As long as they stick to the critical continuity, it's All Systems Go. Now all we've gotta do is make sure the story quality is up to par and we can pick up those few mods and run with it.
Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise
- Thread starter Lowdarzz
- Start date
- Status
As long as they stick to the critical continuity, it's All Systems Go. Now all we've gotta do is make sure the story quality is up to par and we can pick up those few mods and run with it.
As long as they stick to the critical continuity, it's All Systems Go. Now all we've gotta do is make sure the story quality is up to par and we can pick up those few mods and run with it.
I'm fine with sticking to only (or mainly) the critical canon too and getting a good story and/or fun movie.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
"You" would be a general term. The point is that plenty has been established and it's stupid to purposely go back on that.
Apparently you care enough enough to waste time arguing with me point for point.
See my first answer.
Actually, yes it does, it's part of what adds to quality.
It has a tendency to carry over unless you;re South park or Family Guy.
There's nothing outdated about it just because it happened to be written 40 years ago. But I suppose to someone like you, old = bad.
Actually it does, but again as someone who doesn't see any degrees, I can see how you'd think that.
There seem to be plenty of fans pissed about the reboot, and some are pissed because it's being done pretty stupidly using some of the corniest cliches Star Trek is already infamous for, all while proclaiming to be somehow not corny.You think the fans would be pissed about a reboot? Why, because it isn't consistent with the backstage barely-canon fan lore of TOS?
Because you can build a much more complex story that isn't over and done with after that episode or that movie. Other than that you might as well just make an updated version of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits (and yes, I'm aware that's already been done).
As soon as it bothers me enough that the people making the show don't seem to give a shit about what they're doing, I will stop watching. But I will still criticize them for not giving a shit about what they're doing.
Because you claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you don't have lives and spend all their free time scouring Memory Alpha looking for continuity violations. That would be bashing your fellow fans. But you're right, most Trek fans don't do that, some of them spend their free time talking about nerdy things on Star Trek messageboards.How is it "bashing" to say that most fans of Star Trek actually have LIVES and don't spend all their free time scouring Memory Alpha looking for continuity violations?
I was talking about the reboot, but I can see why you might think otherwise since you seem to hate everything about the rest of the franchise, what with that evil continuity and all.
There are degrees to things, and the Abrams reboot is safely on the side of fucking things up.
Yup. Not much point to the last 40 years if you're just starting everything over again, is there?A reboot makes Star Trek irrelevant?
I guess you missed all those times I already pointed that out, but that continuity adds significantly to quality. Good continuity + good story = good show. Is that clear enough for you now, or are you just going to ignore that again and claim I mean something else?
The entire franchise is the overall story.
Not doing it negatively affects quality.
So? It still flexes that brain muscle to try to put a complex puzzle together and continually adding to it. It also gives the people who create it pride at the ability to do it well.
Novels also aren't part of the official continuity, they simply are someone doing their own hypothetical addition based on whatever was established on the show up to that point. Some are good, some are bad, but there is no overall affect on continuity of the show.
In order to be good, yes. But also note how more recently there's even been more continuity between series in the books. but again, the books are not the show, they are simply based on it.
You do something that adds to it, and you don't go back to the beginning of the franchise and change everything about it. Otherwise you might as well just do something else.
I'm sure that contributes to their enjoyment of it, yes. Otherwise, what would the point be? If you're looking for mindless entertainment, you can watch another show, or go watch a game or something that takes a limited amount of brain power.THAT's why they're fans? Wait, you think the thing Star Trek fans like about the show is the fact that it is internally consistent with its own canon?
Ah yes, because the fans in that forum or even on TrekBBS as a whole are totally representative of the fandom as a whole.
Why not go into the TOS forum and ask them if it sucks? Why not go into the TNG forum and ask them if it sucks? Why not go into the DS9 forum and ask them if it sucks? Why not go into any of the forums dedicated to a particular show and ask them if that show sucks? What do you suppose they'd say? 
Hell, look at the contrast just between the STXI forum and the art forum. Go to SFM and you'd see the same contrast of people who hate Abrams Trek.Really? why are so many engineers and scientists Star Trek fans then? I guarantee you I could go down to any engineering school in the country, throw a caliper, and it would hit a Trek fan.
I hate to break it to you and JJ, but that is the only market Star Trek has. No one in "mainstream" is going to look beyond the title, because like it or not, this franchise is associated with nerds.
No, but you've established that you think anyone who points out a continuity violation is seriously distracted by them. Well, that and quality isn't a big thing for you as long as you can sit your ass down and derive the least amount of enjoyment out of it. Which is fine, but don't rag on me because I'm not as easily entertained as you are.
