What has the new series done to ruin Star Trek this time?

[Richard S. Ta]

Exactly. And this extends beyond Star Trek. The world is full of disappointing sequels to favorite movies. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the original movies anymore. They're still just as well-made and entertaining as they ever were.

I just skip watching the sequels I don't like.

Exactly so. My wife is a little younger than me, but a massive movie fan and I like to revisit classics with her.

We’ve watched Jaws recently. No need to watch the sequels and the fact they are shit takes nothing away from Jaws. Likewise, we watched Terminator and Terminator 2, Alien and Aliens… Predator… Poltergeist… The Exorcist… no need to go beyond. The originals are brilliant and no amount of financially mandated studio milking or misjudged projects can change that.

The appearance of the USS New Jersey in Picard Season 3.

I've got no problem with it, but it's certainly annoying how many use as proof that DSC and SNW must be an alternate timeline.

I have no issue with this, but it is an (minor) example of how the people in charge of the franchise right now are not on the same page between shows.

If they wanna say the Connie retroactively now looks like the SNW/DSC Connie, sure go ahead. If they wanna use the TOS version, equally go ahead. But at least put the flag in the ground and say ‘this is what it is now’.

 

[James Cole]

Doesn't that rely on external lifting than actual "canon?"

But they were written by people working on the actual shows. Not on the writing staffs exactly, but the people that filled in the lines whose work was then used by said writing staffs in an interplay in the ongoing creative process.

Hell, even the Star Charts book, despite its flaws, greatly informed early DISCOVERY.

Now Memory Alpha has kinda taken over. So if Memory Alpha gets something wrong, or pushes a point of conjecture too far, it then can end up being used by NuTrek writers and subsequently enter the actual canon.

 

[PoorSailorsAirline]

Star Trek seems to me to have a messy relationship with canon in that it started as a canon project then stopped partway through.

TOS obviously inspired TAS and the movies. When TNG came around, the TOS movies were still in production and they wanted to build on that lineage. DS9 launched while TNG was finishing up, and VOY launched while we were still on DS9, so really, the timelines all add up to an expanding canon.

Then, ENT. They tried to colour inside the lines, bless them, but they were bound to take liberties with all the existing material at their disposal. We'd had First Contact and TOS by then, so they tried to not rattle their part of the timeline cage too badly (that I can remember) but pretending the technology was retro was out the window by season 2. (The most retro-looking ship they had was the Defiant in In A Mirror, Darkly, and for them it was supposed to be from the far-off future...).

I think ENT + Star Trek 2009 threw off the shackles of canon, really. 'Star Trek' became a framework with some mandatory elements, but suddenly writers had a lot of freedom to set aside details from other shows/movies. Sort of like if judges never had to consider precedents from other courts, but the law is still the law. So it stands to reason some fans clash over canon vs. story since Star Trek itself evolved that way.

 

[Phoenix219]

Star Trek seems to me to have a messy relationship with canon in that it started as a canon project then stopped partway through.

TOS obviously inspired TAS and the movies. When TNG came around, the TOS movies were still in production and they wanted to build on that lineage. DS9 launched while TNG was finishing up, and VOY launched while we were still on DS9, so really, the timelines all add up to an expanding canon.

Then, ENT. They tried to colour inside the lines, bless them, but they were bound to take liberties with all the existing material at their disposal. We'd had First Contact and TOS by then, so they tried to not rattle their part of the timeline cage too badly (that I can remember) but pretending the technology was retro was out the window by season 2. (The most retro-looking ship they had was the Defiant in In A Mirror, Darkly, and for them it was supposed to be from the far-off future...).

I think ENT + Star Trek 2009 threw off the shackles of canon, really. 'Star Trek' became a framework with some mandatory elements, but suddenly writers had a lot of freedom to set aside details from other shows/movies. Sort of like if judges never had to consider precedents from other courts, but the law is still the law. So it stands to reason some fans clash over canon vs. story since Star Trek itself evolved that way.

I agree - but thats OKAY!!!! because in a chronological, production order viewing - First Contact fucked with the timeline and left Borg drones in the past! It caused a whole butterfly effect down the timeline. Everything before FC holds together fairly well, and everything since FC holds together fairly well. You just need to know how and when to draw that line.

 

[BillJ]

Sorry, but people cannot expect a n ongoing franchise to respect ideas and concepts made up by the fans or to stifle their creativity just to avoid contradiction some passage from an old RPG supplement.
That's just not how those things work, and it's a reality of engaging with an ongoing franchise.

