DangerousToy
30202
1629
99
I’m of mixed feelings.
While I agree that gatekeeping sucks, canon is where we keep our feelings.
It’s where our wonder, joy, and sadness comes from.
The reactor scene brought me to bittersweet tears.
The friendship between people I’d welcomed into my heart.
The heroism, and the realization that it wasn’t just logic - that he cared so much that it made his sacrifice unavoidable.
The helplessness, as I watched the Captain who always found a way to win, have to accept this tragedy.
The gentleness of this death and how death didn’t always come from bullets or swords.
The courage of people who knew that the Right Thing sometimes asked more than you wanted to give.
How sometimes it asked all that you had.
For me, to dismiss canon is to somehow say that it’s silly to hang on to those feelings, those lessons.
Instead, give me new heroes. Tell me fresh stories. Share new feelings with me and teach me new things.
I’ve got plenty of room in my heart. They’ve got an open invitation.
MutteringMisanthrope
AllantDoran
Fiction is as believable as the rules it sets and then lives by. By all means, be imaginative with your stories within a fiction. If you stray too far from those rules then why even call it the same thing? (Other than cynical, marketing reasons). I agree that there are lots of types of Apples, but if you hand me a banana and call it an Apple then I WILL gatekeep you from the Apple fandom.
BurlRavenscroft
Ignoring canon is just jerking the audience around and that makes for an untrustworthy storyteller one shouldn’t care to invest in. See also: the sequel trilogy.
benc85
*Watches Discovery* ... yea, no. I dont want to see kirks 25th reimagining, or the young Picards holodeck adventures... but i also dont want something thats so completely devoid of what trek is at its core that its some trite action thriller wearing the trek badge.
Flyspyro
I watched all of Discovery and mostly hated it. Same with Picard. Picard did redeem itself this last season but I'll never forget that they killed him off for really no good damn reason. It was a poor story and just thinking about it pisses me off. What new Star Trek did to the Klingons also just disgusted me. I'm trying to forget too.
Kbantar
If it's not optimistic about humanity, then it's not Star Trek, dammit. That is my hill to die on.
Flyspyro
vamos92
Nah, I enjoy a feeling of continuity in a series.
ToonamiT0M
Continuity in an ongoing story is how we become invested in the story in the first place. If everything can be completely changed on a whim then there is no incentive to continue following along.
apLundell
Continuity is not the same as canon. Continuity means that one story flows into the next in a way that is meaningful and forms a greater whole. Canon means that the writers are beholden to every dumb thing Kirk said that the writers came up with off the top of their heads 50 years ago.
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
And a lot of people write fanfiction. There are rabid canon-purists who hurl insults at anyone who attempts to participate in the fandom in non-canon ways. I'm not trying to insult, you can dislike the Next Generation or DS9 all you want but a lot of people love those as well.
TsunamiWombat
Gatekeeping Sucks but Canon is just the details of the universe and the stories people enjoyed. Overturning it is Overturning people's positive memories. And most of the time, stories that ignore or abuse Canon are ass. Story telling needs structure
mrthewhitee
People like to imagine themselves inside the worlds they love. Canon helps by creating a coherent world they imagine their own stories inside of without them having to reconcile competing story elements.
HangingOnTheEdgeOfTomorrow
Star Trek is supposed to be an optimistic view of the future in a sea of grimdark dystopias. It's mostly unique in its genre in that it shows a future where things, for the most part, work out for the best. And then they tried to make it just like any other sci fi. No. I will not accept a grimdark Star Trek. You want to watch a cautionary tale of the future, go to one of the other sci-fis that show shit futures. It's basically all of them at this point. It's hard to see things going another way.
StarSumiaki
Simply put: that canon is mutable is not bad. It's when canon is changed in contradictory ways that it can become emotionally frictional.
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
Simply put: If you go on star-trek fan-fictions and nitpic their stories as being non-canon then you are trash. People who explore star-trek in non-canon ways are shouldn't be hated or ridiculed by canon-purists.
MisanthropicMath
somesomebody
"Emotionally frictional" That's a weird way to spell 'creatively bankrupt'
StarSumiaki
Sometimes, yes, it's arguably creative bankruptcy --oft born from vapidity and classic "I just wanted to cash in on a thing"-itis.
