When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[at Quark's]

If anything, I think it's that kind of Singularity/posthuman SF that's getting a bit retro now, at least in prose circles (mass media SF tends to lag a couple of decades behind the literature). There was a ton of stuff like that in the '90s and '00s, but I think now we're seeing more writers skeptical of the idea and recognizing that upward technological and social trends tend to plateau eventually rather than rising infinitely. And that uploading data means copying it rather than moving it, so that an uploaded mind would not be the original mind, and thus a human consciousness still needs to reside in a human brain. Where I see clouds and information networks in SF these days, they connect and unite biological humans rather than replacing them.

I'm willing to believe that Singularitanism/Transhumanism is a bit retro now in the writer community. I'm not a writer, heck, I don't even read a lot of contemporary science fiction.

Still, I think in a more abstract sense, it would be very hard to predict when we hit a plateau, except perhaps by specialists. I'm willing to believe we won't develop ways to "upload" human consciousness, but I still think it is a lot more likely that we'll eventually develop human -equivalent AI, capable of operating fully autonomously , -as efficient or even more so than humans-, than that we'll obtain warp, based on the simple observation we exist so we know it is possible, whereas for warp speed there only might be some marginal indications it might be possible to effectively circumvent the local C limit. Sending such units out probably would be cheaper and more efficient.

I doubt it. We're still humans, and part of the human experience is "doing it themselves". You haven't "been there" until someone actually has been there. We got tons of rovers on the Mars doing lots of important scientific work. But there is still an enourmous drive to get there in person.

What IS dated, is the notion of "being out there, farting round, and going where-ever one just feels like", as seen a whole lot on early ENT, and the final scene with Pike and Spock in season 2. But that was already dated back during TOS and TNG - a much better mission statement would probably be "our observatorise/drones/whatever catched this weird thing in the xxx starsystem, now we go there personally to science it directly".

True.... unless you are the person/organisation who actually has to shell out the money to make it happen with real humans. Why go through the costly trouble of devising ships that maintain life support, an internal atmosphere, have food on board, find ways to protect against cosmic radiation and other dangers, when you can build nigh-invulnerable units that can do it every bit as well as humans and don't need al those extra conditions? (Of course this is based on the assumption we do succeed in developing true human-level or beyond-human level AI). Only based on the emotion that otherwise "we" haven't truly done it?

 

[Rahul]

Continuity:
View attachment 9583
Canon:
View attachment 9584

Yeah, Star Trek is littered with these type of things. EVERY story is. Just look at sitcoms, where characters' catchphrases and traits also usually aren't fully developed in the early seasons. "Oh Marshall got overwhelmed because he never picked a fight" *cue cut to other season Marshall going full WWE with his brothers.

The question is usually just how severe or distracting they are. The problem you showed is IMO not a problem at all - all of it is an artificial illusion anyway, and there might be a backstory we don't know - a bullying word that was used on Kirk in academy days for example, or just the Mitchel himself making a mistake.

A bigger problem -for me personally- are for example the various differences in approaches to time-travel technology available: One day the TOS crew can travel through time on a whim, another it's like magic, whereas on TNG they know a little about time travel - enough to understand phenomena - but not enough to reliably use it themselves (which is IMO the best working approach from a story-perspective). These have IMO far wider reaching implications, and are therefore more problematic, even though technically these are less obvious continuity errors as this one.

 

[Rahul]

I'm willing to believe that Singularitanism/Transhumanism is a bit retro now in the writer community. I'm not a writer, heck, I don't even read a lot of contemporary science fiction.

Still, I think in a more abstract sense, it would be very hard to predict when we hit a plateau, except perhaps by specialists. I'm willing to believe we won't develop ways to "upload" human consciousness, but I still think it is a lot more likely that we'll eventually develop human -equivalent AI, capable of operating fully autonomously , -as efficient or even more so than humans-, than that we'll obtain warp, based on the simple observation we exist so we know it is possible, whereas for warp speed there only might be some marginal indications it might be possible to effectively circumvent the local C limit. Sending such units out probably would be cheaper and more efficient.

Indeed, I think "Transhumanism" (especially in the upload-brain-to-computer sense) is what previously have been alien mind hives, before that genetically enhanced humans, before that A.I. gone rogue, before that radiation side effects, before that mind control/etytra-sensory-perception, before that evil space Emperors with robots.

Simply another tool in the box for aspiring SF writers, originally starting out as a frightnening but real possibility, but as time goes on and the kinks of the idea having been thoroughly explored also with more and more flaws detected. But an interesting tool that can still be used for worthwile stories nevertheless.


