When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Qapla!]

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.

Well time is a good indicator of whether or not something is objectively art. People still love Shakespeare and think it's true art, and it's been around for hundreds of years. Yes, art is subjective to some extent, but you still do find a consensus at some point. In the end, though, it's still just entertainment so it's not like our feelings about it are a life or death matter.

 

[Qapla!]

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.

I think you overestimate the nostalgia people. While there are some who get immediately angry over shoddy work, there are a lot of people who still will buy into anything as long as it reminds them of the yesteryears.

TFA was beat for beat A New Hope because JJ Abrams is good at reviving old franchises. That's his specialty. But did TFA really cover anything new? Sure, we have new characters but they don't hold a candle to the originals, but people were desperate for a new Star Wars and went along with it anyway.. And then you have TLJ which messed up a lot of expectations so those who were coasting on nostalgia got off the train quickly and were angry about the way the Star Wars franchise was operating. I personally enjoyed my time watching TFA because I thought, ok well they're setting things up for something better, but then nothing better came along so I abandoned it. I rode the nostalgia train and then I got off when I saw that it was arriving at someplace crappy.

Nostalgia is a way to evade criticism for some time but eventually people get wise to it.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Chris Pine did a serviceable job in the reboot movies as Kirk as did Alden Ehrenreich in the role of Han Solo, although the material they had to work with left a lot to be desired. Karl Urban did a great McCoy it has to be said. Ethan Peck was a better Spock than Zachary Quinto in my view.

Chris Pine did a fine job as Kirk. Whenever I see him, my first thought is 'that's Kirk". Initially everything seem to work great. IMO, the problem was what they ultimately did with the story and the characters.

The Spock /McCoy dynamic felt entirely missing. McCoy didn't seem like the long term, strong minded scientist that clashed with Spock; he was just there because he needed money after a divorce and his heroics got him an instant spot on the ship.

Sulu went from being a cadet to being in charge of the whole ship, so that created something of a credibility issue.

With Uhura I felt it was great to finally see what Uhura was like as a person, like as a cadet with a roommate and with Kirk hitting on her. But for the rest of the three movies she seemed to be mostly defined by her relationship with Spock than as herself.

It was either argue, make up or breakup. It was more interesting to see her as a cadet going to bars and studying to be a communications officer and how she reacted to Kirk.

The end result is the crew didn't really feel like the crew. Their adventures didn't feel like adventures. I think it was a small mistake to make the characters instant add-ons to the Enterprise from being cadets because it seemed to rush the whole series and you can probably see or feel it watching the series.

 

[Nightdiamond]

TFA was beat for beat A New Hope because JJ Abrams is good at reviving old franchises. That's his specialty. But did TFA really cover anything new? Sure, we have new characters but they don't hold a candle to the originals, but people were desperate for a new Star Wars and went along with it anyway.. And then you have TLJ which messed up a lot of expectations so those who were coasting on nostalgia got off the train quickly and were angry about the way the Star Wars franchise was operating. I personally enjoyed my time watching TFA because I thought, ok well they're setting things up for something better, but then nothing better came along so I abandoned it. I rode the nostalgia train and then I got off when I saw that it was arriving at someplace crappy.

Nostalgia is a way to evade criticism for some time but eventually people get wise to it.

I had a feeling that was what happened earlier this year with Solo. Some of the awkwardness of TFA carried over into TLJ. And then, the Last Jedi was enough to polarize fans so they just took it out Solo. I've talked to people that said people were being unfair to the movie, but I I knew it was just too close to TLJ and the fans were going to take it out on it. Some of the bad press didn't help either.

If it was Knights of The Old Republic or something, I think it might have been a huge hit even if it came out a few months after TLJ. Simply because the subject matter would be far away from the sequels.

 

[Christopher]

I've had more modern-day viewers ask, for example, about continuity issues between old movie sequels, asking how no-one could possibly have cared that Kirk replaced Carol Marcus in the genesis tape reprise in the third Trek movie, for example, and "Wouldn't people have noticed?"

Of course I noticed at the time, but it doesn't take that much thought to figure out that they didn't want to pay Bibi Besch royalties for reusing her footage, or complicate the story by featuring a character who had no role in it. You just have to remember to evaluate fiction as fiction and understand that sometimes there are real-world reasons for introducing inconsistencies. The weird thing to me is that so many people today seem to expect fiction to work exactly like reality and can't process it when it doesn't.

