Raising Arizona was my introduction to her and the thing I most associate with her.
News Starfleet Academy Coming to P+
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Without a common frame of reference, it's damn near impossible to have a conversation. It's hard currently to have a conversation about TOS. If I ignore SNW for not fitting, I will be having a fundamentally different conversation from someone talking about SNW.
It's come up a bit in regards to talking about character of Chapel. I've noted how it doesn't seem to make sense how Chapel goes from the character she is in SNW to the character she is in TOS, who is the same person. I've been told by some "she's not the same person" but, according to my understanding of how the Star Trek continuity works, she is. This is a common thing... alot of these conversation just turn into "that happened" or "that didn't happen", rather than actually being able to discuss the thing.
The conversation grinds to a halt, because there is no common ground of what we are even talking about.
Variety: ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ Series Casts Holly Hunter in Main Role (EXCLUSIVE)
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/star-trek-starfleet-academy-series-cast-holly-hunter-1236011724/
Despite my overwhelming sense of fatigue involving anything from the Star Wars universe, I feel like it has managed to keep things tighter than any other franchise i can think of. I can absolutely believe that Rogue One is set just before A New Hope with very little need for any suspension of disbelief. And that's considering the enormous space of time between the two films' production.
Credit where credit's due, they did a great job.
I haven't seen a lot of Holly Hunter, but this feels like a good casting choice to me.
Don't confuse "period piece" with "historical period" they are two different things. Game of Thrones is a period piece, as is Lord of the Rings, and Dune. The fact that the period is fictional is immaterial.
I run in to this with Star Wars all the time. The books are often thrown (metaphorically) at me as "Well, if you read this then you'd know that Mandalore was blah blah blah!"
I think it is as important to set up the frame of reference in the conversation, as with any. As one commentator I enjoy noted: "Context matters. Imagine my friend talking on and on about the kraken seen in POTC and I was thinking of 'Passion of the Christ' and was sorely disappointed the resurrected Jesus didn't battle a giant squid monster."
If I'm talking TOS, I'm going to talk about TOS. If I'm talking SNW and TOS, then I'll reference them. I think if you're having a fundamentally different conversation then the parameters need to be reset. That's not on the material at that point.
Right up until the last 5 minutes they were.
Spoiler alert: she is
Spoiler alert: she is
I'm aware of this.
Some don't seem to be, with the attitude of "That was the 60's" but... she's the same character. SNW becomes TOS Chapel. I am saying this from the perspective of my own personal view of what "is" and "is not" Star Trek, therefore TOS happens exactly as-is post-SNW, therefore any discussion on the matter from my perspective will be under those parameters.
I guess it's just more annoying now because instead of just talking about Star Trek, as i've done for the past 30 years because we all essentially agreed what that was, I know have to specify the exact parameters of which source material is being used prior to having any sort of discussion, which then limits to the discussion to only those who share the same exact view on the source material, which then makes conversation pointless.
Ah.
I've had that experience for 30 years in various fandom so I'm used to have to recontextualize my conversations
You are not wrong to be frustrated by this, but you do not have to do it...you are correct in your example that Chapel is the same person. That some people don't think she is or that SNW is an alt universe or whatever is a "them" problem. I know that can be easier said than done sometimes. I share your frustration and am exhausted by the selfish attempts to redefine the parameters of the entire fictional universe to fit their personal preferences. And man, I understand not liking everything!! I wish I could stick my fingers in my ears and say "la la la I can't hear you you DSC is an alternate universe and the burn never happened!!!" because the burn and the circumstances surrounding it are terminally dumb. But it did, it's canon, it's prime, and I can suck it.
Ah.
I've had that experience for 30 years in various fandom so I'm used to have to recontextualize my conversations
I'm surprised by that. Most fandoms have a fairly clear expectation of what is... the dirty word everyone hates... canon.
Star Wars in particular has always had a very clear unified canon to discuss; prior to Disney essentially everything was canon, with a tier system. Post-Disney, everything Disney produced is canon and the old novels and such are "Legends". Star Wars is a great example of how a share universe works very well and the fandom has a clear and standardized framework for discussion.
Star Trek did too, until recently.
Doctor Who has an odd one that is explained in universe.. "timey wimey".
Warhammer 40k is essentially whatever the current codexs say (with an idea that older stuff *could* still exist but was lost to general knowledge)
Marvel and DC are the most complex, but even they have a general framework. They did give up trying to have any sort of real continuity decades ago. They do tend to do a "reset" every so often though.
As long as this:
Exits, I can comfortable ignore whatever the hell I want, including TMP.
