When did canon become such a hot-button issue?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Yeah, lots of "ethnic" foods were invented by immigrant communities -- e.g. a lot of what Westerners call "Chinese food" was actually invented by Chinese-American chefs. Then there's the odd case of fortune cookies, which were invented by a Japanese-American restaurant based on a couple of traditional Japanese food items (the cookie from one source and the practice of inserting written messages from another), yet somehow came to be associated by Americans with Chinese cuisine.
It goes the other way, too. In Japan, the "traditional" Christmas meal is fried chicken, because of a very successful KFC marketing campaign there. Also, one of their major "Western food" staples I've heard of is something we don't have in America as far as I know -- omelette rice (or omu-raisu), an omelet filled with fried rice and topped with ketchup. (That one was a result of postwar shortages and the need for simple recipes based on cheap ingredients, I think.)
But it is objectively wrong if a preexisting, successful concept is used as a tool to draw in an audience and thereby ease the risk and creative effort needed, and by extension any objective awards or other long-term recognition. Most riff-ons are built on that commercial premise, rather than a genuine feeling that a character or a concept must be brought back because a story idea demands it. Or do you believe it’s OK if CBS prefers to settle for fare-of-the-day, and egotism to demand award-winning television? At least as one option on the menu out of four?
I could get behind that....
'Objectively wrong' what moral tv code are they breaking? None. Not liking what's on the menu does not mean the menu is wrong. Why are some fans expecting a franchise to operate on their personal preference? Fandom is not monolithic
Last edited:
How can it not be wrong if a show is then cancelled and forgotten because it just didn’t break new ground creatively, and win new audiences? Is something right because it can physically happen? Is Star Trek that kind of franchise? DSC is still alive after being retooled twice, but those are warning signs, as is the clunky, unnecessary “we won’t talk about it” solution in the S2 finale.
Same with so called "Mexican" food. I went to a local church bazaar and this parish has a large Hispanic population and they always have a food stand at the bazaar with authentic Hispanic foods. Their tacos are nothing like the tacos you get at La Tolteca I can tell you.
I do have to admit to a preference for the 'fake me out' versions. I guess because I'm a gluttonous American
. You know thinking about it a lot of the 'ethnic' cuisine I like is probably bastardized versions of the real thing---Chinese food, Italian food---none of them is probably truly authentic.Now I'm getting hungry.
I think a lot of that can be attributed to the change in showrunners. Each showrunner has their own ideas about what they want to focus on and do. TNG went through that in its initial stages as well, and that turned out to be a great show. Sometimes a new show needs some tune-ups. I'm not sure I'd attribute that to continuity issues.
And at the end of the day, like I said, CBS is going to do whatever sells. It's a fact of life in the entertainment business. I probably wouldn't read any more into it. If suddenly the public wanted more contemplative shows vs. action oriented shows (or movies) then that's what they would shift toward.
I'm not a big fan of modern action flicks. I liked Star Trek (2009) overall--BUT one thing I did not like was the constant shaking camera-lens flares-fairy dust in every other scene. But it's what the public seems to want these days. I'm sort of in the minority that I'd prefer a Stanley Kubrick style of filmmaking. The same thing could apply to modern Star Trek.
Even Berman Trek, for all it's internal consistency, wasn't afraid to push the envelope sometimes. The Xindi year on Enterprise was pretty revolutionary for Star Trek for example. The Dominon War on Deep Space Nine was another--though they took some breaks and still had plenty of episodic episodes during that time. Discovery is just reflecting modern TV audiences in the sense they want more serialized storytelling. Me, I'd prefer a mix of serialized and episodic episodes. But I'm just one person
Aren't traditional tacos often made with fish? That's not something I'd ever want to try. I hate seafood (although I don't begrudge anyone else the right to like it).
I do have to admit to a preference for the 'fake me out' versions. I guess because I'm a gluttonous American
Authenticity is overrated. The liveliest inventions come from mixed influences and fusions. The most innovative cultures in human history -- scientifically, technologically, religiously, culturally, musically, artistically -- have been diverse communities or cultural crossroads where many different ideas and peoples mixed and intermingled their influences to produce something new. Heck, Star Trek itself was the result of filtering the tropes of pulp-magazine science fiction through the mindset of a TV producer who cut his teeth on police dramas and Westerns.
I'm not sure. They had fish, beef and chicken I think. I'm not a fish fan myself (basically tuna fish is it for me...which barely qualifies and I can eat salmon in a pinch). I tried the beef. It was basically a thin piece of beef with a little bit of lettuce in a home made tortilla. Sort of disappointing when I was thinking of a La Tolteca taco, but it was a learning experience.
I can go with that.
