Does the current state of Star Trek say anything about what fans want?

[fireproof78]

It’s like having a religious family member constantly telling you that you need to go to church when you’re an atheist.

So, see you at church on Sunday?

That’s all fine. And while I treat DSC/SNW as a reboot, I have never once told anyone that they should believe the same thing I do.

With due respect to you, the way of online interactions probably comes across as more prescriptive than is always intended. You and I battle about at times in opinions because it comes across as very "This is a fact!" style in text.

Star Trek is almost 60 years old, and I think every generation (no pun intended) gets the Trek suited to them and their times. Trouble seems to arise when fans of a particular era don't feel another era (whether it be older or newer Trek) isn't sufficiently similar to the era of Trek they love.

Perhaps they should consider that particular Trek wasn't written for them and their time but for other fans and their time. There's plenty of Star Trek to go around these days—and since there's no law that says you have to enjoy it all—can't we all simply love the Trek we love and let others love their Trek, too (IDIC)?

Exactly this. I do not for one second believe all Star Trek is meant for me, my generation or my little circle of fans. I think welcoming in more viewpoints on Star Trek is necessary for the franchise to even attempt to live up to it's ideals.

 

[Orphalesion]

No one is saying each series has to be a clone of its predecessor, but if another chapter strays too far, there should be no surprise if the viewers dig into it, or flat-out reject it.

But which are they shows "viewers" supposedly reject? Even ENT has its fans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That’s all fine. And while I treat DSC/SNW as a reboot, I have never once told anyone that they should believe the same thing I do.
While the people who tote CBS’s line have felt that they very much need to tell people what they’re supposed to believe. It’s quite annoying, actually. It’s like having a religious family member constantly telling you that you need to go to church when you’re an atheist.

Not sure if using a phrase like “toe the line” helps your argument.

 

[Dukhat]

I didn’t realize the typo police were such smartasses.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I didn’t realize the typo police were such smartasses.

Wasn’t referring to the typo.

 

[Dukhat]

Then what were you referring to?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Then what were you referring to?

It can be perceived as a negative which is at odds with the rest of your statement.

 

[fireproof78]

It can be perceived as a negative which is at odds with the rest of your statement.

Well, when saying in broad terms that people have lost the ability to think for themselves one may take it as a negative, depending one's point of view.

 

[Dukhat]

It can be perceived as a negative which is at odds with the rest of your statement.

Really? That’s what you took away from my post?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Really? That’s what you took away from my post?

No, but it did stand out.

 

[Greg Cox]

That’s all fine. And while I treat DSC/SNW as a reboot, I have never once told anyone that they should believe the same thing I do.
While the people who tote CBS’s line have felt that they very much need to tell people what they’re supposed to believe. It’s quite annoying, actually. It’s like having a religious family member constantly telling you that you need to go to church when you’re an atheist.

I don't know. On the flip side, I think it's misleading and potentially confusing when some folks deliberately misrepresent what the show is actually saying by asserting the opposite as though it's established fact.

It's like asserting that, contrary to what the movie said, that Norman Bates wasn't really the killer in PSYCHO. And not as some cool, alternative "head canon," but as an actual description of the plot of that movie.

For better or for worse, the new shows are meant to be set in the Prime Universe, so when I see folks telling other people, who may be confused on this point, that "no, it's set in the Kelvin universe" or "no, it's set in an alternative timeline," that's just misleading people -- because that is explicitly not the intent.

(We can debate how well that intent is being executed, but let's not pretend that the Pike on SNW is explicitly meant to be the same character, in the same universe, as the one from "The Cage.")

 

[BillJ]

I have, actually. Years of schooling will do that

Ok, serious answer time. I haven't lost that ability, nor do I take CBS as gospel. However, I do take authorial intent quite seriously because they are the ones who make it. It's their product after all. So, even if I don't agree, yes I will take that as part of it. It's why I don't go in to the whole "reboot/alternate timeline/rewrite thing" that others do. To me that's at odds with authorial intent, and it's not my work to rework to fit my perceptions. So, I work within the parameters given rather than being argumentative over it.

I don't think that indicates a lack of willingness to think for oneself.

I think part of the problem is that there really isn’t “author intent” but corporate intent. Nostalgia became big money after already doing a soft reboot of the franchise and CBS doubled back to take advantage of that windfall.

