When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[valkyrie013]

As a graphic designer, I can get into the weeds when I work, so I often take a step back, look at it, go for a coffee/tea and then come back and look and see if I like what I did, either that or get someone else to come in and say yes/no, go this direction etc.
As said, showrunners/writters don't opperate in a vaccuum, theres plenty of writers to bounce off of, but occasionally getting some one out of the group in there to see if there going the right direction is good.
There have always been a sub set of fans that watch, and vocally poo poo it, just today with social media, there voice is amplified. Those you can usually ignore, most of the twitter'verse are people with nothing better to do than yell at someone, where most people couldn't be bothered and are either rarely on the twitter/myface, or not on it.
But you can't just ignore Everything that the fans are saying, like the Klingon hair fluff.. almost generally agreed that that was an error, and they fixed it, which was a good thing because you want your audience to watch! But those comments that just poo poo everything, you can ignore.
Alot of the time, I watch to see where the show will take me with an open mind, I'll critique afterwards if I like it, don't like it, or generally put out my opinions of how it could have been better. but that just a fan being engaged.

 

[Damian]

"Q Who" never explicitly says that there's no knowledge of the Borg in Starfleet's computers. It just shows Picard asking Guinan about them because she has direct knowledge from her people's experience. It would've logically been the El-Aurians who told Starfleet about the Borg after they were rescued in the Generations prologue, so Picard could've consulted the computer between scenes, found out that Guinan's people were the source of what little knowledge existed about the Borg, and thus consulted Guinan herself in case she remembered more than was in the records.

But I thought it was implied in "Dark Frontier" that all was known about the Borg was mostly rumor. I always thought that what Starfleet knew about the Borg prior to Q-Who was very minimal. Guinan did seem to indicate Q's actions meant they encountered the Borg earlier than they were supposed to.

 

[Christopher]

But I thought it was implied in "Dark Frontier" that all was known about the Borg was mostly rumor. I always thought that what Starfleet knew about the Borg prior to Q-Who was very minimal.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Some people assume "Q Who" showed that the Federation had never even heard of the Borg before, not even rumors, so "Dark Frontier"'s assertion that there were earlier rumors was a contradiction. I'm saying the two can be easily reconciled, because nothing in "Q Who" explicitly states a complete lack of prior knowledge. It suggests it, but the suggestion is vague enough to be worked around.

And there's no inconsistency in the rumors coming from the El-Aurians. They weren't firsthand witnesses (at least Guinan wasn't), just people who'd been offworld when the planet was assimilated and had wandered ever since looking for a new home -- probably for decades, since they migrated clear from Delta to Alpha. So they might not have known much beyond Delta Quadrant rumors and myths, and they might have forgotten a lot of what they did know, or at least been reluctant to talk about it. Hence, only rumors.

 

[Noname Given]

As I said, in my opinion a good approach for a [unnamed, future] Star Trek series would be - all thse drones and telescopes and sensors existing - and collecting (and analyzing) raw data at a much higher rate than any starship ever could.

And then the main ship of the [potential] series being tasked with to personally fly to and check out all the interesting spots were anomalies are detected, data doesn't add up, or interesting phenomena or life-forms are spotted. To get a personal look at it. And have the ship's scientists personally poke with a stick at it.

^^^
It would be better if all that data were fed into an A.I. that could sift through it all fast and make informed decisions of how best to use the Human resources to...oh, wait...

 

[Damian]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Some people assume "Q Who" showed that the Federation had never even heard of the Borg before, not even rumors, so "Dark Frontier"'s assertion that there were earlier rumors was a contradiction. I'm saying the two can be easily reconciled, because nothing in "Q Who" explicitly states a complete lack of prior knowledge. It suggests it, but the suggestion is vague enough to be worked around.

And there's no inconsistency in the rumors coming from the El-Aurians. They weren't firsthand witnesses (at least Guinan wasn't), just people who'd been offworld when the planet was assimilated and had wandered ever since looking for a new home -- probably for decades, since they migrated clear from Delta to Alpha. So they might not have known much beyond Delta Quadrant rumors and myths, and they might have forgotten a lot of what they did know, or at least been reluctant to talk about it. Hence, only rumors.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, that all makes sense.