StarSumiaki
You can paint over a painting, but better be damn sure the new paint beats the pants off the old paint, or all you'll do is ruin a painting.
mistermixelpix
Canon matters because it's how events have weight. If things can be changed and rewritten on a whim, then nothing matters. Permanence is why we have any emotional reaction to what happens in a story. A death means nothing if they'll be back a chapter later. There's no threat of danger if the consequences aren't guaranteed to stick.
ToonamiT0M
What you are talking about, my friend, is the very essence of human story telling. From the earliest hunters sitting around the fire to modern Hollywood blockbusters, the reason we tell these stories has stayed the same. And that is to explore the human experience and bond over it. Writers who don't understand that basic fact should not be writing.
apLundell
But that's not true. Human story telling starts with legends and myths. Those are fluid and change with each retelling to meet the needs of the day.
ToonamiT0M
No. Story telling starts with our shared experience and a desire to connect over them. Then that eventually evolves into myths and legends.
wozat
It's not just about canon, but CONTINUITY. Someone at Marvel Comics in the last decade said something like "Continuity is stupid" and it set me off. People care about the intimate details, but they also don't want glaring errors plaguing stories. If you don't care about the continuity of stories that YOU are in charge of, you don't care about the story, its characters, or anything. Might as well just be in it for the money.
Kitterbean
without canon, there is no story. it is the skeleton, the frame. the whole reason the story can exist.
C141Clay
TA2019
Maybe, if it was done by fans in good faith. When its life is milked for all it's worth by capitalistic machines shoving consumption down your gullet, yea, maybe not so much.
Shadowhawk000095
Yeah, but bad Star Trek breaks the heart, like Season 1 and 2 of Picard.
rbudrick
Disagree. The staff have spent incredible energy trying to be consistent over 56ish years. Many mistakes were made, but they have tried very, very hard.
ikusame1211
Peoples issue with modern trek isnt the canon, its the half assed writing.
apLundell
You haven't read the other comments on this post. People are FURIOUS about canon.
ikusame1211
Yes. The poor writing shitting on past canon. Canon may be involved, but the core issue is the really shitty writing.
rooik14
Honestly between Nimoy and Stewart I've come to terms with the fact that acting, and being capable of writing compelling stories are two different disciplines.
GenshiV
Wait, so you don't just want a reboot of the same movie that's been rebooted 23 times?! YOU MAD MAN!
Eddi3v
Only if in the 24th reboot they gender swap, race swap, sexuality swap the protagonist for no reason. Then call anyone who doesn't like the movie a bigot as a shield against legitimate criticism
mardukkur
So surprising the guy who just invented a situation where he can be mad about representation out of thin air is concerned about being called a bigot.
Eddi3v
I think you missed my point..
EvilMadMonk
Canon has not really anything to do with reboots, writers that lack the skills and creativity to build on existing lore and canon have to do with that.
Krytture
They remade white men can't jump....wtf
GenshiV
I just found out about that yesterday. I have a sad. Several sads, in fact.
ToonamiT0M
We care about canon because we care about the art of stort telling. If anything can be changed on a whim there is no insensitive to become invested in the story or characters. You wouldn't accept an unexplainable change halfway through a book. Why would you accept that between events taking place in the same story?
SomeGuyWhoSaysStuff
Yeah, I was okay with that thought until Star Trek Picard season 2. Ughhhh
ridureyu
ScaredSpitless
Star trek now wants to take me further and further away from the original utopian idea of exploring the universe and human nature in favor of dark and petty in-fighting, because violence looks flashy on screen. With all due respect to Mr. Nimoy….
LordHosk
Have you watched Star Trek? it has never been a Utopia.
potshot
Not a perfect one, especially at the fringes, but it is essentially Utopian. Unless you mean the fan theories of Starfleet being an authoritarian dictatorship, in that case that's completely debunked by established lore.
Ryanator50
watch Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds.
Noodlesocks
Also wish they'd stop swearing. I get they're trying to make the characters relatable but I cringe every time.
C110PR
Strange New Worlds was really good though. Way more like old trek, with some new themes and great representation thrown in.