No, I just don't like what he did, and only time will tell if he's a hypocrite or not (re: Star Trek being corny). It's not personal to think someone is wrong or that they made a bad decision.
You're entitled to your opinion, but on this point your opinion is all you really have.
No, it's outdated for reasons which have nothing to do with when it was written.
Amazing that you happen to know this without having actually seen the movie.
I wasn't aware Star Trek was best known for its elaborate multi-episode story arcs.
Well, I can say with confidence at the moment they don't give a shit about what YOU think they're doing...
Actually, I'm pretty much suggesting that YOU have no life and spend way too much time scouring Memory Alpha looking for continuity violations, as if continuity was the one thing that always made Star Trek great. Mainly this is because you've spent so much time arguing that STXI will NOT be great strictly because it violates canon.
Uh huh... because anyone who is still willing to watch Star Trek even if it stop being consistent with "canon" hates the entire franchise.
Then what was the point to the last 40 years to begin with if you're going to get sand in your vagina whenever somebody fails to worship the holy infallible canon?
Frankly, the last 40 years of Trek history are well entertaining in their own right; they don't become less entertaining just because somebody produced a reboot. Which is something I tried to explain to you earlier about the latest Marvel movies, that fans of--say--Iron Man don't suddenly decide that forty years of Iron Man comics become irrelevant just because Tony Stark gets his electromagnet heart in Afghanistan and Nick Fury is a one-eyed black guy.
And here's the flaw in your argument Bad continuity + good story = good show all the same.
Now pay attention here: You can take good continuity with a good story and turn it into a good show. You can take bad continuity with a good story and turn it into a good show. You cannot take good continuity with a bad story and turn it into a good show.
Ergo, story is more important than continuity. And wouldn't you know it: good stories is why I and MOST fans gravitate towards Star Trek.
Well, no. The Franchise is a BRAND NAME which contains--among other things--tens of thousands of stories, some of which are interrelated, most of which are not. That includes books, games, music, comics, models, merchandize, toys, online content and a language or two.
Continuity is irrelevant to the integrity of the franchise because most of the things in the franchise are standalone productions that wouldn't fit into the continuity anyway. The ones that are serialized with other TV/Movie productions are interesting as part of the whole (for the group of which they are a part) but that is not and has never been what Star Trek was about.
What "official" continuity? The entire show is 100% fictional. The continuity between the novels and the TV series is exactly as official as the fans want it to be.
If you disagree, what would you even do about it? Complain to the Trek Pope?
Says you. The writers can do whatever they want s long as the finished product satisfies the audience. If changing everything about the franchise results in a good Trek story, then I guess you'll be turning in your comm badge and phaser and shipping out for the Nibrite Alliance.
If you are a person who asserts that you dislike a movie you have never seen because of the perception that that movie violates the qausi-official continuity of a 40 year old TV episode, then there is little other way I could describe you other than "seriously distracted" by continuity concerns.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
No, it's pretty self evident that going back on continuity that's already been established is bad form.
Do tell.
Yes, it's amazing what one can figure out from interviews, spoilers, images, and the trailer that's been released.Amazing that you happen to know this without having actually seen the movie.
Must not've watched DS9 then, because as early as the second season they were already trying that concept out.
So?
Well, welcome to the nerd-dom then, nerd; you've been arguing about nerdy shit with a fellow nerd.
No, it's just that you've basically been listing the ways you hate the last 40 years of established Star Trek.
It kind of takes the fun out of it for me since it probably means there will be no more new Trek that isn't part of this contrived AU they're making.
You're forgetting the part where I have no emotional attachment at all to a comic book franchise that's probably rebooted itself plenty of times already, and thus really don't give a shit.
No, bad continuity + good story = mediocre show
Epic win
Win/Fail
Fail
Ergo continuity adds to story.
You =/ most fans Your opinion counts about as much as anyone else's, so don't try to validate them with unwarranted self-importance.
Actually the people behind the franchise will tell you that only the stuff seen on screen is part of the official continuity. So that "official" continuity.
I am the Trek Pope, so having a conversation with myself would be pointless.
Couple things. 1) Yes, the writers can do whatever they want, but the real question is whether they should or not. 2) What "satisfies" the audience is going to vary from individual to individual.
If changing everything about the franchise results in a good Trek story, then I guess you'll be turning in your comm badge and phaser and shipping out for the Nibrite Alliance.
Reboot = "seriously distracted". Minor continuity errors = differing degrees of annoyance. But again, there's that whole degrees thing that seems like a foreign concept to you.
Which is another way of saying "I can't explain it, so just believe me."
