When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Damian]

BATES MOTEL pulled a fast one on viewers. After spending several seasons presenting itself as a prequel to PSYCHO (albeit set in modern times, as opposed to the 1960s), it veered off in the final season to present a whole new ending for Norman Bates. The turning point being when Marion Crane decided NOT to take a shower after all.

I suspect this wasn't the original plan, but more that producers eventually decided, as the series finally caught up with the beginning of the movie, that it would be kinda pointless to spend the last several episodes just remaking the Hitchcock film.

Hmm, I never thought of that. Believe it or not I didn't start watching Bates Motel right off the bat, even though I'm a huge Hitchcock fan (best director EVER...just sayin). A friend of mine told me I should watch it. She thought it was a good show and knowing how much I liked Hitchcock films she said I'd like it and she was right. I started in about the 2nd season. I thought it would end sometime after he murdered his mother and then follow the history we were told in the first Psycho film. But they changed things up a bit, as we know. I never expected that they would go into a Psycho remake in the sense I didn't expect them to go into Bates' adult life as seen in the film.

I wonder if part of that was because Bates' history had already been covered to a large extent. Between some of the flashbacks seen in Psycho II, then going into it in more detail with Psycho IV I wonder if the producers decided they wanted to do something different then just re-do something that was covered to some extent at least twice before.

As for Star Trek--I'm not a big fan of reboots. I've sort of looked at Discovery as a sort of reboot, but I'd rather not. Actually, I'd prefer them just to continue moving forward in the future. That would eliminate most of the continuity problems and they can make it as futuristic as they want, technologically, society, scientifically, etc. Any changes, much like when the TNG started, could easily be attributed to it being 100 (or whatever) years in the future. They'd have to stay consistent with the overall history, but I doubt that would be much of an issue for the most part.

I actually like that storywise, it's all part of the same basic universe. Not too many franchises do that these days. Doing a reboot, in a way, is almost too easy. Sure it frees you to do what you want---but it makes it too easy. I think it's a lot more challenging to try to do what you want but work within a framework of the existing universe.

 

[Christopher]

I actually like that storywise, it's all part of the same basic universe. Not too many franchises do that these days.

There's the MCU and the Arrowverse. There are the various Doctor Who spinoffs, though there aren't currently any of those on the air. There's the whole NCIS franchise that's a spinoff of JAG and has crossed over with the shared Hawaii Five-O/MacGyver/Magnum P.I. reboot continuity as well as a couple of other shows. They've even announced the development of a new show in the Moore Galactica universe.

 

[fireproof78]

Doing a reboot, in a way, is almost too easy.

If this was another franchise, I would agree. But Star Trek has always been future focused. I think a reboot would let them, as @Christopher noted, incorporate all of the changes that have happened in the 50 years since Star Trek started.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's the MCU and the Arrowverse. There are the various Doctor Who spinoffs, though there aren't currently any of those on the air. There's the whole NCIS franchise that's a spinoff of JAG and has crossed over with the shared Hawaii Five-O/MacGyver/Magnum P.I. reboot continuity as well as a couple of other shows. They've even announced the development of a new show in the Moore Galactica universe.

Vampire Diaries has already spawned two spin-off series.

 

[Christopher]

Vampire Diaries has already spawned two spin-off series.

I could've listed other recent shows with spinoffs, but I was trying to focus on ones relevant to the particular point here, franchises that are relatively long-running and have continued to add to the original continuity rather than rebooting it.

 

[yotsuya]

"Bermanverse" as you call it was dying on its' feet because it grew stale, the writers ran out of steam and became unimaginative, people at all levels became disillusioned and the market for trek was saturated.

I felt the Bermanverse (for lack of a better term) really fell down when they split the writing team on TNG to start DS9 and it never recovered. By the time they ended DS9 and only had Voyager and then only Enterprise, they were in a rut. I stop watching all of it (except for an episode here and there and the first half of Enterprise season 1) when I realized that the best DS9 episodes was Trials and Tribbleations and that they had to tap into a TOS episode to have a truly good episode. I also felt the Dominion War was a cheap rip off of Babylon 5 (always intended to be about a great interstellar war). The episodes I like are all the ones that took risks and did something different, often revisiting the past. The best TNG episodes all stand on their own and are before season 6. And I've seen many comments that one reason Discovery has been taken so well is that it is so different from DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. It has taken story risks that they didn't in the mid to late Bermanverse. I just has really destroyed the continuity at the same time.

Picard looks very much like a return to that setting but we wouldn't be seeing anyone take that chance had the Abrams movies and DSC paved the way and shown the appetite was there.

I am actually excited about Picard. The tech shouldn't be an issue. Most of the problems with rewriting history can't happen because there is nothing to rewrite. As long as they follow the estabished chronology and continuity, they have free rein to reinvent whatever they want. We already have seen 7 of 9's prosthetic looks the same, Data looks the same (pretty good considering how much Brent has aged), Picard's comm badge is the same. So I have hope that this will be free of the problems Discovery has encountered and be great.

