Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x10 - "A Quality of Mercy"

[Nerys Myk]

Oh definitely. But I do kinda expect it to be "self-consistently changing" while under Goldsman. It is just that watching Star Trek all these years I don't recall any other producer being so forthright about changing things around.

I like the story that Berman would place a blindfold over the eyes of the bust of GR in his office when ever he strayed from "Gene's Vision".

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I genuinely don't understand why people who don't give a damn about "canon" or continuity or even internal story logic feel the need to inject that view into discussions on those topics. If internal contradictions like the one that got this discussion going don't bother you, bully for you! Why not just leave that kind of conversation to the people who are actually interested in discussing such things? You're not going to convince anyone that the way they enjoy fiction is wrong, for heaven's sake, nor that real-world explanations are a substitute for in-story explanations.

Because it's a public forum. Why is it OK for someone who does care about canon to discuss it but not someone who doesn't care less about it?

Also, no one is telling others how to enjoy fiction just stating what their take on it is. Care about canon... great. I don't. That's also great.

 

[Dukhat]

Because it's a public forum. Why is it OK for someone who does care about canon to discuss it but not someone who doesn't care less about it?

Also, no one is telling others how to enjoy fiction just stating what they're take on it is. Care about canon... great. I don't. That's also great.

Really? Then how come when I say that I think DSC and SNW are reboots, the usual suspects chime in to constantly tell me that I’m wrong because ‘CBS says so’? That’s someone telling someone else how to enjoy their fiction.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Really? Then how come when I say that I think DSC and SNW are reboots, the usual suspects chime in to constantly tell me that I’m wrong because ‘CBS says so’? That’s someone telling someone else how to enjoy their fiction.

Nah, that's just pointing out the facts.

 

[TRON JA307020]

So long as it's in the service of telling a good story, I don't give a rat's ass about anything matching up to "canon" or some fictitious timeline.

If Kirk becomes Pike's Number One in season two, then so be it. Decker to Pike's Kirk. Sounds fun.

Won't happen. It would totally break canon. Way too much of a change. Nope.

 

[Dukhat]

Nah, that's just pointing out the facts.

Which is still telling me how I should enjoy my fiction. Because what if I don’t give a rat’s ass about the ‘facts’ of a fictional tv show or the opinion of a usual suspect who feels the anal-retentive need to tell me how I should think?

 

[Mudd]

Nah, that's just pointing out the facts.

Exactly so.

Fannish declarations about whether a show is part of the studio-declared continuity of one timeline or another have nothing to do with "enjoying fiction" - they're just attempts at gatekeeping with respect to a matter over which the audience can assert no standing. Because the only impact the supposed existence of "canon" or these so-called "universes" has on the Star Trek episodes and movies being produced now or in the future is through what the owners of the IP assert that they accept or don't.

Yeah, studio mandates are gatekeeping too, aren't they? The difference is, they matter even to those who don't give a fuck about canon but do like to watch Trek. They have some influence on what gets made and what doesn't.

 

[Dukhat]

Exactly so.

Fannish declarations about whether a show is part of the studio-declared continuity of one timeline or another have nothing to do with "enjoying fiction" - they're just attempts at gatekeeping with respect to a matter over which the audience can assert no standing. Because the only impact the supposed existence of "canon" or these so-called "universes" has on the Star Trek episodes and movies being produced now or in the future is through what the owners of the IP assert that they accept or don't.

Yeah, studio mandates are gatekeeping too, aren't they? The difference is, they matter even to those who don't give a fuck about canon but do like to watch Trek. They have some influence on what gets made and what doesn't.

Or one could just enjoy the fiction their way, someone else can enjoy it their way, and neither person has to act like a condescending jerk to the other.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Which is still telling me how I should enjoy my fiction. Because what if I don’t give a rat’s ass about the ‘facts’ or the opinion of a usual suspect who feels the anal-retentive need to tell me how I should think?

Your choice. But ignore facts is rarely a good look.
Frankly is it any better than coming into a thread with announcing "I THINK THIS IS A REBOOT!!!!: FIE ON CBS!!!!" ad infinitum?

 

[Dukhat]

Your choice. But ignore facts is rarely a good look.
Frankly is it any better than coming into a thread with announcing "I THINK THIS IS A REBOOT!!!!: FIE ON CBS!!!!" ad infinitum?

The only ‘fact’ is that Star Trek is fictitious.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The only ‘fact’ is that Star Trek is fictitious.

