And you know what? Don't have Pike either. In fact, put it on the Lexington in the 26th century. Whole new characters and ship. That way we can never learn anything new about these characters.
Completely avoidable!
/s
-
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Ways that SNW actually improved TOS
- Thread starter Cr0sis21
- Start date
Completely avoidable!
/s
It's definitely possible for a prequel to take a character we thought we knew and add extra depth, Star Wars has a habit of making this look easy. The problem is when learning new things about them makes them into different people.
I have zero problem suspending my disbelief that characters from SNW can become the characters we see in TOS.
Last edited:
I'll try not to scoff too hard because Star Wars did not make it look easy. The Prequels made the OT look terrible, and the Jedi ended up even worse for it. The Clone Wars series made this even worse, and never mind what's going on with complaints around the Acolyte right now.
I haven't learned anything about Chapel or T'Pring that feels out of step with TOS.
Sometimes characters change as writers develop them. They may be different people in the pilot than they become later on as their characters evolve. Spock himself is an example -- the Spock that developed over the series wouldn't grin at a chiming plant like he did in the first pilot, or be as devoid of telepathic ability as he appeared to be in the second pilot, or be as sanguine about killing the last member of an alien race as he was in "The Man Trap." Similarly, Data was originally written as having emotions. I'm currently rewatching a show (The Middleman) where the lead character is willing to torture a suspect for information in the pilot, but evolves quickly into a much more wholesome and moral character who refuses to let a predecessor torture a suspect just eight episodes later.
It's the prerogative of creators and performers to discover their characters as they go, to try things out and find what works and what doesn't. It's a process of refinement that often leads to changes in how the characters are portrayed, especially as characters are adjusted to fit their actors' personalities. Sometimes it's for the worse, e.g. when a comedy character gets progressively dumber or more caricatured, but sometimes it sands off the rough edges and makes them better characters. It's not a problem, it's just how creativity happens. It's just that when a character made only one appearance decades ago, or a handful of appearances, our image of them is more locked down when they're brought back and developed further, so it feels more drastic than when a regular character changes between the pilot and finale of a single season.
The problem with being too fixated on consistent continuity is that sometimes consistency gets in the way. Sometimes early ideas are not the best ideas, and being slavishly consistent with bad ideas is not good for a series. It can be a good thing to change a character or a story point into something better and just gloss over the original, inferior version.
There was nothing to "avoid" here that mattered.
The characters are great, as they are.
She may see it as progression. Super intensely logical self-preservation.
I agree on this, and from T'Pring's point of view
I disagree. This isn't happening here.
Yeah. Some people need fictional characters to be preserved in amber at the point they first met them. I like characters who can grow and expand.
The question is, are we going from point a to point, say, r, in which case there's room for other things to happen that would explain the difference in the character, or are we going from point a to point b, with a disconnect in between?
Fiction is mutable. Things get overwritten and even replaced by better things. (and sometimes worse). An elaborate reason is not need to explain them.
When you experience fiction, you pretend it's fact for the moment. It's harder to suspend disbelief about inter- and intra-personal aspects than scientific/historical facts and inaccuracies.
I don't find that to be true for me. Especially if the new "facts" improve things.
Last edited:
I suppose it's also easier if you don't know that the historical or scientific facts are wrong - they seem right to you, so you go with it. Whereas with a character's personality, you tend to develop an idea of what it should be, as the character isn't a real person you can debunk claims about, and if something seems off, you notice.
Exactly. You pretend. That means you can pretend that the earlier version didn't happen and the later version is the correct one.
It takes a little more effort, sure, but only a little. Naturally creators would prefer their works to be flawlessly consistent, but life is never perfect. If there's a good reason for introducing an inconsistency, like improving a weak early idea for a character, then it's better than the alternative.
After all, we tell stories to explain how we got here from there.
I suppose it depends on the tone of the story, too. We're perfectly willing to go with it here:
It's a comedy. With a (mostly) drama, people are less forgiving of inconsistencies, perceived or real.
I suppose it depends on the tone of the story, too. We're perfectly willing to go with it here:
It's a comedy. With a (mostly) drama, people are less forgiving of inconsistencies, perceived or real.
History is full of such examples.
And sometimes it's a long road, to get from there to here.
History and science are constantly reevaluating facts. New evidence changes what we think and know. I approach long term fictional franchises similarly.
Similar threads
