No one on SNW is any more different to their original version than Chekov, Uhura and Scotty were to theirs in the Abrams movies.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
No one on SNW is any more different to their original version than Chekov, Uhura and Scotty were to theirs in the Abrams movies.
The devil's in the "by extension." Trek's treatment of out near-future history has been more haphazard and inconsistent than people often realize. It's been possible to argue that there were up to three separate world-wide conflicts between the 1960s and Kirk's era.
Like I said, just ADR the years "2032," "2033" and "2036" into "Space Seed(TOS)" and TWOK and be done with it. The grand total of dialogue time in both stories explaining when Khan and the Eugenics Wars took place is - what - maybe fifteen seconds?
It's just amusing to me how selective certain people can be regarding canonical issues with NuTrek. They'll bang the drum over 1996 and the eugenics war, but will conveniently ignore all the other mentions of global conflicts. Selective outrage at its finest.
Hell, DS9 once said the Eugenics Wars took place around 2170 and that set off a lot of fans. That episode was more than 25 years ago and somehow we all survived.
Speak for yourself...
They did admit that was a mistake though
Nowadays I just chalk it up to that Admiral just being really bad at Earth history.
And VOY had its characters visiting 1996 directly, in VOY S3 Futures End and there was no Eugenics War aftermath nor any indication that any such World War had taken place.
And the VOY characters weren't even phased or confused by any of this..
Yet now somehow SNW is the series that is blamed for ignoring/changing that aspect of canon from the original Star Trek?
Well, the other examples were just ignoring the war. SNW took an active rather than a passive approach.
I'm not saying the backlash is appropriate, I'm just saying I can see why there would be one and not the other.
Really, it's just Kurtzman Trek that gets the blame. It isn't lining up perfectly, it isn't respecting what came before (respect in this instance meaning strict 100% faithful recreation with only minor deviations in the process, not the product), and dares to change everything about characters we know next to nothing about (Chapel, Uhura).
It's the same old story; change = bad when it is boiled down.
"Future's End" did try to have it both ways, though, by putting a model of a DY-100 sleeper ship strapped to solid rocket boosters in Rain Robinson's SETI office so that way eagle-eyed viewers could conjecture that the wars and Khan were recent events. The writers later said they deliberately avoided referencing the Eugenics Wars so as not to confuse the story and further complicate the narrative of Janeway and Voyager trying to find Henry Starling and his 29th century timeship and save their own future. They purposely skirted the whole issue of the Eugenics Wars to keep things as simple as possible but tossed in the DY-100 model to acknowledge they knew what decade this was and wink at the audience.
How is not showing the results of a World War where as Spock said: "...massive populations were bombed out of existence..." a 'passive' approach when you're supposedly talking a major event in Trek Universe history?
^^^
That pretty much says to Trek fandom in the know - "Hey look...it never happened..."
I'm not going to go down the "Hey, they didn't SHOW the places that were bombed to hell and gone and maybe nobody talked about it?" rabbit hole. (Montana looked pretty nice in 2063.)
But PASSIVE is that if you never saw Space Seed or didn't know what 1996 means in Star Trek then you don't know one way or the other. "Well, I live in the 1990s and that seems right to me." Or it leaves you room for your head-canon to say "It happened" or "Obviously it didn't."
ACTIVE is because SNW engaged with "We lived through 1996 and we know what happened. Here is where something changed." Even if you don't know TOS they are telling the viewer "Something changed. There are two timelines with different 1996es." There's no hand waving, it's stated.
Except TNG said that the 21st century is when it happened.
That's also stated.
That's also stated.
Ok, so TOS is isolated in it's own timeline? It's the only one saying 1996.
It's sure not in ours.
We are such nerds.
(*Sips drink and smiles with sinister glee*)
(*Sips drink and smiles with sinister glee*)
Who doesn't love a good nerd discussion?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
