When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Damian]

Sometimes we're in the mood for "Muppets Take Manhatten"

Love the Muppets. Fozzie is the best. I loved his line in "The Muppets" when they are told Miss Piggie would have an appointment for them in September and they all were moaning that was months away. And Fozzie says "That's nothing, I once had to wait an entire year for September" I mean it sounds dopey here but it's all in his delivery.

And whenever I see Animal I can't help but think of David Lee Roth.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, true. I guess it's just that it seemed starting in the 80's sequels became a lot more frequent, and usually to lesser regarded films.

Oh, hardly. That kind of thinking is a common perceptual error called the Recency Illusion. People always look at things that have been the case pretty much forever and assume they're recent trends.

If anything, movie sequels were far, far more common in the past. After all, before TV came along, movies and radio filled the niches that TV later would, including ongoing series. There were plenty of film series that churned out anywhere from 1 to 4 installments per year for years on end, like Tarzan, Blondie, Ma and Pa Kettle, the Bowery Boys movies, or the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series. (Some of them, including the Universal Holmes films, even used the same opening title sequence in nearly every movie, just like TV series titles.) Once TV took over as the place to find ongoing series, the number and frequency of feature film sequels actually decreased.

And there were always plenty of sequels to "lesser regarded films," but the thing is, those films tended to be forgotten over time. We generally only remember the standout films from the past, and that creates the illusion that there's more garbage today than there was then.

 

[Damian]

I will admit Jason Takes Manhattan was a huge disappointment. Many fans were looking forward to Jason tearing it up in the Big Apple. Instead we got 2/3 of Jason chasing teenagers around a cruise ship.

It did feature a Star Trek alum though, Peter Mark Richman, who played Ralph Oppenhouse in TNG "The Neutral Zone" actually plays an equally obnoxious character in Jason Takes Manhattan. Actually one of those characters you're glad to see get wasted by Jason (he gets upended into a trash can full of slimy water, very fitting for a slimy character)

 

[Damian]

Oh, hardly. That kind of thinking is a common perceptual error called the Recency Illusion.

Well, in my defense, I did say seemed.

I guess part of it is sometimes we look with a bit of romantic nostalgia at the past. There are very few films nowadays I'm willing to fork over money to see in a movie theater. Star Trek films (of course), James Bond films, Paul Thomas Anderson films and M. Night Shyamalan (at least when he's in his element). The last film I saw in the theater in fact was Glass by Shyamalan. Not quite as good as Split and Unbreakable, but pretty good. And a pretty good take on the superhero genre actually, not something I'm usually into.

And yes, I did see Halloween last year, but come on, John Carpenter was back in the fold AND Jamie Lee Curtis. Halloween was one of those film series that tested my continuity obsession as Halloween H20 disregarded 4, 5 and 6. Then the Rob Zombie films disregarded everything. Then last year's Halloween film was a sequel to the original Halloween, ignoring everything from Halloween II on. Frankly it's a continuity-obsessed fan like my self's worse nightmare.

Oh and who can forget Halloween III: Season of the Witch which isn't tied to any of the other films. GAAAAAHHHH!!!!

 

[Greg Cox]

This is where I brag that the very first movie novelization I ever edited was for WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE. A fun project, really. The author, David Bergantino, who, yes, later wrote a ZORRO novel for me, really took advantage of the whole "meta" nature of that movie, writing himself into the plot.

But, yes, movie series and sequels are nothing new, and were extremely prolific back in the day. Besides the ones we still remember, like the Mummy or Charlie Chan, there were entire series that are now all but forgotten aside from occasional marathons on TCM: Torchy Blaine, Mexican Spitfire, Boston Blackie, Inner Sanctum, the Falcon, Paula the Ape Woman, Chandu the Magician, Francis the Talking Mule, etc.

And, trust me, some of them took a rather laissez-faire approach to continuity, long before anybody cared about "canon."

