When did canon become such a hot-button issue?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Ridiculous! I wouldn't wipe my ass with a diploma from Couch Potato University.
As a graduate of Vizio Tech, I know what's good TV and what isn't.
In fact, I wrote my thesis on Theme and Structure of the Real Housewives Universe.
The lack of continuity is terrible, if you're smart enough to see it properly.
Look, one can certainly analyze works of fiction and theater critically and even assess how well they succeed at some elements of storytelling versus others. "Great pacing, snappy dialogue, decent production values, so-so acting, disjointed plotting," whatever. But the idea that this can be quantified in a totally "objective," empirical manner is nonsense. If there was a perfect formula for producing quality shows, show biz would not be such a horse race--or people would dismiss any such product as formulaic. 
The truth of the matter is that, besides such intangibles as inspiration or chemistry or luck, a lot depends on each audience member's expectations--and what virtues they prioritize.
If you're all about airtight continuity, you're going to judge a given Star Trek product differently than, say, someone who is all about intense drama and characterization, or somebody who thinks the "message" of the episode is all-important, or somebody who places more emphasis on the science, or the action, or the SFX, or the music or whatever.
In other words, one can certainly argue that one show has wittier dialogue than another, but whether that makes one show "objectively" better than the other kinda depends on how much value you place on witty dialogue versus other elements of the production.
Some Trekkies like comedy episodes. Some prefer more serious episodes. But are the more serious eps "objectively" better than lighter-hearted ones? Of course not. That's just a matter of taste.
The truth of the matter is that, besides such intangibles as inspiration or chemistry or luck, a lot depends on each audience member's expectations--and what virtues they prioritize.
If you're all about airtight continuity, you're going to judge a given Star Trek product differently than, say, someone who is all about intense drama and characterization, or somebody who thinks the "message" of the episode is all-important, or somebody who places more emphasis on the science, or the action, or the SFX, or the music or whatever.
In other words, one can certainly argue that one show has wittier dialogue than another, but whether that makes one show "objectively" better than the other kinda depends on how much value you place on witty dialogue versus other elements of the production.
Some Trekkies like comedy episodes. Some prefer more serious episodes. But are the more serious eps "objectively" better than lighter-hearted ones? Of course not. That's just a matter of taste.
You could argue that no style of episode is objectively better, but you can semi-objectively assess how well a show is accomplishing its intent.
I don’t think continuity needs to be perfectly airtight, especially if the reason to violate it is to tell a better story. But if you are conspicuously violating it all the time it starts to wear down the immersion factor and degrade the illusion of cinema.
One major example of this is Voyager not even bothering to tally their dead. Things that blatant feel like the writers just openly not caring about their product.
I don’t think continuity needs to be perfectly airtight, especially if the reason to violate it is to tell a better story. But if you are conspicuously violating it all the time it starts to wear down the immersion factor and degrade the illusion of cinema.
One major example of this is Voyager not even bothering to tally their dead. Things that blatant feel like the writers just openly not caring about their product.
Well, one can certainly debate which virtues, including a decent respect for continuity, matter more than most, but that's kinda my point. It's all about trade-offs and balancing acts, style versus structure, and so on. And when it comes to immersion, different people are going to have different lines in the sand or personal dealbreakers. Some viewers are upset if a key role is recast because it spoils the illusion; others viewers may take such recasting in stride as long as the new actor isn't noticeably inferior to the previous one. Some may even like the new actor better, regardless of the mental adjustment.
I'm just saying that, depending on the viewer, continuity (or any other virtue) doesn't necessarily trump acting, characterization, emotion, or other elements. Which is why you can't say that continuity is "objectively" more important than surprising plot twists or colorful characters or sex appeal or other parts of the recipe.
Is a thrilling episode that fudges "canon" better or worse than a rather dull by-the-numbers episode that perfectly preserves "canon"? That kinda depends on the viewer and what's most important to them.
Last edited:
Anyone who says "An objective assessment proves my opinions are right" is fundamentally misunderstanding what "objective" means.
Perfect continuity is less important than good storytelling, of course. But all other things being equal, continuity is a factor.