I'll admit when Dark Frontier came out I was a bit bothered by what I thought was a contradiction. But they did it in such a way that it's easy enough to explain, esp. by putting in the story about how what they knew was minimal.

 

[fireproof78]

^^^
It would be better if all that data were fed into an A.I. that could sift through it all fast and make informed decisions of how best to use the Human resources to...oh, wait...

That's when we got Data.

 

[seigezunt]

I found the "Season 8 Writers Room" sequences in the Deep Space Nine documentary very interesting in regard to some of this. As a writer, I loved watching these segments. It was great how flippant they were about killing characters, coming up with radical turns, getting excited and laughing and fighting over their choices.

When it comes down to it, they are trying to come up with a decent story, and what they are doing as creators is a very different process from what we do as fans. Some of the writers were clearly up on their lore, and some were not, and it didn't matter. They were coming up with ideas that probably didn't mesh well with where some of us thought the show might have gone had there been an actual season 8.

But they should NOT have to have a checklist, and we don't and should not have a voice when they go into that room, as we are the creativity killers.

 

[Greg Cox]

Of possible relevance: An article comparing toxic fandom to Stephen King's "Misery."

https://bloody-disgusting.com/edito...fSqgbcHPtfENSOBJMT7SuQdm2e_H9eYf678h4PMEkL_Tk

 

[valkyrie013]

Greg, never thought of it like that..
And its true, you just find the Facebook, twitter, instagram, tinder, etc. of said actor, director, writer etc, and you let loose your feelings un cut, atleast when you had to pen a letter, you almost always read over it before you mailed it, and usually after you read it ur like,, Oh crap, this isn't good.. now its rant, press enter..
And also, you have people who yell at the actor etc for a role they play, like say they yell at the actor who played Jeofrey from game of pointy seats, for what his character does.. its not him, he's hired to play X.. he does it.. the end..

 

[Greg Cox]

I have a pretty thick skin. The only harsh reviews that get under it are the ones that go beyond critiquing the actual words on the page to casting aspersions on my motives or fan cred:

"Cox obviously dashed this one out for the money," "Cox obviously hates Spock," "Cox has obviously never watched a single episode of STAR TREK," etc.

The way I see it, the actual books are fair game. You want to trash my writing . . . have at it. Just don't presume to read my mind and tell me what I was thinking when I wrote them.

 

[fireproof78]

Just don't presume to read my mind and tell me what I was thinking when I wrote them.

1000% this!!! I think I have a white knight complex at times when it comes to how disparaging reviewers can be towards artists on a personal level. That bothers me far more than any sort of criticism against a work. There are several books and films that I thoroughly enjoy that do not meet critical acclaim. I still love them. But, when people treat authors and producers like they know them and insult them is when things go to far, in my opinion.

It's probably why I have no problem defending authors even if I find their story choices questionable. They are still people!

 

[Damian]

I have a pretty thick skin. The only harsh reviews that get under it are the ones that go beyond critiquing the actual words on the page to casting aspersions on my motives or fan cred:

"Cox obviously dashed this one out for the money," "Cox obviously hates Spock," "Cox has obviously never watched a single episode of STAR TREK," etc.

The way I see it, the actual books are fair game. You want to trash my writing . . . have at it. Just don't presume to read my mind and tell me what I was thinking when I wrote them.

Well, I love your books. I constantly bring up "To Reign in Hell" as a personal favorite and it's obvious you know your Star Trek. You made things consistent between "Space Seed" and TWOK that I didn't even realize were inconsistencies

And did someone seriously say you hated Spock . Hell you even look like Spock

 

[Damian]

And that goes for our other writers too. It's been years since a Star Trek book was printed that I didn't at least like.

 

[Rahul]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Some people assume "Q Who" showed that the Federation had never even heard of the Borg before, not even rumors, so "Dark Frontier"'s assertion that there were earlier rumors was a contradiction. I'm saying the two can be easily reconciled, because nothing in "Q Who" explicitly states a complete lack of prior knowledge. It suggests it, but the suggestion is vague enough to be worked around.