Humans are protective of things they interact with and feel they’ve contributed to. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone outside of themselves.

 

[BillJ]

Exactly so. My wife is a little younger than me, but a massive movie fan and I like to revisit classics with her.

We’ve watched Jaws recently. No need to watch the sequels and the fact they are shit takes nothing away from Jaws. Likewise, we watched Terminator and Terminator 2, Alien and Aliens… Predator… Poltergeist… The Exorcist… no need to go beyond. The originals are brilliant and no amount of financially mandated studio milking or misjudged projects can change that.



I have no issue with this, but it is an (minor) example of how the people in charge of the franchise right now are not on the same page between shows.

If they wanna say the Connie retroactively now looks like the SNW/DSC Connie, sure go ahead. If they wanna use the TOS version, equally go ahead. But at least put the flag in the ground and say ‘this is what it is now’.

They muddied it even further with the Discovery version being seen in holographic form in Picard season one.

 

[fireproof78]

think ENT + Star Trek 2009 threw off the shackles of canon, really. 'Star Trek' became a framework with some mandatory elements, but suddenly writers had a lot of freedom to set aside details from other shows/movies. Sort of like if judges never had to consider precedents from other courts, but the law is still the law. So it stands to reason some fans clash over canon vs. story since Star Trek itself evolved that way

I think the shackles were thrown off in small ways up until that point, and even some big ways in TMP and TWOK.

I think the other side is all the external material people used to weave and create the illusion of a consistent universe, while ignoring or denying obvious inconsistencies.

they were written by people working on the actual shows. Not on the writing staffs exactly, but the people that filled in the lines whose work was then used by said writing staffs in an interplay in the ongoing creative process.

That doesn't make them authoritative in any sense of the word. Just something a bunch of fans took and ran with and built their own perception of Trek, regardless of presentation in the actual show.

You know, the actual canon.

 

[Dar70]

Bingo. There's something to be said for just enjoying the individual episodes or movies (or books) on their own terms without worrying too much about how they fit into some larger picture.

Well then why don't they just write single episodes without any connection at all? I never expected them to follow stuff from the comics, books or cartoon. But when fans remember stuff from decades ago and the writers don't respect that...... Then why even reference stuff or rewrite past stories? Just make new stuff and be done with it. Because some of us like a cohesive story. It they don't want to do that fine. Then they should create new stuff instead of constantly going back and mining elements from past series and episodes.

FYI I don't expect a perfect follow on continuity. Mistakes happen even in the best shows. But dang Star Trek is all over the place in regards to story consistency.

I see Star Wars Fans bellyache about little Canon issues. But that Franchise is WAY more consistent then Trek could ever hope to be. It fits in pretty well and they respect what came before.

 

[Dar70]

Agreed.

More than that, to me, future installments cannot ruin a franchise because franchises by their nature, grow, change and develop. Star Trek initially was an Earth driven polity out and about, until the Federation showed up.

Star Trek is a wonderful franchise in that it fires the imagination but often times is strangled by past perceptions of it all hanging together, and external resources saying one thing is it must be correct. It hampers vision because it must squeeze in the tinier and tinier box of what is deemed "Star Trek", not by writers or producers but by fans who claim greater ownership because of greater knowledge.


It's frustrating in its limits places in enjoyable stories.

Star Wars does not seem to have that much a problem and it has now amassed 11 films and 8 seasons of television.(Not to mentions some of the cartoons are canon) Yeah there are little continuity errors and maybe characters don't act like fans want them to later down the line. But I overall it fits much better than Trek ever did as it moves forward. I don't see how respecting established stories LIMITS it at all. It was their choice to make two prequel series and academy which is kinda prequel/sequel series. They just continue to make a big mish mash universe that continues to contradict itself more and more.

 

[fireproof78]

see Star Wars Fans bellyache about little Canon issues. But that Franchise is WAY more consistent then Trek could ever hope to be. It fits in pretty well and they respect what came before.

Star Trek isn't Star Wars. A fantasy world vs. one based on our reality. When Trek creates the separation from our world and stops using our Earth as a touchstone for historical references I'll compare it to Star Wars and not a minute before.

. It they don't want to do that fine. Then they should create new stuff instead of constantly going back and mining elements from past series and episodes.

Storytelling frequently reuses elements. Taking familiar elements and telling new stories while reusing common franchise elements is a storytelling cornerstone of humanity.

Well then why don't they just write single episodes without any connection at all

So...TOS?