BTW, I think it would be a REALLY worthwhile story to, for once, flip the transhumanism on it's head, and have a completely artifical A.I. be transferred into an actual human body!!*

*I'm not a writer - if you wanna' write a story, you can take this idea for free

True.... unless you are the person/organisation who actually has to shell out the money to make it happen with real humans. Why go through the costly trouble of devising ships that maintain life support, an internal atmosphere, have food on board, find ways to protect against cosmic radiation and other dangers, when you can build nigh-invulnerable units that can do it every bit as well as humans and don't need al those extra conditions? (Of course this is based on the assumption we do succeed in developing true human-level or beyond-human level AI). Only based on the emotion that otherwise "we" haven't truly done it?

It's not just the emotions, there many, many more incentives. Shitloads of money is another one. Whichever corporation will be the first one able to mine rare Earths from other bodies in the solar system is going to become as big that Google will call it "daddy". Which goes hand-in-hand with enourmous geopolitical power for whichever nation that company comes from. The influx of wealth will be comparable to when the first Europeans began colonization in America and the world (hopefully less violent).

There is also simple, old human idealism involved. We just want to go out there, to save humanity and all that jazz. The first completely self-sufficient human colonies in the solar system are going to be a milestone of unprecedented degree for all of humanity. In fact, there is so, so, so, so much incentives to go to space - that we humans continually do so, even though it devours massive, massive ressources right now.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

This is why arguments about canon are so confusing to me. It's so strange to have this intense desire to make it all make sense and that if the production teams don't then they have betrayed the brand.

They have not “betrayed the brand” any more than VGR or ENT did, but they have modified eighteen years of precedent where prior productions were treated as period with the very good intent or side-effect of discouraging the building of safety nets consisting of recast and updated audience-grabbing elements.

It gets to a point where I am concerned for individual's mental health.

This can be offensive depending on what you mean exactly. Professional artists need to iron out inconsistencies all the time to a reasonable extent. Marvel actors are deaged whenever possible. What is wrong if fans are looking for the same kind of immersion on the basis of recent production precedent? So DSC can’t fit on the level of production design, OK, therefore we need a Discovery label for models, blueprints and such, but the backstory remains unified because we see that even calendar years are researched. Big deal.

Not because I don't take Star Trek seriously, or telling them to "Get over it! It's just a TV show!" but looking past that and saying why is Star Trek so important that it inspires such passion? And, how can we still allow enjoyment in even with these changes?

What inspires passion for any detail-oriented hobby? Why do cosplayers go to such trouble making even cartoon costumes from Rebels look real? What is this idea that there is only the simplest, most basic way of watching TV, as opposed to fandom involvement in lore even if the entertainment is average? It was fun for someone to explain Watson’s wives and it’s fun for someone else to figure out how DSC fits exactly, even if it also comes with criticism of the underlying safety-net approach.

 

[Christopher]

I have yet to hear a good argument that ENT broke canon (maybe the number of Starships Enterprise, but that's really scraping the barrel).

By that logic, TOS "broke canon" when it replaced James R. Kirk, lithium crystals, Vulcanians, and UESPA. And TNG did when it gave Worf a new forehead in season 2 and retconned away Data's previously demonstrated abilities to use contractions and feel emotion.

Canon is not a vase on a shelf. It's a living, growing entity. It doesn't break, it evolves. And if some part of it does break, it heals, even if it's not quite the same as it was before.

Still, I think in a more abstract sense, it would be very hard to predict when we hit a plateau, except perhaps by specialists. I'm willing to believe we won't develop ways to "upload" human consciousness, but I still think it is a lot more likely that we'll eventually develop human -equivalent AI, capable of operating fully autonomously , -as efficient or even more so than humans-, than that we'll obtain warp, based on the simple observation we exist so we know it is possible, whereas for warp speed there only might be some marginal indications it might be possible to effectively circumvent the local C limit. Sending such units out probably would be cheaper and more efficient.

Of course, but fiction isn't about safe, ordinary experience, it's about the more interesting extremes. There are lots of ways to tell stories that acknowledge the benefits of probe-based exploration yet still feature human colonization, whether as a way to ease population pressures or a way to escape cataclysm or because our technology and/or bioengineering have advanced to the point where we can make the trip in a human lifetime (even if it's a slow trip over a greatly extended lifetime).