Because most fans I interacted with did not give a shit about canon. They liked what they liked and engaged with it, and damn be me if I didn't keep up on the appropriate book/video game/comic/whatever.
Canon is not the dispute. The material knowledge is. More than that, I just don't care about canon. My favorite Trek book is "Yesterday's Son." My favorite Star Wars book is "The Revenge of the Sith" novelization. Do I care that they are canon? No! Do I harbor any illusions that people care what I think? Also, no.
I don't talk canon; I talk stories.
This is of course your right, and there's nothing wrong with it (and even if there was I wouldn't get to say so).
But
A sprawling franchise like Trek does have a main continuity and that does mean there is an "official" (canon) suite of events, characters, etc. and those are, for better and for worse, etched in stone, so to speak. The problem begins when people refuse this fact and then we can no longer speak in a common frame reference. This diminishes the potential for fun fan interactions and discussions because of disagreements on the basic realities of the fictional universe. I realize that sounds contradictory.
A real world, and much (much!) higher stakes analogue to this modern American politics. The left and right not only disagree on policy matters, but they also now seem to disagree on basic facets of material, observable reality. This will have disastrous consequences in the near and medium term.
Returning to the much lower stakes of Trek fandom, us non-normie sickos are splintering differently than we used to and it's a little sad.
Hunter is brilliant. I think she might be the most decorated actor (at time of casting) in Trek's history, no? And for my money her performance in Broadcast News was every bit as good as The Piano.
Also Saving Grace was a solid show (despite its goofy premise), where she starred alongside Leon Rippy. #pit-wolfies.
What an amazing get. I think my interest in the show just doubled. Maybe tripled. (Ofc I once said the same thing about Yeoh.)
Also Saving Grace was a solid show (despite its goofy premise), where she starred alongside Leon Rippy. #pit-wolfies.
What an amazing get. I think my interest in the show just doubled. Maybe tripled. (Ofc I once said the same thing about Yeoh.)
Yeah, she's got gravitas in spades and is a strong statement of intent.
I think the new shows have always cast well - Michelle Yeoh and Jason Isaacs, Anson Mount and Patrick Stewart of course.
Holly Hunter will easily be Trek's most decorated lead.
I think the new shows have always cast well - Michelle Yeoh and Jason Isaacs, Anson Mount and Patrick Stewart of course.
Yeah, probably up there. The other Oscar winners were (IIRC) Whoopi, Louise Fletcher and F. Murray Abraham. Frank Langella doesn't have an Oscar but was laden with accolades when he was cast in DS9. But they were all guest stars.
Holly Hunter will easily be Trek's most decorated lead.
Though, Hunter has three other Oscar noms, a handful of Emmy noms, and bunch of Golden Globe noms with a win. But I guess Goldberg is an EGOT. 
Does it? Have you been having less fun with fan interactions? I've been getting out there more and exploring more with fans and finding more enjoyment since 2014. Been a lot more fun for me.
But, as I said to another poster, I've been slapped around with the knowledge hammer for Trek lore for a long time. I know how to navigate and have more fun there without that being a barrier. Sure, there are events "set in stone" but rarely do my Trek fan conversations stay there.
What's funny is that Nicolas Cage is the one who's been talking about wanting to do Star Trek.
You use a very poor example.
When People say Chapel isn't the same person, they don't mean it literally. It's a reference to the fact that we never saw Chapel from this period of her life. Thus she doesn't have to have the same behaviors and character traits. Thus appearing different. Heck you can certainly make an argument that Chapel's change in character and appearance is larger between her last episode of TOS to her appearance in the Motion Picture. She's far less wooden, and far warmer of a character in her small scene.
And here's the rub, many people complain about this. Yet Trek has provided two very clear examples of exactly this type of metamorphosis. And that is Kirk and Picard. Kirk thanks to "Shore Leave" we learn was someone who was bullied and was a bookworm. And if it wasn't for that episode, I don't thank anyone would have thought thats were the character was at in his early adult life. It certainly isn't a match to his personality and behavior of his time in TOS.
With Picard we get the reverse (and thats thanks to Samaritan Snare and explored more fully in Tapestry). If it wasn't for those references to his academy days would that be what we imagined the past life of Picard to be in his early adulthood? A reckless hothead.? I doubt many naturally would make that assumption. Hell with Picard we even get to see this reflected in a casting that doesn't really match what Patrick Stewart looked like when he was that age, so that is an example that can be used to those who bitch about actors not matching the look of a previous actor who played that role.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
Heck the Kirk in the films is much different from the Kirk in the show.
Let alone Picard in the TNG vs Picard. (Though, I've always though Picard went too far for the sake of plot, especially with other characters).
Similar threads
