Looking at Picard season 2, where
Guinan didn't know Picard because since the future had changed, the past of "Time's Arrow" had too
Also, IRL it's a reboot and all that was a handwave.
I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
- Status
Also, IRL it's a reboot and all that was a handwave.
Nope, because some of those earlier events were shaped by time travel. For instance, the events of First Contact lead to the Enterprise episode Regeneration. If First Contact doesn’t happen that way, nor does Regeneration.
Plus season 3 of Disco tied to the Kelvinverse in one scene.
Neither of these really matter at all.
It matters to some people. And besides, Trek wasn't solely about mindless entertainment.
If you're going to create a rich and diverse universe with established history etc., what's the point of making shows that constantly stomp on what came before?
If you want a clean slate, do a new universe/timeline like nuTrek did. Or, you can permanently erase the Prime Timeline and start from scratch (but it seems to be persisting).
No they don't, in relation to other elements.
That's right, it's also about character drama.
Canon and Timelines are being used as Smoke and Mirrors to avoid answering the actual question: "Do you like what you're watching or not? Yes or No?" "Yeah, but..." But enough. YES or NO.
"It doesn't adhere to canon!" is a cover for "I just don't like it!" I've been on the other side. I know what they're thinking. How they feel about about DSC is how I felt about ENT 20 years ago. So whatever they say doesn't work on me. I know better. Other people may only think this is the case, but I actually know it first-hand.
If you want to find a way to explain things away, you will. If you don't, you won't and will actively resist any attempt to. It's a form of stone-walling.
"It doesn't adhere to canon!" is a cover for "I just don't like it!" I've been on the other side. I know what they're thinking. How they feel about about DSC is how I felt about ENT 20 years ago. So whatever they say doesn't work on me. I know better. Other people may only think this is the case, but I actually know it first-hand.
If you want to find a way to explain things away, you will. If you don't, you won't and will actively resist any attempt to. It's a form of stone-walling.
Last edited:
So they can't not like it BECAUSE it contradicts canon?
I can only speak for myself, and the reason I stopped watching (about 2/3 episodes in to s2) was because I didn't like literally one character, and simply didn't enjoy the show. Same went for Picard.
Each to their own though, if others did and still do enjoy, good stuff.
ps. only looked in this thread because I saw it on the main board page, in case you wondered why I posted in here when I don't watch it
Each to their own though, if others did and still do enjoy, good stuff.
ps. only looked in this thread because I saw it on the main board page, in case you wondered why I posted in here when I don't watch it
I didn't like the Picard character in Picard. /s
I dd like him in TNG
I dd like him in TNG
If they prefer canon over entertainment, then they were never truly looking for entertainment to begin with. Star Trek is fiction and they'll keep banging their heads against the wall because they'd rather see it treated like it was non-fiction.
In the olden days, Holy Wars erupted over Canon in religion. The leaders waging those wars weren't fighting in the name of God, no matter how they tried to make it sound. They were fighting to gain land, to gain power. God was used as a front to make it sound better to their followers. At a more base level: As omnivores, most people have a dual nature: they want to be herbivores but shift to carnivores in a fight for survival. Kill or be killed. A fight for "true" versus "false" where what's "false" can't survive, because "false" is threatening the existence of what's "true".
Last edited:
That's a false dichotomy. Other people are entertained by different things than you.
In 26 years online, I've never seen enjoyment or joy in general in the posts of those complaining about canonicity. It's the reason I had to distance myself from them in the first place. Making Star Trek fit neatly into a perceived box isn't looking for entertainment, it's looking for order.
I've never seen someone say, "I love this episode because it follows canon in every detail!" I have seen, "I love that this story builds on existing canon!" But then it's usually followed by "This is the tale they were able to craft!" and then they go into other reasons for why they like it: the plot, the characterization, the acting, the direction. Canon is only one part. Canonistas treat that one part like it's the whole thing. I like world-building. I like stories that result from world-building. But sometimes in world-building, you have to look at what works and what doesn't, and make a choice.
You also don't hear news stories about all the planes that don't crash. Don't let the extremely weighted sampling provided by internet commentary convince you there aren't oodles of people loving when shows come together in a clever, elaborate neat package.
Lo, when TAS was first on, many moons ago, the Fans hated it.
