NO! WARP TEN SALAMANDERS FORVEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I preferred the Prime timeline.
- Thread starter Trekkie27
- Start date
Seven acting human in the trailer is an affront to her character. Everyone knows VOYAGER characters don't change ever!! They stay exactly the same and I'm sure Harry is still an ensign.
According to what everyone tells me, it is a one statement system: what CBS says it is, it is and there can be no deviation.
That's because many people go around declaring things non-canon like it's fact, often in an aggressive way. If you want to say "this isn't part of my headcanon" that's your business. You just can't tell other people they're wrong when they go with the actual canon instead of whatever you prefer.
I'll just say what I've said from the beginning: Discovery doesn't work as a prequel to TOS, so I treat it as an alternate timeline.
Personally, I think certain parts of fandom need to trek less seriously and treat it more like a tv series and less like it's a religion or real world history. The rigidity that some people treat the franchise with has always been something I can't identify with. Like it seriously boggles my mind as to how people can get angry about two series made 50 years apart not looking identical or how there have to be these convoluted explanation for differences in the way things look. Why can't 'it's just a tv show' satisfy some people?
Well, based on my predictions for who runs the Trek franchise in 2073, I decree the following episodes and movies non-canon:
I'm perfectly fine with in medias res as long as they fill in the missing gap and make the transition integral to the story. I understand she's not the lead but she has a long-term arc and you can't just skip ahead on it and not look back without insulting everyone who was invested in seeing her gradually change. It's like meeting your adopted child decades later and her refusing to tell you anything about her life.
There's no middle of the plot with Seven there, it's just 20 years later. Did you need a rundown of Kirk's life from captain in TOS to admiral in the movie?
Would this really shock anyone? Anyone?
Last edited:
That's a hell of a lot of filler material simply to explain the obvious.
She's twenty years older and she's spent a lot of time away from the collective. She's wiser and she's learnt about social interaction.
To be honest I'd be more inclined to want an explanation if she hadn't.
Last edited:
Which she is perfectly entitled to do
and in accords with Discomandate, I now agree with you 25%
I don't think you know a thing at all about storytelling. The entire plot of TMP and Khan revolved around Kirk's transition to middle-age. Same with Spock. Like in TMP, having Spock act out of character, having people greet him and him acting overly cold. All that was in fact explained in TMP. You don't merely present characters as they are. You show why it is they are where they are. You just don't leave a yawning gap and rely on the audience bridging the gap with footnotes and assumptions. That's not storytelling. Story is not the destination. It's the journey. But no, we can't have that, because we're too ADD.
I’ve never been angry about it, just treat it as an alternate timeline.
I don't think you know a thing at all about storytelling, to quote someone. Perhaps they did not teach it in your film school.
The entire plot of TMP and Khan does not revolve around Kirk's transition to middle age. It is certainly a component of the plot. One might even go so far as to say it is a sub plot. But it is NOT the plot. But since you ARE a film school person, then of course you understand what you've basically stated, those moments of backstory come from Spock's actions, from Shatner's acting, etc. Context and subtext. Certain fans will want 5 minutes of exposition. People who want good storytelling do not. It's a crutch. It only works in snippets or when, like Lucas, you can get away with a big rolling text prologue because you've managed to relate it to old low-quality prewar serials and have pulled one of the best billiard shots in movie making: turning bad storytelling into a desired and expected tradition.
Not every story requires the same approach..
And also like this story isn't about Seven and stuff, like? She's not our Hamlet, here. She's Rosencrantz. Wanna a know more about her? Call Tom Stoppard.
But in the real world there's rarely a single reason for someone being "the way they are", especially when twenty years have passed. People are an accumulation of thousands upon thousands of experiences and there's neither the time nor the necessity to explore them all.
Where you are talking here about storytelling, you are talking about a model of storytelling, a formula. That formula doesn't always make sense, especially if it forces characters and writers into contrivances where single events define someone in conveniently explained ways simply to avoid the trap of having them simply be wrinklier versions of who they were decades prior. That's not how the real world works and there's no reason it must be how TV works.
Seven is who she is, we'll probably get some of that filler material anyway, but not an entire run down of every meaningful event in the past twenty years, any more than we will for Picard or for Data. Just the odd salient bit.
How well defined are the characters in Pulp Fiction?
How did they become who they are?
Must be a shit film.
We know more about Butch's watch than we do about Jules and Vincent. And that's a good thing.
heck.. they ought to teach people bout that movie.. in film school.
Similar threads
