I think DSC and PIC would've received a better reception had SNW come first...
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
But he was amazing in "Hop."Can we de-canonize David Hasselhoff?
I remember people losing their minds over a female Starbuck.
Yeah, everyone's got a different limit for how much reimagining they're comfortable with, and this changes depending on the situation. Like if RDM's BSG came out 5 years after a successful and faithful BSG remake that completed the story, I think more people would've been more accepting of a different version of Starbuck.
I'm imaging Becky 1 walking off-screen in "Roseanne", then the next episode Mr. T appears as Becky 2.
"Just actors on a stage, people, settle down" is NBC's response to the hate mail. (Though I would have loved that, personally.)
Most notably, the original Starbuck!
It would not be the same SNW though.
The Klingon redesign would still occur and go unchallenged for the first season.
They’d still want to run a Klingon war arc.
They still want to run a mirror universe arc.
They'd still want to run a full season arc, as there was no interest for episodic Trek at that time.
They's still want the tech to be as advanced was what was seen in TNG & DS9 instead of TOS.
There’s probably no Hemmer, La’an or Ortegas. Maybe no M’Benga, Chapel and Uhura either, at least for the first season. It’s the DIS S1 crew, minus Burnham, and they may or may not get development.
Remember how when DIS was first announced and they said they were going to explore something that never been explored in Trek before. And the fans though it might be the Sheliak and instead we got a Federation-Klingon War? There’s no way SNW doesn’t take place without that war being in the background, which changes the entire tone of the first season.
SNW would be panned more if it was made in 2017 instead of 2022.
The Klingon redesign would still occur and go unchallenged for the first season.
They’d still want to run a Klingon war arc.
They still want to run a mirror universe arc.
They'd still want to run a full season arc, as there was no interest for episodic Trek at that time.
They's still want the tech to be as advanced was what was seen in TNG & DS9 instead of TOS.
There’s probably no Hemmer, La’an or Ortegas. Maybe no M’Benga, Chapel and Uhura either, at least for the first season. It’s the DIS S1 crew, minus Burnham, and they may or may not get development.
Remember how when DIS was first announced and they said they were going to explore something that never been explored in Trek before. And the fans though it might be the Sheliak and instead we got a Federation-Klingon War? There’s no way SNW doesn’t take place without that war being in the background, which changes the entire tone of the first season.
SNW would be panned more if it was made in 2017 instead of 2022.
He just felt weird about wanting to make out with himself.
Or Kristi Alley in one movie and Robin Curtis in the next.
You're not playing the race or gender swap game, otherwise it's less controversial!
Depends on the fan. Recasting is a part of Hollywood life. Treating it as a reboot seems unnecessary.
There are degrees, not everything in life is black and white.
Most of life isn't, at least when it comes to entertainment. My point is that recasting is something I expect even in long time franchises. It's an acknowledgement of time moving forward rather than trying to encapsulate the past through recreation.
I do think racism and sexism is a part of some of these freak outs. That some of the people who whine about “woke politics” just don’t like having a series with a female protagonist or think every Black actor got their role because of Hollywood affirmative action. That segment of the audience exists and it’s shameful.
BUT ... I think there is a part of these fan arguments that the producers bring on themselves with how they want nostalgia and the ability to pull in an audience with established IP but then play fast and loose with what they tell those fans. Simply, if they want to change things, and don’t want comparisons and whining about how things don’t fit, then don’t claim that it all exists in the same universe to get fan attention.
The comparison to the MCU is interesting since how it contrasts to what Paramount/CBS has done with Star Trek and telling fans all of these series fit together in a Prime Timeline. Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios has never claimed that the MCU is going to be exactly the same as the mainstream Marvel Comics universe (616) or that it’s set in the same universe. That gave them the latitude to make changes, shift backgrounds, and go in different directions. Sometimes fans liked those changes, and sometimes fans thought they were bad, but those fans could never claim they didn’t fit within a continuity that Feige had told them existed.