And showing humans expanding to the stars despite the difficulties is not scientifically unrealistic. Consider
the “generalist specialist” model of human development proposed in 2018 by archaeologists Patrick Roberts and Brian Stewart, discussed here:

https://news.umich.edu/homo-sapiens-the-global-general-specialist/
https://www.inverse.com/article/47597-generalist-specialist-homo-sapien-adaption

According to this model, humans' inbuilt drive to expand into new and hostile environments has been key to our survival as a species, allowing us to survive environmental changes that wiped out hominids with more limited range, and has driven our development of technology and civilization as we invented means to adapt to those new environments. Pushing into new places even when it seems we can't survive there is a fundamental need of the human psyche, something that's driven us since prehistory and led us to settle or explore every ecological niche on this planet, so if anything it's scientifically unrealistic to claim that we'd ever stop doing that. Humans will send probes to the stars, yes, but then we will find ways to follow them there. We can't help ourselves. Challenges to achievement do not stop us, they goad us forward.

And as a lifelong Trek fan, I love the idea that there's a scientific underpinning for Trek's philosophy that our curiosity and drive to explore is what makes us human.

True.... unless you are the person/organisation who actually has to shell out the money to make it happen with real humans.

It's called investment. History shows that exploration of new frontiers takes off when it becomes profitable enough to offset the cost of the effort.

Besides, a humanity that's settled the Solar System will probably be post-scarcity, because it'll have access to effectively limitless solar power and effectively limitless mineral resources from the millions of asteroids and comets of the system. So there'd be no shortage of resources to invest in building starships.

 

[1001001]

It became a hot button issue in the failed series ENT and the J.J. Abrams garbage, which managed to make Star Trek: Enterprise look like a Star Trek Sistine Chapel (or should I say Christine Chapel, lol?) masterpiece by comparison. Both of these Treks obnoxiously violated the general Star Trek timeline in so many different lazy, unbelievably STUPID ways, they quite simply had no respect for their source material whatsoever. And both of these monstrosities of Star Trek were deliberately STUPID and treated their audiences as if they were as STUPID as all the 21st-century detritus into which Trek degenerated. It's shameful so see what Star Trek is now, versus decades past when it had....oh, I would say....a FUCKING BRAIN!

You might want to switch to decaf.

 

[seigezunt]

Curious if Saavik's recasting had similar impact?

It does make me want to giggle to think about it. It was a fairly radical change in the character, and there were some grumblings as I recall, but, really, I think we just rolled with it.

Someone's bringing their 2009 problems into 2019.

*wondering what happened to all the TNG haters in the late 80's/early 90's and if they're still angry*

Based on my observations, some fell out of fandom completely, some (like me) got over it and learned to find something to like in a Trek that wasn't theirs, and some were converted, hard. I don't think many are still angry. At worst, they may be indifferent to post-TOS Trek.

On a complete tangent, I want to call out @Rahul because never have I agreed so much with someone whom I so vehemently disagree with. We have really different conclusions about new Trek, but I find your criticisms thoughtful, and with the full heart of a fan. I just wanted to say that, instead of bulk-quoting multiple posts and commenting "agreed."

On the other hand, there's

J.J. Abrams garbage, which managed to make Star Trek: Enterprise look like a Star Trek Sistine Chapel (or should I say Christine Chapel, lol?) masterpiece by comparison. Both of these Treks obnoxiously violated the general Star Trek timeline in so many different lazy, unbelievably STUPID ways, they quite simply had no respect for their source material whatsoever. And both of these monstrosities of Star Trek were deliberately STUPID and treated their audiences as if they were as STUPID as all the 21st-century detritus into which Trek degenerated. It's shameful so see what Star Trek is now, versus decades past when it had....oh, I would say....a FUCKING BRAIN!

Which I can only offer a NathanFillionNOWords.gif and grateful click of the "ignore" button and leave it at that.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Let’s not take this thread all over the place. Recasting Saavik isn’t comparable because the audience knows that even now there is no easy way to simulate an original actor, even if contracts would permit it, and her (half-)Vulcan background did play a role in reanimating Spock.

The controversy primarily surrounds the updates to production- and makeup design, which TNG and later productions had accepted as a given, especially as it opened the door for DSC to revisit proven elements rather than risk failing in a far more original setting.

(Before that, the Abramsverse had used a similar creative approach, but that was just a tad less controversial with the photo in deceased Spock’s effects being one from Star Trek V. The arguments there were mostly that the reimagined style and tone weren’t appropriate for Star Trek, even with the stated Kelvin Timeline workaround.)

 

[Christopher]

It does make me want to giggle to think about it. It was a fairly radical change in the character, and there were some grumblings as I recall, but, really, I think we just rolled with it.

Recastings in movies have always been a common practice, so while people had different opinions on which Saavik actress they preferred, it's not like it was some horrible shock.


As for what happened to the TNG haters, I think most of the early critics were won over eventually by how good the show got. Keep in mind that some of the most vocal early critics included William Shatner and some of the other TOS actors, but most of them ended up doing TNG or one of its spinoffs eventually.

