When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[seigezunt]

I think you answered your own question. Fandom has gone from personal enjoyment to personal ownership to the point that change doesn't just represent a new idea, but an attack on personal property.

It's ironic and sad. This sense of ownership started out as a good thing that kept Star Trek going during the lean years of the 70s. It was originally what informed a community, and now it's a cancer.

that same small cadre just got louder and more dominant because the Internet made it easier for them to be heard. It's the same pattern you see in other areas, like the misogynist harassment of female gamers and comics creators and actresses, or the re-emergence of white supremacist radicals as a political force. They aren't actually more numerous than they were before, but the Internet has made it easier for them to get their message out, to directly confront the people they disagree with, and to connect with like-minded people with whom they can coordinate and reinforce their message. So those groups seem more numerous and powerful even though they aren't really. They've just been able to amplify the impact of their presence.

So I don't believe that a move back to Trek sequels will give us any relief from the haters, because this is a trend that exists well beyond Trek fandom alone and is a function of broader cultural and tech trends. I think that organized outrage will continue to be a factor in fandom until the larger online culture finds a way to tame or marginalize it again.

This is certain.

Most fans will probably be happy as long as Picard is still recognisably Picard and the universe can still be recognised as the one TNG inhabited.

I think we are going to find that their standards of what is "recognizable" are going to be unbelievably high, and that the outrage is an utter certainty.

Try mentioning that in the Discovery forum... it always answered with a chorus of "but CBS says!!!"

Well, if you try to say the DSC is absolutely in an alternate timeline, that it is a certainty, and that anyone who believes CBS in this is being "tricked," yes, they deserve it. My point was more, convince yourself of whatever you like, if it makes the pretend space show work for you.

 

[1001001]

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

 

[fireproof78]

I think we are going to find that their standards of what is "recognizable" are going to be unbelievably high, and that the outrage is an utter certainty.

Sadly true.

 

[Lord Garth]

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

Anyone on General Hospital who has kids better save up for the college money, because that's where their newborns will be going next year.

 

[Christopher]

No, just a new level of rationalizing which wasn’t needed before (“Discovery universe” to explain the reengineered 1701 of the 2250s).

Which is silly. We didn't need an alternate universe to explain why the Enterprise changed appearance between the 2260s and the 2270s. The gap between "The Cage" and Discovery is roughly equal in length to the gap between "Turnabout Intruder" and ST:TMP, so it's ludicrous that anyone thinks it's impossible to reconcile the changes. Has fandom gotten dumber today than it was back then? Or just more determined to find excuses to attack and be negative, so that they don't want to use the obvious rationalization that ships get refitted from time to time?

Well, if you try to say the DSC is absolutely in an alternate timeline, that it is a certainty, and that anyone who believes CBS in this is being "tricked," yes, they deserve it.

"Tricked." They actually say this about people who are presenting them with what is openly a work of fiction? Wow.

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

Honestly, they probably do. I've heard stories of obsessed soap-opera fans who genuinely believed that what they were watching was real. Actors whose characters did villainous things sometimes got death threats. (As opposed to today, where they get death threats just for being women in prominent roles.)

 

[fireproof78]

Has fandom gotten dumber today than it was back then? Or just more determined to find excuses to attack and be negative, so that they don't want to use the obvious rationalization that ships get refitted from time to time?

I think it is the second one largely because of the sense of ownership fans feel towards the franchise. It isn't necessarily out of spite but out of a highly protective instinct towards a passion project. But, it often comes across has highly inflexible and angry because what fans interpret as Star Trek is not the same production teams.

 

[at Quark's]

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

... and then another group of fans would come up with the most far-fetched explanations how both shows still could be correct ...

 

[1001001]

... and then another group of fans would come up with the most far-fetched explanations how both shows still could be correct ...

Complete with pages of blueprints and graphs.

 

[Damian]

Only out-of-universe and not all the time, while in-universe they’re either perfectly clear or perhaps the computer needs to be consulted for interpretation (or what if the universal translator does that for everyone except the, er, automated documentary camera?)

All that really matters. They were an incoherent place holder for real dates that the production staff didn't want to get stuck with.

I pulled this from Memory Alpha on Gene Roddenberry's explanation of Stardates. It is basically gibberish, though his explanation does 'sound' as good an explanation as any. When doing a production order rewatch I did notice for a time the Stardates went in ascending order by episode. But it got more randomized as time went on, though in general from beginning to end they did move forward.

