TNG and DS9 took a few seasons to find their feet, but at least were confident of their premise. DSC seems very confused about its own identity and premise, beyond being "Michael Burnham's story". The writers say season 3 will be about "escaping canon", but if that was such a problem why make it a prequel and connect it to original Trek characters to begin with?
When did canon become such a hot-button issue?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
TNG and DS9 took a few seasons to find their feet, but at least were confident of their premise. DSC seems very confused about its own identity and premise, beyond being "Michael Burnham's story". The writers say season 3 will be about "escaping canon", but if that was such a problem why make it a prequel and connect it to original Trek characters to begin with?
The human brain is good at seeing patterns where none exist. We need the ability to put patterns together from incomplete information in order to realize, say, that there's a leopard stalking us in the bushes, but that also gives us a tendency to imagine patterns where there are none, like seeing people and animals in the stars in the night sky, or seeing the face of Jesus in a piece of burnt toast.
That's why the word "theory," used properly, means a model that makes testable predictions. We need a mechanism for distinguishing the patterns we think we see from the patterns that are really there.
I think people forget that most movies and TV shows fail. It's not the exception, it's closer to the rule. There are a lot of reasons why movies don't perform to expectations, and it's not always because of the quality of the movies, and it sure isn't because of their place in the sequence of a series. Sometimes the third movie in a trilogy does poorly, yes, but sometimes it improves on the second film's performance or reception (e.g. Thor: Ragnarok) or is considered a strong and satisfying finish to a uniformly good trilogy (e.g. Back to the Future Part III or War for the Planet of the Apes). The evidence does not support that theory, as long as one considers all the evidence rather than cherrypicking the examples that satisfy one's desire to be right.
I didn't expect the vitriol toward The Last Jedi. I thought it was brilliant and elevated Star Wars to a new level of sophistication and substance. But I liked it because it challenged the franchise's tropes and broke with cozy expectations, and I guess a lot of people would've preferred it to reaffirm those cozy expectations.
It was Bryan Fuller's idea to make it a prequel; originally he wanted a seasonal-anthology show with a different cast and story in a different part of the timeline every season. CBS didn't want an anthology, so they just went with Fuller's idea for the first segment of his anthology, which was set pre-TOS. But Bryan Fuller only lasted long enough to lock down the season 1 storyline and was then let go, with his deputies Gretchen Berg & Aaron Harberts taking over and showrunning season 1 and the first few episodes of season 2. But then they were let go too. So the original creative minds behind the series are long gone, and their successors have decided to take things in a different direction. The first couple of seasons were kind of a conceptual muddle due to the shifting showrunners, so maybe they decided it was good to make a clean break and start fresh.
Besides, sometimes you don't realize how much of a problem something might be until you've tried it. Sometimes you attempt something, it doesn't work as well as you hoped, and you reassess. That's what Enterprise did in its third season, remember.
Or maybe, just maybe, it is a different opinion, and not the result of some kind of advanced learning.
Oh, how sad for you. There are plenty of other places where your inflated opinion and self-importance would be even less welcome.
And, if I follow along with the characters? What then?
Ultimately, success of a TV show is not as formulaic as even Hollywood producers would like.
Fixed that for you, so that it's now an objectively correct statement @1001001 can be happy with.
Sidenote: I do like DIS! But I still agree with every single thing Boris listed here.
This is precisely so. Because, no matter that storytelling devices utilized there is a lot of expectations wrapped around familiar properties, and stories. This is why I struggle with the idea of objective assessment of art.
Now, I think that TLJ can be assessed and stated to have deficits, but my overall reaction to them is overlaid by the fact that I enjoyed the film. And, I think that's the part of is missed in any sort of formula exploration-humans are emotionally driven creatures, and facts and logic loose some of their impact if someone enjoys a story.
I don't know of any other way to put it. If there was a check list for writers to be able to go through, and for critics to hold up the grade sheet and let them know their failings it still wouldn't produce good art.
The thing is, some of us enjoy having our preconceptions challenged and our minds broadened, seeing it as an opportunity to learn new things; while others resent it and see it as an attack on their beliefs and certainties. So a story that delights those in the former group may offend those in the latter, and a story that comforts the latter group may bore the former.
TLJ is not applicable since there is no evidence Johnson made any kind of a deliberate U-turn from JJ’s setup, but rather looked at TFA carefully and independently developed his followup to that premise. If anything, one could praise the apparent red herrings of Snoke and Rey’s parents as fairly unexpected non-answers, while at the same time wonder if deflating the surrounding expectations actually hurt the story, or simply served a function in refocusing Rey’s search for belonging and emphasizing the importance of Kylo’s own decisions vs Snoke’s guidance. Either way the movie was solid and may be seen differently in combination with TROS.
Last edited:
Likely it will be seen differently.
Regardless, TLJ is applicable as it demonstrates how emotions inform reactions to stories.
Tangent, nothing more, nothing less.
I think that was true so far as regards Luke, Rey and Kylo Ren but the stuff with the resistance fleet running out of fuel and the bit with the casino planet I found to be ridiculous, pointless and boring. And the whole resistance being reduced to a few people on the Millennium Falcon was especially nonsensical.
^I won't argue specific points about the movie, because this isn't the thread for that, and because it is the thread for saying that it's okay for different people to have different opinions.
But it is the thread for going off on “tangents” which by implication conflate my specific criticism of DSC construction with online vitriol towards TLJ (and a number of other examples), thus putting me in a position where I just have to go into specifics of how TLJ is different, namely that the change in directors didn’t result in any obvious retooling, or that TLJ doesn’t go for fan service of the day at the expense of logical plot developments.
There is no obligation to respond to said tangents. Simply clarify your point.
I'd say it became far more relevant when studios started to reboot everything. Before then, no one really cared. It started becoming contentious when prequels were a thing (Phantom Menace, Enterprise, etc...) and then became blown up by the time reboots got thrown around.
Really it's just an extension of the concept of "studios can't think of anything new".
Really it's just an extension of the concept of "studios can't think of anything new".
Or maybe it’s simpler just to address my specifics rather than also surround them with all kinds of generalizations, ranging from autocracy to Comicsgate? Whether or not one agrees these issues are “objective”, they’re not a matter of taste either, or there would be no basis for literary criticism or editorial suggestions.
Some people just have to accept that it’s OK to watch flawed shows and even like certain elements (certainly the ongoing use of Okrand’s Klingon is fresh), but not reject the notion of a shared critical distance even if it doesn’t come up for some during weekly viewing.
I have an interesting take on this; if not the episodes, then I like for the characters themselves to be serialized. (IMO) One of the weaknesses of the episodic style of Trek is that it tends to leave characters limited with little growth.
Before I started watching DS9, TNG used to be my favorite. Then one time while watching reruns I noticed everything happens the same way. They usually have an adventure, save the day, then forget about it and off to the next one next week. Sometimes it's so crazy a red shirt is mutilated or something and they're laughing at the end of the episode.
They have what is supposed to be very serious relationships, and then by the next week it's totally forgotten and never mentioned again. Serious, crazy incidents happen and are rarely talked about again. It's like the characters have a constant memory reset button.
I think this happened all the way into Nemesis. Geordi, Crusher, even Worf (while he was there), were instantly locked into their roles as engineer, doctor and security. They were all the same people they were almost a decade ago and hardly had anything to do except fill their role as the engineer, doctor or security chief.
In one episode, Geordi and Data were having a conversation and all they were talking about was his cat Spot. If it had been more of a serial thing like 'what happened with you and Tasha?' it would have been a lot more interesting and memorable. Enough to add a 3d quality to them.
Otoh I noticed when characters frequently remember and talk about past events, the dialog is different. At least it seems different. The characters seem more 3 dimensional and like they're living in real time.
That's why I tend to be attracted now to shows like DS9, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, OITNB etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
