My bad. Too many who take things like that too seriously.
SNW truly respects TOS continuity!
- Thread starter C.E. Evans
- Start date
My bad. Too many who take things like that too seriously.
Sorry, but I am used to visual consistency and a modicum of continuity. When the break that I cannot let it go. I can open my mind to the story, but when they break with what came before that makes it a reboot as far as I'm concerned.
And why can't the 2260's have a look and feel like the 1960's? Why is that a problem for you? It is an aesthetic and just because you don't like it doesn't mean we have to dump it for no reason. Your argument makes no sense.
Because Trek updates based upon technology of the day. It does not remain in its past.
Because it looks cheap, dated and unconvincing to everyone except hardcore Trekkies, who reassure one another that "See, it would work today" every time someone builds a replica of the old bridge.
Your argument makes no sense.
SNW is so much better than that. All of the old look is being "dumped" for very good reasons.
Close enough for you, not for me.
Not quite. Canon is what Paramount said it was and when CBS took over, they either get to add to the original or create their own and they have elected to create their own so I call it a reboot.
TMP doesn't fit with TOS. So, I treat it as a reboot. Is that correct? Don't know and don't care at this point because it's clear to me that TMP can't be the same ship and characters as TOS. That's how this works, right? *cue multiple justifications for why TMP works and SNW doesn't.*
TMP does not rewrite anything from TOS so it is not a reboot. Nothing from TOS is contradicted it is just changed. While it is a visual reboot, it is written into the story so in universe it is a Starfleet design aesthetic upgrade. Gone are the gray ships with colorful accents and colorful uniforms and in are the white ships with more detail and washed out uniforms. Discovery is set between The Cage (also the flashback portions of The Menagerie) and Where No Man Has Gone Before and tries to redesign everything we see and claim it fits. So there is a huge difference between the TMP redesign (which is consistent in universe) and the Discovery redesigns (which are not consistent in universe).
People don't change that drastically.
People you know don't - plenty of others on here who have said otherwise
I mean, definitely not the same person I was 10 years ago. I’m more mature. More seasoned. I would go out until late (or early depending on the day). Now I’m lucky if I see 10pm. I have a family. It has genuinely changed how I look at life and what’s important. In turn, that changes how I react to things in my life. We grow and change. Events shape us. First, we honestly don’t see that much of Chapel in TOS. She’s barely what I’d consider a character in TOS, with the exception of “What Are Little Girls Made Of?” Something has happened between her days serving with Pike and serving with Kirk that changes her drastically. I find the idea of following her on that journey fascinating.
Oh, come on you guys. This has reached the infinite bullshit stage driving your personal stakes in the ground. Jeez!
And this is a calm thread.
When you are on a site that has people who nit pick over how many versions of the TOS engine room there were based on how may changes were made in the episodes and over how tall the decks should be based on the height of the constructed sets, it should not come as a surprise that there are people who can't accept that Discovery and Strange New Words are in the came canon as TOS. And yet it seems to infuriate some that others cannot accept that.
I think it is the way the discourse occurs that frustrates people on both sides.
It is easier to argue that it isn't a reboot - in the basis that the creators have specifically stated as such, and they do own the IP - however I do think it can cone across as dismissive at this point and like one is not engaging.
From the other side, the "it isn't canon"/"it's a reboot" group sometimes come across as looking down their nose at it, or as considering how they are seeing something that the rest cannot and you should learn to follow and bask in said persons great intellect.
I do also think that there are some who make arguments based on partial recollection - not with malice but being human - of TOS which obviously feels like a case of double standards or applying head canon.
This is 99% not the intent of those discussing the matter - I honestly believe that the 99% are discussing in good faith. It may be beneficial for those on both sides though to take a breath/give their post a review after writing form the other side's perspective to try and ensure that the point being made is written with the tone that they had in mind and is not purposefully antagonistic.
Disagreement is brilliant and it creates conversation and debate, but also think about how you write - would you speak the same way to someone in person where they can take a swing at you?
We are all on the same team, we all want to win (more Trek being winning), but some of us are of the Jurgen Klopp approach where it is about inclusiveness and accepting that whoever is involved is doing their best and that change isn't a bad thing and some are a Guardiola where the minutiae is the most important thing and anything less than perfection is not acceptable.
Both are successful, neither is wrong, but let's all be glad we don't have 2012 era David Moyes where it is simply dire and enjoyable for no one.
Well, speaking of nitpicks, canon and continuity are two different animals.
I fully accept SNW as canon.
I fully accept TMP as canon.
I do not accept TMP as part of continuity with TOS or TWOK.
Infuriate? No. Don't understand? Yes.
Indeed. I believe that being a "Star Trek fan" creates an elitist sense and knowledge of Trek lore worn as a badge of honor, which, inadvertently, pushes people out who are not as knowledgeable, or do not have the same opinion regarding canon and continuity.
Experienced it with many fandoms.
I've been rewatching TOS with my son. Maybe it's just me but I can watch SNW followed by an episode of TOS later in the day and then VOY after that and have no issues believing they are part of the same timeline. Same thing when I was watching earlier seasons of Discovery and then rewatching TNG. Same universe, same timeline, no issues for me.
I don't understand the constant need to claim the series is in an alternate universe when the production team states that it unequivocally is not.
If you watched the majority of Star Trek over its 58-year history, the only thing that routinely consistent is the fact that internally Star Trek is not routinely consistent at all, and that applies to everything from TOS to SNW.
Because it's not in an alternate universe. The people who make the show are very clear about this. Why would I pretend it's in an alternate universe when it isn't?
There is no resistance to the Kelvin universe being in an alternate universe.
Here's my theory, half-cocked though it might be. Creating it as an alternate universe is a kind of cognitive protection against associating these newer series that are not always enjoyed, with the older series that are enjoyed, sometimes by sheer nostalgia alone. By creating that distance it makes them easier to accept as part of "Star Trek" but not "part of the Star Trek I love."I don't understand the constant need to claim the series is in an alternate universe when the production team states that it unequivocally is not.
If you watched the majority of Star Trek over its 58-year history, the only thing that routinely consistent is the fact that internally Star Trek is not routinely consistent at all, and that applies to everything from TOS to SNW.
I think people like to argue against "THE MAN" who, in this case, is CBS, and the most vilest of corporations know to man*
*aside from all the others.
Seriously, it's long past time to move beyond the concept of canon as it is currently understood and employed by fandom and the owners of intellectual properties.
Instead of treating these as religious or literary texts, let alone "historical documents," we should be treating these as something akin to modern-day folk mythology with all the inconsistent details and variations in interpretations that such art and storytelling entails.
The self-mythologizing fan-myth of "a more-or-less consistent fictional universe" trumpeted by decades of fandom and production offices is not sustainable. Eventually, your fictional universe (and I can see Serveaux's head exploding as I employ that term even as I type) just becomes too damn big to police consistency effectively as you try to tell entertaining stories at the same time.
Instead of treating these as religious or literary texts, let alone "historical documents," we should be treating these as something akin to modern-day folk mythology with all the inconsistent details and variations in interpretations that such art and storytelling entails.
The self-mythologizing fan-myth of "a more-or-less consistent fictional universe" trumpeted by decades of fandom and production offices is not sustainable. Eventually, your fictional universe (and I can see Serveaux's head exploding as I employ that term even as I type) just becomes too damn big to police consistency effectively as you try to tell entertaining stories at the same time.
1000% this! Mythology is a far better example of this style storytelling, where myths evolve and change as part of the cultural evolution and patterns and values of the time and culture that makes it, not a static world.
Similar threads
