The curse(?) of small universe syndrome

[Dar70]

What? There are plenty of loud complaints about SNW Muppets and musicals.

As for She Hulk? Have you seen many of the comics? She Hulk broke the 4th wall often. That's almost a comic book trope.

I'm well aware of the She Hulk comics and her walking off the page. The thing is that silliness should not have been brought into the MCU. I was hoping it would be above that surreal baloney. Which is was in the begining. General Audience's who have never read the comics im sure thought it was stupid. Totally takes one out of the story. Just because it was in the comics doesn't mean it should be in the films/series. They are not the comics. It pretty much killed the MCU for me. That and all the other goofy stuff that has been ever increasing. Thor Love and Thunder was pure garbage for example.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I suppose those centuries had a certain mystique/flavor to them, and that's the spirit they're hoping to evoke in the cadets. Perhaps we shall see that the in-between centuries were marked mostly by despair, ruthlessness, and torment, rather than hope, exploration, and discovery. If you want to encourage someone about the future and rebuilding, you'll emphasize the good old days (however many bad things did happen, they won't be the focus) that you want to see come again, not wax nostalgic for the dystopian years (though you will use them as contrast and an encouragement not to go back to that again).

 

[Forbin]

That and all the other goofy stuff that has been ever increasing. Thor Love and Thunder was pure garbage for example.

Which was sad and frustrating, because it was about two of the most dramatic storylines in the Thor comics - Jane's cancer and the god killer.

 

[Christopher]

I'm well aware of the She Hulk comics and her walking off the page. The thing is that silliness should not have been brought into the MCU. I was hoping it would be above that surreal baloney.

It's no more surreal than What If...? and no siller than a lot of the things in the Thor or Guardians movies. (In fact, I was hoping it would turn out that the audience She-Hulk was talking to was actually Uatu.) There's little point to a multi-series shared universe if every series strikes the same tone or targets the same audience. The whole point of doing such a franchise is to appeal to multiple different audience tastes. Nobody's required to like every series, because appealing to a wide range of audience preferences gives you a larger audience overall, and gives the viewer a range of choices. It's perfectly fine for an individual viewer to prefer some series in the franchise over others, because it's not about any one individual, it's about offering something for everyone. You wouldn't demand that a restaurant limit its menu only to your preferred dishes; naturally, the better strategy is to cater to a range of tastes, so the restaurant can do better business overall and thus do a better job of providing for your tastes as well as other people's.

I suppose those centuries had a certain mystique/flavor to them, and that's the spirit they're hoping to evoke in the cadets. Perhaps we shall see that the in-between centuries were marked mostly by despair, ruthlessness, and torment, rather than hope, exploration, and discovery.

That seems profoundly unlikely. It's only the previous century post-Burn that was dystopian; the implication was that the Federation was at its peak before the Burn, so that the loss was far more tragic. Characters like Aditya Sahil and Admiral Vance wouldn't have been so driven to preserve Starfleet and the Federation if it had been dystopian for 700 years before the Burn.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Ah, well, they need not be terrible, I suppose; just different. TOS evoked the spirit of pioneer days with all its talk of frontiers and settlements, without casting universal aspersions on the times in between the 19th and the 23rd centuries.

 

[Christopher]

Ah, well, they need not be terrible, I suppose; just different. TOS evoked the spirit of pioneer days with all its talk of frontiers and settlements, without casting universal aspersions on the times in between the 19th and the 23rd centuries.

Even so, would you expect a wall of names in, say, a British or Spanish military academy to make no reference to anyone more recent than the 13th century? It's just absurd to assume that nothing of note happened in a period four times longer than the Starfleet history we know.

This is one of my fears about the show, that the writers will just gloss over what a vast span of history there is between the 24th and 32nd centuries and dwell more on references to established continuity than filling in the vast expanse of time in between. And that they'll portray cultures like the Klingons as basically unchanged over such a vast span of time, or only moderately changed. A universe can be too small in terms of time as well as other factors. Too much fiction treats every interval longer than a couple of centuries as interchangeable, whether it's a thousand or a million or a billion years, since it's hard for the mind to grasp an interval that large and too many writers don't really make the attempt.