In the Voyager case I mentioned all they would have needed was a marker.
In the Voyager case I mentioned all they would have needed was a marker.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the villain in a recent CAPTAIN MARVEL comic insisted that he was "objectively" right about his views. Clearly, the author of that comic has spent some time on the internet.
One thing I like about Discovery (and Nutrek) is that the characters and the environment they're set in is more open. As far being able to express themselves, it's not as rigid and limited as the prior treks, like TNG. The freedom of streaming media allows the characters to curse a little, and the freedom to be imperfect. "Secondary" characters get screen time. They're more relatable.
But there are certain things with them that are also a turn off.
I agree with everything being shoehorned or mashed up into the storyline-- a major Klingon war out of nowhere, Spock now has two siblings implanted out of nowhere, the mirror universe etc. It's probably too much for some people. I followed the first season a bit, but the second one, more of a meh reaction--it's not "must see" TV. Though it is for many more fans, I'm not sure how it's doing in the ratings.
I think there is such a thing a very basic consensus among viewers or fans about what's watchable. Insurrection, Nemesis and Enterprise had shown that. Sometimes you can get a feeling of what's going to work and what's going to fail.
Star Wars TFA and TLJ were big hits, but (IMO) you can tell something was happening with the fan base by TLJ. Solo comes out makes much less than the Star Wars movies usually make. The fans probably projected their complaints onto that movie.
I think the same thing could have happened the NuTrek series. Very similar. The first two movies came out and were hits, but by the second one, the fans were murmuring. STB either failed or barely made its money back.
Something might have been wrong with the basic setup of the series and eventually filtered down into the 3rd installment. Otherwise we should be on to the 5th movie by now.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the villain in a recent CAPTAIN MARVEL comic insisted that he was "objectively" right about his views. Clearly, the author of that comic has spent some time on the internet.
I've seen and heard plenty of recent examples of internet culture getting noted in comics writing in one way or another like that. The All-New Wolverine series -- about X-23, Wolverine's cloned daughter, taking over the mantle from her dad -- had a wry joke about guys on the internet didn't think she was a worthy successor. Also saw bits and pieces of a Harley Quinn issue that was a full-on allegory for the so-called Comicsgate group that's been causing trouble often on for the past couple years through social media. Sure you can find more, although I think some of them are just happenstance.
Everyone should just agree I'm always right.
I guess that would get boring though.
Which was par for the course for TV writing in the '60s-'80s, really. I think the only TOS character's family members who were mentioned before they appeared were Kirk's brother and nephew. Every other relative was sprung on us as a surprise.
For that matter, surprise siblings are still a staple of series TV -- see Arrow, for instance.
No. "The fans" are not a monolithic community that thinks in lockstep. I mean, come on, everyone here is a fan, but we have arguments all the time. That is how fandom works. It has a gamut of reactions to everything, but there are always those arrogant few who claim they speak for everyone and try to drown out alternate voices, especially those who have the harshest negative reaction to a thing. In their egotism, they believe their negativity online is powerful enough to influence the success or failure of a movie, but that just proves how insular and self-absorbed they are. Most of the moviegoing audience neither knows nor cares about the inside-baseball fan debates; they just want to sit in a theater for 2-3 hours and enjoy a story or hang out with friends or eat popcorn or make out with a date. As long as they find the movie entertaining, they couldn't care less about canon or continuity or the stuff that the passionate fans have frenzied debates over online.
I just read a Ms. Marvel storyline where the villain was a sentient computer virus that was evil because it learned from the users it infected and so it had absorbed all the jerk behavior of people online. To defeat it, Ms. Marvel had to get everyone online to be nice for just one day.
I've made the joke before that when the internet gains sentience, we are screwed, because we've put all our worst qualities and perversions and hate onto it. If anything is the true origin of Skynet, this is it. Let an AI absorb comment sections from reddit and youtube and see how long we last....
Everyone should just agree I'm always right.
I guess that would get boring though.
That's me, basically, when I watch a movie or TV series, I'm not putting on "professional movie or TV critic" glasses. There are basic things you notice in a movie or show that may affect how you view it , then you may be surprise and notice other viewers point out the same things.
