My whole point in the previous post of mine was to show examples of how one series tied to the other. You can argue and nit pick over why one thing tied into another series or not all you want, none of it disqualifies the fact that they all tied into one another at some stage or another...
You've completely misunderstood my intent. I'm not trying to "disqualify" your point or refute it. I
agree with your point (on that particular issue). I'm simply saying that one of the examples you chose to assert your point was based on inaccurate assumptions and therefore undermined the point you were trying to make. So don't be so defensive.
and I still do not understand the hang ups some have over TNG referencing TOS in their second episode as if it was the wrong thing to do.... either because it was "Too Soon" or simply shouldn't have been done at all.
Well, you don't understand those reactions, I don't entirely agree with them, but the fact is that those reactions did exist. The initial question of the thread was simply, how did people back in 1987 react to the mention of Kirk in "The Naked Now"? That's not a question about whether they were right or wrong to react a certain way; it's simply a question about what the reactions
were. And my intent in this thread has simply been to answer that factual question, and to clarify other points of fact as needed, not to advocate or refute any ideological position. I'm not engaged in an argument, I'm just trying to provide information.
In either case of the argument, there seems to be this subjective double standard with people over this, that all of these other examples and tie-ins with other ST shows are perfectly acceptable and ok (with various excuses why like the ones you just explained, which I am fully aware of, which are also irrelevant) .... yet this 5 second little blurb in the second episode was over the line / too soon.
You may think it's irrelevant, but others disagreed. The reason they reacted differently to "The Naked Now" than they did to later examples is precisely because those examples came later. To those who are looking back on TNG from the perspective of a much larger, more developed Trek canon with multiple cross-references, it's difficult to understand how differently things were perceived when the idea of a new ST series that wasn't about Kirk and Spock was still novel and untested. It was a very different mindset, and I've tried to explain why. I'm not saying I agree with that mindset, not making any kind of value judgment or advocating one position over another. But I was there at the time, I was a witness to the early days of TNG and the reactions of critics and audiences to this very new and untested thing, and I'm attempting to convey to you how different the perceptions were then from what they are now. It's rather pointless to say that one perspective is more "right" or "wrong" than the other. Those same fans looking back on it from the context of modern Trek continuity might have no problem with it. But the context was very different back then, and if you can't understand the mindset of a different era, you can't legitimately dismiss it.
Maybe it would help explain the thinking if I offer an analogy that removes
Star Trek from the equation altogether. Let's say a great Shakespearean actor, famous for playing Hamlet and Macbeth and Lear and Henry V, has a son who's starting out as an actor himself. Reporters interview him, ask if he's worried about being overshadowed by his father's reputation and dismissed as merely an extension of another performer rather than appreciated as a performer in his own right. He insists that he intends to establish his own identity, that he won't just be repeating what his father did but will be worthy of watching on his own individual merits. And then the very second acting gig he gets is in
Henry V. Would it really be surprising if critics reacted to that as a career misstep? If fans of his father scoffed at his choice and dismissed him as merely a pale imitation? If hopeful fans of this new actor felt cheated that he'd promised to do something different and new and then just gave them more of the same? Sure, maybe he could rebound from it later, maybe he'd prove himself as a worthy actor in his own right, and years afterward, nobody would be bothered if he played Shakespearean roles because he would've accumulated enough of his own reputation that he wouldn't be seen as an also-ran dependent on his father's coattails. But the fact that he'd taken that derivative role so early in his career, after specifically telling the media that he intended to chart his own independent course, would still have been a questionable career move.
Your opinion on the name drop being too soon is subjective to your own perspective/opinion, it is not fact..... if it was fact, then I and others in here would agree with you without question.
Once again: It isn't
my opinion. I'm not advocating a point of view. I'm
reporting what happened. I was a witness and I'm giving you an account of a point of view that existed at the time -- one that I've already said I did NOT personally share. You don't have to agree with a point of view in order to be able to describe and understand it. I mean, if you wrote a history paper about Ancient Roman attitudes toward their slaves, that wouldn't mean you believed in slavery. It would just mean you were describing the thoughts and actions of other people who did.
That's the thing about opinions.
And I'm not offering any opinions. I'm answering the question, "How did people react at the time?" That's all. Whether those reactions were right or not is a matter of opinion. But whether those reactions
existed in the first place is a matter of fact. And I'm simply attempting to answer that factual question, and to explain the historical context in which those reactions occurred.