 

[fireproof78]

I suppose those centuries had a certain mystique/flavor to them, and that's the spirit they're hoping to evoke in the cadets. Perhaps we shall see that the in-between centuries were marked mostly by despair, ruthlessness, and torment, rather than hope, exploration, and discovery. If you want to encourage someone about the future and rebuilding, you'll emphasize the good old days (however many bad things did happen, they won't be the focus) that you want to see come again, not wax nostalgic for the dystopian years (though you will use them as contrast and an encouragement not to go back to that again).

Indeed. It's like the Army/Navy game uniforms this year. It was an acknowledgement of their services history and origin.

 

[Dar70]

It's no more surreal than What If...? and no siller than a lot of the things in the Thor or Guardians movies. (In fact, I was hoping it would turn out that the audience She-Hulk was talking to was actually Uatu.) There's little point to a multi-series shared universe if every series strikes the same tone or targets the same audience. The whole point of doing such a franchise is to appeal to multiple different audience tastes. Nobody's required to like every series, because appealing to a wide range of audience preferences gives you a larger audience overall, and gives the viewer a range of choices. It's perfectly fine for an individual viewer to prefer some series in the franchise over others, because it's not about any one individual, it's about offering something for everyone. You wouldn't demand that a restaurant limit its menu only to your preferred dishes; naturally, the better strategy is to cater to a range of tastes, so the restaurant can do better business overall and thus do a better job of providing for your tastes as well as other people's.




That seems profoundly unlikely. It's only the previous century post-Burn that was dystopian; the implication was that the Federation was at its peak before the Burn, so that the loss was far more tragic. Characters like Aditya Sahil and Admiral Vance wouldn't have been so driven to preserve Starfleet and the Federation if it had been dystopian for 700 years before the Burn.

I absolutely don't mind more lighthearted stuff like what we see in Guardians. But extremely goofy stuff like She Hulk and Thor LT i do. I get what you are saying about tastes and all but this is a shared universe. It's all connects. I want to watch all of it and I'm sorry She Hulk just completely pulled me out of the MCU narrative. Same with Thor. Both felt like Batman 66 level stuff. Which was a thing of it own and fine for what it was (well until Warner's decided to put it all in one shared multiverse continuity.. )

Anyhow it is what it is. I liked the tone of the MCU up until Endgame. After than it just got to get too zany and goofy for me.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

If a show becomes thought of as having a certain mood, truthfully or stereotypically, any departures from that mood will stand out, either in a good way or a bad way. It can make the normally lighthearted mood of a show stand out when it occasionally wades into more serious territory, or balance the heaviness of an otherwise serious show. But it can also seem strange if that's not the kind of show it's supposed to be and it increasingly morphs into something other than what you signed up for.

You can like both kinds of shows, the silly and the serious, the tongue-in-cheek and the tender emotional, but any attempts to turn one into the other can fall flat sometimes.

Regarding the history in between 24th/25th and 32nd: it will be developed over time, as people discuss their families, cultures, important events. Maybe we'll eventually get a show that takes place in the middle of all this. But now that it's known what lies at both ends, creating something in the gap that is known to later be destroyed to get to where the galaxy will be...well, I suppose there are all sorts of alternate timeline/reality/time travel/"yes, but also..." ways to subvert assumptions and still imagine stories despite it. We've seen revisions made before. And a story is still worth telling and occurring even if it all ends up supposedly "for naught".

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Both felt like Batman 66 level stuff. Which was a thing of it own and fine for what it was (well until Warner's decided to put it all in one shared multiverse continuity.. )

We got a live action Ace the Bathound out of it though and he's such a good boy.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

As for She Hulk? Have you seen many of the comics? She Hulk broke the 4th wall often. That's almost a comic book trope.

Largely due to DEADPOOL, perhaps. John Byrne's SHE-HULK seemed to me a pioneer. It beat her Stan Lee debut, most of her initial issues and her AVENGERS stint following the cancellation of her first '80s book.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

But that just pulls the audience out of the story by reminding us it's a work of fiction. It's cheap pandering, not effective worldbuilding. Things in stories should be chosen for their significance to the characters and their experiences, not their significance to the audience. We're just spectators. The story's not supposed to be about us. It's supposed to let us set ourselves aside and immerse ourselves in other people's lives. And that's easiest to do if the details feel like they arise organically from the characters' world, rather than being self-conscious winks at the audience. Hell, this isn't just a wink, it's a shout.