"Being a little vague" is probably one of any writer's greatest strengths.
People will try to make sense of everything anyway, no need to spell out all the specifics. That's why I, as a viewer, also prefer some vagueness in my SF - like "200 years ago we invented warp travel", instead of "first warp flight was on April 5th, 2063". Because, one day, that date comes, and then what? Is that now canon? Retcon? Reboot? Whereas with the "200 years prior" line, there is much, much more wiggle-room, and in the worst case, the character just mispoke. People flub lines, and normally don't even get corrected if everybody in the room knows what they were talking about.

Same for plot rules, like "no beaming through shield". That's not possible. Why? For dramatic purposes, because otherwise every battle would immediately be over. But beig vague about the exact reasons allows them to end an episode by "fudging this thing, interacting with this phenomenom,, so that in this, one, special case it is possible", and to neatly solve up a plot without having the last 15 minutes going on about technicalities to bring every character in the right place.

 

[Greg Cox]

And did someone seriously say you hated Spock . Hell you even look like Spock

Oh, I was just making up examples, using STAR TREK references for convenience. You occasionally get these kind of reviews no matter what series you're talking about. I could have just easily cited a character from Roswell or Warehouse 13 or CSI or whatever.

But thanks for the kind words!

On the flip side, as a young editorial assistant, I once made the mistake of shielding an elderly romance author from her harsher reviews, figuring it was too late to teach an old dog tricks new tricks anyway. This came back to bite me when I asked for some serious revisions on her latest manuscript.

"I know what I'm doing, young man. After all, I never get any bad reviews!"

Oops.

 

[Rahul]

I found the "Season 8 Writers Room" sequences in the Deep Space Nine documentary very interesting in regard to some of this. As a writer, I loved watching these segments. It was great how flippant they were about killing characters, coming up with radical turns, getting excited and laughing and fighting over their choices.

When it comes down to it, they are trying to come up with a decent story, and what they are doing as creators is a very different process from what we do as fans. Some of the writers were clearly up on their lore, and some were not, and it didn't matter. They were coming up with ideas that probably didn't mesh well with where some of us thought the show might have gone had there been an actual season 8.

But they should NOT have to have a checklist, and we don't and should not have a voice when they go into that room, as we are the creativity killers.

Very interesting, I have to watch that documentary once it's available for me! I love those behind-the-scenes stuff, I'm that weird dude that watches entire movies I love with director commentary on.

That being said - with a franchise as big as "Star Trek", and expectations as high - I think it's not a bad idea to have a small checklist anyway.

I think MARVEL (I know, shallow example - but I think "shared universe" and "rabid fanbase" makes them somewhat comparable) does that very good: They have some suuuper strict priorities of stuff to get right: The main character's casting. The hero's costume. Their main gimmick. Once that's established - it's a wild ride. And they're really allowed to do whatever they want. Hell - even break their own rules - look at what they did with Thor in "Endgame", or Banner, or the Mandarin.

Now the trick is to keep that checklist tpo the absolute minimum, and be totally willing to throw it out if you have a better idea that you prefer to tell. But I think if you aren't aware of expectations, you can run into things like the ending of "Man of Steel", where Superman kills Zod, and that's supposed to be a dramatic scene - yet the movie itself never established Superman has a no-killing rule!

Even grandmasters like Stanley Kubrick have their "lists". His entire "Napoleon" script is essentially a giant "checklist" of events of Napoleons life he all wanted to capture. For "The Shining", he made a list of horror movie tropes and clichés he was sick of. Of course he completely flipped the shit out of them. But IMO it was important that in any case he was aware of the expectations and then could deliberately decide to follow or negate them. His movies wouldn't have turned out the way they did if he just did what he felt like without his knowledge of the expectations.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I'm not sure nightdiamond is suggesting they go that far necessarily. If I'm reading it right I think she (or he?) is more or less saying is that it's not a bad idea to take a step back from their work and look at it from a fan's perspective. You'll never satisfy all the fans, that's futile. But could the showrunners sometimes be too close to what they are working with. I think, in general with anything in life really, it pays to occasionally step back from what you are working on.

