• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yes.

    And no.

    You don’t need every tiny detail to be right. But if you’re just doing whatever the hell you want, changing literally everything, and most importantly, changing a thoughtful and positive show with great characters and stories into a simple CGI driven pre pew show with a bunch of anti social ashhats as your main cast… Then don’t call it star trek. Then make your own show, call it what you want.

    Don’t take existing characters and strip them of everything that made them great and then whine about toxic fandom if fans call you out.

    I’m not on Reddit, I don’t know how the fandom is, but on Reddit I’d say “now queue the down votes and bans” because new trek fans there apparently don’t like people who remember what star trek was.

    • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not on Reddit, I don’t know how the fandom is, but on Reddit I’d say “now queue the down votes and bans” because new trek fans there apparently don’t like people who remember what star trek was.

      image

        • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          I thought it was appropriate to the tag at the end of your little gatekeeping rant.

          As someone who’s been watching Trek since before TNG, I’ve seen arguments like yours applied to nearly every new iteration of the franchise from TNG to the modern day.

          • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Not the guy you’re responding to, but Discovery and Picard are awful entirely on their own merits; so bad, in fact, that it took me four years to recover enough to try Strange New Worlds, which was great by the way. Lower Decks and Prodigy aren’t really for me, but I’ve caught enough of them to know they’re quality entertainment, too.

            • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              it took me four years to recover enough

              It took you, in your own words, four years to recover?

              Well adjusted nerds when there’s a tv show they don’t like:

              image

              Personally I also really disliked PIC, but I simply choose to be normal and move on with my life.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                When you get older 4 years is nothing. There’s a lot of other things to do. Disco started 8 years ago!

                • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Personally, I find as I get older my concerns aren’t quite so petty.

                  Anyone upset about a television show they didn’t like for four days should seriously assess what is actually going on in their lives.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Then how come you can’t see the difference between tos to TNG, and classic trek vs the new crap? I say crap, because that’s what it is. Discovery was beyond godawful, horrible characters… ST Picard destroyed nearly all love I had for trek, I haven’t watched anything for over a year now, first the first time in my life.

            Look at the Orville, THAT is TNG in a modern jacket, done by someone who knows and loves trek. The nu drek was done by people who don’t give a damn about star trek and it shows.

            • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Look at the Orville, THAT is TNG in a modern jacket, done by someone who knows and loves trek.

              Yeah man, the show where they solved a galactic conflict by giving the leaders of both civilizations date rape pheromones so they’d fuck one another is definitely the torchbearer for TNG and DS9.

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s not really about canon though. That’s more the broader feel of the shows and character development. Picking over canon is picking over “facts” which were established in previous episodes.

      I think the show runners have largely realised the mistakes of the early seasons of DISCO which is why LD, SNW and Prodigy have been received much better; they simply feel more right.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      7 months ago

      I like Stan Lee’s line. A fanboy asked him who would win a fight between two particular characters.

      “Whoever the writer decides would win.”

    • x4740N@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I dislike cannon contradictions because they are basically headcannon rewrites by the writers ignoring cannon

      I understand that mistakes do sometimes happen in writing where they miss a cannon detail but those are mistakes and mistakes aren’t intentional

      If someone wants to write a new star trek story there is plenty of rich cannon already there to craft into a story or a new story could be made following trek universe rules to add to the cannon

      • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 months ago

        A lot of what fans think is canon just isn’t anyway. Most so-called ‘violations’ are just different interpretations of what was shown on screen decades ago.

        There’s an entire list out there of all the headcanon that fans hold up that just isn’t supported by what’s on screen.

        Writers shouldn’t be held to fan interpretations of what they thought they saw in TOS or TNG.

        In other words, fans who clearly live in glass canon houses shouldn’t throw stones.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          I remember reading a rant on reddit (or something, maybe it was one of those TV Show fact sites) about people who were convinced there was some throwaway line in Voyager that implied you needed matter tanks to store matter for replication.

          Turns out the line they were talking about had to do with the matter/anti-matter tanks for the warp drive.

          Sometimes fans are just dumb and completely reinterpret canon as whatever they want it to be anyways.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          TOS and TNG aren’t even consistent in their own shows. Gene just wrote whatever sriry he wanted to tell and ran with it.

          • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well there’s that too.

            Gene found it totally cool for previously unmentioned immediate family to show up out of the blue, but fans can’t help going into spasms when things not previously mentioned show up.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oh the irony that this quote is in response to the negative criticism of the Kelvin movies.

    Even if those movies had not been fun, even if they had not birthed a new generation of Star Trek fans that went on to discover the classics and literally revived the Star Trek franchise, even if they had not been genuinely interesting stories unto themselves… they allowed Leonard Nimoy to reprise his role as Spock one last time, they allowed Majel Barrett to reprise her role as the voice of the ship’s computer one last time.

    So, for those reasons, I am glad we got them how we did and when we did. Star Trek might still be shelved otherwise.

    • dariusj18@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes however, though I enjoyed the movies, and though I am not a stickler for canon, I do dislike how they don’t really contain the hopeful futurism that Trek was created to portray.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Also, the show can’t possibly keep up with advances in science and changes in the real world.

  • M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I like this, I’m kinda starting to read some the books and while they are not canon, I’m going to say they are unless TV congrats what happens.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think what’s more important then canon is something like an analog of continuity from calculus. A function can be continuous everywhere, which is analogous to having perfect adherence to a canon. It can also have major discontinuities (like 1/x at x=0), which I think of as like a reboot. There are even single-point “removable” discontinuities (like x²/x at x=0), which can be fixed by adding a single point to a function, are more analogous a tiny detail being wrong that doesn’t affect anything else and can probably be fixed with a simple retcon if anyone even cares.

    You can do all kinds of calculations that depend on continuity of a function as long as they’re restricted to parts of the function with only removable discontinuities. Similarly, you can tell perfectly good stories in a broken canon as long as the story doesn’t focus on things in the canon that are broken. Each individual story needs to maintain its own continuity (or else we say it has plot holes), but discontinuities between stories don’t matter as long as stories feel like Star Trek to the audience.

    Of course, feeling like Star Trek is very subjective, and feeling like a bunch of connected stories share the same continuity can be very satisfying, but overall, I agree with Nimoy that fans should just relax and not let discontinuities ruin their enjoyment of a good story.