Prime and Kelvin are all that matter, I'll agree on that.
Does canon really matter?
- Thread starter Spot261
- Start date
Prime and Kelvin are all that matter, I'll agree on that.
No. Not a whit.
Jeepers, Mr. Kent. What does it matter if a new story contradicts an old one? Your Doritos will be just as crisp, and your as yet unborn children will not be deformed by an imaginary wiggle in an imaginary timeline.
It's all just fiction. Not real. Use your imagination and either sign on or don't. But for crying out loud, it's not the end of the world if they tell a new story that doesn't fit with an old one.
But the studio says it is "Star Trek", every bit as much canon as anything else with the name. Surely you are going to respect the studios wishes on the matter?!?
Thinking is discouraged.
"You are also right"Except it isn't. It just looks different for production reasons.
Context and authorial intent are important. Not matter of discouraged thinking, but having all the facts.
How dramatic. There's no thought police preventing you from over-thinking things.
Eh. Years ago, maybe. But now Paramount and CBS have different rights. I think of CBS as more of the "legit" Trek, and since Paramount isn't making any more TOS or TNG movies, all they have (and can work with) is this Kelvin Trek.
Really? More dramatic than someone saying they are going to require migrane medication because someone doesn't see things the same way as they do?
But, for the record, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes it doesn't translate well to a post. My apologies.
Would the introduction of an appropriate emoji help?
Maybe. It was my mistake.
Which is fine. How you see things shouldn't hamper anyone elses enjoyment of something. We might disagree. But disagreeing can lead to fun discussions.
It definitely shouldn't give any one migranes.
This one's my favourite
it can communicate so many things dependent on context and commonly opens up a welter of alternative meanings
This one's my favourite
it can communicate so many things dependent on context and commonly opens up a welter of alternative meanings
No, I'm serious. It was my mistake. Sometimes I'll use an emoji, sometimes I won't, sometimes I simply forget. I was sloppily riffing on "The Cage" when I made the remark and thought others would pick up on it. One person did. Others didn't
No harm, no foul.
Which is fine. How you see things shouldn't hamper anyone elses enjoyment of something. We might disagree. But disagreeing can lead to fun discussions.
It definitely shouldn't give any one migranes.
Being that I do a podcast, I get views from a lot of people. Ever since DSC was announced, it's been split almost 50/50. People don't like change, no matter what the reason. Some people still want the plywood sets, some people don't understand that actors age and they want to move their careers and put characters away. I personally feel that for Trek to live on, it must evolve.
Like V'Ger.
Folks even have different ideas on how it must evolve. I'm firmly in the pro-reboot camp. That Trek needs to start over, embrace what works and dismiss what doesn't to the dustbin of history.
Surely if we are getting to the point where that needs explaining there's not a lot of mileage in the dialogue?
Similar threads