 

[sekundant]

(I really enjoy the discussion here, thanks for all the participants )

Sometimes, I call them "Canon- belt Trekkies", but I have great respect to fans who care about canon. To talk about canon, you have to know the canon and it takes to much time, requires to much personal engagements. Discussions between canon followers and the revisionists ( ) remember me the fights between ASOIAF readers and GoT fans. I think both sides love passionately enough their object of desire in their own ways. It is something about personal identification and the art of reflection it. It is not Trek specific thing, it should be from the very beginning, even before it became so popular. Cain and Abel could talk about it, I assume.

If we accept the theory that sci-fi or fantasy literature/media products are our modern mythology, we can better understand association of religion, fanatics, reformers, prophets, etc. So far we know, even ancient Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Babylon societies have some variations of their myths. So, why shouldn't we have?

I am fine with infinite parallel realities, so far they keep being logical within their arcs. So, I can also live with craziest fanfics, so far they don't break the frames of their own defined universe. (Well, I am not so tolerant for the novels, excepts AU novels, they do not have art freedom to totally redefine/deny/ignore characters or events whom/ which we know from the shows, imho. I don't mean altering them or writing the missing scenes.)

For me, everything about hope, voyage of being human and even painfully stories about them are canon. Cheap emotional dramas, violation in the name of sensation, cruelty without reason, no where going dead ends, arrogance and superficiality as superiority, all these sort of things are not canon.

 

[drt]

And robots in the TOS era? Hell, yes. I love it that that's finally canon. They should've been there all along. Look at all the Roombas and drones and things we have now, the self-driving cars that are only years away, and it's absurd to think there won't be lots of robots in the future. It's always been a strange omission in Trek that it doesn't have robots aside from the occasional android, and I've long wanted to believe that they were there in the background all along when we weren't looking. So I was thrilled when that was finally made explicit. Anything that lets me portray the 23rd century in a way that feels more plausibly futuristic rather than a relic of the 1960s is a good thing.

I had always headcanoned that maybe the Federation had undergone its own "Butlerian Jihad", as an explanation for the lack of robots or artificial intelligences (echoing the stance against genetic engineering being rooted in the Eugenics Wars). During the course of the second season, I even started to wonder if Discovery was going to go down that road with the Control storyline.

 

[BillJ]

And, trust me, some of them took a rather laissez-faire approach to continuity, long before anybody cared about "canon."

CBS should probably lead the way and quit talking about how it all fits together every chance they get. I understand there's a business side to all of this, but they are setting up the expectation of it all fitting together.

 

[mos6507]

I doubt it's ever really "reasonable" to get upset about a TV show.

If so, then also unreasonable to get upset about those who get upset about a TV show.

This whole forum is nothing but people getting worked up, positive or negative, about entertainment. Question that and you question the entire forum and our participation in it.

Feel free to logoff and enjoy the spring weather.

 

[Christopher]

I had always headcanoned that maybe the Federation had undergone its own "Butlerian Jihad", as an explanation for the lack of robots or artificial intelligences (echoing the stance against genetic engineering being rooted in the Eugenics Wars). During the course of the second season, I even started to wonder if Discovery was going to go down that road with the Control storyline.

Except that doesn't make sense, because robots and AIs are not the same thing. Outlawing Roombas because Skynet happened is like outlawing gerbils because Hitler was a mammal. It doesn't make sense to ban mindless machines because of the actions of a sentient one.

And the ban on genetic engineering is stupid too, but that's another conversation.

 

[1001001]

If so, then also unreasonable to get upset about those who get upset about a TV show.

By that logic it is also unreasonable to get upset about people who get upset at other people getting upset. See? We could do this ad infinitum, but I doubt the board would enjoy it.

This whole forum is nothing but people getting worked up, positive or negative, about entertainment. Question that and you question the entire forum and our participation in it.

No it isn't. And if people do get "worked up" that's perfectly fine. I would still argue that's not necessarily a "reasonable" thing to do, but we are not always reasonable creatures.

Feel free to logoff and enjoy the spring weather.

Feel free to keep your advice to yourself.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Greg Cox]

I guess the question is: at what point does the "canon" thing actually start to get in the way of one's enjoyment of the shows?