BUT ... I think there is a part of these fan arguments that the producers bring on themselves with how they want nostalgia and the ability to pull in an audience with established IP but then play fast and loose with what they tell those fans. Simply, if they want to change things, and don’t want comparisons and whining about how things don’t fit, then don’t claim that it all exists in the same universe to get fan attention.
The comparison to the MCU is interesting since how it contrasts to what Paramount/CBS has done with Star Trek and telling fans all of these series fit together in a Prime Timeline. Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios has never claimed that the MCU is going to be exactly the same as the mainstream Marvel Comics universe (616) or that it’s set in the same universe. That gave them the latitude to make changes, shift backgrounds, and go in different directions. Sometimes fans liked those changes, and sometimes fans thought they were bad, but those fans could never claim they didn’t fit within a continuity that Feige had told them existed.
Controversial opinion: they should've given her a different name and made her a different Vulcan.
. As other posters have stated, and I will be repeating, Star Trek updates itself with the times. Sometimes with explanation, like TMP, or without explanation, like TWOK. Sometimes it connects well, like in TNG, and sometimes it connects poorly, like in ENT. It isn't like the MCU approach at all.
The MCU sounds great but it isn't how I view Star Trek in it's worldbuilding. Star Trek will always play fast and loose with technological update because, and this part is important, Star Trek frames itself as part of our humanity's future, whether our timeline, or whatever, it references the era in which it is produced, including knowledge and technological development. TOS is 60s view, TMP 70s, TNG 80s, and so on. Star Trek uses it's own history as a framework, rather than hard fact to create the future episodes. It doesn't create itself as a period piece.
What has changed is this idea that Star Trek fans and ancillary materials have done is create a sense of verisimilitude, to expand upon the imagined idea and create the sense of a period piece. I enjoy things like Franz Joseph's tech manual, Star Trek Encyclopedia and the like; probably not as much as other fans but it definitely helped define my experience. Now, as an older fan, one thing that has really stood out to me is that the writers were not always writing to create this big homogenous world. Which brings me back to the MCU comparison. The MCU is a huge undertaking, involving a large overarching plan that connects the films together, and some of the shows (somewhat). And, for the most part, it does work...for Marvel.
Now, controversial opinion time, I do not believe that is how Star Trek has tried to treat it's world building. Actually, let me state that more firmly-Star Trek's initial spin off after TMP tried to have it's cake and eat it too. It deliberately reduced the number of TOS related elements, aliens, uniforms, view on humanity, while paying lip service to the past, Klingons, and McCoy having a hint of nostalgia for a ship. In other words, Trek plays with its elements as it suits the story of the writers, rather than as one large cohesive whole with an eye towards unity.
This is why I don't think the MCU is a good example for Trek. From the outset, the connective tissue was treated as somewhat loose; use what you want, discard what you didn't like. It doesn't have that larger overarching vision to drive it, beyond the framework Roddenberry set out in TOS' writer's guide: "action/adventure with an optimistic view of humanity." It's not building in phases, it's not working towards huge cinematic events, or large crossovers. It's telling stories that occasionally overlap in some way.
That Star Trek holds together the way that it does is a testament not only to the draw of the characters, even after 50 years, but also the willingness of fans to play along. To treat it as a big world, even though there are disparate elements. But, and I'll be extremely controversial here, I will not expect Star Trek to automatically fulfill recreating the past if it doesn't suit the writer's purpose. I don't expect it because TMP and TNG taught me that things can be changed with little notice or regard for my attitude towards it.
The bigger question is how far will each fan be willing to take it before it becomes a reboot, or alternate timeline, or however you want to describe it. And that's on the fans to make it work together as they have done in the past; there is no obligation to the producers.
Fair enough. Would have made the whole idea of Valeris more palatable.
No, I was mocking the same clichéd rhetorical device that you were mocking.
It would certainly be good for him to still be playing that role after 425 years. Possibly boring and unchallenging, but healthy.
They did it with Kim Cattrall (She auditioned for Saavik and was rejected. She appeared in TUC as Lt. Valeris.)
Similar threads
