Exactly! I think of the reasons fan service bothers me to such a degree is that it strives very hard to exclude people. I know that's not the intention of it but it sadly can feel very off-putting.
Paramount apparently still doesn't get it...
- Thread starter IRW Bloodwing
- Start date
No. Reasonable people understand the idea of suspension of disbelief and allowing for aesthetic differences from a franchise that's almost old enough to retire and collect a pension. People accept visual reboots as still being in the same continuity all the time in other franchises.
I don't see the Academy show doing more than 2 seasons.
Agreed, but with one big caveat:
Tolkien was only ONE creator. It's much easier to create a coherent backstory if you're the only writer on the project & only need your own story to be straight.
It's entirely different if you have to manage a full room of writers churning out new episodes weekly, to keep their backstories all aligned.
Most of the references in modern Trek make more sense if you read them as only vaguely connected: Section 31 for example in "Into Darkness" and DSC doesn't really match up with S31 on DS9 & ENT, except for the name & profession (shady spy stuff).
I think we just have to live with that - when TNG aired, they just had to align with TOS. Any new series now has to align with 1000+ hours & 60 years of previous backstory. Some creative interpretation might just be necessary at this point.
If you want to write books, be Tolkien.
He did not take the world by storm, you know. If getting his work into the hands of a mass audience had required investing large fortunes and had to pay off within a few years, he'd have bankrupted everyone involved.
His approach has fuck-all to do with launching and managing multimillion dollar TV and movie productions. It is not "better" in that context; it's unworkable and irrelevant.
He did not take the world by storm, you know. If getting his work into the hands of a mass audience had required investing large fortunes and had to pay off within a few years, he'd have bankrupted everyone involved.
His approach has fuck-all to do with launching and managing multimillion dollar TV and movie productions. It is not "better" in that context; it's unworkable and irrelevant.
And again, I said that it wasn’t about cloning a show from the ‘60’s. It was about making a show that takes place in the same universe and time period that that ‘60’s show took place in, but making the show look absolutely nothing like the previous show. They literally could have said that DSC takes place in the year 2310 instead of 2250 and nobody would have been the wiser.
Calm down, Nostradamus.
We don't know a single thing about it, other than that it's happening.
Edit - and even knowing a Star Trek thing is happening is no indication that it's actually going to happen. For reference, see Kelvin 4 or Section 31.
Smallville was HATED by the superhero fanbase. Constant stream of everything was wrong, people didn't like the changes made to the character backstories and ages etc.
It lasted ten years.
It lasted ten years.
And many of those complaints depended on when exactly a given viewer started reading SUPERMAN comics. Younger fans complained that SMALLVILLE had "violated canon" by establishing that Clark and Lex were friends in their youth, back in Smallville, despite the fact that this was established Superman lore up until 1986 or so.
I remember being told indignantly: "All that old Silver Age stuff doesn't count anymore! Only the modern comics are canon!"
See, for comparison, some Trek fans privileging the TNG-era stuff over what came before or after.
"The stuff I grew up on is the only real version!"
Last edited:
I’ll hold off making any judgement about the longevity of the show at all at least until the time when I know who is going to be in it…
This place, sometimes. Seriously.
This place, sometimes. Seriously.
Just giving my prediction really early.
/thread.
The main problem with all of this is that the producers and studio want to have their cake and eat it too.
People think creators should have flexibility to go in different directions and re-conceptualize Star Trek? Fine.
But if you don't want fan complaints about how stuff doesn't look or feel right, there's an easy fix. Be honest with the fanbase and tell them that continuity is flexible. Do something like EON with the James Bond universe, or Arthur C. Clarke with the "2001" novels and movies. Just say that each property is a story using the elements of Star Trek as a foundation, and don't sweat trying to make it all fit together with everything else because it's not meant to fit within a continuity.
But they don't want to do that because they know a significant chunk of fans do not want that. So, instead, they insisted that all of Discovery fits together within the "Prime" universe, even when some of it was like shoving a square peg into a round hole to make it fit. I mean some here might be right in believing that some fans take this too far, and go overboard with making sure that a panel looks exactly the same. But Paramount and CBS have played a part in this too with making the choices they decided to go with that went over like a lead balloon, while telling their fanbase something that wasn't exactly true.
People think creators should have flexibility to go in different directions and re-conceptualize Star Trek? Fine.
But if you don't want fan complaints about how stuff doesn't look or feel right, there's an easy fix. Be honest with the fanbase and tell them that continuity is flexible. Do something like EON with the James Bond universe, or Arthur C. Clarke with the "2001" novels and movies. Just say that each property is a story using the elements of Star Trek as a foundation, and don't sweat trying to make it all fit together with everything else because it's not meant to fit within a continuity.
But they don't want to do that because they know a significant chunk of fans do not want that. So, instead, they insisted that all of Discovery fits together within the "Prime" universe, even when some of it was like shoving a square peg into a round hole to make it fit. I mean some here might be right in believing that some fans take this too far, and go overboard with making sure that a panel looks exactly the same. But Paramount and CBS have played a part in this too with making the choices they decided to go with that went over like a lead balloon, while telling their fanbase something that wasn't exactly true.
I'm glad my comics reading spanned decades. Especially at the beginning, when older stuff could be found via reprints in Annuals, Giants and the like.
People say this but I'm always left wondering if things are so different? Why is this is just different versions or tellings of events in universe?
Last edited:
No. Paramount has no obligation to cater to the obsessive fixations of anal-retentive "fans" with tunnel vision.
I’ve never been that enamoured by the idea of a Starfleet Academy series. But I actually think it’s a prudent move. While everyone is excited about all the “Legacy” stuff, and old characters are Easter eggs galore, it’s still important for a franchise to expand in new ways and to try new things. If they get some really good, charismatic young actors and manage to make this show appeal to both fans and be accessible to newcomers, it could be a hit. It could bring new fans to Star Trek. That’s what a franchise needs. Contrary to what most fans probably think, it’s really not all about fan service; that has its place but in overdrive leads to entropy and alienates a more general audience.
There's nothing untrue about anything.
It's set in the prime universe. The end.
If someone can't wrap their head around production values and personal choices of a showrunner changing from year to year, that's the problem with the expectations of the fan. Paramount/CBS have zero to do with that.
One thing I think might make it more interesting, and I mentioned this in the zoom session on Saturday.
Have 1 or 2 Academy cadet characters not be young, but in their middle years, like 30s or 40s. It's never been established that you have to be young to attend Starfleet Academy. It might be interesting to see someone from an older, perhaps wiser perspective about life and starting a Starfleet career.
Have 1 or 2 Academy cadet characters not be young, but in their middle years, like 30s or 40s. It's never been established that you have to be young to attend Starfleet Academy. It might be interesting to see someone from an older, perhaps wiser perspective about life and starting a Starfleet career.
Similar threads