Like I keep saying, the key word in "willing suspension of disbelief" is willing. It doesn't mean that the illusion is so perfect that you believe it's actually real; it means that you notice the artifice but choose to play along anyway because you want to be entertained by the story. So yes, we notice. Just like theater audiences for thousands of years "noticed" that they were watching actors on a wooden stage rather than kings in their castles or armies on battlefields, but chose to accept the illusion anyway.

I don't doubt there were people back in the day who may have baulked at, say, the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes movies taking liberties with their source material

First off, those were TV series rather than movies. Second, they were actually celebrated for being far more faithful to the source material than previous Holmes screen productions. Before then, the popular image of Holmes had been dominated for decades by the iconic Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce films from 1939-46, which had taken massive liberties, most infamously reinterpreting Watson as a doddering old fool. The Brett series went back to the source and portrayed it more authentically than it had been in decades, especially where Watson was concerned, and so it was loved by Holmes fandom for that authenticity despite its perfectly understandable expansions and reshufflings to adapt the short stories and novels to an hourlong episodic TV format.

 

[Damian]

Of course I noticed at the time, but it doesn't take that much thought to figure out that they didn't want to pay Bibi Besch royalties for reusing her footage, or complicate the story by featuring a character who had no role in it. You just have to remember to evaluate fiction as fiction and understand that sometimes there are real-world reasons for introducing inconsistencies.

From an in-universe perspective it's probably pretty easy to explain that they had to update the tape because Genesis was really no more at that point. The experiment was over for all intents and purposes. So having a tape talking about future plans didn't make a lot of sense. As far as why Admiral Kirk did the tape instead of Carol or even David Marcus---well, it sort of seemed to have become a Starfleet issue at that point and it was top secret. So they probably wanted someone in the military to do the summary by that point.

Like I keep saying, the key word in "willing suspension of disbelief" is willing. It doesn't mean that the illusion is so perfect that you believe it's actually real; it means that you notice the artifice but choose to play along anyway because you want to be entertained by the story.

Yeah. I admit I get too wrapped up in the visuals myself sometimes. Even when I enjoy the story I sometimes let dopey things get in the way.

 

[fireproof78]

But did TFA really cover anything new?

Yes, it did, but this isn't really the forum to discuss it

Nostalgia can also blind us to what a production is actually trying to do.

Sulu went from being a cadet to being in charge of the whole ship, so that created something of a credibility issue.

Sulu was never shown to be a cadet, and was addressed as "Lieutenant" from the get-go by Pike.

With Uhura I felt it was great to finally see what Uhura was like as a person, like as a cadet with a roommate and with Kirk hitting on her. But for the rest of the three movies she seemed to be mostly defined by her relationship with Spock than as herself.

I could not disagree more. Part of Uhura's defining moments in that series are her branching out on her own and demonstrating her skills, either with Pike right before Vulcan, her interactions with the Klingons and her working with Sulu in Beyond to form the rescue plan.

 

[seigezunt]

Wonder if, beyond what you said above, if there's also something of a generational thing? Some of us were introduced to Star Trek at a time when a lot of the installments had "always" existed, so some changes were "always" part of the "original," from our perspective, not to mention that the '90s/early 2000s installments (where the bulk of the shows were made) were under more or less continuous management, so had a relatively more seamless fit then something like DSC, where the Powers That Be wanted to reimagine certain elements, for "good" or "bad"

Definitely. One of the reasons that my blood boils a bit whenever the narrative is "the TOS generation hates the new stuff."

Imagine if more mainstream sci-fi/fantasy properties had Star Trek's attitude toward continuity. If Tyrion Lannister was seven foot tall and humorless. If the Avengers were suddenly cool with slavery and genocide. If Luke Skywalker tried to murder his teenage nephew in his sleep- oh right. Fans, hardcore and casual alike would be pissed off, and rightly so.

Star Trek fandom isn't unusual for caring about continuity. It's unusual for not.

Setting aside the ridiculous hyperbole smearing Discovery ... casual Star Wars fan here. I was not enraged by TLJ's attempt to flip the narrative. I had more problems with the fact that a number of threads from TFA were simply dropped. Though I suspect some may be a misdirect. But regardless, I was not sent into a rage by the movie, and I find it perplexing that hardcore fans can manage to criticize TFA for being a rehash (I'm unclear how you can NOT rehash something that is tropey to the point of being a Passion Play), and then turn around and bemoan the next film's attempt to upturn the table.

