Yeah, thanks.
Which 23rd Century is canon?
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, thanks.
And for the record, I'm not upset about changing April's race or anything like that, I love the casting choice...yet another actor from 19-2 doing Trek, how can you not love that?
(the other two were on DSC. One was the prisoner who didn't take part in the mini-riot aboard Discovery, the other was Airiam's husband)
At least with, say, Yeoman Colt, you can ignore that, since in neither case was she ever called that name onscreen. THIS difference...you can't ignore.
(the other two were on DSC. One was the prisoner who didn't take part in the mini-riot aboard Discovery, the other was Airiam's husband)
At least with, say, Yeoman Colt, you can ignore that, since in neither case was she ever called that name onscreen. THIS difference...you can't ignore.
It'll be like Roger Rabbit and Cool World. Both awesome movies.And will he be a cartoon?
Otherwise I’m calling CANON VIOLATION!!
Boims will say "Hey shouldn't these struts be straight?" and Mariner will say "Who cares about struts", Tendi will respond how they're the most amazing struts she's ever seen, and Shax will ask if he can blow them up. Boims will then support Shax so the ship gets new struts.
Both. Other than visuals, modernization of gender roles and some technological discrepancy, nothing from Discovery or SMW contradicts the original series.
I handle it fine. It's not strictly literal history.
Otherwise, please tell me which is the canon Saavik? I want to know which movie to ignore.
^ So if Admiral Cartwright from ST VI turns up on SNW (as a LCDR or whatever rank he is supposed to be in 2260) but is played by, oh I dunno, Chris Pratt, you'd be okay with that too?
Is it supposed to be the same character? Yes, yes I would.
And it won't happen since accusations of white washing should be avoided. But, you asked if I can square this and I can. Others cannot. And that's OK. But, recasting pains me about as much as a graphics update or a uniform change. Must be growing upwith Batman 66 rubbing off on me.
ETA: Which one is the canon Catwoman?
No need--SNW is the odd show out, since TAS not only incorporated so much of TOS into its episodes (as the natural continuation), with sequel / character episodes, but a number of its own inventions appeared in ST series to follow. I'd say that gives it the canon edge over many ST productions.
ETA: Which one is the canon Catwoman?
Newmar's Catwoman. Her version (which introduced the character on the series) is the only one with some continuity, as she supposedly fell to her death in the last act of her lone 1st season arc ("The Purr-fect Crime" / "Better Luck, Next Time"), and that's referenced by Gordon (surprise that she's alive) in her return to the series in season two's "Hot Off the Griddle". That, and usual writer Stanley Ralph Ross gave her certain character traits unique to Newmar across all of her performances, further setting her version as the "fixture" Catwoman.
The problem with Meriwether's Catwoman is that chronologically, the movie's events occur between seasons 1 and 2, but it has to be some sort of alternate universe story, because the series' Catwoman is believed to be dead in that same period (again, mentioned by Gordon early in season 2), so she cannot be canonical Catwoman.
Kitt's Catwoman bears next to none of the traits of Newmar's, as Dozier (and ABC) pretty much cut all of the established romantic tension / interest once present in the Newmar Catwoman era, along with her habitually expressed hatred of Robin.
So, if you had to pick one as the canonical Catwoman, you might select Newmar's.
But no one has to pick. That's the point.
Remember when Khan was a white british guy?
I remember that movie being a total mess and being the worst of the entire movie franchise. (Yes, even worse than NEMESIS.)
Pratt lacks the gravitas of a Brock Peters. He's fine as Star-Lord or Dino whisper guy. Cartwright needs a Liam Neeson or Giancarlo Esposito type. Older with a commanding presence.
Idris Elba would be a great choice.
Repeating the same point always made in response to recasting arguments:
Recasting is often done because it's necessary. Old actor is busy, too expensive, doesn't live anymore, etc.
That doesn't apply to ships, sets, costumes, or props.
Now decompressing the shuttlebay to leave this ever-repeating loop.
Recasting is often done because it's necessary. Old actor is busy, too expensive, doesn't live anymore, etc.
That doesn't apply to ships, sets, costumes, or props.
Now decompressing the shuttlebay to leave this ever-repeating loop.
A great line…then too, I should change my Internet handle to Belushi’s Eyebrow…but…nah…
I will bet good money that this was the last thing on their mind. It's a simple design update. It's almost unfortunate that Eaglemoss, in their Enterprise Illustrated Handbook, tried to address this and claimed "there was a refit". It just opens a can of worms of hows and whys...
To my mind, much of the inconsistencies we see I explain to myself as a matter of resolution. You know, the version of the 23rd century we saw in TOS was lo-res (the sixties, relatively low budget), the movies did HD, and now the modern shows do UHD with the larger budget and some redesigning to suit modern aesthetic sensibilities. It's always supposed to be the same object we look at, just through a different filter.
No no no, it's Short Treks "Q&A" BEFORE "The Cage", so they refit, defit, refit again and defit again.
