Traditional tacos, because they are 'street food', are usually made with whatever is available, and cheap. There are places in Mexico that you don't want to eat the tacos, because what they're made out of is not palatable to non-natives. Here in the US, you're probably going to get something at least edible, if not delicious, even in a traditional restaurant, be it fish, beef, chicken, pork, etc., because of our food sourcing and preparation standards (which ethnic cuisine restaurants often adhere to better than our traditional fare).
When did canon become such a hot-button issue?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Traditional tacos, because they are 'street food', are usually made with whatever is available, and cheap. There are places in Mexico that you don't want to eat the tacos, because what they're made out of is not palatable to non-natives. Here in the US, you're probably going to get something at least edible, if not delicious, even in a traditional restaurant, be it fish, beef, chicken, pork, etc., because of our food sourcing and preparation standards (which ethnic cuisine restaurants often adhere to better than our traditional fare).
A lot of the time it's a cash-in to play upon our nostalgia so there is no reason to create a quality product. Yes, it is difficult to make something truly original, but why make that effort at all if you can hit the same notes as the original so that people will watch regardless? The Force Awakens is a good example of this. It's basically A New Hope but with new actors and superficial changes.
Yes, Discovery is a prequel. Whether it's a prequel or a remake it should have some connection with the source material. That is the point I was making. Prequels especially should adhere to these guidelines, otherwise they might as well be considered a different story. A remake has fewer rules to follow but in the end, it should reference the original work somehow or it's not truly a remake.
Look, art is always subjective. But art also creates a common ground for people to empathize over. So while "everything is always subjective" might technically be true - in reality it really isn't.
Like, if I personally say "Batman v. Superman did a lot of shit with iconic characters" - that might be my personal opinion. But one shared by a LOT of people. One that even is objectively quantifiable when looking at what kind of box office returns WB expected vs. what they got, and what the overwhelming common critical and audience reaction was. Sure - many people did like it. But there is also an objective component as how it simply was disappointing for many, many, many people.
The same holds true to a degree for DIS. Yes - it's entirely subjective, and people have every right to like, nah, unconditionally love the show. I like it a lot. But there is also the very objective statement that this show disappointed on a LOT of expectations, so much so that the creators felt the need to address these issues head-on in a completely on-the-nose way.
Like, if I personally say "Batman v. Superman did a lot of shit with iconic characters" - that might be my personal opinion. But one shared by a LOT of people. One that even is objectively quantifiable when looking at what kind of box office returns WB expected vs. what they got, and what the overwhelming common critical and audience reaction was. Sure - many people did like it. But there is also an objective component as how it simply was disappointing for many, many, many people.
The same holds true to a degree for DIS. Yes - it's entirely subjective, and people have every right to like, nah, unconditionally love the show. I like it a lot. But there is also the very objective statement that this show disappointed on a LOT of expectations, so much so that the creators felt the need to address these issues head-on in a completely on-the-nose way.
That's naive. The "nostalgia" audience is far too small by itself to make a work successful. Thus it's necessary to attract a new audience as well, which is the primary purpose of creating a new version of a work. The goal is to balance the work so that it appeals equally to the newcomers and the nostalgia crowd.
Plus it's insulting to the nostalgia crowd to assume they don't care about quality. On the contrary, they're the ones who will be most offended if the thing they're nostalgic for is handled cheaply or shoddily, if the quality is worse than the original. Indeed, our memories of the things we love tend to be idealized and better than they really were, so if anything the quality of a nostalgia-driven work needs to be higher than that of the original in order to satisfy our idealized image.
It only seems that way if you view it on a superficial level, and out of context with what follows.
Not one single thing you just said is actually objective. Not one.
Why people insist on arguing that their opinions are objective reality is beyond me.
We went through the same thing with Voyager. Same thing with Enterprise.
I'm sure we'll go through the same thing with the Section 31 series, the Picard Series, Lower Decks....
Round and round we go....
So you’re saying everyone is an equally good writer here and now, because there is no objective skill involved in story construction and character development, only a magical act that results in something and for whatever reason (blind luck?) appeals to more people than other creations, then goes on to win awards and be remembered? I’m trying to give specific comments on how DSC has gone from A to N to F as opposed to A, B, C. It’s a matter of story logic, of elements earned by previous elements, of inspiration that must still be justified, not just included as a hard turn.
