What if nothing can be done about it, it happens anyway... are you in, or do you walk away?
Last edited:
Poll Severe issues with the immense amount of inconsistencies in the Lore ...
- Thread starter A'Tun-Te
- Start date
What if nothing can be done about it, it happens anyway... are you in, or do you walk away?
I'm in for the new Babylon 5 reboot, I'm in for a second Battlestar Galatica reboot, I still need to see the new Batman film. But if they reboot Prime Timeline TOS and overwrite the series then I'm probably out. That's a step too far for me.
And that's fine because lots of people love it and TOS continues to be beloved. It has the most name recognition of the Treks at least for pop culture. But, Star Trek has always reinventing itself, going back and making adjustments and stating that some things were "always that way' and then going back on itself. Fandom would then engage with the material not in an effort to state how it was wrong but how it could all fit together, as an exercise of fun, not detraction.
It's just, on the internet now, we have instantaneous reactions and are largely protective of those strong feelings of a franchise we grew up with. Except, if one studies literature and culture then there is a greater awareness that stories need to evolve and change to draw in not the old fans but new people to love it all the same and more so.
Roddenberry recognized that. That someday someone would come along and reimagine Star Trek for a new generation, with their own ideas and stories. To me, having minor inconsistencies is not nearly as big of a deal as the opportunity to look at characters like Spock from a new perspective.
They'll just continue making TOS stories via SNW. They'll exist together telling stories around each other.
That has more to do with it being a cash cow than limitations of the concept, Trek could be so much more. Much like the Star Wars universe being relatively static for four thousand years.
See, I feel the opposite. I love the idea that Kirk and Spock and Co. will live on, like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula or Cinderella, long after all of us are gone. And that someday they will reinvented and reinterpreted by actors and writers who aren't even born yet.
Why let great characters and stories sit on a pedestal, gathering dust? Better to let each new generation play with them, possibly in whole new ways, rather than to insist that the version we grew up on is the only true version -- or the only version allowed. Let's not hog Kirk and Co. to ourselves, but let future generations of Trekkies enjoy their own Kirks and Spocks.
None of this stuff is sacred or set in stone.
Trek is static. They just file off the serial numbers and restamp them with new ones. Then fans think "progress".
I think Star Wars knows their cash cows are from the OT and animated stories and are leaning deep into that.
I’m not against modern interpretations, I’m against them trying to cram those interpretations into a near sixty year old show they had nothing to do with.
They slip in quite easily. No lube needed
Definitely a mileage may vary type of thing.
My advice. Don't clench.
I'm not saying writers shouldn't get to play with them, tie in novels and audio dramas have been doing it for years with a great deal of success, and there's also the Kelvin Timeline, but televised Star Trek is an ongoing living story that benefits from having an established history that new fans can explore.
TOS Kirk and Spock have never been 'mine', they belong to generations older than my own, and I want future generations to discover and enjoy the old Star Trek in the same way I have, and feel like it matters.
I got into Doctor Who relatively late, just before the 50th anniversary, so when I reached the anniversary episode I didn't have any nostalgia or sentimental feelings for any of the classic Doctors that appeared. But I could feel how their appearance was important regardless, I could feel the history there. It was like I'd been a fan from the start. And afterwards I went back to those black and white episodes from 1963 and I watched the whole damn lot of it. Not someone else's reinterpretation of it modernised to appeal to my age group, the real deal, all the events that led up to the series I knew. Some of the early stuff was too dated for me to really enjoy, but I loved what the original actors brought to their characters (Ian and Barbara are awesome) and it all felt like it mattered in a way a remake wouldn't.
I've also just got myself a boxset of Battlestar Galactica '78, and I'll be starting that soon, but it's a very different situation. It's its own thing, isolated from the 2004 series, so the events will have no resonance later on. Star Trek's Journey to Babel is important, Doctor Who's Genesis of the Daleks is important, Battlestar Galactica's The Living Legend is just an episode of a half-forgotten 70s series overshadowed by its successor.
My condolences,
I'm going to give it a fair chance to win me over. Maybe I'll really like the casino planet!
Don't bet on it.
Except, that's unfair to expect others to have the same experience as you. Some people flat won't take on TOS because of how it looks. Instead of inviting them in to experience Trek on their own terms we are telling them to study first. For some that isn't very fun. Star Trek should be fun.
I enjoyed the original BSG far more than the remake.
I don't find it fun when they tell me it is all supposed to be the same.
If I made it sound like I'm demanding mandatory TOS watches for every Trek fan then that wasn't my intent. City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror and The Doomsday Machine should always be opt in.
Fun will vary. I find it more fun to reconcile differences than treat them separately. If I regard differences at all.don't find it fun when they tell me it is all supposed to be the same.
No, not at all. I just know that Trek as a history doesn't appeal.
Interesting. Two responses:
1) I don't think appreciating a new take and discovering an older one are contradictory. If anything, I think that's how if often it works. Some folks, after getting hooked on the latest version of a classic property, will be motivated to go back and check out the original -- which they might not have done otherwise. For example, I like to think that the new version of NIGHTMARE ALLEY will inspire at least some folks to go back and check out the classic 1946 version -- and maybe even the original novel by William Gresham. Certainly, judging from what I've seen on social media, a lot of people weren't even aware of the 1946 movie until the new version came along. So maybe some future version of TOS will inspire many new fans to delve into the history of the franchise.
2). Does it really matter that it "matters"? I admit that that is a pet peeve of mine when it comes to comics fandom: the weird idea that a great old story or issue is no longer worth reading just because it doesn't fit into the current continuity anymore. Or, worse yet, that they wasted their time reading an issue that doesn't "matter" anymore. The story is still as good as it was, right? Has the quality of the art changed, or the writing? Did it provide you with an enjoyable experience up until now? Who cares if doesn't figure into the current storylines? As long as the story is still enjoyable its own, right?
(Says the guy who has spent his entire adult life writing media tie-in books that don't technically "matter," but which I like to think are still good reads.)
Getting back to TOS, I like to think future fans will still be able to enjoy TOS on its own terms (to the degree they can appreciate vintage media in general), even if some 2050 version of STAR TREK takes liberties with this detail or that. Bottom line: a movie or episode's value is not just defined by how it sets up future episodes or series or what it contributes to the world-building. As far as I know, Edith Keeler has never "mattered" onscreen since "City on the Edge Forever," but that doesn't make that episode any less a classic.
It may come to down to whether one sees any dramatic production, including STAR TREK, as primarily an experience or as an encyclopedia entry.
Last edited:
Similar threads