 

[Dar70]

Star Trek isn't Star Wars. A fantasy world vs. one based on our reality. When Trek creates the separation from our world and stops using our Earth as a touchstone for historical references I'll compare it to Star Wars and not a minute before.



Storytelling frequently reuses elements. Taking familiar elements and telling new stories while reusing common franchise elements is a storytelling cornerstone of humanity.



So...TOS?

Zero references to any other series not just TOS. TOS and Berman Trek and even Picard which is closer to Berman Trek.
Disco did do a decent job for once with it's final season and referencing the Chase. (I really liked Season 5 of Disco. It finally had a solid season)
But usually when these shows reference TOS and Berman Trek they want to retcon the heck out of it. Star wars doesn't do that and you would think a show more steeped in Fantasy as you say would verve off more. Yet it doesn't. Trek is the one that does. There is simply no reason for the departures the current shows have taken from established continuity. The whole Khan thing is a perfect example. Just keep it 1992. No reason to move it up to 2030 or whatever.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

They muddied it even further with the Discovery version being seen in holographic form in Picard season one.

I thought that was what Hotrod was referencing?

So like I said, PIC is not even consistent within itself. But then, PIC is a narrative car crash of a show.

It's a shame. I liked the first five episodes or so, but then the wheels fell off and never really attached themselves again.

 

[BillJ]

So...TOS?

Now you know why so many folks are still attached to it, all these years later. It was just interesting, inventive TV. Something the franchise has failed to do in the years since its cancellation.

 

[fireproof78]

Now you know why so many folks are still attached to it, all these years later. It was just interesting, inventive TV. Something the franchise has failed to do in the years since its cancellation.

I never doubted that.

The franchise fell in to the "franchise box," first imposed by Roddenberry and then by the weight of so much fan material. It created this confines of what Star Trek should "feel" like, and I use the quotes because they are very much nebulous factors that view can define yet insist the newer series (TNG forward) lacked. So, it became a self-fulling prophecy of constantly tweaking it and confining it further until stepping outside the box is quite unreasonable to keep in the feels.

 

[evilchumlee]

I never doubted that.

The franchise fell in to the "franchise box," first imposed by Roddenberry and then by the weight of so much fan material. It created this confines of what Star Trek should "feel" like, and I use the quotes because they are very much nebulous factors that view can define yet insist the newer series (TNG forward) lacked. So, it became a self-fulling prophecy of constantly tweaking it and confining it further until stepping outside the box is quite unreasonable to keep in the feels.

The "Franchise Box" is the only reason Star Trek survived.

If subsequent Star Trek projects were all just reboots or just existed in their own bubble, we wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of Star Trek we have. The creators full well know this... it's why Discovery was absolutely a reboot, but they couldn't acknowledge it as a reboot. Even '09 had to be a Reboot w/ Caveat.

Speaking for myself, the franchise is a large aspect of why I like and watch Star Trek. The further it drifts away from that, the less i'm interested in it.

 

[James Cole]

But usually when these shows reference TOS and Berman Trek they want to retcon the heck out of it. Star wars doesn't do that and you would think a show more steeped in Fantasy as you say would verve off more. Yet it doesn't. Trek is the one that does. There is simply no reason for the departures the current shows have taken from established continuity. The whole Khan thing is a perfect example. Just keep it 1992. No reason to move it up to 2030 or whatever.

I think what pisses many long time fans off about NuTrek is precisely this.

TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT all did far more of their own things. NuTrek almost isn't confident about doing their own new thing, so instead they reach into the well of the past as a crutch, but have to change it to put their own mark on it, in the process making a sloppy mess. This is where all the memberberry labels originally got applied as well. And NuTrek just doesn't have the writing strength that the Berman era did.

JJ Abrams at least knew to do an alternate timeline as reboot to have access to the old stuff while being largely free to do his own thing. DISCOVERY / SNW were the worst of both worlds by half assing it. The legacy canon fans will be pissed off, while they're also still shackling themselves to what they perceive as the canon they're beholden to. The "original sin" of DISCOVERY was its not properly defined original setting without being a proper in-continuity with TOS prequel. Instead set it post-NEM. Make Michael Burnham somehow Spock's adopted daughter and even that questionable connection could have possibly worked.

As usual I'm sure some of the regular posters here want everyone to just shut up about canon. But that's ALWAYS been one of the top topics of discussion amongst Star Trek fans.

 

[evilchumlee]

Instead set it post-NEM. Make Michael Burnham somehow Spock's adopted daughter and even that questionable connection could have possibly worked.