Scientists haven't taken Eugenics seriously since the early 1960s, around the time Space Seed aired. Genetic Engineering was the new cutting edge in the 1980s, when Wrath of Khan was written.
It is outdated, in other words, because Eugenics is an outdated scientific concept.
DS9 came out in 1993. Star Trek was thirty years old by then; the serial continuity of the series was a NOVELTY, not a tradition.
So if the writers don't care, why should I?
No one ever accused me of not being a nerd. But I have never in my life turned away from a good story just because it wasn't true to my own preconceived notions about what should have been. At best, I can say post-fact analysis leaves me disappointed about what could have been, but there's nothing intrinsically valuable about TOS canon that would cause me to shed a tear in its violation. If I want to watch TOS (and I frequently do) I pop in the DVDs. STXI isn't TOS, it isn't going to be, and that's a good thing.
Who cares? It's still Star Trek. Reboot or not, we're left with the same Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, warp drive, and high-flying, dramatic, inspiring, thought provoking, science-bending, phaser-blasting, torpedo-shooting, transporter-beaming kickass science fiction that's always been one of the major constants of my life since before I was old enough to form conscious memories.
TOS actually had pretty bad continuity, but I've never heard it described as "mediocre."
Most fans = most fans. I actually bother to ASK other Trek fans what they like about it.
For promotional purposes, sure (as far as releasing reference information for the show). As any writer will tell you, continuity is about the beliefs of the audience, not the author. Writers can and will violate continuity when it suits them, and really, so do fans (which is why none of us really consider "Threshhold" to be canon because it was such a stupid episode, though alot of us secretly consider Saavik's Romulan background to be so).
They should if they think it will satisfy the audience.
Such is the peril of the creative process. If you try to please everyone, you end up with a lame story; if you try to please only a few, you end up with a story that gains a cult following because everyone except its fanatical fans think it's garbage. More generalized writing of high quality manages to be inclusive and appealing and yet still provocative and inspiring all at once.
That, more than anything, is the secret to Trek's success: why people who otherwise have no interest in science fiction can still at least casually get into it; why people who have no science or engineering background can still think Scotty is cool; why a woman who otherwise has no interest in stories about aliens or space wars can still watch seven seasons of TNG just because "Worf is such a cool character."
Star Trek appeals to such a broad base entirely because it doesn't stoop to satisfying just one group, it has something for everybody. Sometimes, in order to do that, it has to change the recipe a little so it'll have something for the next generation of everybody. So fans of TOS and TNG still have their Trek; they got it 40 years ago and they still have it on DVD today. Younger fans still want more, and some of us want to see something NEW, and actually there are kids tuning into Star Trek right now who weren't even born yet when Enterprise was cancelled. If the writers want them to keep tuning in, they're going to have to give them something just a tad more contemporary, and that--more than anything--is the purpose of the reboot.
And what exactly is implied in a "reboot" other than "minor continuity errors?" Don't forget, you're having this discussion in a thread that is essentially about what the ship LOOKS like. Since Star Trek is not a technological documentary, the cosmetic appearance of the ship is about as minor as it gets.
I am a Trek protestant, so arguing with yourself is about the limit of your authority.
Er ... not quite.
I can't believe I'm being drawn into this. The theory of eugenics was popular since the late 19th century in many countries. With a history of selective breeding for specific traits employed with domesticated animals such as horses and dogs for centuries, Eugenicists hoped to select for specific traits within the human gene pool and eliminate genetic abnormalities or deficiencies. And they had worldwide support with eugenics programs in most of the major countries throughout the early part of the 20th Century.
Nazi Germany changed all that. Hitler's regime became associated with eugenics and that's why it [eugenics] fell into disfavor. Something so strongly coupled to Nazism and "scientific racism" became abhorrent to most people. By the 1960s, with World War II and all it's fascinating weird science still fresh in the minds of Trek's writers, it was natural for Khan to be a product of Eugenics. Not only did it give him the superpowers he needed to be a formidable threat to Kirk and company, but there was that negative association that many in the audience would instantly pick up on.
I don't know what prompted Nick Meyer to change this to "genetic engineering" in Wrath of Khan ... it could have been simple ignorance on his part, or maybe he was trying to associate genetic engineering with something evil as a sort of statement not unlike Greenpeace et al do today. But the change wasn't because eugenics has been in any way discredited, it simply continues to share negative associations with Nazism and racism and the association of humans with cattle.
As far as Chekov's declaration that Khan was a "product of late 20th Century genetic engineering", I simply shrug that off as ignorance on Chekov's part. Obviously he was on the ship at the time, but all he knew was that the ship was taken over by genetically superior supermen from three hundred years ago and drew poorly informed conclusions from limited data.