It is interesting to see different perspectives, though. The guy really loved that Franz Joseph Tech manual and disliked the old Space Flight Chronology. I read both (long after they had been rendered completely overwritten by later projects) and I found the latter to be an honorable look at expanding the franchise at the time it was written and a very interesting look at how we used to look at things. Conversely, that Tech Manual was a huge disappointment, with lots lots of pictures, but no context or real rhyme to it. I know people swear by it, but I honestly found it to be a garbage book. If anyone could explain what I'm missing from that, I would love to hear it.

My Grup From The Before Time perspective is that ... the pictures were the point. They had an official feel, and having that amount of detail for something that was, pre-VHS, just a series of blurry images on a screen, was fantastic. I adored that book, and the Enterprise blueprints more.

People's expectations have changed.

Bingo.

I think you overestimate the nostalgia people. While there are some who get immediately angry over shoddy work, there are a lot of people who still will buy into anything as long as it reminds them of the yesteryears.

This feels perilously close to the pejorative that "some fans will accept anything with the Trek label on it," and as such smacks of gatekeeping. I doubt you will find anyone who enjoys actually shoddy work, outside of laughing in an MST3K fashion, which is unlikely in this context. I think there are exactly zero people who think, "this is crap, but it's Trek on the label so I like it and must like it." They just are willing to suspend disbelief in a different fashion.

 

[Damian]

This feels perilously close to the pejorative that "some fans will accept anything with the Trek label on it," and as such smacks of gatekeeping. I doubt you will find anyone who enjoys actually shoddy work, outside of laughing in an MST3K fashion, which is unlikely in this context. I think there are exactly zero people who think, "this is crap, but it's Trek on the label so I like it and must like it." They just are willing to suspend disbelief in a different fashion.

Yeah. Just look at all the hatred spewed at Nemesis. I think that alone proves Star Trek fans won't like something just because the Star Trek name is on it.

I mean, I liked Nemesis, but I recognize I'm one of a very few people that did. And not just because it was Star Trek. I'm not saying it's blockbuster material, but I was entertained sufficiently for me to like it, and that's the first thing I judge any entertainment by.

If Star Trek put out a really crappy product at some point, I wouldn't like it just because it said Star Trek though. Now maybe part of me would 'want' to like it, and I might give it an extra chance or two to change my mind. But I'm not going to artificially like something.

 

[drt]

This. Someone here once used the expression "Straw Trek," and I wish I could remember to credit them, referring to the ideal Trek continuity that we hold in our heads, which we grow to become convinced is the actual body of work, and which is utterly consistent.

The expression "Straw Trek" is totally accurate. Props to whoever coined that.

Definitely. One of the reasons that my blood boils a bit whenever the narrative is "the TOS generation hates the new stuff."

I think it's largely more those that became fans in the Berman-era, as that was over fifteen years of shows made by largely the same people so it seemed more internally consistent on the surface. Whereas TOS fans have had to face changes multiple times (TMP, Bennett-era movies, TNG, etc.), not that there were still crazies, however...

Speaking of the Bennett-era movies, I sometimes wonder if Nick Meyer actually had a real movie budget for ST2 (and didnt have to use TMP stock footage and sets), if he would have made something that looked considerably different to TMP, perhaps keeping even more to the Hornblower in space theme. If that was the case maybe the canon/continuity rigidity would have been weakened a long time ago.

 

[Greg Cox]

Definitely. One of the reasons that my blood boils a bit whenever the narrative is "the TOS generation hates the new stuff."

Amen.

At times, I vow I'm not going to get sucked into yet another pointless debate about Disco or the reboot movies or "canon," but then somebody will assert--AGAIN--that all of us old-school Trekkies have been "alienated" by the new stuff and I'm "Speak for yourself, please!"

And we're off to the races . . .

 

[fireproof78]

Speaking of the Bennett-era movies, I sometimes wonder if Nick Meyer actually had a real movie budget for ST2 (and didnt have to use TMP stock footage and sets), if he would have made something that looked considerably different to TMP, perhaps keeping even more to the Hornblower in space theme. If that was the case maybe the canon/continuity rigidity would have been weakened a long time ago.

He probably would have.

