• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Decanonization Time!

How do we know that in the Trek world? No one has ever taken the chance to try something different with a prequel. I think if they had done a good Captain Pike show without all the future knowledge stuff and without all the characters from TOS (except Spock, of course), audiences would have reacted just fine. And, honestly, I think just about everybody back in the day rolled their eyes at "No, we don't have phasers, but we have phase pistols!"
I agree with you but the loudest voices are about familiarity.

When you're talking millions of dollars that stands out. And, also, it's not just the loud voices in the audience but also others in the industry who will look at it and go "it probably needs X."

It's a lot of risk for a might.
 
Yes, ENT’s wordbuilding efforts were dismal. But that was UPN’s and Berman’s fault. I think if they had more time and different showrunners, ENT could have been more unique.

And prequels are by nature going to be influenced more by what came before than any real attempt to show what life was like before the show/movie to which they are trying to be a prequel. SNW is influenced far more by TNG than TOS.

Trek desperately needed a year or two off before starting work on Enterprise.
 
From the Berman era, TNG and DS9 are clearly the ones remembered as the best series, while Voyager and Enterprise are the ones that get most criticized for their creative choices. I can't help think that was largely because the former were syndicated while the latter were on UPN. I think the network really mucked about in those shows in a way that just undermined their central premises.
 
From the Berman era, TNG and DS9 are clearly the ones remembered as the best series, while Voyager and Enterprise are the ones that get most criticized for their creative choices. I can't help think that was largely because the former were syndicated while the latter were on UPN. I think the network really mucked about in those shows in a way that just undermined their central premises.

There’s no ‘I think’ about it. UPN absolutely micromanaged those shows. To their detriment, IMHO.
 
All it does for me is weaken the credibility of the person using them.

...so, in a way, it is helpful, in that it makes it easier for me to tell who I shouldn't engage with.
Yeah, just like people who refer to Chris Chibnal as "Chibbers" in the Doctor Who forum. I mean, seriously, grow the fuck up.

But tell me you're right, it makes very easy to tell who's opinions are worth taking seriously and whose aren't. Just like here.
 
Likewise, a story in which every character, including deliberately shady side-characters like Garak, are supposed to be flawless epitomes of virtues and idealism. But he's witty and engaging and adds spice and character to the proceedings -- as supporting characters should. He's not the hero, he's not the villain, but he keeps us guessing, which is good storytelling.

Casablanca is both a wonderful movie and a great example. It's a movie about flawed people, warts and all, in a high-pressure environment, faced with difficult choices. And much of its power comes from the way it keeps us guessing, right up to the end, which way each character will fall. Do you collaborate with the Nazis, or do you just keep your head down and try to stay out of trouble, or do you join the Resistance? How will far will Ilsa go to save Viktor? How far will Rick go to get her back, if he can even forgive her for breaking his heart years ago? Will the charmingly cynical Captain Renault (who gets soo many good lines) finally do the right thing in the end -- or is he too busy trying seduce other men's wives?

Can't imagine the movie would still be a classic (and highly recommended) if everybody -- including Peter Lorre and Claude Rains -- instinctively did the honorable thing right from the start.

Which to be clear does not mean the movie is just pure entertainment, devoid of idealism (although it is fabulously entertaining, packed with great characters and sparkling dialogue). To the contrary, it's very much a morality play about flesh-and-blood people facing crises of conscience.

"The human heart in conflict with itself," as Faulker famously put it.

(At the risk of getting all English-litty.)
However Casablanca is still a very idealistic movie because (I can't believe I'm putting in a spoiler alert for a classic 84-year-old movie!)
Most of the characters shift in the direction of acting more idealistically!
Rick lets them sing La Marseilles in his club, directs money to the young wife so she can buy visas from Renault instead of trading her body for them,
gives the Letters to Ilsa and Victor, and even sends Ilsa away with a fairy tale to make Victor feel okay about Rick and Ilsa sleeping together.
Renault doesn't nail Rick for Strasser's murder and goes with Rick to join the Free French.
Ilsa realizes abandoning Victor for Rick would be wrong and she accespts living with just the memory of Rick.
Strasser doesn't change his mind but ceases to be a force. (Yes, there were much nastier Nazis out there, but it's probably because he's in unoccupied France and it's politically necessary to treat the nominal government with some respect)
The other very immoral character, Ugarte, is also dead.
Even Sidney Greenstreet's character could have driven a much harder bargain for Rick's cafe, since Rick was forced to sell quickly
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top