It happens around here all the time.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
No, actually it's a way of saying "I'm on to your juvenile game and I'm not going to play along."
Guess you better tell the scientists that are still essentially advocating for it via invitro fertilization with sperm from males with "desirable" traits.
Oh, gee, and here I thought you were talking about Kirk & co.'s origin stories being outdated, my bad. Of course you're still wrong because there is still a form of eugenics going on, they just don't call it that anymore.
And yet reflective of modern times. Not to mention that complex stories are just more interesting as a rule.
The writers should care, but I couldn't care less what you think.
You sure seem to toss a lot of rocks for living in a glass house.
Really? Me neither. I just have different ideas of what makes a "good" story.
Hurray for you; I don't care.
Really? It sort of looks like STXI is trying to take the place of TOS. Abrams even gets pissy when you call it STXI instead of just "Star Trek", like it's the original.
I do.
In name only.
Which says a lot about your tastes I guess. If I want a mindless shoot-em-up sci fi I pop in Starship Troopers, Fifth Element, Resident Evil, or something else along those lines. When it comes to Star Trek I'm looking for more.
I'd call it that.
But still not you.
The dozen or so that frequent the STXI forum and agree with you don't constitute "most fans" either.
No, canon is just canon, even the things we hate, which is why I bitch about them for being the brain farts they are.
Quality would satisfy the audience.
That's why you don't half-ass something and do a good job, and maintain the integrity of your work, because unfortunately you don't know if it's a case of sink or swim until your audience is able to react to it.
Those people don't really exist. There may be closet fans who say they aren't, sort of like all those reviewers for BSG claiming they aren't sci fi fans, but someone who is too close-minded to accept drama if it has a sci fi setting isn't going to watch Star Trek, period.
If they even know who the hell he is.
Then they're probably watching for the soap opera aspect and pretending to be stupid about everything else because they don't want to seem un-cool.
Star Trek is simply Star Trek, and people pretty much like it or they don't.
Except that you're mistaking what "recipe" in this context means. No doubt you're referring to continuity, since that's what the entire point of your argument has been about, but continuity is just background information for the story. The "recipe" would more commonly be known as the "formula", which is the reason for the failures in Star Trek - it got too formulaic and relied on cliches. Changing the window dressing and still following the same formula won't make it suck any less. That's why watching shows like L&O or the CSIs is only really interesting until you get used to the show's formula.
Hurray for them, but I want more new Trek that's based off of those series, personally.
Which would say a lot about certain peoples' tastes if they like the same thing 3 year olds like. And really there's nothing all that "new" about what Abrams is doing, other than the particular way he's doing it.
But a reboot not only isn't necessary to do that, but this example of it probably isn't going to work.
A reboot means that there are major changes, which implies anything but minor continuity errors.
And so are you.
Except when they aren't minor cosmetic changes.
Hurray for you; I never claimed I had any authority other than over myself, so either you completely missed that joke, or your response was a very bad comeback to it.
The funny thing is that he's so much more serious about it than I am.
Oh bull. We're all serious about it. Even Dennis gets sucked in sometimes. You have no idea how many times I started to comment only to ask myself, "Why bother?" Then I realized the whole thing would go down much better with a bowl of popcorn and random sniping from the sidelines.
I did have a moment of weakness, though.
But you two have been engaging in one of the best fisking slap fights I've ever seen on the Internet. I hate fisking because it so often chops carefully phrased arguments down into minute components that don't mean the same thing, but some practitioners have mastered it to an art form and you guys have a great thing going. So don't mind me while I go refill my bowl and settle back in for some more.
Captain X and newtype, knock it off and let's get this thread back on topic.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Awww... 
As to the above argument, I guess whenever I argue I try to keep it as light as possible, though sometimes that can be difficult if your opponent has an overly negative attitude, but I digress - it was fun while it lasted.
Back on topic... the ship... yeah, it's fugly.
As to the above argument, I guess whenever I argue I try to keep it as light as possible, though sometimes that can be difficult if your opponent has an overly negative attitude, but I digress - it was fun while it lasted.
Back on topic... the ship... yeah, it's fugly.
I read your explanation, but can't quite agree. The United States still had a fair number of eugenics advocates until the end of the Civil Rights movement (mostly conservatives who pushed--unsuccessfully but repeatedly--for mandatory sterilization of violent criminals). Some elements of that agenda were still fresh in the mind of the audience, or at least the writers. Less so in the 1980s, where a larger portion of the audience would have had to consult an encyclopedia to know exactly what Eugenics was if not an earlier form of genetic engineering.
- Status
