Spoilers New Kirk series (SNW spoilers)
- Thread starter mattman8907
- Start date
I get what you're saying about how they're limiting themselves, but I wouldn't say this is a small universe situation when they're all Enterprise crewmembers. SNW is like season 14 of Star Trek: NCC-1701, and TOS is seasons 21-23. If you started watching TNG in season 7 and then went back to watch season 1, you'd still find a lot of the same people there, just at a lower rank and in different positions.
You're over complicating it. People like seeing characters they already like because they like them. If they see new characters they like they'll like them too.
No I'm not. It's just comfort level. People like comfort. Change is uncomfortable.
Stagnation is frustrating, people crave novelty. Lower Decks is the forum's favourite new Trek series.
Yet, it leans heavily into the lore with non-stop references to older shows.
Yeah, it absolutely tries to earn points by going "Hey remember this? Remember THIS?" But at the same time it's telling new stories with new characters. It just really likes to acknowledge the old ones.
And I enjoy that.
Haha. It's a gimmick, and offers a safe alternative. It's not threatening.
Yet people loose their shit.
Of course because people are not satisfied.Yet people loose their shit.
Isn't it better to have new things without threatening things people already love? I mean when it comes to creating new TV shows, not taking dramatic turns later in the story.
How does SNW "threaten" TOS? Yes, there's gonna be continuity issues and it's a pseudo reboot but no matter what happens in that show, it won't ruin anyone's enjoyment of classic TOS at all. It shouldn't damage it, short of painting Spock as a nonce or something.
I didn't mean to imply that it did!
What I was trying to say is that people aren't automatically against all new things, because new things aren't always threatening, and it's often better if they're not.
What I was trying to say is that people aren't automatically against all new things, because new things aren't always threatening, and it's often better if they're not.
I still don't understand how any new Trek series threatens the old. Lower Decks is considered safe because it is animated and gets put in a separate category.
I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, but I'll try to come up with a reply anyway.
Star Trek is an ongoing work of art, like a massive painting that multiple artists are invited to contribute to. And every time a new artist comes along there's always a risk that they'll start drawing metaphorical moustaches and equally metaphorical googly eyes on stuff that an artist drew 50 years ago. People will always have their photographs of the painting as it was, Paramount will never be able to take them away, but the ongoing painting has now been altered.
That's not the really threatening part about the new however. The real threat is a new creator who doesn't want to play along with the collaborative painting or doesn't understand the rules. Like I said, people still have their 'photos', their episodes of older shows, but every new series is a chance for someone to just throw a tin of white paint at the canvas and say "Let's do something new!"
For example, Doctor Who just got a huge unpleasant retcon that viewers just have to deal with now and I can tell you from experience that it doesn't feel good and it doesn't just affect the stories that come after it.
Star Trek is an ongoing work of art, like a massive painting that multiple artists are invited to contribute to. And every time a new artist comes along there's always a risk that they'll start drawing metaphorical moustaches and equally metaphorical googly eyes on stuff that an artist drew 50 years ago. People will always have their photographs of the painting as it was, Paramount will never be able to take them away, but the ongoing painting has now been altered.
That's not the really threatening part about the new however. The real threat is a new creator who doesn't want to play along with the collaborative painting or doesn't understand the rules. Like I said, people still have their 'photos', their episodes of older shows, but every new series is a chance for someone to just throw a tin of white paint at the canvas and say "Let's do something new!"
For example, Doctor Who just got a huge unpleasant retcon that viewers just have to deal with now and I can tell you from experience that it doesn't feel good and it doesn't just affect the stories that come after it.
Except, it's not. The art still exists to a degree that I can watch it safely without acknowledging the new parts of the painting at all. I can treat each section of Star Trek not as a continuous painting but as all within the same gallery, each with distinct wings of works. I could stay in the TOS wing and not be fussed by the TNG or SNW wing.
