You were the one who compared the two! Implying they're equally as bad.
Its not a double standard. You are comparing a guy in a carrot costume to small aliens that actually looked really creepy.
You were the one comparing a puppet episode that hasn’t aired to a carrot costume in the first place.
Again, definitions eludes us. If we like it, it's bad and not camp. If we don't, then it's an insult to Trek and intelligence of people everywhere.
It wasn't a Kurtzman episode that bypassed all that unintellectual sci fi adventure stuff to present a story about characters with trauma and guilt from a massacre a couple of decades earlier, in an episode with virtually no action or science fictional elements but plenty of high-minded dialogue, including some from a Shakespeare play that's mirrored by the episode itself. "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."
Come on, not every post on this site has to invite an "aha, but what about ____" response.
To respond anyway: "Conscience" (like Hamlet) is extremely heightened and operatic while the SFA episode is much more muted. "Conscience" is as much about plot events unfolding (Lenore's plan and assassination attempts, the mystery unfolding, Kodos' ultimate sacrifice) as it is about Kirk's interiority (which largely exists in relation to events), while the SFA episode is, by design, much more focused on the characters having internal revelations about themselves.
Surely you'd recognise they deliberately hit totally different tonal registers. Nobody's going to watch both back to back and think "yeah, these are exactly the same thing and written in the same style," even if they enjoy both.
Well, no, but both are intellectual in a way that invites reflection even if not identical.
whats next lol lol
star trek starfleet academy movies
star trek starfleet academy movies
Which the Star Trek franchise has never managed to do.
All the back and forth about consistency has me wondering which SF series actually was consistent?
Exactly. The more a fictional Universe expands, the less consistent it's going to be. That's just the nature of the beast and it always has been. Back in the days of classic Doctor Who one of the old showrunners said words to the effect of, "canon is what I can remember". Of course, this was in the days before the internet and all the information available there, but the point still stands. Gene Roddenberry once said that he had no idea that people were going to be watching these episodes multiple times and scribbling down details of the episodes as inviolable in-universe historical fact, and I don't think that attitude would have changed much if he had known such.
And the thing is, at the end of the day Star Trek continuity is remarkably and surprisingly consistent given how much of it has been produced and how many creative hands have been involved in weaving the tapestry. Sure, there have been continuity screw-ups, some of it major and some not, and sure, that can be annoying, but ultimately what's best for the story at hand is more important than adherence to obscure canonical minutiae.
Last edited:
I don't mind so much about a 50+ year old fictional universe being somewhat inconsistent. What I mind is when something is produced with the clear intention of it being a reboot because the producers care nothing about being consistent with the source material, but are for some reason afraid to actually use the term 'reboot.' But that's just me.
Like the ground underneath the Tsar Bomba.I think you've burned that joke out.
I'm calling partial BS on this one (about Roddenberry believing what you're recalling). One, he is the one who fostered the idea of rabid fandom of TOS while it was still first run on NBC (hence his endless retelling of the letter-writing campaigns), which included watching episode reruns, first on NBC, then in syndication. Two, along the way, the earliest ST fanzines took deep dives into as much behind the scenes and fictional lore that was available at the time. Further, Roddenberry himself helped build the nature of the detail-oriented fan by participating in, or not discouraging a number of best-selling ST books, beginning with The Making of Star Trek (1968), and continuing into the syndication era with The World of Star Trek & The Trouble with Tribbles (both 1973, featuring Gerrold's thorough look into episodes, character development, actors, production, etc.), Star Trek Lives! (1975), Letters to Star Trek (1976), etc.--all only intensified the detail-oriented (or obsessive) interest in all things ST, which Roddenberry always encouraged & profited from in period interviews and convention appearances, some I personally witnessed..
That's to say he was very aware of the value of fans already aware of / investing in the value of creative and story continuity. He most certainly did not shrug his shoulders and scratch his head, perplexed by the deep interest in the fiction he created.
Well put. This era of ST in particular has numerous examples fitting your complaint, and as some fans have observed, there seems to be some level of disrespect for the sources, yet parts will be cherry-picked for use, which lends weight to your idea that the PTB never called their productions a complete reboot. It no longer matters, because Kurtzman and his cronies have torpedoed the ST franchise, arguably causing damage never witnessed before in its 60 years.
We are mentally bracing for impact.
Is this "damage" in the room with us?
I wouldn't go that far.
The point I was making was that CBS advertised DSC as a ten-years-before-TOS prequel, then went out of their way to make the show not resemble TOS in the slightest. That doesn't come off to me as a prequel; it comes off to me as a reboot. Which would have been totally fine with me, because TOS didn't need another prequel. However, TPTB seemed to learn from their mistakes, but they could only work with what was already established in DSC.
Some Kurtzman Trek sucks, other parts of the streaming era are fantastic or at bare minimum a lot of world-building fun. Some doesn't work aesthetically or dramatically (and boy, do they not work), but then there were big stretches of Berman Trek that could be tedious and completely uninspired.
"Torpedoed" and "damage" take some heavy lifting, even with some of the sucky content we've gotten since 2017.
"Torpedoed" and "damage" take some heavy lifting, even with some of the sucky content we've gotten since 2017.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