 

[Vger23]

I don't know. On the flip side, I think it's misleading and potentially confusing when some folks deliberately misrepresent what the show is actually saying by asserting the opposite as though it's established fact.

It's like asserting that, contrary to what the movie said, that Norman Bates wasn't really the killer in PSYCHO. And not as some cool, alternative "head canon," but as an actual description of the plot of that movie.

For better or for worse, the new shows are meant to be set in the Prime Universe, so when I see folks telling other people, who may be confused on this point, that "no, it's set in the Kelvin universe" or "no, it's set in an alternative timeline," that's just misleading people -- because that is explicitly not the intent.

(We can debate how well that intent is being executed, but let's not pretend that the Pike on SNW is explicitly meant to be the same character, in the same universe, as the one from "The Cage.")

That's a really good point.

 

[fireproof78]

I think part of the problem is that there really isn’t “author intent” but corporate intent. Nostalgia became big money after already doing a soft reboot of the franchise and CBS doubled back to take advantage of that windfall.

I mean, yes and no, because the people making the shows have their own efforts to make the show they are interested in.

 

[Sci]

I don’t think the problem is if a particular movie or show is or isn’t “Star Trek.” I think the problem is how that show or movie is presented to the audience.

If Christopher Nolan presented his Christian Bale Batman films as taking place in the same continuity as the Adam West Batman TV show, despite the updated look and the glaring continuity errors such a thing would have, its audience would laugh in his face about how preposterous that would be.

I don't think a reasonable person would expect a TV show from the 2020s to maintain strict visual continuity with a TV show made six decades earlier.

And yet CBS/Paramount has done that exact thing, but Trek fans have instead decided to tote their line simply because TPTB have said that this is gospel.

That’s all fine. And while I treat DSC/SNW as a reboot, I have never once told anyone that they should believe the same thing I do.

It's interesting that you keep using the language of religion here -- "gospel," "fiction." Certainly we use the word "canon" often enough that it's understandable. But those are metaphors.

This isn't about belief, because there is nothing to believe. Star Trek is a work of fiction. It is make-believe. If the owner of Star Trek says Star Trek: Discovery is set in the same universe as Star Trek: The Original Series, then Star Trek: Discovery is set in the same universe as Star Trek: The Original Series. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of objective fact, and it will remain as such until Star Trek's owner says otherwise.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't think a reasonable person would expect a TV show from the 2020s to maintain strict visual continuity with a TV show made six decades earlier.





It's interesting that you keep using the language of religion here -- "gospel," "fiction." Certainly we use the word "canon" often enough that it's understandable. But those are metaphors.

This isn't about belief, because there is nothing to believe. Star Trek is a work of fiction. It is make-believe. If the owner of Star Trek says Star Trek: Discovery is set in the same universe as Star Trek: The Original Series, then Star Trek: Discovery is set in the same universe as Star Trek: The Original Series. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of objective fact, and it will remain as such until Star Trek's owner says otherwise.

None of which I care about. I will interpret a fictional show the way I want, thank you.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

None of which I care about. I will interpret a fictional show the way I want, thank you.

Did you just say "I don't care about facts, I will make something up and believe that instead"?????

 

[Sci]

None of which I care about. I will interpret a fictional show the way I want, thank you.

Which is fine, but you should specify that that's what you're doing rather than claiming that your subjective add-on is actually part of the text.

 

[Dukhat]

Did you just say "I don't care about facts, I will make something up and believe that instead"?????

If that’s what you want to think I’m doing. I don’t really care.

Which is fine, but you should specify that that's what you're doing rather than claiming that your subjective add-on is actually part of the text.

I don’t need to do any such thing.

 

[Sci]

I don’t need to do any such thing.

Here's the thing: There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying you personally interpret a work as having X element not explicitly present in the text. But to actively say, "The text does X" when it doesn't explicitly do X, is just dishonest. Star Trek: Discovery is set in the Prime Universe. That is an objective fact. It is fine to say, "I personally don't interpret Star Trek: Discovery as being set in the Prime Universe." It is dishonest to say, "Star Trek: Discovery is not set in the Prime Universe." It is set in the Prime Universe, you just don't like it.