And that's a good thing. That's exactly what Roddenberry expected is that someone would come along and bring their own perspective on Star Trek. As much as it gets bandied about "IDIC" truly means being open to that new thing. Treating it as a threat and running immediately back to the familiar is, to my mind, a bit odd when we know that the original work will continue on.
That's why I get so frustrated at the overt overreliance on the safe and familiar. TNG even says that space is not for the timid, yet that's how fans treat it. Star Trek is this delicate precious flower that can endure the slightest negativity. It has to go back to Picard, to Kirk, to familiar eras, or connections with people who are safe. It can't be too dark, or gloomy, otherwise it doesn't fit in to the Star Trek box.
No doubt many will say "Fireproof, that's not what is meant. Anything new should be respectful of what came before!" To which I have to ask, imaginary questioner, what does respect mean? To me, TNG, TMP and TWOK were all completely disrespectful of TOS as Star Trek. It treated Kirk and Spock extremely poorly to my mind. So, does that mean that we discard those new things that I feel are disrespectful? Or, instead of fearing the new do we attempt to engage with it, discomfort and all?
I don't agree with Roddenberry on a lot of things. Like he thought Star Trek VI treated Starfleet too negatively and I really like that film! But I wouldn't say a dark and gloomy take on Star Trek is anything new. We've seen that, we've been there, it's been done. If people don't want darkness at this point, it's not because it's different, it's because they want something brighter and more fun. And no Section bloody 31.
And I'm sure people would do just fine with a Trek series without any familiar characters, just like how Marvel likes to alternate between pushing existing characters forward and introducing new ones. Familiar characters are a big selling point however, and Paramount wants to sell its shows, so that's what we keep getting. Fortunately it often works out well, because I'm not going to complain about getting more Patrick Stewart and Kate Mulgrew.
Personally if I was handed the keys to the franchise tomorrow, I'd make a series set 70 years after Picard, all about a crew we've never met, on a spaceship we've never seen, doing things. That's what I want. But I also want a Seven of Nine show, about the Fenris Rangers or whatever. They're pretty new and unfamiliar!
And I'm sure people would do just fine with a Trek series without any familiar characters, just like how Marvel likes to alternate between pushing existing characters forward and introducing new ones. Familiar characters are a big selling point however, and Paramount wants to sell its shows, so that's what we keep getting. Fortunately it often works out well, because I'm not going to complain about getting more Patrick Stewart and Kate Mulgrew.
Personally if I was handed the keys to the franchise tomorrow, I'd make a series set 70 years after Picard, all about a crew we've never met, on a spaceship we've never seen, doing things. That's what I want. But I also want a Seven of Nine show, about the Fenris Rangers or whatever. They're pretty new and unfamiliar!
The rest is fairly well put, even if I don't agree. On this point, though, I find a bit odd. Maybe because I don't see it the same way as you. I see people basically saying "Trek is not doom and gloom!" and I just don't agree. If they just want bright and fun that's fine. That makes sense. But, the statements are more definitive of what Trek is and isn't, and that I disagree with.
See, I would do the first. I would discard anything connected to prior characters, aside from historical mentions. Beyond that, move forward not look backwards. I don't want Seven, I don't want Janeway, Picard or Q. At this point, it's clear that having legacy characters is a burden than an asset. I was excited for Pike and Spock; I'm less so with each character announced.
Be careful what you wish for, you saw what they did to the TOS version of the ship!
Oh yeah, because they totally butchered the TOS ship!
In all honesty, the 60's version of the Constitution-class may look awesome to Trekkies, but to a casual audience it is EXTREMELY dated. And even if certain tweaks were necessary to keep the refit Enterprise up to date, they wouldn't need to do as much work as they did with the TOS ship. The leap from 60's TV effects to 70's movie effects was HUGE, and if Star Wars can keep its Millennium Falcon relatively unchanged for forty years, I don't see why the TMP ship should need much of an update.
The biggest sign that the ship will remain almost unchanged is the short trek "Ephraim and Dot", where the Discovery Enterprise is featured next to a refit TMP-era Enterprise, with no changes to the latter (except the registry number madness, LOL).