I'd really like to seem them ditch Discovery and do a full on Pike Star Trek series (and admit it is a reboot). I've always loved The Cage and would love to see those characters explored to their full extent. To see a young Spock learn how to get along in the human world and accept his vulcanness. What they explored in TOS was a seasoned vet coping with his human side on occasion. And to see Number One done right. And given that they have already done some of that in Discovery, for those who don't want to let the visual reboot keep it apart, they can carry the story forward for several years before we get close to Kirk's era.

 

[WebLurker]

If this was another franchise, I would agree. But Star Trek has always been future focused. I think a reboot would let them, as @Christopher noted, incorporate all of the changes that have happened in the 50 years since Star Trek started.

I don't know, I'm personally okay with it remaining a "Zeerust"/"Zeerust Canon" franchise. Course, I'm more into the stories and the world as-is, so I'd prefer concessions to reality to keep that going then not. Besides, I don't think you need throw stuff out to add. I mean, cell phones now don't really ruin the flip top communicators of ENT/DSC/TOS being a thing. I find the Eugenics Wars and WWIII are also very useful ways to explain science/tech differences.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know, I'm personally okay with it remaining a "Zeerust"/"Zeerust Canon" franchise.

That wasn't what it was supposed to be, though. It wasn't an exercise in nostalgia, it was cutting-edge and forward-looking, in its storytelling as well as its futurism. Let Star Wars be retro and nostalgic -- that's its core nature. Star Trek is supposed to look forward.

Besides, it's selfish to say "I like it this way, so nobody else in the future should be allowed to enjoy a different version of it." There comes a time when new versions of a franchise you like are not about you anymore. They're about the next generation, to coin a phrase.

 

[WebLurker]

That wasn't what it was supposed to be, though. It wasn't an exercise in nostalgia, it was cutting-edge and forward-looking, in its storytelling as well as its futurism. Let Star Wars be retro and nostalgic -- that's its core nature. Star Trek is supposed to look forward.

We stayed from that path a long time ago.

Besides, it's selfish to say "I like it this way, so nobody else in the future should be allowed to enjoy a different version of it." There comes a time when new versions of a franchise you like are not about you anymore. They're about the next generation, to coin a phrase.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know, I'm personally okay with it remaining a "Zeerust"/"Zeerust Canon" franchise. Course, I'm more into the stories and the world as-is, so I'd prefer concessions to reality to keep that going then not. Besides, I don't think you need throw stuff out to add. I mean, cell phones now don't really ruin the flip top communicators of ENT/DSC/TOS being a thing. I find the Eugenics Wars and WWIII are also very useful ways to explain science/tech differences.

While I agree that WWIII can provide a reasonable story explanation, I think that Star Trek has strayed a bit from imagining an optimistic future for current humanity. I think Star Trek relies way too much on nostalgia to sell itself, far too afraid of reimagining itself. Dare I say it, I think Gene Roddenberry was more honest about what he wanted from Star Trek in exploring his idea of an evolved humanity, and a willingness to distance himself from TOS.

I also think that Star Trek is at a place where you can have the nostalgia (Picard) and the reboot, perhaps in a film form. Regardless, I think Trek has lost part of the forward future idea and insists upon more static technology.I think a reboot could offer a fresh look at the technological future.

 

[Christopher]

We stayed from that path a long time ago.

Which doesn't make it right.

 

[WebLurker]

Which doesn't make it right.

How is it any less legitimate a way of Star Trek-ing then what you want, given the long history it's had and the place it maintains in the franchise? Star Trek as it exists right not are not the Star Treks that you and I got onboard with, any more then it's the Star Trek that originally aired back in the '60s.

 

[Christopher]

How is it any less legitimate a way of Star Trek-ing then what you want, given the long history it's had and the place it maintains in the franchise? Star Trek as it exists right not are not the Star Treks that you and I got onboard with, any more then it's the Star Trek that originally aired back in the '60s.

Like I said, we already have nostalgic sci-fi franchises. It's Star Wars's bread and butter. But Star Trek has exploring the strange and new built into its literal mission statement. When it was new, it broke new ground in SFTV and had a revolutionary impact on the field, even having a measurable influence on the real world by inspiring people to become scientists and inventors and astronauts. It was more than just a TV show. It was a cultural phenomenon and it changed the world. Is it so wrong to want it to regain that groundbreaking, ambitious quality rather than just becoming one of a dozen cozy exercises in kitschy nostalgia?

My whole point is that I don't want it to remain the same as it was, not in superficial ways. I want it to break new ground, to stand out from the pack, to shape the future of SFTV rather than clinging to the past. Maybe it can never again be as exceptional and revolutionary as it was, because it has so many successors that have followed in its footsteps and surpassed it. But that's why it'd be a shame if it stopped trying to break new ground of its own and just settled for basking in past glories.