It does seem by the time of TNG they tried to equate a season of the show with 1000 stardates. So the end of the 7th season was about 7000 stardates ahead of the first season. And even the original series (taking out the couple of anomalous animated episodes) seemed to encompass about 5000 stardates. I don't think that was on purpose really, it just worked out that way. The movies threw that out of the window though since we know the timeframe between TMP and TUC was roughly 20 years, yet only about 2000 stardates had passed in that time.

I don't put a lot of stock in Stardates, except maybe in later series when it seemed more organized. But even then it's not all that important. The later series generally moved in order of time.

It's also interesting to read even as far back as the 1960's fans were having some of these debates

"In the beginning, I invented the term "star date" simply to keep from tying ourselves down to 2265 A.D., or should it be 2312 A.D.? I wanted us well into the future but without arguing approximately which century this or that would have been invented or superseded. When we began making episodes, we would use a star date such as 2317 one week, and then a week later when we made the next episode we would move the star date up to 2942, and so on. Unfortunately, however, the episodes are not aired in the same order in which we filmed them. So we began to get complaints from the viewers, asking, "How come one week the star date is 2891, the next week it's 2337, and then the week after it's 3414?"

In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.

I'm not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I've been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it. "

 

[seigezunt]

... and then another group of fans would come up with the most far-fetched explanations how both shows still could be correct ...

Which I have always found the more positive and enjoyable option. I'd rather put my creativity to work than stew in anger about something fictional.

 

[at Quark's]

Which I have always found the more positive and enjoyable option. I'd rather put my creativity to work than stew in anger about something fictional.

Agreed - at least as long as it's clear it's only for fun, a game to get it all reconciled. The moment people really start to take their own explanations too seriously and get invested in defending them fiercely, part of the fun is lost (for me).

 

[Damian]

And the ban on genetic engineering is stupid too, but that's another conversation.

I hope DISC gets rid of that crap, banning it for the whole Federation because humans had a bad history with it, utter nonsense!

Isn't that just a ban on 'eugenics' to improve the species? I believe genetic engineering to cure diseases and so forth would be ok.

In any event, I don't think they'll undo the ban because I think that is part of pre-existing canon. While they may play a bit loose at times I don't think they'll outright contradict something that was already in canon.

At the point where the show does something that takes you out of the immersion, which can be as minor as a “huh?” moment of unclear continuity or as major as “wait, did anyone actually say they’d be changing production design?”

I'll admit I had a tough time with that. That, spore drive and the intraship beaming thing were 3 things that give me fits about Discovery. Those are the main things that have me looking at Discovery as more of a reboot. I find it too difficult to reconcile with the continuity. I've had many debates with people here about that. At the end of the day it's the show runners right to do what they want. Now, of course, it's our right to complain and if it really bothers someone it's their right not to watch. I found thinking of it at least as a semi-reboot is a happy medium. But that's just me.

 

[seigezunt]

Agreed - at least as long as it's clear it's only for fun, a game to get it all reconciled. The moment people really start to take their own explanations too seriously and get invested in defending them fiercely, part of the fun is lost (for me).

Oh, definitely! At least from my perspective, I think it was done fully tongue-in-cheek and with an acknowledgment that a TV show is going to be inconsistent. Maybe growing up with the Gold Key Comics helped.

 

[Christopher]

I think it is the second one largely because of the sense of ownership fans feel towards the franchise. It isn't necessarily out of spite but out of a highly protective instinct towards a passion project.

I find that pretense of "ownership" disingenuous. I've been a Trek fan for 86% as long as the franchise has existed onscreen, and I've lived firsthand through all its revivals and changes (I first discovered it during TAS's first run, so that's borderline), so I arguably have more claim to some kind of "ownership" than the majority of fans today. And I've always been able to adjust to the continuity alterations and reinterpretations, no matter how much they irritated me. I didn't like it when they happened but I dealt with them by using my imagination to reconcile them rather than just wasting my energy on whining about them. So I don't think their attitude has anything to do with ownership or protectiveness, just a lack of basic problem-solving skills.

I pulled this from Memory Alpha on Gene Roddenberry's explanation of Stardates. It is basically gibberish, though his explanation does 'sound' as good an explanation as any.

It's not really gibberish; it's a layperson's awkward explanation of the physical reality of relativistic non-simultaneity and time dilation. Except it doesn't really fit a series where ships have faster-than-light travel, and it's a concept the franchise has never actually used in-story.

