Indeed. My biggest frustration with talking with fans is the double standards and the lack of reflection on them.
For me, I like reflecting upon my fan attitudes, even ones long held.
I think DSC and PIC would've received a better reception had SNW come first...
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
For me, I like reflecting upon my fan attitudes, even ones long held.
People absolutely bitched about Janeway, and some were bitching about Burnham being a black woman even before Disco aired.
DS9 copped plenty of complaints for a tame lesbian kiss, and Voyager’s writers received death threats over the mere rumour of a gay character.
There are no shortage of bigots in Trek fandom, and Disco has brought plenty of them out.
I certainly don’t agree that it accounts for all or even the majority of criticism of the show, but it is responsible for some - and a loud portion at that.
Really? 90%?
To the original question, I can't say. I do think there would have been fan consternation about some of the changes and tweaks SNW has made to Trek canon, "canon", and fanon/conjecture. Two of the biggest being the Gorn and La'an Noonien-Singh. I'm still not quite on board with either of those now. Don't think this version of the Gorn needed to be called Gorn at all, and while I like the character (and actress) for La'an, she didn't need to be named Noonien-Singh either. So I do think there would be griping, and the things that are being overlooked or shrugged off today with SNW (after DISCO and PIC) I think would be receiving more focus, debate, and griping.
And while SNW for the most part would scratch an inch for a segment of Trek fandom I still think if DISCO and PIC came after they would still have gotten some of the same complaints. DISCO, now being a prequel of SNW, and with its artistic changes to Klingons, the inclusion of Burnham as Spock's sister, I think the canon hawks would really pick that apart even harder (especially if SNW had not introduced Burnham or did it right before they spun off DISCO). And for PIC, I think the tonal shifts and character changes would still be ripe for discussion, debate, and complaint.
SNW would have a rougher go of it perhaps because it wouldn't be perceived necessarily a return to form after two more divisive (but also IMO ambitious) series. At best it would be compared (and I think a great deal favorably) to ENT (but it wouldn't have a fresh series to compare itself to and therefore the glow around it wouldn't be as bright).
And while SNW for the most part would scratch an inch for a segment of Trek fandom I still think if DISCO and PIC came after they would still have gotten some of the same complaints. DISCO, now being a prequel of SNW, and with its artistic changes to Klingons, the inclusion of Burnham as Spock's sister, I think the canon hawks would really pick that apart even harder (especially if SNW had not introduced Burnham or did it right before they spun off DISCO). And for PIC, I think the tonal shifts and character changes would still be ripe for discussion, debate, and complaint.
SNW would have a rougher go of it perhaps because it wouldn't be perceived necessarily a return to form after two more divisive (but also IMO ambitious) series. At best it would be compared (and I think a great deal favorably) to ENT (but it wouldn't have a fresh series to compare itself to and therefore the glow around it wouldn't be as bright).
What continuity problems? The Klingons' physical appearance? When it comes to the Klingons, the Trek franchise has not been that consistent about their appearance. Michael being Sarek's adoptive daughter? How was that a continuity problem? The franchise had already established Spock's penchant for not being open about his family in both television and the movies.
Perhaps "Strange New World" should have been set in the 25th century or anywhere else in the future, instead of a few years before "Star Trek". At least "Discovery" was set aboard a different starship and featured a different crew. "Strange New World" doesn't have that advantage. It was barely able to establish Sam Kirk as a part of Enterprise's crew a few years before his brother had assumed command of it.
The introduction of a Spore Drive that's never mentioned again, even when we had a whole series dealing with a ship lost 70,000 light-years across the galaxy and may have looked at different ways to get home, that the series had to bend over backwards to explain why it was never spoken of again. (Even though it wouldn't explain why no other species or power had pursued the same tech, like the Borg, Dominion, etc.)
Leave aside the appearance of the Klingons, the final episode of season 1 has the Klingons on the brink of attacking Earth and Starfleet Command, even though Martok said in Deep Space Nine that something like that had never happened in the history of the Klingon Empire.
Just treat it all as a multiverse and it flows together seamlessly.
yup.
I've always found it weird that "Internet couch potatoes with nothing better to do" (or other words to similar effect) is the description by every faction of their opponents in every argument, whether about fan minutiae or high politics. Coach potatoes, NEETs, basement dwellers and other assorted losers are somehow to blame for every disagreeable thing that was ever said or done to everyone, everywhere, simultaneously.
You forgot, "WHY IS APRIL BLACK?!"
Samuel L. Jackson played Nick Fury? Not a peep from these people ...
Yes and no.
SNW done gone
gave Nurse Chapel a spine.
The oldies are NOT happy. They want to go back to the days when Men were Men and Women were set pieces.
Last edited:
You forgot, "WHY IS APRIL BLACK?!"
Samuel L. Jackson played Nick Fury? Not a peep from these people ...
It's what the character wanted
.
Someone isn't familiar with the classics:
You forgot, "WHY IS APRIL BLACK?!"
Samuel L. Jackson played Nick Fury? Not a peep from these people ...
Well, one franchise is a separate universe while the other is supposed to be the same...
There can be changes in reboots and new iterations of super hero movies and the like (Battlestar Galactica, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, etc.) because they're not supposed to be in the same timeline as the originals/source material.
Someone isn't familiar with the classics:
With the multiverse stuff in the MCU no, Jackson and Hasselhoff could meet...
Ah, I see, so as long as we have a multiverse to blame then we can 100% be totally fine with any changes. Even if that was the intent at the time. It's so clear now...
Personally, if multiverse helps people sleep then fine. For me, it's just actors on a stage.
Personally I tend to prefer it if the first adaptation sticks fairly close to the source material and then once I feel like a movie has absolutely nailed it I'm more okay with later reboots changing things up a bit. With Nick Fury we got the best of both worlds, as Hasselhoff is a dead ringer for the original Nick Fury and Samuel L Jackson is a dead ringer for Ultimate Nick Fury. So they got to be faithful and change it up.Ah, I see, so as long as we have a multiverse to blame then we can 100% be totally fine with any changes. Even if that was the intent at the time. It's so clear now...
Personally, if multiverse helps people sleep then fine. For me, it's just actors on a stage.
Star Trek hasn't been rebooted.
Dramatic interpretation of real world (or fictional) events. Just like two different actors playing Romeo or D'artagnan.
Doesn't need a reboot if I don't take it strictly literally or as a documentary.
So a different actor can play the same role, provided they are not black, because that's some kind of other species?
I... don't think they said anything like that.
I’m confused. Are you implying that I was making an argument using some kind of derogatory term?
People hear what they want to hear.
Similar threads
