It's not ridiculous. I to was VERY apprehensive about Kirk. But, I really like Paul Wesley's portrayal, and I don't think his appearances have felt very intrusive.
Ways that SNW actually improved TOS
- Thread starter Cr0sis21
- Start date
It's not ridiculous. I to was VERY apprehensive about Kirk. But, I really like Paul Wesley's portrayal, and I don't think his appearances have felt very intrusive.
changes are, well, changes. UESPA ended up not existing, so when it was changed is immaterial. To me, that seems like a bit of an arbitrary delineation.
TOS and SNW are both great in their own different ways. TOS is better because nothing tops the KIrk/Sock/Bones relationship in Trek but SNW has it's good points as well. It's a little bit more of a realistic take on a TOS type of show. Plus their is timing. It came at a time when Trek needed it due to Discovery not being a good show and all. FInally Trek had second good show on next to it's other one in Star Trek:Orville.
DRINK!
No, that's defining a prequel too narrowly and too literally. Even though it's set earlier in-universe, it's still a follow-up work here in the real world, and thus it's only natural for it to build on what the previous work established and evolve it conceptually the same way a sequel would. Chronology is not the only thing that matters in storytelling. Prequels pretend to be set earlier, but that doesn't obligate them to pretend to be written earlier.
The first priority of any story should be to itself, not to something outside itself. The ties it may have to other stories are supplementary to the stories it's telling in the here and now. Those ties exist to serve the current story, not the other way around. Particularly because the target audience for a new work in a franchise is not exclusively the existing fanbase, but new viewers or readers. Every work of fiction is ideally designed to be an on-ramp for a new audience, so the priority is to make the story work as well as it can on its own terms, independent of anything else. If slavish adherence to past continuity gets in the way of that, then the hell with past continuity. It's absurd to say that a story should compromise its own needs for the sake of an entirely different story that many in its audience may never see. It's getting the priorities backward.
Again, and I've asked this several times, what character? There was not much to define Chapel in TOS. Expanding her role can only do just that: expand.
Again, it's not complete and total but a matter of emphasis. I used to be far more introverted as a teen, then become more outgoing during college, then got married, and became far more introverted. People are not static, even in 5 years.
Maybe? Unless she preferred the Enterprise (like Riker) and then her brain was wiped in TOS.
To each their own. His appearances all feel very intrusive, save for brief interactions with his brother.
Um, no, it doesn't' have to. It can, for sure, and I think it has in powerful ways especially for Pike, Spock and George Kirk. But, it doesn't have to set anything up, but merely add to the context and the history that was previously unshown and unknown.
What I don't get with T"Pring is that in Amok Time, Her poping up on screen, Uhura asking.. who is she? When she is ON the ship when T"Pring comes on it. Doesn't make sense. Amok was basically saying, Spock has a Fiance? What? But with SNW, Everybody knew Spock was engaged, and to whom. So that doesn't make sense.
Anyways, Yep, I enjoy it, get a little bit antsy with bending Cannon into a pretzel to make stories work, but I'm okay.
and Oh, I don't like Kirk being there.. at all.
Anyways, Yep, I enjoy it, get a little bit antsy with bending Cannon into a pretzel to make stories work, but I'm okay.
and Oh, I don't like Kirk being there.. at all.
oh, I totally agree. We never should have seen Kirk until maybe the very last episode of the series. Just like I don’t think we ever should have seen Spock on Discovery.
Yup, definitely. Both are a distraction, sadly, in what are otherwise excellent shows.
They've introduced Kirk really cleverly and thoughtfully and they're using him well.
SNW is not just a prequel to some other show, it's created a space of its own. And it's not about some timed hand-off to a hypothetical future show about Kirk which may never exist.
SNW is not just a prequel to some other show, it's created a space of its own. And it's not about some timed hand-off to a hypothetical future show about Kirk which may never exist.
DC Fontana said decades ago that Vulcans get it on all the time. Maybe not full of emotion but they do the deed..
Is that canon?
No but she wrote amok time so I will take her word for it.
Not on screen.
Sorry no she did not write it. Thinking of another ep.
And good on SNW for making that explicit, I say.
If Gene Roddenberry was the father of Trek, Dorothy Fontana was the mother.
who said anything about another future hypothetical Kirk/Enterprise show.
Being set before TOS does not automatically make SNW a prequel.
It doesn’t have to set up everything.
I love TOS, but SNW is better in so, so many ways.
It doesn’t have to set up everything.
I love TOS, but SNW is better in so, so many ways.
No, but including Spock, Uhura, M'Benga, and Chapel as regulars and Kirk and Scotty as guest stars kinda does.
And is "setting up" the exclusive function of a prequel? I think that's way too reductive. The function is to explore the past of the characters or setting. Laying the foundations for what happened later is part of that, but I don't accept that it's all of it. Sometimes it can just be an opportunity to explore something more fully than it was in the original, like how Enterprise fleshed out the Andorians or SNW has developed Uhura. That's not "setup," it's just telling stories that were overlooked before.
Similar threads
- Poll