ToonamiT0M
The way the new shows have turned the hopeful future of classic Trek into a grim dark hell scape shows that the writers and show runners don't actually give a damn about the franchise. Luckily, everything since 2009 has been made under a license, and licensed material has never been considered canon to the original continuity.
popeyeNL
That's why I love the Orville
EvilMadMonk
Strange new worlds was a bit less of action shoved down peoples throats.
2graves
Was? New season is on its way
ionicseraph
I thought Strange New Worlds was a fantastic throwback to TOS storytelling
EvilMadMonk
Yeah it was great and more like TOS and plenty of people did shit on it because of it.
trekkie
The 2000s movies? Yes. Absolutely, I’m still mad about the ‘time travelers kill Vulcan, oh well, lets not go fix it’. If you mean Paramount+ shows I question your cognitive ability to watch a more than few minutes video. Cuz that’s some nostalgia fueled BS and not what Star Trek ever was regardless of what you try and cherry pick. If anything the newer series are doing just what you say they aren’t, especially SNW. Toss the soft focus doe-eyed on Uhura/Chapel and kick ass characters.
trekkie
And i sorry if that comes off attack-y trying to fit that in 500 characters was annoying and I kept re-editing and gave up. I’ve been around almost 52 years and lived through the eras when this stuff was on TV. Each one of them picked at political issues of the era, and the newer ones continue that tradition.
Krytture
Problem is the new political issues are more about virtue signaling than anything else. Tell people you care vs show people you care.
NoNameFred
More importantly, "tell people you care", versus "show people why THEY should care"
ScaredSpitless
I’ll have to try SNW…I called it quits after picard s1
KiwiChickenz
Picard s3 is worth it.
ITellBadPuns
It's not that they change canon. It's that what they change it too is something bad.
N0S4A2
I would just be happy with no more reboots, there is so much story yet to tell. New ship, new crew, new adventures. Even another Space Base, maybe this time in a research base.
Septcanmat
Before all of NuTrek, I was hoping for another ‘next-Gen’ style time-jump for the franchise. There was a Voyager episode where they met a ship from several centuries in the future (forget exactly how far) - that could have been neat. And if not a time-jump, then a non-federation crew could have been awesome - Michael Dorn spent years trying to get a Captain Worf project going but it never went anywhere. I think a show about a Romulan crew could be really interesting, and offer a different
Septcanmat
‘flavour’ of Trek - like it being more of a political thriller / secret agent genre. There are plenty of ideas that could be fun, so long as they stay true to what Trek is (and why NuTrek has not been for the most part) - an optimistic view of humanity’s future.
N0S4A2
Well said, I could not really describe why Discovery onwards didn't really grip me the way the old ones did, thanks to your description I think it is down to bleakness rather than optimistic view they've gone for, and I think that misses the core of what Star Trek is.
eppykaze
Cannon is required for some lessons. Take Data's pursuit to become more human or Barclay's troubles with anxiety and mental illness.
apLundell
How so? Nobody is saying that every episode should be radically different than every other with not continuity at all, just that the current story takes priority over nit-picky details from previous stories.
eppykaze
The lessons in those cases are from the continued journey over time. If one were to change the cannon mid journey then all the progress to date is diminished and potentially in vain. Those same journey's for anyone in the here and now are also over time, there is no magic switch that fixes personal understandings or mental health issues.
apLundell
None of that contradicts what Nimoy is saying here.
xovoxovox
If stories didn't matter, people wouldn't care about them. If they didn't matter, the story of gilgamesh wouldn't matter and it wouldn't have survived since the 12th century BC. If you come in and tell a fictional story where there's no rules to it, and everything gets rewritten, midway through, it's just a child's story being made up on the fly. And if you come in and take a groups familiar story and rewrite the whole thing with zero respect for it or them, why should they respect you?
xovoxovox
Like Jon Stewart asked JJ Abrams when Abrams said he was never really a Star Trek Fan, "then why did you take the job?"
apLundell
So ... to make your example relevant, can you point to a modern retelling (or sequel, I guess?) to the story of Gilgamesh that's consistent in its details with the oldest surviving information about him? Are there even two classical retellings that match? Or has the story remained powerful despite the lack of a strongly enforced canon?
xovoxovox
I dunno, ya little sanctimonious, self-satisfied fuck. What would meet your endless pedantic "libertarian at a debate club" argument that will avoid me dealing with your douchebag argumentative engagement that ends up with me having to listen to your bullshit for a months long exchange? Or at what point can I just, in an exhausted defeat, give in and say that we both have a different opinion on things so you can happily declare yourself the winner so we can all get on with our lives?
xovoxovox
Because contract stipulations existed for your nutrek bullshit were "it had to be 25% different, so we didn't have to pay the original writers any of their due money." you know the people who came up with the idea in the first place. So you changed it just enough so you could get paid, and still say "we support writers!" while not paying the original creators. Because the bottom line is more important to you than the original writers. Because fuck boomers, right?
xovoxovox
Here's to hoping you never create something and agree to a bad deal.
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
Imagine if there was 100's of stories of gilgamesh each of them slightly stepping on each others toes, written by different people and rewritten. People love fanfiction. Fanfiction that rises to the top gets added to canon. You just argued against yourself here. The major themes were only loose rules. Even King Arthur changed every couple 100 years, they used to argue over what his sword was named...
xovoxovox
Yeah. Imagine that. Imagine if those shitty fanfictions lead to the adoption of that because some group ended up being control of the rights to that, but put in a contingent about it that said "you can put in whatever bullshit you want about it, so long as it diverged from 25% of the original story so we didn't have to pay the rights holders any money." And you were the type of shithead to support that, then to complain about a writers strike hit because "writers are important".
xovoxovox
But then had to add in "well, so long as its our shit that's supported". fuck those guys from way back when.
Euchre
Noting the date, this statement he made was in defense of the soon to be released JJ Abrams Star Trek film, which threw canon off a cliff much like the Corvette in the teaser trailer. Abrams wanted to make Star Trek 'his own', and canon is something he felt got in his way. It's one thing to bend canon just a bit, another to basically declare you're throwing it out wholesale. Abrams should stick to his own original works, or at least to undeveloped ones, like Super 8 (Dark Skies from Spielberg).
xovoxovox
Which explains so much of star wars. fuck jj, fuck bad reboot, and fuck the entire cadre of shithead writers that came out of that cloud of fucknuts (lindeloff, kurtzman, orci, etc.).
Euchre
Yeah, Abrams has the unique and dubious honor of trainwrecking 2 of the top sci-fi franchises, or just franchises overall.
modus0
At least "Nu Trek" did its thing in a way that didn't completely negate all the previous Trek content. It didn't ret-con TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, Ent, or any of the previous movies. And it didn't prevent things like Picard from still being possible. But if it had removed all that, in favor of the new thing being the only Trek, that would be an issue.
wombat1959
I don't think we watched the same shows.
xovoxovox
Really? The entire universe there was so hopeless. You watch TNG or DS9, there's problems but it's a largely positive, hopeful world, though DS9 skirted the edges (e.g. introduction of Section 31, somehting nutrek cant get enough of). But with nutrek and it's like reading a suicide note. Everything is dark and bleak, even in the lighting. Old Trek attacked modern issues with nuance and subtlety. Nutrek just pasted our world over theirs, and became a chiding lecture.
Euchre
But as far as cinematic productions, it basically has locked us into this new 'Kelvin timeline'. They don't seem to have any intentions of making new films using the 'prime' timeline shows.
modus0
There were about 7 years between Nemesis and Star Trek, it's been about that long since Star Trek Beyond. And they just finished of Picard, so I doubt the studio is as concerned about making another Trek movie to keep the franchise in peoples' minds. And the success (or failure) of Picard would probably be a major influence on whether they stick to the Kelvin Timeline or go back to the "Original" one.
Euchre
They took a serious pause in the making of Star Trek films because they lost a central character - Anton Yelchin's death put a screeching halt to the cinematic franchise, assuming they'd stick to using the Kelvin timeline for films.
modus0
They already showed a willingness to kill off characters in Into Darkness. As sad as Anton Yelchin's death was, they could have replaced the character. So I can't really say with certainty why we haven't seen another Start Trek movie by now, on account of having no business connection with Paramount.
modus0
But my point was that the Kelvin Timeline didn't retroactively remove all the previous shows and movies, it was specifically an alternate timeline. Instead of just straight re-telling TOS stories, but altered, and presenting the idea that the new stuff is the only version of those stories, it leaves that setting history alone.