www.ditl.org

Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?

Bear with me here.

1) Obviously they don't actually want to have to adhere to canon at all, right? So just don't!

2) You could do whatever you liked on the show, change whatever you wanted.

3) I would guess they assume that fans would hate it / lose interest in it if it wasn't canon. But I don't think that would actually happen at all.

Think about comics. They do "what if" type stories now and again - like that one about what if baby Superman had landed in Russia instead of America?. Fans love that stuff, precisely because it lets them see a new take on stuff, whilst simultaneously assuring them that the "real" universe is still out there.

You could even call the JJ verse "What if Kirk's father had died". I know a lot of people don't like the JJ-verse that much, but one of the very smart things it did was declare itself to be a genuine alternate universe - they said so right there on screen! And in interviews JJ fell over himself to say that yes, the real Trek was still out there, untouched by any of this.

Why not do this with Discovery? I don't mean set it in an alternate Trek universe with a timeline branch or anything, I mean just tell fans "hey, this is just a what if story, it's not actually canon".

I think a whole lot of people would accept it a lot more on that basis.

So, this is a new subspecies with Ampulae of Lorenzini?!

Promo

Graham Kennedy wrote:Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?

Bear with me here.

1) Obviously they don't actually want to have to adhere to canon at all, right? So just don't!

2) You could do whatever you liked on the show, change whatever you wanted.

3) I would guess they assume that fans would hate it / lose interest in it if it wasn't canon. But I don't think that would actually happen at all.

Think about comics. They do "what if" type stories now and again - like that one about what if baby Superman had landed in Russia instead of America?. Fans love that stuff, precisely because it lets them see a new take on stuff, whilst simultaneously assuring them that the "real" universe is still out there.

You could even call the JJ verse "What if Kirk's father had died". I know a lot of people don't like the JJ-verse that much, but one of the very smart things it did was declare itself to be a genuine alternate universe - they said so right there on screen! And in interviews JJ fell over himself to say that yes, the real Trek was still out there, untouched by any of this.

Why not do this with Discovery? I don't mean set it in an alternate Trek universe with a timeline branch or anything, I mean just tell fans "hey, this is just a what if story, it's not actually canon".

I think a whole lot of people would accept it a lot more on that basis.

SOLD!

Graham Kennedy wrote:Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?

Why not just call it "Ttar Srek"?

Graham Kennedy wrote:Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?


Or call it what it (apparently) is and just admit It's a stylistic reboot of the Star Trek franchise and be done with it. To return to your comic example: How many film versions of Batman and Spider-Man have there been in the last 30 years? Each director can add his new voice without taking anything away from the earlier version. Frankly as long as the spirit of Sauron Trek endures they can reboot it if they want. Just be upfront about it.

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?


Or call it what it (apparently) is and just admit It's a stylistic reboot of the Star Trek franchise and be done with it. To return to your comic example: How many film versions of Batman and Spider-Man have there been in the last 30 years? Each director can add his new voice without taking anything away from the earlier version. Frankly as long as the spirit of Sauron Trek endures they can reboot it if they want. Just be upfront about it.

Agreed. This is another thing I don't think fans would mind nearly as much as the producers tend to think. Again, I don't think there would be any need to come up with an alternate timeline explanation, at least in show - simply say you're rebooting and remake TOS.

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:Okay, here's a radical suggestion. Why don't the studio just announce that Discovery is not canon?


Or call it what it (apparently) is and just admit It's a stylistic reboot of the Star Trek franchise and be done with it. To return to your comic example: How many film versions of Batman and Spider-Man have there been in the last 30 years? Each director can add his new voice without taking anything away from the earlier version. Frankly as long as the spirit of Sauron Trek endures they can reboot it if they want. Just be upfront about it.

Agreed. This is another thing I don't think fans would mind nearly as much as the producers tend to think. Again, I don't think there would be any need to come up with an alternate timeline explanation, at least in show - simply say you're rebooting and remake TOS.

I think that's actually how I made my peace with Discovery this time around. Last time (Enterprise) I was upset about the very same things so many are upset about this time -- the look, the stories, the characters etc. I think that was because it was literally right off the heels of the established Trek franchises so it we had a direct reference and many of the same people who worked on the previous shows worked on Enterprise so there was literally no excuse for them not to respect what had come before. Now that Trek has been off the air for several years and, despite the repeated statements of the production staff, I'm a lot happier accepting it as a stylistic reboot and hoping the stories maintain the spirit.

But that's just me.

Headcanon if you will.

Oh, I totally agree. I'd be right there with you if the showrunners would just be honest enough to say that, instead of outright lying about it.

See, right there's a big problem for me. I don't know that I would be "right there" even if the showrunners were that honest about it. The problem isn't merely that it looks like it's going to be "bad 'Trek" - that is, all the incontinuities and easily avoidable canonical inconsistencies showing a general lack of concern for the fanbase and the milieu. The other problem is that if we consider it apart from the 'Trek universe, as "just" a new SF show... well, it doesn't look like it would hold up on that end. There's a fair bit of SF being made lately that has managed to overtop the "mediocre" mark, and if this were simply "Discovery" instead of "ST: Discovery," I'm not so sure that this would make the cut.

Hmmm. I'll watch the first episode as if it wasn't Star Trek. I'll bring along my never-seen-Trek friend as well. See if it holds up on its own.

Star Trek: Discovery to be 'hard PG-13' yet avoid nudity

Well, there goes another reason to watch it!

NY times article confirms decision to shit all over Star Trek:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.3404011

Wow. Not only does that confirm every complaint we have, he just sounds like a grade-A jackass.

Here's where I think he's making an assumption that will bite him in the ass:

Jason Isaacs wrote:I only ‘don't care’ about them [Trekkers] in the sense that I know they’re all going to watch anyway.