Last edited:
First, what I'm saying (with all love and respect I can muster)...I don't care what anyone thinks about a TV Show. At least, not in the sense of getting upset or personally offended. It has no bearing on me whatsoever. If you don't like it, more power to you.
Second, if we measure quality by popularity, then Budweiser is the best beer in the world. Objectively.
There are degrees of agreement when it comes to art, whether it be a painting, a song, or a TV show. But the fact that anyone sees it differently, is by definition a reflection of subjectivity.
Usually, this is the point where people make the second part of their argument: if you can't see it, you must not be intelligent/sophisticated/educated enough to see it.
Now I haven't seen you make that argument, but that's often the next step.
Ultimately, I'm saying if it doesn't work for you, then that's fine. Criticize away. Hate watch if you feel like it (although that's another phenomenon I don't get). But when you start claiming that your views are objective truth, well...you've lost me.
Popularity is just one possible manifestation of quality. Certain aspects can be viewed differently, but if we were to put together a panel of skilled writers, they would notice basic storytelling issues that are also apparent to viewers who pay attention to such things, and the reason they do is because they also watch other, award-winning television and understand what is being done there differently, especially when Star Trek falls short of the best of previous Star Trek.
I watch DSC to see what happens next and like small parts of it, and there is no reason to think that most fans don’t watch other television and are able to see issues even as they watch Star Trek because they’re fans. That’s the difference between fandom and a general audience, and if some people don’t see discrepancies in quality, they should certainly learn so that CBS would then be motivated to keep improving Star Trek.
I watch DSC to see what happens next and like small parts of it, and there is no reason to think that most fans don’t watch other television and are able to see issues even as they watch Star Trek because they’re fans. That’s the difference between fandom and a general audience, and if some people don’t see discrepancies in quality, they should certainly learn so that CBS would then be motivated to keep improving Star Trek.
What other shoe? Evaluating storytelling is a skill that can be learned like any other. I’m not criticizing anyone as a person, just pointing out that some people have learned to see issues while others haven’t. It’s something that comes naturally after watching a variety of TV (especially with today’s easy access), and as noted, being a fan means you’ll tend to watch Star Trek regardless.
Amen. I confess I tend to tune out when folks start sneering at "the masses." To paraphrase Gary Seven, "I have little patience with fannish snobbery."
And while certainly one can apply standards to art, I find that words like "objectively" tend to be overused by folks who really, really want to present their personal opinions as empirical fact.
The flip side of that is the people who insist on saying "the fans want X" rather than "I want X" because they're afraid to own their personal opinions as personal and need to hide behind the pretense of being one member of a crowd. It would be nice if people could just let their opinions be their opinions and not make assumptions either way about how everyone else thinks.
Those elements work for as a whole is my point. And that varies from individual to individual. In that vein, there is no objective standard of storytelling, nor could I come out and state that your POV on storytelling is the right one. It is highly subjective because art and experience is highly subjective.
It is often my experience that when a story is not enjoyed (regardless of medium) then there is a lot of critical dissection to try and prove why it didn't work. And, in the abstract, this is probably accurate to storytelling form. But, storytelling is not just a dismantling of elements that work and don't work but about the storyteller engaging with the audience in a way that is meaningful to them.
That's why objective standards don't always work. They try a highly rigid, logical, way of analysis that subtracts emotional investment.
Yeah, I have to admit I'm sometimes guilty of that. I do avoid saying things like 'all the fans' or even 'most of the fans'. But I do tend to say 'some fans'. Now while in general that may be true in generalized terms, even people that might agree with my general viewpoint may not agree with the specifics.
This always reminds me of politicians who say "The American people want" and "The voters feel" or "Everybody supports" etc
Similarly, fans who insist that anyone who disagrees with them are "paid shills" are no different than politicians who dismiss their critics as "paid protestors" or "professional activists" or whatever.
Still waiting for my checks from CBS and/or George Soros . . .
You did exactly what I predicted.
Skill at evaluating TV stories? Are you kidding me? Combined with your previous post, it's clear that you think anyone who likes Discovery only likes it because we don't know any better.
Or we don't pay attention.
Or we don't understand.
Or we haven't learned properly.
I don't need a PhD in TV Watching to know what I like and what I don't.
Underneath this appeal to authority, it looks a lot like condescension.
Those words are the first steps to autocratic/despotic rule
Similar threads
