It did distract them in the 23rd century. That's why it became less intrusive in the 24th.
Star Trek Canon Problems
- Thread starter Jmal234
- Start date
This is why I love TrekbbsIt did distract them in the 23rd century. That's why it became less intrusive in the 24th.
I hate to be THAT person, but I go by what I've said before. Take some random person off the street, show them a TOS episode, an SNW episode, and Kelvin movie and they'll say it's three different versions of Trek, not two. That's the way it would be with any other franchise.
Well of course they would say that. Each production are years apart from each other, and each has it own visual style. But the official line is that TOS and SNW take place in the same universe, the Kelvin films take place in a different one.
They'd say it's Star Trek. Most people on the street don't give a shit about different versions or timelines.
"That's Star Trek."
I’ve been a Star Trek fan since I was a child and I know the franchise like the back of my hand … and even I would say it’s three different versions of Trek. I have, however, no trouble reconciling them in my mind as taking place in basically the same world.
Or they might say, "Isn't this Star Wars or Marvel?"
I reconcile it too, just in a different way. The Temporal War.
That's what that one SNW episode seems to suggest.
Pretty much. The details are not as important as the draw in.
Amazing, anarchic times in 2009 when a few were spitting blood and insisting TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY had all been erased by Nero and Spock
And this gets to the rub of my problem with all of the people indignant that some would criticize these prequel series, where the people in charge are insistent it exists within the same narrative universe with other Star Trek, uses the same elements and characters from previous works, and claims the legacy of the franchise, BUT changes fundamental aspects of that universe.
My biggest problem with those that defend these alterations and try to convince everyone these are distinctions without a difference whenever anyone disagree is that they either claim the alterations don’t change anything and aren’t meaningful, but out of the other side of their mouth then will say well of course they had to change it for “modern audiences,” (which is an inherent contradiction, since you wouldn’t need to change anything if there’s no diff with the original). And I’m not talking about set design or uniforms. But story elements of significant characters (e.g., Khan). Or they gaslight people by saying that story changes that fundamentally alter the nature of past elements don’t really change anything even when the writers openly explain why they wanted to change things to make it different. But, again, the same apologists, out of the other side of their mouth, defend the need for the writers and producers to be able to create their own vision that can change things.
But gods forbid you suggest these shows might exist in their own separate narrative. That’s just so “insulting” for some reason, even though the show itself wants to create its own unique interpretation of Star Trek.
The very situation of insisting it’s all within the Prime Univese invites critiques on how well those changes fit within the larger narrative beyond the current series. But people will act like that’s not fair, when the very nature and dynamic they’ve created sets up a comparison between the two. If you’re going to use legacy characters, with legacy elements, and create your own “interpretation” where the showrunner explains that he wanted to do something different with those aspects while INSISTING it all exists together as a coherent narrative, why is it uncouth for people to criticize how well those choices work in comparison to the original? Why are we beholden to accept those changes just because the current showrunners say so?
George Lucas spent a decade rejiggering “A New Hope” trying to convince Star Wars fans that Han didn’t shoot first, and those fans overwhelmingly said it was bullshit since it changed the very nature of the Han Solo character. And Lucasfilm could have their own view of the character and the moment, but fans weren’t beholden to that interpretation. Art can be interpreted by the viewer however they like. And it’s the reason the shitty iteration of the Klingons from Discovery season 1 were ultimately changed, because the fans told those in charge it was crap they didn’t accept as a good alteration.
Last edited:
I remember being a kid and getting Star Wars toys from aunts and uncles for my birthday.
"Isn't that what he likes?"
My Mother: "He's a Trekkie."
"Same thing."
Who said that? O_o
The only "insult" I see bandied about is that Paramount is insulting the audience.
I sleep in the morning.
It's been my stance since 2017, but I had to be low-key about it. I didn't want to be pigeonholed as a "hater", especially since I actually like DSC better than TOS.
What fundamental changes have been made? Name one absolutely fundamental pillar of Star Trek that has been changed.
We don't have to convince anyon. It's the official word from those who own the franchise. Those saying different are simply screaming into tbe void.
Again.....what significant changes? TNG changed the date of the Eugenics Wars over 30 years ago. SNW is simply following the canon. Which is oh so very very important.
Well, I can't speak for @Cr0sis21 but such an odd thought to be insulted over a TV show.
Similar threads