 

[Damian]

Do you think fans of, say, General Hospital have a fan forum where they bitch about continuity problems?

“In episode 4707 Laura told Luke the beach house was built in 1966. But in episode 4889, Laura told Scorpio the house had been around since the ‘50’s! Who the fuck is writing this show?!?!?”

As a Dallas fan I did find pages devoted to Dallas.

Actually, Dallas was remarkably internally consistent (well except the stupid dream season--that did foul things up a bit---must....resist.....ranting.....). They would refer to things that happened years prior on the show sometimes.

 

[fireproof78]

So I don't think their attitude has anything to do with ownership or protectiveness, just a lack of basic problem-solving skills.

Well, I'm trying to be generous, but that's a fair point

 

[Damian]

I think it is the second one largely because of the sense of ownership fans feel towards the franchise. It isn't necessarily out of spite but out of a highly protective instinct towards a passion project. But, it often comes across has highly inflexible and angry because what fans interpret as Star Trek is not the same production teams.

I didn't like it when they happened but I dealt with them by using my imagination to reconcile them rather than just wasting my energy on whining about them. So I don't think their attitude has anything to do with ownership or protectiveness, just a lack of basic problem-solving skills.

I think in a way you're both right. I think part of it is sometimes fans, including myself, don't always understand all the ins and outs of what goes to make a show. It's been a learning experience reading some of the comments here...and reading "The Making of Star Trek" and "The World of Star Trek" was pretty eye opening as well. We love the show and of course we all have ideas about what would make a perfect Star Trek show but that's all they are. Some of us prefer more internal consistency. You could probably find an equal number of people that would love it if they threw everything out, made Klingons amorphous blob people and give Vulcans 3 heads. You have some in between, maybe like Christopher who maybe has certain things he prefers but doesn't sweat the small stuff.

Personally, while I'd love a better consistency, I also know I have no ownership stake. I realize I don't get to have a say in what they do with the show (except for the very limited impact of my spending money to buy the Blu-Rays). If I hate something I simply won't watch it, but the impact of that is zilch (unless a large number of people felt the same way). And I noted before I'm that way with other franchises too.

BUT, I'm not inflexible. Star Trek has never been fully consistent with itself, even in the height of the Berman years. I can hand wave a lot of that away. The novels have helped in some respects as well. I just found when it comes to Discover it was such a drastic change I took a greater notice of it then I normally would be prone to do.

I can complain about it--though I prefer to say debate. I love debating. Maybe it comes across as whining, esp. to people that love everything about Discovery. But that's all it is to me. A chance to debate my opinions and see how others feel.

 

[fireproof78]

I can complain about it--though I prefer to say debate. I love debating. Maybe it comes across as whining, esp. to people that love everything about Discovery. But that's all it is to me. A chance to debate my opinions and see how others feel.

I would prefer debate as well. I did that for years with friends. Online is more of a challenge because we lack the inflection and facial cues that create that impression of more hostility than perhaps is implied-or maybe it is in some cases.

Regardless, discourse isn't the problem. Its how hyperbolic it can get that makes discourse and debate nearly impossible (at the risk of sounding hyperbolic myself).

 

[JoeZhang]

I think we are going to find that their standards of what is "recognizable" are going to be unbelievably high, and that the outrage is an utter certainty.

* One character will be called a poor man's data
* Claims that character Y should have actually be Riker/worf
* Claims that the changes are too futuristic
* Claims that new social-political situation is impossible because of canon.
* PS accused of just doing it for the money

And without doubt ''this betrays the Great Bird of the Universe and his vision".

The simple fact that the production will use modern techniques and effects will be enough to reject it as "not really Trek".

 

[Nyotarules]

Isn't that just a ban on 'eugenics' to improve the species? I believe genetic engineering to cure diseases and so forth would be ok.

In any event, I don't think they'll undo the ban because I think that is part of pre-existing canon. While they may play a bit loose at times I don't think they'll outright contradict something that was already in canon.

Spoiler: Season Finale of Discovery

Season 3 is set 930 years in the future, why should the cultural attitude of genetic engineering of human beings of the 21set century still rule the Federation? They would consider such values as primitive, think of the medical procedures we take for granted now whose ideas would be considered heresy and treated as witchcraft 930 years ago, such as transplants, IVF, etc