Star Trek Canon Problems
- Thread starter Jmal234
- Start date
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
You had the connection to Spock, Klingons, Sarek, Amanda, Harry Mudd and others. Not to mention nods to tons of things.
This thread and every thread like it.
Who doesn't like to get dizzy?!
Maybe some people have that mindset. Not me. I don't object to their existence, and if people like them, that's fine. The only real issues I have is that DSC completely failed as a TOS prequel to me. As a stand-alone show or a reboot, it worked fine. And I also hate what they did to the character of Picard. And I find LDS's humor to be extremely grating, although I think there's a good show there buried under the idea that they need constant humor/memberberries/loudmouthed superfast talking.
Yeah, it just started with a crisis point with an alien race known as the *checks notes* Klingons. Plus Harry Mudd (annoying), Spock (of course) and Sarek and Pike, and Amanda, and a Klingon hidden agent (Arne Darvin's predecessor), the House of Kor, the Mirror Universe, etc.
The problem was that the initial executive producer said "Don't make it look like Star Trek" and spent a shit ton of money in the process.
Only if one takes things literally.
I don't.
no one is saying that.
I dunno. It honestly seems to be surviving just fine at the moment
At the end of the day, I think if you take the approach many here are suggesting, you risk not only undoing one of the things that makes Trek so unique, but you also are basically trying to whitewash history.
You're also setting the show up for inconsequence by saying "Yeah, in a decade or so we'll probably pretend this series didn't exist either."
It blows my mind that you can watch people complain about the reboot button being pushed on franchises over and over and you think that's the way to go for Trek. Commercially, it is a non-starter.
That's it right there. From DSC onwards, every new CBS Trek series owes its production values, in large or small part, to Bryan Fuller. DSC was just the jumping off point. We see his influence even in shows he had nothing to do with, because they had to work with what they were given in DSC and go from there.
They aren’t inconsequential, because they are building blocks for what comes next. TOS didn’t become inconsequential because the Abrams movies were made.
I'd say it's surviving exactly because it is willing to modernize itself.
I'm all for modernized Star Trek that still remains true to the spirit of the franchise. I put Strange New Worlds on a pedestal because I think it's the perfect balance of old and new. And it does it all without being a reboot.
I’m not sure, if privately, they don’t treat it as a reboot.
No one is doing this. The building blocks are right there, as @BillJ notes, but also it's providing, historical broad strokes while updating the details. And, it's not really doing that much. The computer is still the computer, phasers still phase, transporter still transports. The show is not the details.
Yes, yes it does. It works harder but manages to provide some good connective tissue, without being lost in the forest for the trees approach.
It does matter. Women cast members pushing for the minis because they saw them as a symbol of women's lib is a lot different then, say, the producers putting women in catsuits to show off their boobs.
Akiva Goldsman and Henry Alonso Myers give interviews where they EXPLICITLY explain how things are different in SNW and why they're not concerned with continuity if it conflicts with the story they want to tell, and when confronted with those interviews there are people on this board that STILL pretend like "oh yeah, that doesn't mean anything. It's still in continuity."
If they were treating it as a reboot, they wouldn't be jumping through the hoops that they do to remain mostly loyal to TOS.
I don’t get how it is disloyal to reboot TOS? I’m sure it is eventually coming down the road.
There is no disloyalty to a reboot. A reboot takes nothing away from the original. New installments take nothing away from the original. A show either stands or falls on its content, not new installments.
They aren’t inconsequential, because they are building blocks for what comes next. TOS didn’t become inconsequential because the Abrams movies were made.
Okay, let me put it to you this way:
You've got a young fan, late teens / early 20's, who started watching, say, Strange New Worlds. Once they finish season 2, they say, "Well what should I watch next?"
There are a couple of options. One could go to DISCO, right? But then they finish DISCO and say "Well, what next?" Again, logically, you might go to TOS.
But we're saying Trek should totally rescind TOS, basically. So what then? Do you tell this new viewer "Oh, don't watch TOS, the women wear miniskirts and the ships look way less advanced." Do you say "Well, go ahead and watch it, but it durst really connect to SNW, despite multiple shared characters, direct references, and story resolutions." Or do you say "These are meant to connect, but obviously something made 50 years apart is going to have some noticeable differences"?
Which one, do you think, is most likely to endear this new viewer to the franchise as a whole?
The bottom line is that a show being produced right now is not going to be misogynistic, unlike TOS. Which was only one of the problems that makes TOS extremely dated.
On the other hand, I'm seeing evidence that the producers are willing to throw a bone and say that the timeline has changed with such things as the time cops and Khan's age.
Why not put out a show, and allow people who like it decide where to go next?
Source? Which continuity is important.
"Mr. Goldman, will you have female captains in SNW?"
"Of course. "
*cue angry mob*
Similar threads
