Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x10 - "Hegemony"

[Sci]

So take that word you keep using, 'text,' and throw it out the window. Because that isn't what I'm talking about.

You are absolutely talking about the text of the productions when you claim that the content means they can't possibly take place in the same continuity.

So when you look at the sets of the TOS Enterprise, you're seeing the exact same sets in SNW? When you look at the portrayal of SNW Chapel, you're seeing the same portrayal of TOS Chapel? Because I don't see that at all. If you do, more power to you.

I didn't say that! I said, just like there can be in-universe explanations for why Spock is so different in TMP vs. TOS S3, there can be in-universe explanations for why the Enterprise looks different or why Chapel seems different.

 

[Dukhat]

You are absolutely talking about the text of the productions when you claim that the content means they can't possibly take place in the same continuity.

I'm talking about intent versus actuality. Text has nothing to do with it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

why Chapel seems different.

I'm kinda leaning towards Roger Korby's disappearance for that.

IIRC, as of "Hegemony" Chapel has met Korby, but hasn't yet fallen in love with him. It seems plausible that, given how much in love they became (they were even engaged, weren't they?), his disappearance had a profound effect on her.

 

[Sci]

I'm talking about intent versus actuality. Text has nothing to do with it.

You have no evidence of authorial intent that SNW/DIS are meant to take place in another continuity from TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't say that! I said, just like there can be in-universe explanations for why Spock is so different in TMP vs. TOS S3, there can be in-universe explanations for why the Enterprise looks different or why Chapel seems different.

Is not the world richer for it?

Is it richer as separate pieces?

 

[Dukhat]

You have no evidence of authorial intent that SNW/DIS are meant to take place in another continuity from TOS.

Never said I did. I said the opposite. That CBS/Paramount considers DSC/SNW to be in continuity with TOS. I'm the one that doesn't believe that.

 

[Sci]

Never said I did. I said the opposite. That CBS/Paramount considers DSC/SNW to be in continuity with TOS. I'm the one that doesn't believe that.

So, let us review:

Are you claiming that you personally creative reinterpret SNW and DIS as being in a separate continuity from TOS?

Or, are you claiming that the text itself of SNW and DIS indicate it's a separate continuity?

Because the former is your subjective personal interpretation and that's cool. But having a subjective personal interpretation is different from stating as a fact that the text of a work of art definitively states X.

For instance, I happen to be of the opinion that Angel and Faith had sex in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Enemies." However, I acknowledge that the actual text of the Buffyverse canon explicitly contradicts my interpretation -- the Angel episode "Who Are You?" explicitly asserts that they did not have sex in "Enemies." I understand the difference between my subjective creative reinterpretation on one hand, and the actual text itself on the other.

The text itself of DIS and SNW are very clear: they take place in the same continuity as TOS. You can personally subjectively ignore that for your own headcanon, just as I personally subjectively ignore that line from "Who Are You?" that contradicts my interpretation of the events of "Enemies," but your and my subjective headcanons are not the actual canonical texts.

 

[Dukhat]

So, let us review:

Are you claiming that you personally creative reinterpret SNW and DIS as being in a separate continuity from TOS?

Or, are you claiming that the text itself of SNW and DIS indicate it's a separate continuity?

Because the former is your subjective personal interpretation and that's cool. But having a subjective personal interpretation is different from stating as a fact that the text of a work of art definitively states X.

For instance, I happen to be of the opinion that Angel and Faith had sex in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Enemies." However, I acknowledge that the actual text of the Buffyverse canon explicitly contradicts my interpretation -- the Angel episode "Who Are You?" explicitly asserts that they did not have sex in "Enemies." I understand the difference between my subjective creative reinterpretation on one hand, and the actual text itself on the other.

I have a better idea. Why don't you just watch the show the way you want to watch it, and not give a shit about how I watch it? Because I don't have to justify my viewing habits to you or anyone else.

 

[Sci]

I'm kinda leaning towards Roger Korby's disappearance for that.

IIRC, as of "Hegemony" Chapel has met Korby, but hasn't yet fallen in love with him. It seems plausible that, given how much in love they became (they were even engaged, weren't they?), his disappearance had a profound effect on her.

I think the best in-universe explanation for why the Christine of SNW has an actual personality and the Christine of TOS is a two-dimensional cardboard cutout, is that we only saw her on a couple of bad days in TOS and normally she was just as vibrant and assertive as she was in the 2250s.

 

[Sci]

I have a better idea. Why don't you just watch the show the way you want to watch it, and not give a shit about how I watch it? Because I don't have to justify my viewing habits to you or anyone else.

Yeah, sure! Just as long as you don't make false claims about what the text itself actually says.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, sure! Just as long as you don't make false claims about what the text itself actually says.

What does that matter? You shouldn’t give a crap about my opinion, just like I don’t about yours.

And I’m also pretty sure you don’t have the power to tell anyone what to do.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think the best in-universe explanation for why the Christine of SNW has an actual personality and the Christine of TOS is a two-dimensional cardboard cutout, is that we only saw her on a couple of bad days in TOS and normally she was just as vibrant and assertive as she was in the 2250s.

That too.

 

[Sci]

What does that matter? You shouldn’t give a crap about my opinion, just like I don’t about yours.

I don't care about your opinion. I care about false assertions of fact.

And I’m also pretty sure you don’t have the power to tell anyone what to do.

Of course not. But if you make a false assertion of fact, I do have the right to call that out.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, sure! Just as long as you don't make false claims about what the text itself actually says.

Well, we can always learn from other's point of view. It's interesting how SNW is viewed as being a Roddeberrian revisionist style like TMP to TOS.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't care about your opinion. I care about false assertions of fact.

I have made no false assertions of fact, because stating that DSC/SNW is in a different continuity from TOS despite what CBS/Paramount has stated, is my opinion, the reasons of which need no justification.

So I think we’re done here.

 

[Sci]

I have made no false assertions of fact, because stating that DSC/SNW is in a different continuity from TOS despite what CBS/Paramount has stated, is my opinion, the reasons of which need no justification.

So I think we’re done here.

Stating that you subjectively reinterpret DIS/SNW as a separate continuity from TOS is legit.

Stating that it is a separate continuity as an objective fact is not legit. That is a false assertion.

 

[Dukhat]

Stating that you subjectively reinterpret DIS/SNW as a separate continuity from TOS is legit.

Stating that it is a separate continuity as an objective fact is not legit. That is a false assertion.

What part of ‘we’re done here’ didn’t you understand?

 

[Tuskin38]

Stating that you subjectively reinterpret DIS/SNW as a separate continuity from TOS is legit.

Stating that it is a separate continuity as an objective fact is not legit. That is a false assertion.

When did he say it was a fact?

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

I’m putting this lengthy pissing contest on ice for a week. Y’all can do better than this.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Seems I forgot to reopen this thread after that promised week. It is back but if either Sci or Dukhat resumes the argument, warnings will be awarded.

I’m surprised no one complained.