• Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      8 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
      23
      ·
      8 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
        14
        ·
        8 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.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 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
            ·
            8 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.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 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.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 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
      ·
      8 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
    ·
    8 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
    ·
    8 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
    ·
    8 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.