And yet, funny enough again though, the same thing also happened with Justice League. There were two previous ones with Man of Steel and then Superman vs Batman. Both made money and were hits but there was extreme mixed views on them, especially the second one.
By the time Justice League came out it, got big numbers but then after one week, it dropped off drastically. Something happened within the first or second movie or both that the viewers picked up on, and it ultimately had an affect on the third, at least enough to not reach the numbers the studios wanted.
Idk, it's totally a theory, but I have seen this pattern in a number of shows and movies.
I have to read this one. Sounds interesting and down my alley .
There was also a recent DEFENDERS comic where a face-eating leopard demon had its face eaten off by the Hulk. Needless to say, the face-eating leopard is all "But I never thought my face would get eaten off."
First of all, I must say I’m disappointed by the quality of discussion here, especially the implied personal attacks and generalized comparison with whatever evil comes to mind. I thought it was quite clear that DSC is only average TV by the standards of competitive television out there, that Star Trek fans are fairly discerning and using the media overload of 2019 to boldly get out of a particular comfort zone, watching many shows and movies but still following DSC as more Star Trek, even as they are fully aware of its shortcomings and not afraid to point them out on a regular basis. But what did I get when I tried to do that here, and dared to say it’s not just a personal opinion?
Because you don’t know any better, because you do having watched award-winning television, but are still happy to settle for DSC as fare-of-the-day, because you like watching it because it’s more Star Trek?
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
You don’t, but you should be able to distinguish between great, average and poor television, then call it out as such with specific criticism, even if you watch every episode anyway. Or at least not be personally offended when others point out specific issues.
If I argue that DSC will never be accepted as groundbreaking, highly competitive television and cite reasons, you’d jump to this sort of conclusion? A rule of what, writers and television critics?
No, it just takes acceptance that some people see issues and if other people don’t, they should learn to maintain a critical distance or otherwise not be offended.
So all the specific comments I made are not something anyone else might reproduce? Even if we don’t use that word, no kind of consensus is possible and any recognition or a lack thereof would be due to sheer blind luck?
What does this have to do with anything? How do you go from allowing a show to be criticized to “causing trouble”? Be positive or say nothing?
Yes, Sybok was a surprise, and there was no real reason for Burnham to have a Spock connection; that’s just an easy way to generate interest in the show, as opposed to building up Michael Burnham as a character that wouldn’t require the tie-in.
Where did I indicate the point was to influence the success or failure of DSC, as if that were even possible? You, an actual published writer, consider me “insular and self-absorbed” for criticizing the quality of DSC as television, as if the basic showrunning issues I pointed out are something only I am seeing?
More fun comments.
Again, how is this relevant? Worst qualities, perversions and hate? Don’t pretend that your critique of DSC is anything but a personal opinion, or else?
Because you don’t know any better, because you do having watched award-winning television, but are still happy to settle for DSC as fare-of-the-day, because you like watching it because it’s more Star Trek?
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
Maybe, maybe not; see above.
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.
You don’t, but you should be able to distinguish between great, average and poor television, then call it out as such with specific criticism, even if you watch every episode anyway. Or at least not be personally offended when others point out specific issues.
If I argue that DSC will never be accepted as groundbreaking, highly competitive television and cite reasons, you’d jump to this sort of conclusion? A rule of what, writers and television critics?
No, it just takes acceptance that some people see issues and if other people don’t, they should learn to maintain a critical distance or otherwise not be offended.
So all the specific comments I made are not something anyone else might reproduce? Even if we don’t use that word, no kind of consensus is possible and any recognition or a lack thereof would be due to sheer blind luck?
What does this have to do with anything? How do you go from allowing a show to be criticized to “causing trouble”? Be positive or say nothing?
Yes, Sybok was a surprise, and there was no real reason for Burnham to have a Spock connection; that’s just an easy way to generate interest in the show, as opposed to building up Michael Burnham as a character that wouldn’t require the tie-in.
