Biggest problem is awesome Pike being undermined by the terrible trio.
Spock is very good now and so is N menga who is underused but the sOund production is very poor and almost a like a fan film....
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x10 - "A Quality of Mercy"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Spock is very good now and so is N menga who is underused but the sOund production is very poor and almost a like a fan film....
What "terrible trio" is undermining Pike?
Pike isn't being undermined by anyone.
Probably referring to Una, Ortegas and Chapel.
Probably correct, but I want the identity of the "terrible trio" allegedly "undermining Pike" on the record, leaving no ambiguity or plausible deniability with regard to whom the poster was specifically referring.
For reasons.
Shouldn’t we expect that from Star Trek? Makes it sound like you’re giving them a pass to make shit.
That's hilarious.
Yawning intensifies.
Good point. Sometimes it seems to put the showrunners at odds with themselves. For instance, one of the goals of this episode of SNW was clearly to provide some background motivation to help explain Spock's otherwise highly unorthodox behavior in "Menagerie." (And I think it did that fairly well, actually.) But that's only meaningful to viewers who are familiar with "Menagerie." And viewers familiar with "Menagerie" are exactly the same people who are going to notice the logical discrepancy about when and why Pike handed over command. So the show's rationalizing one internal issue with TOS story logic only at the expense of creating a brand new one... giving with one hand and taking with the other, as far as those viewers go.
(Similar tensions apply to "Balance of Terror," of course, but at least not at a level that violates the story logic. Well, except for the part about Pike knowing in 2259 what Romulans look like, and not telling anyone...)
Quite the contrary. T&T was impeccably respectful toward continuity. It bent over backwards to be. That doesn't mean it didn't change the timeline (in completely inconsequential ways designed to be amusing), but the timeline with which it interacted was precisely the one fans were familiar with.
In-story timeline alterations are not the same as continuity violations. They're literally the exact opposite. Continuity violations are things that can't be explained with story logic.
I genuinely don't understand why people who don't give a damn about "canon" or continuity or even internal story logic feel the need to inject that view into discussions on those topics. If internal contradictions like the one that got this discussion going don't bother you, bully for you! Why not just leave that kind of conversation to the people who are actually interested in discussing such things? You're not going to convince anyone that the way they enjoy fiction is wrong, for heaven's sake, nor that real-world explanations are a substitute for in-story explanations.
Yes. Exactly. It's absurd anyone would even have to defend this. That's the whole reason shared universes work... because (some) people like the sense of how each story fits into a larger tapestry.
(Hell, it's true even for "fictional universes" defined by a single author. For generations now people have devoted themselves to sorting out the continuity issues of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes canon, for instance. It's a source of pleasure that contributes more satisfaction to (re)reading the stories. Why would anyone say that's a problem?)
Last edited:
Just a counter view to people who are way too wrapped up in continuity. One person even said the equivalent of they needed it to be Prime so it didn't have to compete with other better shows.
People tell me all the time the way I choose to enjoy CBS Trek is wrong. It just goes with the territory of discussing these things on the internet.
It doesn't have to be in one timeline to be a shared universe. As both Marvel and DC have demonstrated over the years.
In my opinion, it is because things don't line up to expectations, and I mean this sincerely. I recall discussing aspects of Discovery and it was deemed "too dark" and was not in keeping with the spirit of Trek in dealing with depression and negativity and such. Then I watch a fan film and it deals very almost identical themes but the uniforms look like they are from the 60s, the actors are less animated, and the effects are more simplistic. And it's deemed more like Trek.
There's a verisimilitude and a threshold that exists for all fans. For some, just the mere change of a uniform is enough to declare a separate universe. For others, it's the different writing style. Still others it's a whole host of things. Some treat it as a multiverse because that works best for them. Others prefer the CBS word of god and just roll with changes.
Ultimately in comes down to individual variation of what constitutes a problem. And, as this and many other threads demonstrate, the tolerance varies as much as the individual.
That's fair; I genuinely don't understand why people who are hyper-focused on the canon hobbyhorse turn every discussion of new content into a variation of working jigsaw puzzles almost as quickly as the discussion begins.
No single aspect of Star Trek seems to hold nearly the fascination for many trekkies as the workings of canon and continuity. And that honestly doesn't speak terribly well for the other virtues of the shows.
Thanks but I know each series wasn't very good at staying consistent with each other although "Trials and Tribblations" actually was pretty good with trying to stay consistent to the TOS episode.
The reason I'm asking about whether other producers/writers publicly stated that they were ignoring canon when necessary is just to follow-up on NoNameGiven's comment so I can reference them in future discussions. I had provided a link to the article where Akiva Goldsman stated that and I had referenced that in a reply to Lawman suggesting that since SNW will be changing canon for the story then there should be no expectation for things to line up between TOS and SNW.
So right now it just seems that there isn't any article or quote from a prior producer/writer (with the exception of Roddenberry's canon decrees) that's publicly stated that they were ignoring "canon" and doing their own take that can be referenced. Which is a bummer.
Oh definitely. But I do kinda expect it to be "self-consistently changing" while under Goldsman. It is just that watching Star Trek all these years I don't recall any other producer being so forthright about changing things around.
Based on reading the interwebz if SNW looked like Phase 2 all would be forgiven.
They prefer to lie.Oh definitely. But I do kinda expect it to be "self-consistently changing" while under Goldsman. It is just that watching Star Trek all these years I don't recall any other producer being so forthright about changing things around.
Oh definitely. But I do kinda expect it to be "self-consistently changing" while under Goldsman. It is just that watching Star Trek all these years I don't recall any other producer being so forthright about changing things around.
Oh yeah, there are any number of fronts on which the SNW folks have planted their flags. They've come out of the gate with a "This is ours now and we can play with all the toys" attitude which is completely unexpected from Star Trek and quite gratifying.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll