When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Christopher]

This just seems to be incredibly limiting, though.

Yeah. Anyone who can't "accept" a role being played by two or more actors is making it impossible for themselves to enjoy a huge amount of fiction. Many fictional characters have been played by dozens of actors, if not hundreds. For that matter, quite a few Star Trek characters have been played by two or more actors, so it's not something that Trek fans haven't dealt with many times before.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think it was somebody on this very board who once tried explaining to me that anybody could play Hamlet, but only Shatner could play Kirk. This still boggles my mind.

In what universe is the role of James T. Kirk somehow more "iconic" than Hamlet?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I’m not really getting the sense that this thread is converging towards a conclusion. We kind of started with production design, but now it’s about recasting, which to me at least seems like a relatively niche point of contention. So many topics are covered that the whole ongoing discussion can pretty much be summarized like this:

1) As with anything new, some people won’t like it for whatever reason.

2) If they do remain critical (which some will call “hate” in the more recent sense of expressing dislike), instead of just watching something or not watching it, they’re probably wrong.

While there are definitely extremes, it is important to recognize that constant indifference towards an average product can also be expressed as a set of critical bulletpoints repeated when the occassion calls for such. Being a fan doesn’t mean standing behind whatever the company chooses to do; it’s about involvement regardless of opinion.

 

[Ovation]

Different people have different limits on what they'll accept from fiction. Might as well get used to it.

I am used to it. I certainly don’t have to respect it. (I respect their right to set their own expectations but I’m in no way obligated to respect the specific choices they make.)

 

[Ovation]

I’m not really getting the sense that this thread is converging towards a conclusion

New to the BBS, are you?

Most threads around here eventually meander—as is the nature of conversations (which are what these threads are intended to resemble, rather than some tightly defined debate).

It’s perfectly fine to have a critical perspective on the latest show (or Trek in general) and such perspectives are more persuasive in proportion to their rational construction, but a rationally constructed opinion remains a subjective expression. Attempting to characterize opinions as “objective” is a fool’s errand. Moreover, in an open discussion of this type, topic drift is inevitable—given sufficient space and time.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I’m not new to BBSs (plural), so I know that topic drift can be limited by things like a very specific title, and the whole point of “objective” (pages ago) was that people with opinions will still create specific, measurable effects on a product, whether it’s ratings, awards, renewal or cancellation, with reasoning that in many cases doesn’t usually differ from person to person (as when people call out a deus-ex-machina ending, for example).

 

[seigezunt]

Hopefully this is not a faulty memory, but I recall an interview with her, well before TSFS was released, in which she said that she had decided that the way to prepare for playing a Vulcan was to learn absolutely nothing about what had been done before regarding playing Vulcans.

Doesn't quite match what I heard hear say at a convention last year, which basically amounted to Nimoy not being impressed with Kirstie's more emotional take (and on-set goofiness, apparently) and that, while she had been prepared to do Saavik in a similar fashion, Nimoy specifically directed her to play it cool. And having now met her, she is definitely not a cool or stiff person. Acting! lol.

Though I guess it still may be accurate that she didn't study previous Vulcans, which at that time did not amount to much more than Spock, Sarek and some bit parts.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Stonn, T'Pring and T'Pau, but yes, I see your point. I'll also add that I recall this appearing in Starlog, so it may not have been an actual interview versus the writers needing to fill space.

 

[seigezunt]

(which some will call “hate” in the more recent sense of expressing dislike)

I'm pretty secure in calling it hate when I see pseudo-religious terminology like "heresy" and "abomination" used in reference to a TV show or movie, or (thankfully less these days, but there was a lot of it in 2009) referring to plot and design concepts as "rape." Yes, I think it's more than fair to call these critiques hate. Same goes for posted wishes that the franchise die rather than become inpure, or that early or violent death be inflicted on Mr. Abrams or Kurtzman. Yes, I would lump that under hate.

While there are definitely extremes, it is important to recognize that constant indifference towards an average product can also be expressed as a set of critical bulletpoints repeated when the occassion calls for such. Being a fan doesn’t mean standing behind whatever the company chooses to do; it’s about involvement regardless of opinion.

I don't think anyone is requiring that. One is free to invoke those bullet points over and over, as we are free to lament that there surely are better uses of one's time.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Yes, but saying that you see extremes and they are bad doesn’t lead to a useful discussion. You’ll find such reactions whether the topic is music or politics or history or whatever. It’s not specific to TV fandom, so I’m more curious about specific points of contention.

 

[Rahul]

On a complete tangent, I want to call out @Rahul because never have I agreed so much with someone whom I so vehemently disagree with. We have really different conclusions about new Trek, but I find your criticisms thoughtful, and with the full heart of a fan. I just wanted to say that, instead of bulk-quoting multiple posts and commenting "agreed."

Aw, thanks.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but saying that you see extremes and they are bad doesn’t lead to a useful discussion. You’ll find such reactions whether the topic is music or politics or history or whatever. It’s not specific to TV fandom, so I’m more curious about specific points of contention.

Neither does repetition of the bullet points, or the concept that there is an objective standard that individuals are too dense to see. Opinions are going to vary, and citing bullet points does not create discussion either.