As I always say, there's no "right" way to do TREK, but when you get to the point where fretting over "canon" generates anger and anxiety, to the extent that word of any new movie or series or episode causes one apprehension instead of anticipation, because you're worried that the "canon" will be damaged, maybe our priorities are getting out whack. If you're not enjoying TREK, what's the point?

Doesn't mean we have to be blindly uncritical or anything. (Don't get me started on Seven and Chakotay hooking up.). But approaching Trek from a defensive posture, ever on the alert for "canon violations," doesn't strike me as very fun--or conducive to a positive viewing experience.

There's a fine line between taking continuity seriously--and taking it too seriously.

Although reasonable people can debate where exactly that line is.

 

[fireproof78]

CBS should probably lead the way and quit talking about how it all fits together every chance they get. I understand there's a business side to all of this, but they are setting up the expectation of it all fitting together.

Why does CBS' lead matter?

I guess the question is: at what point does the "canon" thing actually start to get in the way of one's enjoyment of the shows?

This is my question. It came up multiple times, but DSC kind of takes the limelight now with this discussion. I see a lot of hand wringing over DSC trying to fit with canon and trying to make it all work and to me that misses the whole point. If it creates anxiety then it isn't worth while for entertainment. I have enough anxiety with work, and kids, and family life. I don't need to add to it.

I think this is apt here:

Feel free to logoff and enjoy the spring weather.

Yes, please. Feel free to take a break and enjoy something fun if Star Trek is anxiety producing.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I guess the question is: at what point does the "canon" thing actually start to get in the way of one's enjoyment of the shows?

At the point where the show does something that takes you out of the immersion, which can be as minor as a “huh?” moment of unclear continuity or as major as “wait, did anyone actually say they’d be changing production design?”

As I always say, there's no "right" way to do TREK, but when you get to the point where fretting over "canon" generates anger and anxiety, to the extent that word of any new movie or series or episode causes one apprehension instead of anticipation, because you're worried that the "canon" will be damaged, maybe our priorities are getting out whack. If you're not enjoying TREK, what's the point?

Exactly, which is why anger and fretting should be channeled into constructive rationalization, which is part of the fun of watching DSC (in absence of interesting character-driven writing and acting).

Doesn't mean we have to be blindly uncritical or anything. (Don't get me started on Seven and Chakotay hooking up.). But approaching Trek from a defensive posture, ever on the alert for "canon violations," doesn't strike me as very fun--or conducive to a positive viewing experience.

There's a fine line between taking continuity seriously--and taking it too seriously.

Although reasonable people can debate where exactly that line is.

It’s fine to take it too seriously as long as one remains positive. For example, one could be annoyed by Orci’s stardates-as-years, or one could use them as evidence that it never was about a day count, which would explain how the Xindi also used stardates (their format and units), and maybe even why Archer was able to use calendar dates in his starlog: what if they were also stardates, the first stage of Orci’s format? If the format can be anything, what is the actual substance of the star- prefix?

 

[BillJ]

If the format can be anything, what is the actual substance of the star- prefix?

Stardates are essentially gibberish. Originally created so they didn't have to nail down when the show took place.

 

[Nyotarules]

And the ban on genetic engineering is stupid too, but that's another conversation.

I hope DISC gets rid of that crap, banning it for the whole Federation because humans had a bad history with it, utter nonsense!

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Stardates are essentially gibberish. Originally created so they didn't have to nail down when the show took place.

Only out-of-universe and not all the time, while in-universe they’re either perfectly clear or perhaps the computer needs to be consulted for interpretation (or what if the universal translator does that for everyone except the, er, automated documentary camera?)

 

[BillJ]

Only out-of-universe...

All that really matters. They were an incoherent place holder for real dates that the production staff didn't want to get stuck with.

 

[Christopher]

At the point where the show does something that takes you out of the immersion, which can be as minor as a “huh?” moment of unclear continuity or as major as “wait, did anyone actually say they’d be changing production design?”

But the show has done that countless times over the past 50-odd years, yet we've found ways to rationalize it or shrug it off. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

No, just a new level of rationalizing which wasn’t needed before (“Discovery universe” to explain the reengineered 1701 of the 2250s).