 

[Damian]

Speaking of the Bennett-era movies, I sometimes wonder if Nick Meyer actually had a real movie budget for ST2 (and didnt have to use TMP stock footage and sets), if he would have made something that looked considerably different to TMP, perhaps keeping even more to the Hornblower in space theme. If that was the case maybe the canon/continuity rigidity would have been weakened a long time ago.

He probably would have

I wonder. Would he? Generally when I've seem him in interviews he's said basically if he were creating Star Trek from scratch that it would have looked much different.

But he didn't and I always got the impression he felt because he didn't actually create Star Trek he was at least partially beholden to what came before. I mean, he made aesthetic changes like colors and lighting. But even new sets created I thought were pretty consistent with the rest of the Star Trek universe that came before. And that would be the time he could make more radical changes. Yet he didn't really when you think about it.

And I think part of it was also he seemed more interest in the story and directing the story then he did in actual set design elements. He may have not cared for some of the design elements of the Enterprise for instance, but at the same time it seemed it wasn't a high priority for him to make radical design changes.

Even if he had more money, I'm not sure he would have made significant changes unless it was pertinent to the story.

 

[drt]

I dont think there are enough new sets to tell. The only new ones are the Academy hallway, Kirk's apartment, Regula space station, Genesis staging area and cave. Plus, Enterprise got a redress of the TMP Klingon bridge set so they could manually load, like the Space Royal Navy, what had previously been energy weapons as big, black cannonballs (canonballs?).

 

[Christopher]

But he didn't and I always got the impression he felt because he didn't actually create Star Trek he was at least partially beholden to what came before. I mean, he made aesthetic changes like colors and lighting. But even new sets created I thought were pretty consistent with the rest of the Star Trek universe that came before. And that would be the time he could make more radical changes. Yet he didn't really when you think about it.

Well, since they did have to reuse TMP sets, it was only natural that they'd keep the new sets consistent with that aesthetic, just for the sake of the movie's internal continuity. Although Meyer did make some pretty big changes here and there, notably to the uniforms, phasers, tricorders, and communicators. The Regula I transporter console also looked very different from the TMP one.

It's also worth noting that TWOK's production designer, Joe Jennings, had also been the Phase II production designer and was largely responsible for the look of the Enterprise sets built for that series and used in the movies. So that could also be a factor in the design continuity.

 

[fireproof78]

I wonder. Would he? Generally when I've seem him in interviews he's said basically if he were creating Star Trek from scratch that it would have looked much different.

I think, if given the choice and opportunity he would have as he strikes as a guy who enjoys being highly creative. But, he is also highly pragmatic and worked with what he had.

 

[Damian]

Well, since they did have to reuse TMP sets, it was only natural that they'd keep the new sets consistent with that aesthetic, just for the sake of the movie's internal continuity. Although Meyer did make some pretty big changes here and there, notably to the uniforms, phasers, tricorders, and communicators. The Regula I transporter console also looked very different from the TMP one.

It's also worth noting that TWOK's production designer, Joe Jennings, had also been the Phase II production designer and was largely responsible for the look of the Enterprise sets built for that series and used in the movies. So that could also be a factor in the design continuity.

And Herman Zimmerman was retained for TUC.

I'm just wondering if we make a bigger deal about set design than Meyer does. He's certainly stated what would be his preference, and some adjustments were made. But maybe it wasn't as big a deal to him as it is to us.

 

[Damian]

I think, if given the choice and opportunity he would have as he strikes as a guy who enjoys being highly creative. But, he is also highly pragmatic and worked with what he had.

I think that's part of it too. I think he's pretty used to working with minimal resources.

 

[Christopher]

But maybe it wasn't as big a deal to him as it is to us.

I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous thing to say. He's the guy who actually made the movie. He's the guy who was willing to devote an enormous amount of hard work and a couple of years of his life to making decisions about every single facet of its creation. We're just people who sat in chairs and watched the results of all that hard work after he'd finished it.

 

[Damian]

I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous thing to say. He's the guy who actually made the movie. He's the guy who was willing to devote an enormous amount of hard work and a couple of years of his life to making decisions about every single facet of its creation. We're just people who sat in chairs and watched the results of all that hard work after he'd finished it.

What I meant to say was that maybe making changes to the set design elements wasn't as high priority for him as we maybe think it was. I'm not saying the movie or the story wasn't a big deal. But everyone has lists of priorities, things that have to be done and then things that might be nice to do but not a priority.