As much as I admire Peter David's work, his script for the OBLIVION movie was far too cute.

 

[fireproof78]

And a story is still worth telling and occurring even if it all ends up supposedly "for naught".

This. Otherwise all of history is "for naught" because people died, and nations faded or collapsed. We certainly shouldn't have stories like The Odyssey or Rome because those nation states fell apart and everyone is dead and no one cares about them anymore, and so we all know the outcome, right?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

We tend to think of fictional stories in a different manner than real life. We need the happy ending to remain happy and to be an ending, but if there is a sequel, we appreciate the idea that in the interim years, whatever changes doesn't alter the overall end of the first story - the couple is still together, or at least loved each other until one died peacefully; the accomplishments achieved have not been stamped out and forgotten; the life they have has developed has grown and changed in such a way that it's natural, not meteoric or catastrophic; and so on.

Maybe it's because while we want stories to be realistic (human-nature-wise, if not scientifically), we also want to enjoy the character's happiness and success vicariously. We sympathize with their struggles, take comfort in their courage and love, and rejoice in their victories. It shows us that that good things are possible, or at least, we can escape from our own troubles for a while.

 

[fireproof78]

We tend to think of fictional stories in a different manner than real life. We need the happy ending to remain happy and to be an ending, but if there is a sequel, we appreciate the idea that in the interim years, whatever changes doesn't alter the overall end of the first story - the couple is still together, or at least loved each other until one died peacefully; the accomplishments achieved have not been stamped out and forgotten; the life they have has developed has grown and changed in such a way that it's natural, not meteoric or catastrophic; and so on.

Maybe it's because while we want stories to be realistic (human-nature-wise, if not scientifically), we also want to enjoy the character's happiness and success vicariously. We sympathize with their struggles, take comfort in their courage and love, and rejoice in their victories. It shows us that that good things are possible, or at least, we can escape from our own troubles for a while.

Which is hilarious to me because many classic fiction tales do not have happily ever after. Shakespeare being the most famous one, but Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Hunchback of Notre Dame, King Arthur, all have rather downer endings.

I get the escapism argument, but at the same time, I feel like it misses the point with stories. Especially given a film like Titanic was one of the highest grossing films of all time yet the outcome was rather apparent. So, while I agree that audiences connection is important I don't think that good stories need the happily ever after. The importance comes from the reading the story itself, not an assurance of eternal bliss.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

We tend to think of fictional stories in a different manner than real life. We need the happy ending to remain happy and to be an ending, but if there is a sequel, we appreciate the idea that in the interim years, whatever changes doesn't alter the overall end of the first story - the couple is still together, or at least loved each other until one died peacefully; the accomplishments achieved have not been stamped out and forgotten; the life they have has developed has grown and changed in such a way that it's natural, not meteoric or catastrophic; and so on.

Maybe it's because while we want stories to be realistic (human-nature-wise, if not scientifically), we also want to enjoy the character's happiness and success vicariously. We sympathize with their struggles, take comfort in their courage and love, and rejoice in their victories. It shows us that that good things are possible, or at least, we can escape from our own troubles for a while.

I've come to feel the opposite way as I've gotten older. There are still some happy endings that I'm attached to which are hard earned and I guess the amount of suffering makes it feel more justified to me but in most cases I'm far more interested in universes developing, time waits for no one as they say.

It's why the first two seasons of Picard are so much more compelling to me because the world feels like it is carrying on, people die, people drift apart this is organic. It is unrealistic and very boring if the same set of characters do absolutely nothing else with their lives for decades at a time. When Discovery introduced the Burn it was this big shake up of the status quo and then we learned Vulcan was now Ni'Var it was development. It's why so much of the Star Trek relaunch novel era falls flat to me this necessity to reunite and keep everyone together is such a bland trope.

Outside of Trek, the Fallout show has shown that the world hasn't just frozen at the points the games ended and things have changed, sometimes in tragic ways but again it would be so boring if it hadn't. If everything remains static to placate idealistic headcanons then we lose the avenue for interesting stories. Is my Courier still alive out there somewhere? Is he happy? He could very well be, but if he had to leave New Vegas at some point in the 15 years in between there's so many new stories available there instead of just being sat on his throne as Mr House's lieutenant.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

If a story ends tragically, we want it to be for a good cause, a sacrifice that ensures somebody knows happiness, or that the characters had happiness for a time, though it came to an end.