Where did I indicate the point was to influence the success or failure of DSC, as if that were even possible? You, an actual published writer, consider me “insular and self-absorbed” for criticizing the quality of DSC as television, as if the basic showrunning issues I pointed out are something only I am seeing?
More fun comments.
Again, how is this relevant? Worst qualities, perversions and hate? Don’t pretend that your critique of DSC is anything but a personal opinion, or else?
Last edited:
It was more of a sidebar then an addition to the discussion.... Any opinion, comment or critique is obviously a personal opinion; that's true of everyone....
But even in that case there's disagreement. First, I'm someone that liked Nemesis (I honestly never understood the hate that movie engenders--it's actually my 2nd favorite TNG film--I'm not saying it's blockbuster material but I thought it was fine). I also liked Insurrection, though I feel it's the 2nd weakest Star Trek film---I really loved the cinematography. And I saw some posts where people hated the music score, but I actually loved the music score for that film. And I liked Enterprise. It didn't start off strong necessarily, but that was true of TNG and DS9 so it was just par for the course.
But like anything, there's disagreement there as well. So I'm not sure I'd say there's a consensus.
And sometimes I wonder if there is some 'group think' involved. I always say that's not to say people's opinions aren't valid or they don't sometimes make valid points. But take Nemesis for instance. I sometimes wonder if you take a fan who's never seen or heard about it, put them in a room and have them watch it what would they think---without having access to all that information. So I sometimes wonder if group think plays a role in any of that (again---to be clear, not saying anyone's opinion is invalid).
Judging from trekbbs that's certainly true. I know I've been involved in many debates here. We always disagree with each other about something. In fact, that's probably true of everything. It's human nature.
Always keep an eye outside your window. If you see any flying machines hit the deck
That's true of me as well. I first judge a movie (or show) on whether I enjoyed sitting through it. I rarely care what critics think. I mean, hell, I like the Friday the 13th movie---they don't exactly have good Rotten Tomato scores. Even Academy Award movies don't necessarily impress me all the time (part of that is because I have a sore spot with the Oscars since Alfred Hitchcock---the greatest director to ever walk this earth---and that's a fact
--never won an Oscar for Best Director---seriously, the director of Rear Window, North by Northwest, Notorious, Strangers on a Train.....etc. etc. etc....a travesty...ok rant over 
).And Nemesis was a movie that confused me. I enjoyed the film--I mean, it wasn't perfect, but I was fine with it. I was frankly shocked at the vitriol I later saw spewed at it. I honestly didn't expect that.
I think you just have to be careful when talking about your opinions and ascribing them to others. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are fans that agree with you---but even in that case they might not agree with all your points.
And to be honest, I'm guilty of the same thing. I avoid ever saying anything like 'all fans' or 'most fans' but I am guilty of saying 'some fans'. I liked Discovery, but I'm in the average camp so far (I've only watched season 1 so far--waiting for Blu-Ray). Some of that is because I sort of fall in the continuity camp. That does dampen my enthusiasm a bit. But that's my personal opinion--and some may agree with that---some may think it's average for other reasons---and of course some think it's a superior show---and some think it's an awful show.
You see, though, that's the sort of thing that gets you in trouble. What's quality TV? At the end of the day it is basically did you enjoy it?
That's the first thing I personally judge it by. Did it keep my attention? Did I like the story? Things like that.
Quality TV is Breaking Bad, for example, which sets up original characters and follows its premise step-by-step to the end, taking the audience alongside for the journey. Better Call Saul is a prequel which steers just as carefully towards a foregone conclusion, adding familiar elements as they become necessary to the story.
This isn’t something Star Trek isn’t supposed to be: DS9 wasn’t as serialized, but there was a premise with a payoff, an overall consistency of direction even as the showrunner changed in Season 3. DSC isn’t sure what it wants to be and constantly feels retooled and propped up by legacy.
This isn’t something Star Trek isn’t supposed to be: DS9 wasn’t as serialized, but there was a premise with a payoff, an overall consistency of direction even as the showrunner changed in Season 3. DSC isn’t sure what it wants to be and constantly feels retooled and propped up by legacy.
Similar threads