Makes perfect sense
Makes perfect sense
I am, broadly speaking, okay with recasting white characters with non-white actors, because doing so decreases media representation of white people as dominating society and thereby promotes the idea of racial equality. I am not okay with recasting non-white characters with white actors, because such a casting practice actively promotes the idea of white domination of society.
So, no, I don't mind when Samuel L. Jackson plays Nick Fury, or Michael B. Jordan plays Johnny Storm, or M.J. is played by Zendaya, or Robert April is played by Adrian Holmes. I do mind when Jake Gyllenhaal plays Dastan in Prince of Persia, or Rooney Mara plays Tiger Lily in Pan, or Liam Neeson plays Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins, or Johnny Depp plays Tonto in The Lone Ranger, or Benedict Cumberbatch plays Khan Noonien Sighn in Star Trek Into Darkness.
No no no, it's Short Treks "Q&A" BEFORE "The Cage", so they refit, defit, refit again and defit again.
Makes perfect sense
Meh. "The Cage" is full of details that are inconsistent with later canon. I'm fine just throwing out the visual details from that episode the same way I ignore things like the claim that the "time barrier" has only recently been broken, or the use of "booster rockets" or whatever, or the way they use lasers, or the way Spock is emotional, or the way the Enterprise is referred to as an Earth ship rather than a Federation ship, or the way the presence of women in Starfleet is depicted as a new thing Pike is still adjusting to. So I'm fine assuming the ship was in its DIS/SNW configuration during "Q & A" and "The Cage," kept that configuration during DIS S2 and SNW, and that it was only refit to its TOS configuration between SNW and TOS.
I still don't get why some people didn't see the revised look coming from a mile away.
When they changed the look of the 23rd Century for DSC, I wasn't surprised. Do you want to know why? Because the Kelvin Films set a precedent. The timeline split happens at Captain Kirk's birth. Meaning that the USS Kelvin existed in the Prime Timeline. Even back in 2009, I didn't think the Kelvin looked like something that would lead into the aesthetic of "The Cage". And then people act like Discovery changing the look of the Prime Timeline Mid-23rd Century started with that series. It didn't.
Bald Klingons. I don't care what Bryan Fuller says, that wasn't his idea. Look no further than Into Darkness, which came out a mere four years earlier.
So I thought to myself, "I could complain non-stop about the look if I wanted to, and stomp my feet over it, but then I might miss out on a series that I might actually like." Then I watched it, and by the third episode, "Context Is For Kings", I thought, "This is the best Star Trek since DS9 ended!" VOY, ENT, the TNG Films, the Kelvin Films? All a distant memory in a flash; and I decided, "Whatever the 23rd Century looked like before, this is what it looks like now." Normally I don't go for prequels, but I decided, "The Hell with it. I'll stick around for the entire ride! I haven't enjoyed a Star Trek series this much in almost 20 years!"
Then I made the stupid decision of deciding to post here again. And I found out, "Wait a minute. Was I supposed to hate this?! Okay, we could not be less on the same page if we tried!" Then canon arguments, prequel arguments, whatever other stupid arguments. And here I am thinking, "I just want to watch the show." If not for this place, I wouldn't have cared which century DSC took place in. But when they jumped to the 32nd Century, I thought, "Finally! No more arguments about how the TOS Era should look!" Well, except for SNW. But since I don't post in that forum, I'm largely spared.
When they changed the look of the 23rd Century for DSC, I wasn't surprised. Do you want to know why? Because the Kelvin Films set a precedent. The timeline split happens at Captain Kirk's birth. Meaning that the USS Kelvin existed in the Prime Timeline. Even back in 2009, I didn't think the Kelvin looked like something that would lead into the aesthetic of "The Cage". And then people act like Discovery changing the look of the Prime Timeline Mid-23rd Century started with that series. It didn't.
Bald Klingons. I don't care what Bryan Fuller says, that wasn't his idea. Look no further than Into Darkness, which came out a mere four years earlier.
So I thought to myself, "I could complain non-stop about the look if I wanted to, and stomp my feet over it, but then I might miss out on a series that I might actually like." Then I watched it, and by the third episode, "Context Is For Kings", I thought, "This is the best Star Trek since DS9 ended!" VOY, ENT, the TNG Films, the Kelvin Films? All a distant memory in a flash; and I decided, "Whatever the 23rd Century looked like before, this is what it looks like now." Normally I don't go for prequels, but I decided, "The Hell with it. I'll stick around for the entire ride! I haven't enjoyed a Star Trek series this much in almost 20 years!"
Then I made the stupid decision of deciding to post here again. And I found out, "Wait a minute. Was I supposed to hate this?! Okay, we could not be less on the same page if we tried!" Then canon arguments, prequel arguments, whatever other stupid arguments. And here I am thinking, "I just want to watch the show." If not for this place, I wouldn't have cared which century DSC took place in. But when they jumped to the 32nd Century, I thought, "Finally! No more arguments about how the TOS Era should look!" Well, except for SNW. But since I don't post in that forum, I'm largely spared.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