What you think of a story depends on whether you like the characters more or the world they inhabit. If you like the characters more, then you're invested emotionally in their future, wherever they may find themselves. If you like the world more, you want to see all of it, and the characters are a framework through which to experience it.

So if you want a character to endlessly inhabit a particular time with its accompanying zeitgeist, then populate the time with endless stories taking place there and then. But don't expect their whole lives to look the same throughout.

 

[Dar70]

We got a live action Ace the Bathound out of it though and he's such a good boy.

Haha. Yeah I remember seeing that. Too bad Robin let himself go and is reduced to that sweater...

 

[Christopher]

I absolutely don't mind more lighthearted stuff like what we see in Guardians. But extremely goofy stuff like She Hulk and Thor LT i do. I get what you are saying about tastes and all but this is a shared universe. It's all connects. I want to watch all of it and I'm sorry She Hulk just completely pulled me out of the MCU narrative.

With some shared universes, I'd be inclined to agree (e.g. I feel Star Trek: Lower Decks went too far into implausible absurdity at times). But the MCU is just replicating what the comics have always done, lumping together wildly disparate genres and tones into a shared reality. I can't fault it for being true to its inspiration.

Largely due to DEADPOOL, perhaps. John Byrne's SHEHULK seemed to me a pioneer. It beat her Stan Lee debut, most of her initial issues and her AVENGERS stint following the cancellation of her first '80s book.

Oh, no, comics breaking the fourth wall goes back to the 1940s at least -- like that issue where Batman let Robin beat up a bunch of bad guys single-handedly as an object lesson to the kids reading the comic that one wholesome, right-living pre-teen boy was stronger than any number of filthy criminal thugs. A lot of early 1940s comics would have the characters occasionally address the audience or wink at being in a comic book. The early Fantastic Four comics played fast and loose with the fourth wall a lot, having Lee & Kirby be characters in the book and having the FF read their own comic and answer reader letters. It was loosely rationalized as an in-universe comic dramatizing their real adventures, but the writers were definitely playing around with the reality of the series. If they didn't break the fourth wall entirely, they were certainly leaning out its window.

It's why the first two seasons of Picard are so much more compelling to me because the world feels like it is carrying on, people die, people drift apart this is organic. It is unrealistic and very boring if the same set of characters do absolutely nothing else with their lives for decades at a time. When Discovery introduced the Burn it was this big shake up of the status quo and then we learned Vulcan was now Ni'Var it was development. It's why so much of the Star Trek relaunch novel era falls flat to me this necessity to reunite and keep everyone together is such a bland trope.

Really? The post-finale novels didn't really do that, though -- they had the TV characters move on to new roles and had original characters take their old jobs. The DS9 novels took a while to bring Sisko back, then had him retire to Bajor while Kira remained in command of the station, and similarly O'Brien and Odo remained absent aside from eventual guest-star roles, and the novels developed a bunch of new characters like Vaughn, Prynn, Shar, Taran'atar, etc. Later novels made bigger (and controversial) changes like having Sisko return to starship command and Kira become a vedek. The Voyager novels continued to focus on the series's core cast, but spread them around in different roles and different storylines rather than having them stay aboard Voyager. Most of them eventually ended up back in the Delta Quadrant, but spread among multiple ships of a slipstream fleet. My Enterprise post-finale novels have the former NX-01 crew in mostly different roles on multiple ships, alongside a fair number of novel-original characters, or canon characters from the period like Tobin Dax and Bryce Shumar. Then there are the Titan novels that picked up on Riker & Troi's transfer at the end of Nemesis and gave the Titan a crew that included Tuvok, Melora Pazlar, and quite a few book-original characters. The post-Nemesis TNG novels still had Picard, Crusher, La Forge, and Worf in their old jobs on the Enterprise-E, but with original characters filling out the crew.

So I'm not really sure what your impression of the "relaunch" era is based on.

 

[Set Harth]

like that issue where Batman let Robin beat up a bunch of bad guys single-handedly as an object lesson to the kids reading the comic that one wholesome, right-living pre-teen boy was stronger than any number of filthy criminal thugs.

That's a dangerous "lesson" to teach kids.