I'm a he, lol.

And thanks, yes, I was not saying that showrunners have no awareness of what they're doing. I do think (observation ) that studios at times may be disconnected from their audience.

These are the Voyages from Enterprise for example-- you know how that is regarded. By looking at the premise and thinking on it, imagining the final product and then looking at fan reactions to the last two TNG movies you can get a feel of how the audience is probably going to react.

We can see it all the time like when the studios think that a movie with lots of explosions and carnage made big money last time, so in this movie let's have lots of buildings explode, chase scenes, sword fights etc.


We might even be seeing a real time example of this now. The Game of Thrones finale is really being criticized by a lot of fans. They say they are disappointed. They're saying the whole season was too rushed.

I like a few episodes from it, some of them epic, but to be honest you can see mistakes like contradictions in characters speech, sudden behavior changes. And a lot tropes and clichés that the show usually avoided.

And Starbucks and water bottles in scenes, time jumps in travel etc.

They're supposed to be doing a prequel, and already some are saying that the backlash will affect it, since some fans are already saying they won't watch it. A lot of commenters are saying they should have just done a couple of total seasons with a lesser budget. Instead of investing a lot in a season with only 6 episodes--they had to compress and rush a lot of things like behavior, motives etc.

 

[Damian]

I'm a he, lol.

And thanks, yes, I was not saying that showrunners have no awareness of what they're doing. I do think (observation ) that studios at times may be disconnected from their audience.

These are the Voyages from Enterprise for example-- you know how that is regarded. By looking at the premise and thinking on it, imagining the final product and then looking at fan reactions to the last two TNG movies you can get a feel of how the audience is probably going to react.

We can see it all the time like when the studios think that a movie with lots of explosions and carnage made big money last time, so in this movie let's have lots of buildings explode, chase scenes, sword fights etc.


We might even be seeing a real time example of this now. The Game of Thrones finale is really being criticized by a lot of fans. They say they are disappointed. They're saying the whole season was too rushed.

I like a few episodes from it, some of them epic, but to be honest you can see mistakes like contradictions in characters speech, sudden behavior changes. And a lot tropes and clichés that the show usually avoided.

And Starbucks and water bottles in scenes, time jumps in travel etc.

They're supposed to be doing a prequel, and already some are saying that the backlash will affect it, since some fans are already saying they won't watch it. A lot of commenters are saying they should have just done a couple of total seasons with a lesser budget. Instead of investing a lot in a season with only 6 episodes--they had to compress and rush a lot of things like behavior, motives etc.

Yeah. I agree. I think some people misunderstood what I was saying. To be clear I do agree they are the experts and I'm not suggesting they need to set up fan committees or anything of that sort.

Just that sometimes, and this goes for anything, someone could get to involved with a project they are working on, too lost in the details, and that it's helpful I think to step back now and again and look at the big picture.

And TATV is a good example of missing the boat on that. I think they had good intentions but it just came out poorly.

 

[seigezunt]

These are the Voyages from Enterprise for example-- you know how that is regarded. By looking at the premise and thinking on it, imagining the final product and then looking at fan reactions to the last two TNG movies you can get a feel of how the audience is probably going to react.

Not necessarily. I see fan opinions are all over the place for the last two TNG movies. Their failure for a large part was a failure to connect with general audiences, and probably played a role in why the franchise went back to the more universally recognizable Kirk/Spock story. We can debate for a long time what exactly failed in those films, and the lessons to future producers can be nebulous. These Are The Voyages less so, as I think fans were pretty united in calling out the fact that it strangely pulled TNG into what should have been an ENT show.

But it's been a few years, and the makeup of fandom is arguably different, thanks to the Kelvin movies, streaming, etc.

I don't think there is some obvious magical formula that the creators are missing. But I do feel that they should be thinking about fan reactions less, not more, and focus on the narrative strength of the product.

 

[Ovation]

I don't think there is some obvious magical formula that the creators are missing. But I do feel that they should be thinking about fan reactions less, not more, and focus on the narrative strength of the product.

Exactly so. X1000