Discovery would absolutely work better in every possible way by being set Post-Nemesis.

That still wouldn't save the godawful writing and characters, but at least it could shed some of its other baggage. There really is precisely nothing about the narrative of Discovery that needed it to be set where it was. CBS was gunning for nostalgia, but executed it with zero nostalgia. Odd strategy.

"You guys like Klingons, right?"
"Yeah, Klingons are cool!"
"Ok, check these Klingons out."
"Those aren't Klingons."
"...but... we called them Klingons. And they say words like "Kaeylescsh".
"Ok but they aren't Klingons."
"Ugh, why are Star Trek fans so toxic?"

 

[fireproof78]

The "Franchise Box" is the only reason Star Trek survived.

If subsequent Star Trek projects were all just reboots or just existed in their own bubble, we wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of Star Trek we have. The creators full well know this... it's why Discovery was absolutely a reboot, but they couldn't acknowledge it as a reboot. Even '09 had to be a Reboot w/ Caveat.

Speaking for myself, the franchise is a large aspect of why I like and watch Star Trek. The further it drifts away from that, the less i'm interested in it.

But, it's not the only reason. The reason is fan investment and that investment takes several different forms and shapes. I didn't not like TNG because it was not connected TOS; I disliked it because of the characters.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree that the "Franhise Box" drove it forward because TOS had so many different elements to it, that are comedy, drama, horror, tragedy, and the like that are roundly rejected in current projects for not feeling like "Star Trek."

So, clearly the franchise box didn't save it because nowadays TOS would be thrown out.

TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT all did far more of their own things.

Yes, and yet are treated as Star Trek without question.

s usual I'm sure some of the regular posters here want everyone to just shut up about canon.

No. I want people to be consistent. State your objection a work without invoking canon at every turn and actually stand up on personal principles rather than some nebulous "feeling" that an installment is wrong.

Treat newer Trek as its own thing. Work for me with TNG for years, as well as TMP, completely divorced from TOS. I'm sorry if that's some sort of heretical take that the "majority of fans" (whomever that's defined as ) can't handle because Star Trek has to be one big thing but it's not a requirement for personal enjoyment.

I would rather stand on the idea of what I enjoy than what an external force says.

CBS was gunning for nostalgia, but executed it with zero nostalgia. Odd strategy.

Blame Fuller. He didn't want the nostalgia. CBS did because of the success of the Abrams' films. When Fuller went full out on his vision it ended up half-assed.

But, sure, CBS is evil because they scramble with money.

 

[Citiprime]

I think what pisses many long time fans off about NuTrek is precisely this.

TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT all did far more of their own things. NuTrek almost isn't confident about doing their own new thing, so instead they reach into the well of the past as a crutch, but have to change it to put their own mark on it in the process making a sloppy mess. This is where all the memberberry labels originally got applied as well. And NuTrek just doesn't have the writing strength that the Berman era did.

JJ Abrams at least knew to do an alternate timeline as reboot to have access to the old stuff while being largely free to do his own thing. DISCOVERY / SNW were the worst of both worlds by half assing it. The legacy canon fans will be pissed off, while they're also still shackling themselves to what they perceive as the canon they're beholden to. The "original sin" of DISCOVERY was its not properly defined original setting without being a proper in-continuity with TOS prequel. Instead set it post-NEM. Make Michael Burnham somehow Spock's adopted daughter and even that questionable connection could have possibly worked.

As usual I'm sure some of the regular posters here want everyone to just shut up about canon. But that's ALWAYS been one of the top topics of discussion amongst Star Trek fans.

This.

To this day, I still feel it's one of the cardinal mistakes of Discovery that they made her Spock's foster sister. None of the other spinoffs felt the need to have that deep of connective tissue. And there was no need for it with Discovery. They should have let Burnham's story be her own, and live or die on their ability to make it work without Spock and Sarek.

Beyond that, I think what made a lot of fans wince and wonder about what was going on is the INSISTENCE that everything was happening in the Prime Timeline from the producers and Paramount, even though right out of the gates they introduce THAT version of the Klingons.

And it felt almost like someone gaslighting you, trying to convince you that you're crazy for questioning whether any of this fit together with what had come before.

 

[BillJ]

I want people to be consistent. State your objection a work without invoking canon at every turn and actually stand up on personal principles rather than some nebulous "feeling" that an installment is wrong.

I take it you don't really understand humans?

Like Kirk said, "sometimes a feeling is all we have to go on."

Of course, he also said he met Pike when he took command of the Enterprise.