Then, when Star Trek became a Motion Picture, the Fans did hate it.
Then the fans hated TNG, at first at least, for later they liked it, which made the Fans uncomfortable.
Later the Fans, so perturbed at having come to like TNG, hated DS9. For the station never went anywhere and the Utopia of Gene was weekly desecrated.
'Hark!' Paramount said, 'The fans liked TNG. 'Let's make another show like that! The Fans will like that!'
So, it was. The show was called 'Voyager'.
And lo, the Fans hated it.
The Fans hated for Enterprise, for it's breaking of the Sacred Canon.
Then the Fans hated the Kelvin Movies, fornotkindofsortofactuallymaybenotmaybebreaking the Canon even more or less and Pew Pew Pew Lens Flare.
'Hear This!' said Paramount. 'Star Trek will come back to television and the timeline will be the Primeline!'
The Fans were pleased.
But then later the Fans were not pleased at all.
The new show was called Discovery and the Fans hated it.
But somehow hating it made the Fans more pleased than ever... because hating Star trek is the status quo of the Fans.
So it was, so it is and so it will ever be.
Then, when Star Trek became a Motion Picture, the Fans did hate it.
Then the fans hated TNG, at first at least, for later they liked it, which made the Fans uncomfortable.
Later the Fans, so perturbed at having come to like TNG, hated DS9. For the station never went anywhere and the Utopia of Gene was weekly desecrated.
'Hark!' Paramount said, 'The fans liked TNG. 'Let's make another show like that! The Fans will like that!'
So, it was. The show was called 'Voyager'.
And lo, the Fans hated it.
The Fans hated for Enterprise, for it's breaking of the Sacred Canon.
Then the Fans hated the Kelvin Movies, fornotkindofsortofactuallymaybenotmaybebreaking the Canon even more or less and Pew Pew Pew Lens Flare.
'Hear This!' said Paramount. 'Star Trek will come back to television and the timeline will be the Primeline!'
The Fans were pleased.
But then later the Fans were not pleased at all.
The new show was called Discovery and the Fans hated it.
But somehow hating it made the Fans more pleased than ever... because hating Star trek is the status quo of the Fans.
So it was, so it is and so it will ever be.
^I think Berman era Trek being relatively conservative and safe (ie. Ensign Hawk, Seven Of Nine, and Garrack being closet gay characters, etc) had a role in appealling to a broader spectrum of people, but when it became more open with social messages and more inclusive it got a bit abrasive at best to sheltered middle conservatives (and absolutely infuriating at worst with the more actual Nazi-esque types who may have had something break in their brains with Pres. Obama).
Last edited:
It would appear that at least with the more vocal fans this is the case.
Hating is much, much, easier. To quote Gorkon, "We have a long way to go."
"Haters gonna hate!". And designating every criticism as "hate" is much, much easier than facing it.
Does DIS still get a lot of negative reactions? Sure. But it also gets a lot of positive reactions. And in both groups there are people that give good(/honest)* reasons for it and in both groups there are people that don't.
* Here, the term "good reason" does not necessarily mean that it is convincing to others or even true, only that it conveys why this one person (dis-)likes it.
You can't learn anything from designating negative critique as hate. So, why doing it? There is something Lord Garth wrote that applies here, too:
So, it is a narrative to strengthen the own fellowship with a belief and discredit the others(/disbelievers**) - basically the same what the haters do.
** No word pun intended (here it would be DISbelievers vs. (DIS-)disbelievers)
Now, both, show-hate and the critique-hate, is a meander(/bad path) that any one of us is easy to fall for at times. Most of us will have been tempted at times by expressing critique-hate or show-hate instead of giving actual reasons. So, I think the best way is to focus on giving actual reasons for liking/disliking the show to get a better understanding of each other instead of tightening a divide by following the meander.
Live long and prosper with IDIC.
Fair point, though I would say that when the criticism boils down to "I just don't like it." then I'll be more skeptical as to the source..
There are a lot of people who don't like Discovery for legitimate reasons. Those are not the ones I file under "haters." The ones who repeatedly state that they don't like the show and keep coming back to watch will fall closer to that camp for me.
I would love to understand it more. But, unfortunately, I start to loose my way when I'm like "Isn't that what Trek did in the past?" That's where I get lost.
- Status
Similar threads