It's nice to experience the real thing when the opportunity presents itself, if for no other reason than to experience something different (and have a frame of reference). But I generally prefer the hybrid versions of ethnic cuisine. The only exception might be French food. I find I enjoy French cuisine. I also went to a Vietnamese run restaurant once and tried a Vietnamese version of won-ton soup that was very good. I can't honestly say if that's an authentic dish in Vietnam or some hybrid of different styles but it was very good.Though I guess there are some authentic foods I'd be a bit hesitant to try, like authentic Chinese or Japanese food (I don't like cooked fish, so I'm not likely to try raw fish--in fact, make that a definite
). And when it comes to meat it's basically beef and bird meat (chicken and Turkey)---oh and I'll eat ham sometimes though not a favorite. So I probably would shy away from some ethnic dishes as a result.Oh, and I'm not a fan of brussel sprouts either. Though one vegetable I did try at a restaurant and ended up loving was grilled asparagus. When it comes to non-meat I'll pretty much try anything. And in that case I was rewarded with something I liked.
Because that's the nature of business, not a moral or objective wrong.
Man, this thread just took the weirdest, most awesome turn imaginable.
I'm a big fan of "authenticity" when it comes to ethnic food in restaurants though. I got really into Chinese food ever since I got to know the few restaurants where the Chinese born people in my city go. That food is not for everyone (certainly a far cry from the "usual" Chinese/Asian restaurants), but it just offers such a completely new experience. The mixing and fusion then comes mostly at home - when I try to recreate or get inspired by certain things.
I'm a big fan of "authenticity" when it comes to ethnic food in restaurants though. I got really into Chinese food ever since I got to know the few restaurants where the Chinese born people in my city go. That food is not for everyone (certainly a far cry from the "usual" Chinese/Asian restaurants), but it just offers such a completely new experience. The mixing and fusion then comes mostly at home - when I try to recreate or get inspired by certain things.
Just spitballing, but could the way that Chinese cuisine dominates the Asian restaurants in the Western world (or at least seems to) have something to do with that?
Funny. I detest KFC myself, but it is interesting to hear about how Western foods and dishes are appropriated by other cultures, just as we appropriated a lot of stuff thanks to immigration.
I'd try that. I'd want tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, and cheese on it as well, but the base of it sounds fine.
Probably partly that, partly generations of American racism treating Chinese and Japanese cultures as interchangeable.
Although that goes both ways too. In the early Super Sentai series Battle Fever J back in 1979, the supposedly international Battle Fever team, whose members performed different national dances in their pre-battle pose sequences (the American dance was disco), included a "Battle France" whose trademark dance style was... flamenco. Why not Battle Spain, then? But maybe it comes from the centuries-long tendency in Asia to use "French" as a generic term for Europeans, because the French were often the first Europeans they met. (The Arabic and Turkish word for European is Ferengi, derived from "Frank/French" -- which is where Star Trek evidently got the name, heaven knows why.)
Started with the Star Trek Animated series in 1973. <--- That was the very first fan schism where fans started arguing differences in canon from the Live action compared to the Animated series. This further intensified as the TOS film series started in 1979, etc*.I've been trying to put my finger on when Trek fans became so obsessive over the consistency of the Star Trek canon/continuity. The time I started to notice this happening was probably when ENTERPRISE was announced as a prequel and then nearly every Star Trek production being a prequel after that.
Personally, I get so exhausted having conversations with eagle-eyed fans who let canon get in their way of enjoying a new Star Trek series or film. I've found that when it comes to both ENTERPRISE and DISCOVERY, it's not so much there are violating the Trek canon, but that it's perceived as so simply because they were two starships not ever spoken of before in the earlier shows.
I could go on and on, but I won't.
* - To be fair, there was a group of fans who refused to acknowledge TOS S3 existed/happened beyond "The Tholian Web", "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield", "The Enterprise Incident" and "Day Of The Dove" <--- At least those were the ones the majority could agree on. Others had a few more titles they 'accepted' from TOS Season 3. But generally, before TAS the TOS films and TNG hit, it was often referred to as "The Season that shall not be mentioned" or "The Turd Season."
You really cannot use that term. What is the objective standard to measure art?
Something like not retrofitting Burnham into Spock’s backstory for fan service, not having Lorca run into Mudd of all the villains, and later Pike of all the possible captains that could’ve been assigned to take over, not deciding that all the continuity effort wasn’t good enough and slapping on a “we won’t talk about any of this” band-aid just in case? These are objectively poor creative choices, shortcuts taken in story construction that led to poor results, and all because the story was designed around giving the audience some of the good-old, as opposed to setting a new premise and following it through without ratings boosters.
No, that is not objective, since there are those who enjoy the story elements and those who do not.
It’s not about the individual elements, but rather the haphazard way they’re strung together for that ratings kick, the treat of the day, the unearned “wouldn’t X be cool” factor, without logical, brick-by-brick construction from a premise that would also flesh out the primary characters and plot to the point where we just couldn’t care less about callbacks, but if they did appear, they would make perfect sense in context.
Last edited:
Similar threads