 

[yotsuya]

I agree that it should not stay the same. It should constantly be plowing ahead searching for new and different ways to tell stories.but what I want to see is the underlying hope for the future then Gene Roddenberry built into Star Trek. That is the thing I think is missing in the current versions. When I see is the typical pessimistic, just as we are now type of outlook that Gene Roddenberry was trying to avoid.that is the key thing that I think makes these new Star treks different than the old Star Treks. That is what I object to. There's room for darker stories there. People who derail from the norm of federation society. But to derail that hope for the future in favor of a darker federation is not something that I will accept in Star Trek. That is the antithesis of what it is supposed to be.and there's plenty of room to explore that more 20th century mine set in the corners of the federation where they are perhaps not so enlightened. But when dealing with Starfleet and the core federation, that enlightenment the Gene Roddenberry built into his society for Star Trek needs to be there for it to be Star Trek in my eyes.

 

[Christopher]

I don't get why people think Discovery is dark. Yes, it puts the characters in a dark situation, just like many TOS episodes did with whole solar systems being destroyed or the Federation wiped out by a time-machine accident or what-have-you. But in the end, the characters save the day by reaffirming their optimistic Starfleet values and proving that they work better than darkness and cynicism. It's just that the seasons are telling long, serialized stories rather than multiple episodic ones, so that means the dark/crisis part of the story lasts longer before the happy, upbeat ending arrives.

 

[Danja]

I think Gene Roddenberry was more honest about what he wanted from Star Trek in exploring his idea of an evolved humanity, and a willingness to distance himself from TOS.

In our day and age, not everyone particularly wishes to "evolve" (at least, they don't wish to evolve according to someone else's definition of the term).

I also think that Star Trek is at a place where you can have the nostalgia (Picard) and the reboot, perhaps in a film form. Regardless, I think Trek has lost part of the forward future idea and insists upon more static technology.I think a reboot could offer a fresh look at the technological future.

Back in the 90's, tablet computers and smartphones were still science fiction.

What do we do with the tech without running the risk of it becoming the equivalent of CSI's magic machines that can tell a perp's age, weight, shoe size, and hair color just from a sample of their blood?

 

[fireproof78]

In our day and age, not everyone particularly wishes to "evolve" (at least, they don't wish to evolve according to someone else's definition of the term).

And that's ok. IDIC and all that.

What do we do with the tech without running the risk of it becoming the equivalent of CSI's magic machines that can tell a perp's age, weight, shoe size, and hair color just from a sample of their blood?

Improve the quality of life, create more realistic imaginings, directly type via computer/person connection, improved construction materials, improved medical tech. One thing I love studying is improvements in medical technology, from stem cells, to 3d printing organs, to stimulating growth of tissues to support more complete healing.

I agree that in the 90s the tech we take for granted was highly limited. That's why I think allowing a Trek reboot to showcase just how fast technology has improved and possible implications would be pretty cool, to me at least.

 

[Amasov]

That wasn't what it was supposed to be, though. It wasn't an exercise in nostalgia, it was cutting-edge and forward-looking, in its storytelling as well as its futurism. Let Star Wars be retro and nostalgic -- that's its core nature. Star Trek is supposed to look forward.

Star Trek's looking forward isn't about being a literal measure of time.

 

[Christopher]

Star Trek's looking forward isn't about being a literal measure of time.

I never remotely said that it was. I said that it was about pushing forward conceptually, building on cutting-edge futurist concepts and social progress, and also pushing the boundaries of what science fiction on television can be. Star Trek should be about inspiring people to look forward and envision the world they want to build for their children, not just look back at cozy remembrances of what they liked when they were children. And it should be about taking chances and pushing the envelope as a work of television, not settling for the comfortable and familiar.

 

[ichab]

I've been trying to put my finger on when Trek fans became so obsessive over the consistency of the Star Trek canon/continuity. The time I started to notice this happening was probably when ENTERPRISE was announced as a prequel and then nearly every Star Trek production being a prequel after that.

Personally, I get so exhausted having conversations with eagle-eyed fans who let canon get in their way of enjoying a new Star Trek series or film. I've found that when it comes to both ENTERPRISE and DISCOVERY, it's not so much there are violating the Trek canon, but that it's perceived as so simply because they were two starships not ever spoken of before in the earlier shows.

I could go on and on, but I won't.

Oh my goodness. I've been a fan since the 80s and canon has ALWAYS been an issue with the fans. I remember when TNGs "Relics" episode came out. I loved it because they found a way to bring Scotty on the new show, but fans griped because there was a scene where Scotty and La Forge were beamed out while the shields were still up. Then there was the 30th anniversary Voyager episode that killed off a character that was clearly alive in The Undiscovered Country.Not to mention Tuvok wasn't even in the movie in the first place but the episode replays events from it. And who can forget the three Klingons from TOS who were brought onto a DS9 episode and looked like TNG era Klingons. Fans didn't want to accept that it was purely a makeup change, they wanted a logical explanation for why Kaang,Kor and Koloth looked different.

So I'd say canon has been a problem ever since the first spinoff show. The only time it's ever bothered me was in fact Enterprise because they kept trying to shoehorn in TNG species and events in a pre-TOS show.