
A somewhat useful, yet frequently abused (as in poorly applied) concept. The author cannot dictate how a reader/viewer/listener feels about experiencing a work, as such experiences are unavoidably subjective. However, the author's intentions cannot be summarily dismissed in any rational appreciation of the work, either. The concept of "death of the author" is fine when applied against a dictatorial reading of intent, whereby someone tries to argue that an individual's subjective experience of an author's work is objectively wrong. It is a highly dubious overreach, however, when it is used to argue authorial intent is worthless and irrelevant on its face.
Conversation. The exchange of ideas.
You just have to go with how you feel on a personal level. Yes, I understand what their stated intent is (though they've thrown some "buts" in there along the way) but it just doesn't match-up with what I'm seeing on the screen. Other people feel differently. I'm okay with that.
If we are talking about many of the themes of the original series as it played out in 1966-1968 for 1966-1968 audiences and how similar themes have been played out in 2017-2019 for 2017-2019 audiences so far, I think that the series is well within the parameters set by TOS. and IMHO, this is what matters most to maintain a healthy franchise and well realized continuum. AFAIC, everything else is a matter of the style of the era which each has been created in and for which are, IMO, mutable to suit the audience.
In season one, the series explored the same sort of anxiety that in the original series dealt with by the likes of Balance of Terror and the toll it takes.
This season, the series is centered around the kind of fears of threats that technology poses, which the original series deal with by the likes of The Ultimate Machine.
I think it would take a lot more divergence for anything, let alone the Red Angel, to move the series out of the prime universe.
In season one, the series explored the same sort of anxiety that in the original series dealt with by the likes of Balance of Terror and the toll it takes.
This season, the series is centered around the kind of fears of threats that technology poses, which the original series deal with by the likes of The Ultimate Machine.
I think it would take a lot more divergence for anything, let alone the Red Angel, to move the series out of the prime universe.
Last edited:
Sucks that I reached this conclusion. As recently as 10 or 15 years ago, I was in denial about it because I didn't want it to be true. But it is.
To quote Zephram Cochrane, "Do you want to know what my vision is? Dollar signs. Money. You think I want to go to the stars? I don't even like to fly! I take trains. I built this ship so I could retire to a tropical island, filled with naked women. That's Zephram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about, this Historical Figure? I never met him. I don't think I ever will."
That's where my confusion comes from. What on screen? The look of the show? The themes of the show? The storylines?
The nitpick I have here however is that Hurley probably had discussions with Gene specifically regarding Star Trek and Gene's vision and philosophy. Rod has gone on record saying he never had those conversations. He didn't even develop an interest until after his father died. The scenes in his documentary, Trek Nation, were he is arguably torturing Majel Barrett with questions kind of gives insight to the disconnect.
Now if Gene and Rod had been closer with respect to Star Trek and father had imparted his views on Trek then Rod would have credibility to speak for his father, but his documentary starts with him testifying as to that not being the case. He admits that he was jealous and ignorant of the phenom of Star Trek. As it stands there are a great many fans who could speak to what is or isn't Trek from Gene's POV.
I've run these bases quite a few times over the last couple of years, not up to running them again tonight.
Same time tomorrow?
Fair enough. However, I never ONLY go with "how I feel on a personal level" with ANY piece of art (commercial, fine, or otherwise). I ALWAYS make an effort to identify what the "author" (fill in type of creator as needed) intended me to experience--I may conclude he was anywhere from highly successful to an abject failure in his attempt--but I still acknowledge the intent (unless it is so poorly executed that I cannot even begin to guess at it). I understand the subjective nature of my experience of any work of art--but I don't presume to know better than the artist what her intentions were. That would be the height of arrogance.
Same time tomorrow?
Glad I brought it up, though. I know a little bit more about Rod than before. I knew he didn't get along with his father, but I chalked that up to normal teenage stuff (who doesn't hate their parents at 17?), not anything serious.
Well, you aren't the only one. It's started slowly in the 1960s and the deregulation of the 1980s and solidified in the 2000s. Once you got oil companies buying production studios then running them like an oil companies the die was cast. You touched upon the root of my dislike of Abrams handling of Star Trek and Star Wars as in both cases it is very corporate, very cynical moviemaking. Now I may complain and applaud various things regarding discovery but I would not, so far anyway, claim this was a cynical production. They are taking a definite P.O.V., not looking to be all things to all people, and taking real risks in character and in storytelling. In the end I may ultimately feel disappointed, but I will always be grateful they didn't play it safe.
I have acknowledged what the intent is. I know what the intent is. I just don't think they've done a particularly good job of selling it. So, I treat it as an alternate timeline. It is "Star Trek". It is canon. I just don't see it as a credible precursor to the original Star Trek. The original Star Trek was a creature of its time with "interesting" quirks (raging misogyny being a big one). Along with that technology and society is just a completely different animal now and it shows in the way Discovery is presented. Then you go into things like cloaking devices and "time crystals", and you have a hodge-podge mess that seems more interested in hanging on the TOS brand than on actual TOS.
Then you get the "well ignore the things that don't fit from TOS". Which for me leads to, why is it so important for it to be a prequel if I have to ignore so much of TOS to make it fit?
I openly acknowledge that it is all subjective. That this is simply my read on the show and how it fits (or doesn't) with the rest.
*I'm tired and this is all a quick and dirty rambling of thoughts as Voyager plays in the background.
I love this cartoon!
Similar threads