But there are always some who just cling to their hate forever and refuse to change. Anyone remember James Dixon?

 

[Kor]

I think many fans weren't happy that Curtis's acting wasn't as expressive/emotive as Alley's.
But Nimoy directed her to be that way on purpose!

Kor

 

[ChallengerHK]

I think many fans weren't happy that Curtis's acting wasn't as expressive/emotive as Alley's.
But Nimoy directed her to be that way on purpose!

Hopefully this is not a faulty memory, but I recall an interview with her, well before TSFS was released, in which she said that she had decided that the way to prepare for playing a Vulcan was to learn absolutely nothing about what had been done before regarding playing Vulcans.

 

[fireproof78]

They have not “betrayed the brand” any more than VGR or ENT did, but they have modified eighteen years of precedent where prior productions were treated as period with the very good intent or side-effect of discouraging the building of safety nets consisting of recast and updated audience-grabbing elements.

Prior productions were under one production manager. DSC is under a new manager. Therefore, as with any artistic endeavor they are allowed to expand upon what was done before, rather than play it safe.

This can be offensive depending on what you mean exactly. Professional artists need to iron out inconsistencies all the time to a reasonable extent. Marvel actors are deaged whenever possible. What is wrong if fans are looking for the same kind of immersion on the basis of recent production precedent? So DSC can’t fit on the level of production design, OK, therefore we need a Discovery label for models, blueprints and such, but the backstory remains unified because we see that even calendar years are researched. Big deal.

That I have concerns that people create their own anxiety over these details and anger at production teams? I would call that irrational, at best, as well as concerning. Sorry, but seeing the level of angst that this generates causes me concern as someone trained in mental health counseling.

Fans can have all kinds of expectations but they are not always reasonable or rational. Marvel is not a fair comparison because (again) Marvel was under the direction of one person and that specific vision. Star Trek is not Marvel and demanding that level of immersion is, at this point in time, unrealistic. That may change with Star Trek relaunching under a new head.

What inspires passion for any detail-oriented hobby? Why do cosplayers go to such trouble making even cartoon costumes from Rebels look real? What is this idea that there is only the simplest, most basic way of watching TV, as opposed to fandom involvement in lore even if the entertainment is average? It was fun for someone to explain Watson’s wives and it’s fun for someone else to figure out how DSC fits exactly, even if it also comes with criticism of the underlying safety-net approach.

Thus far, these continuity wars do not appear like fun.

Let’s not take this thread all over the place. Recasting Saavik isn’t comparable because the audience knows that even now there is no easy way to simulate an original actor, even if contracts would permit it, and her (half-)Vulcan background did play a role in reanimating Spock.

Recasting Saavik is perfectly comparable, especially in this era of DSC when Ethan Peck now plays Spock, and the reactionary opinions towards him as "not real Spock" and breaking immersion.

 

[BillJ]

...and Doug Drexler’s Defiant plans did on DS9.

They used the wrong Defiant schematic in “The Search, Part One”.

 

[fireproof78]

They used the wrong Defiant schematic in “The Search, Part One”.

And this is why pleasing fans is a fool's errand.

 

[BillJ]

And this is why pleasing fans is a fool's errand.

I agree. Which is why they should’ve just ripped the band-aid off and done a full blown reboot.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree. Which is why they should’ve just ripped the band-aid off and done a full blown reboot.

They are too afraid is the problem.

 

[seigezunt]

Anyone remember James Dixon?

Had to Google that one. I think he was before my time here. Weeeeeeeeell doggy

 

[Christopher]

Recasting Saavik is perfectly comparable, especially in this era of DSC when Ethan Peck now plays Spock, and the reactionary opinions towards him as "not real Spock" and breaking immersion.

Wow, that's crazy. People are complaining at the recasting of a role whose original actor died years ago? How completely incapable of suspension of disbelief does someone have to be if they can't even cope with that? How are they even able to tolerate knowing that they're watching a filmed production on a 2-dimensional screen instead of live events happening in front of them?

What's next, complaining that ITV's Victoria stars Jenna Coleman instead of the real Queen Victoria plucked from the timestream?

 

[BillJ]

Wow, that's crazy. People are complaining at the recasting of a role whose original actor died years ago? How completely incapable of suspension of disbelief does someone have to be if they can't even cope with that? How are they even able to tolerate knowing that they're watching a filmed production on a 2-dimensional screen instead of live events happening in front of them?

Different people have different limits on what they'll accept from fiction. Might as well get used to it.

 

[fireproof78]

Different people have different limits on what they'll accept from fiction. Might as well get used to it.

This just seems to be incredibly limiting, though.