My larger contention is the sheer lack of flexibility that comes with many of the canon discussions. That Star Trek is somehow so unique as a TV show that it requires special knowledge of canon to craft and create within a specific product, and that fan expectations are rigid and immovable.

Thus far the only conclusion from this thread that I can safely take away is that I have nothing but pity for production teams.

 

[seigezunt]

Yes, but saying that you see extremes and they are bad doesn’t lead to a useful discussion. You’ll find such reactions whether the topic is music or politics or history or whatever. It’s not specific to TV fandom, so I’m more curious about specific points of contention.

Which have been gone over in detail, as far as I can tell, so I don't quite understand your disappointment. This is opinion, not an exact science.

 

[1001001]

Doesn't quite match what I heard hear say at a convention last year, which basically amounted to Nimoy not being impressed with Kirstie's more emotional take (and on-set goofiness, apparently) and that, while she had been prepared to do Saavik in a similar fashion, Nimoy specifically directed her to play it cool. And having now met her, she is definitely not a cool or stiff person. Acting! lol.

I was going to say the same thing. She is a delightful convention guest.

She did this thing in San Francisco with the guy who played the Traveler, like a which story is true? game...

She told us she actually had "Pon Farr" with the actor who played the last incarnation of Spock before Nimoy in TSFS. She also talked about getting high with Rene Auberjonois ("who hasn't"?).

Great fun.

If she was acting stiff, it's because she was directed to.

 

[seigezunt]

At last year's Trekonderoga she read an excerpt of a one-woman show she's writing about her sexual awakening in the 1970s. I wished I had taken a picture of the audience reaction.

 

[Soong-type Android]

I think it was somebody on this very board who once tried explaining to me that anybody could play Hamlet, but only Shatner could play Kirk. This still boggles my mind.

In what universe is the role of James T. Kirk somehow more "iconic" than Hamlet?

Chris Pine did a serviceable job in the reboot movies as Kirk as did Alden Ehrenreich in the role of Han Solo, although the material they had to work with left a lot to be desired. Karl Urban did a great McCoy it has to be said. Ethan Peck was a better Spock than Zachary Quinto in my view.

 

[Christopher]

Thus far the only conclusion from this thread that I can safely take away is that I have nothing but pity for production teams.

Creators generally learn not to worry too much about negative criticisms, since there are always going to be some, and for a wide range of different reasons. No matter what you do, somebody is bound to dislike it. As long as your work sells well enough, that proves people like it, even if some people don't.

Chris Pine did a serviceable job in the reboot movies as Kirk as did Alden Ehrenreich in the role of Han Solo, although the material they had to work with left a lot to be desired. Karl Urban did a great McCoy it has to be said. Ethan Peck was a better Spock than Zachary Quinto in my view.

I think the Kelvin films did a fantastic job of recasting. Although I'm not as enamored as Urban's McCoy as most people are. Most of the other cast members made the roles their own, evoking the originals without just copying them. But Urban pretty much just did a straight-up DeForest Kelly imitation, and so his performance felt more superficial to me than the others. It was a very good imitation, to be sure, but recasting needs to be more than mere imitation, no matter how good.

As for the Spocks, I think both Quinto and Peck did good jobs, but I give Quinto a slight edge.

 

[BillJ]

This just seems to be incredibly limiting, though.

I’ve never found it to be. Imagine every single person has a line on how much change they’ll accept before either treating something as an alternate version or abandoning it entirely.

 

[FormerLurker]

Reaching back to page 36 for this, but here goes:

By that logic, TOS "broke canon" when it replaced James R. Kirk, lithium crystals, Vulcanians, and UESPA. And TNG did when it gave Worf a new forehead in season 2 and retconned away Data's previously demonstrated abilities to use contractions and feel emotion.

Worf's new forehead is laughable as an example here. The producers had no choice but to make a new one, as someone had broken into Michael Westmore's studio and stolen the mold for the original. They did their level best to make the new one look as much as possible like the original, but without the original to use as a resource, the inevitable changes to the final product were unavoidable.

Mind you, I'm laughing at the complainers, not at you.

 

[Christopher]

Worf's new forehead is laughable as an example here. The producers had no choice but to make a new one, as someone had broken into Michael Westmore's studio and stolen the mold for the original. They did their level best to make the new one look as much as possible like the original, but without the original to use as a resource, the inevitable changes to the final product were unavoidable.

What's your source for that? I could've sworn that Worf's season 1 forehead showed up on a Pagh crewmember in "A Matter of Honor" in season 2.

Anyway, Michael Westmore frequently modified his alien makeup designs. Sometimes they made wholesale changes, like changing the Trill's bumpy foreheads to just painted spots, or changing the Ktarians' bumpy foreheads to a few tiny horns since they had to be applied to a baby and later a child actress (well, two child actresses) as Naomi Wildman. But sometimes they were more subtle refinements, like when sharper cheekbones were added to the Ferengi makeup after the first couple of seasons, or when the U-shaped top ridge on the Bajoran nose appliance was removed to simplify the application process.