Nah, there many facts about the Star Trek franchise. Hundreds even. Perhaps thousands. After all it's long running entertainment property going back to the middle of the last century. Heck there's a web site called "Fact Check" that actually tries to separate the rumors, innuendo and myths from the facts. And none it involves canon. There are memos, memoirs, photos and legal documents detailing the facts involved with the production of Star Trek.

 

[GNDN18]

If I believe the Book of Tobit is divinely inspired, the I'm a Catholic. It's canonical.

If I don't, then I'm a Protestant.

The text doesn't change in either event; the only difference is the church I'm affiliated with.

 

[Weyoun 251]

The only ‘fact’ is that Star Trek is fictitious.

Regardless of your experience -as I can't speak to the interactions you've had with people and how dismissive or otherwise they have been - I think most of the Prime Timeline people are pushing back against the "CBS are lying and it can't be the same timeline because *insert spurious reason".

If you enjoy it as a reboot/adjacent timeline then you do you and I'm glad you enjoy it that way. So long as you aren't rude about it then no one should bother you - not implying you are by the way.

I don't think those with your opinion or those standing by CBS statements are trying to police the fandom, it seems to me to be the "how can't the sheeple see that the nav console being 2 inches longer makes this a new universe" types (exaggerated for effect of course - it is 6 inches longer and GR is spinning in his grave) who seem to cause the rift.

For me, I've loved all of new Trek - give or take an episode - 90% of Mid Trek (some of VOY and TNG bringing it down) and 60% of Old Trek (just struggle with the acting and some of the storylines being "what is in the Paramount lot and how can I chew it".

Sure it gets some stuff wrong, and I love a good funny inconsistency for the laugh here or there, but it does seem to cause an awful lot of grief for people too and it would be nice if we could live and let live from time to time.

Except over Code of Honour - that deserves to be buried and all digital copies erased

 

[BillJ]

Your choice. But ignore facts is rarely a good look.
Frankly is it any better than coming into a thread with announcing "I THINK THIS IS A REBOOT!!!!: FIE ON CBS!!!!" ad infinitum?

Fact of the matter is that there are zero creative people affiliated with “The Cage” or TOS working on this show, which makes it a brand new show with zero connection to what came before. Beyond IP ownership. I prefer to watch and make my own determination rather than have a corporation tell me how to enjoy a product.

I can go out and buy a Mustang Mach-E, but it has zero to do with the 1964 Mustang I admire beyond them stamping a name on it so they can sell it.

YMMV.

 

[UssGlenn]

You know, Kirk was Pike's first officer in the Mirror Universe. Given how closely aligned the universes were at that time, it could be used as evidence for Kirk's career in Prime.

 

[Weyoun 251]

You know, Kirk was Pike's first officer in the Mirror Universe. Given how closely aligned the universes were at that time, it could be used as evidence for Kirk's career in Prime.

Forgive my memory - which episode told us this? Or is it from some of the EU stuff?

I like it - similar also to how Archer was Forrest's XO in Ent

 

[Tuskin38]

Forgive my memory - which episode told us this? Or is it from some of the EU stuff?

I like it - similar also to how Archer was Forrest's XO in Ent

It was said in 'Mirror, Mirror' that Kirk got command of the Enterprise by killing Pike.

 

[Weyoun 251]

It was said in 'Mirror, Mirror' that Kirk got command of the Enterprise by killing Pike.

Nice one - surprised they had that level of internal referencing going at that stage but fair play to them

 

[UssGlenn]

The computer says "Captain James T. Kirk succeeded to command ISS Enterprise through assassination of Captain Christopher Pike". The term "succeeded" requires he was next in line for the position, so he couldn't have been a Captain on a different ship, who killed Pike to take over his better ship (thought I could totally see that being a thing in the Mirror Universe).

 

[Dukhat]

Nah, there many facts about the Star Trek franchise. Hundreds even. Perhaps thousands. After all it's long running entertainment property going back to the middle of the last century. Heck there's a web site called "Fact Check" that actually tries to separate the rumors, innuendo and myths from the facts. And none it involves canon. There are memos, memoirs, photos and legal documents detailing the facts involved with the production of Star Trek.

You are confusing ‘facts’ about the production with ‘facts’ about the fictional universe the shows take place in. I am referring to the latter. William Shatner being an actor in TOS is a fact. Warp drive is not a fact. It is a fictitious construct with no real scientific plausibility used as a plot device to tell a story, and its functions change at the whim of the scriptwriter.