Just Started SNW RE: Uhura
- Thread starter Gary777
- Start date
And I find fans who post on a Trek bulletin board who try to imply Trek continuity and canon has been nearly 100% consistent - except for the latest incarnation; or hold certain things as absolute when the entire Trek franchise has been CHOCK FULL of various retcons, revisions, and flat out changes starting with the first Star Trek pilot back in 1965 on to just be delusional WRT Trek canon in general.
We all have aspects of the franchise that we as fans love and sometimes cling to, and we get upset when one of chose aspects is changed/retconned; but it's either all in the same shared Universe ( Prime, Kelvin, Mirror, etc.), or it isn't - but when the people who control the franchise say it is, it is.
You're free to believe/claim different, but don't be surprised when others call you out in that stance when the people producing the content say it is all one large shared universe.
I mention it's a TV show to point out the reality that a show produced for an audience in the 2020's, isn't going to look, act, or sound much like a show made for 60's audiences, regardless of continuity.
@Noname Given said it far better than I ever could.
@Noname Given said it far better than I ever could.
Last edited:
There's a difference between choosing to interpret a fictional universe in a different way than other people do, and being berated by those same other people by being told 'It's just a TV show.' It's a stupid and superfluous response, and I'm sure you get the irony.
Except evilchumlee isn't saying Trek has always been consistent, they're just pointing out the creators have said it will mostly line up with TOS by the time the show ends.
Like Spock and Chapel won't be in a relationship, Pike will still have his accident etc.
People here are jumping on them for just pointing that out.
And I'm sure they'll have a "refit" in the final episode and it'll end looking exactly like TOS. James Cawley has even said ages ago he was asked if he'd be okay with CBS potentially filming on his sets one day but never heard more. It'll be one quick last shot, like the end of Star Trek IV.
It's an accurate response because in the end, it's just made first and foremost as entertainment. Always has been.
Yes, it does the occasional morality play, or makes an occasional social/societal
statement; but its main purpose is always to entertain.
Again, Star Trek and the resulting franchise has been that way from day one, regardless of what some segments of fandom or some politically aligned people would like you to believe.
The comment (IMO) cuts to the chase when the person being responded to gets overly pedantic about Trek.
Yeah in broad strokes. It's not gonna suddenly look like TOS and Chapel won't be the piece of cardboard she was in TOS,
We don't even know if that was for SNW.
Maybe CBS wanted to shoot a documentary or something.
Not accurate at all. The people saying it's just a tv show do not think that at all. Otherwise they wouldn't be wasting their time here.
You mean like every Star Trek fan ever?
...that was literally my argument that I seem to be getting ridiculed for.
Paramount says the characters in SNW are the same characters they will be in TOS.
I'm not sure why that's drawing such ire from people? I'm sorry?
You're kidding right? This BBS in and of itself is a form of entertainment, and I don't take anything posted on it too seriously. It's fun to talk about certain aspects of a TV show I like with 'like minded' folks.
For me, this area of the TrekBBS becomes way less entertaining when people start talking Star Trek too seriously. YMMV of course.
Maybe that's all the Star Trek fans in your circle. But in my experience, not every Star Trek fan is overly pedandatic about Trek.
Because that doesn't seem to be the point you're making in the end:
Indeed, yes. The strict literalist interpretation rather than allowing for any sort of alterations. Yes, SNW and TOS are connected. No, they will not look literally the same. The broad strokes matter more than the fabric color, or pylon angle.
So you don't take things too seriously...except for when you feel the need to berate me and others for thinking that SNW takes place in a different continuity than the prime timeline, even going so far as to bring that up in a conversation that had nothing to do with it. Then you're serious.
Maybe you should think before you post then. Because I'm not the one being pedantic here.
Because that doesn't seem to be the point you're making in the end:
I don't follow. I quite literally said that since Paramount says it is, it is.
I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.
My point is and always has been... Paramount says x is Star Trek, then x is Star Trek... there are things that should just be their own setting and not connected to the other things... but they aren't, because Paramount says so.
Except for a different section on this BBS, (And even there nothing said is going to change anything in the world, ot's all just people blowing off steam); I don't take anything I or others post all that seriously, including jabs I take at others, or jabs that others make.
If you do, that's on you.
Then feel free to not bother to reply to my posts if you don't take what I say seriously.
Nah. I'll reply if I feel like it, thanks. It's entertaining.
