6 ms·

> [...] readers [...] are inclined to reject the immutability of a described reality that contradicts their own preferences. I think it is almost the opposite.

> [...] readers [...] are inclined to reject the immutability of a described reality that contradicts their own preferences. I think it is almost the opposite. People (readers or the people making the stories) are increasingly unwilling to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in fictional universes. It used to be that every time you told a story like a fairy tale, it could be slightly different. Maybe cinderella was told slightly differently at my home than at yours. But that is fine, as long as the basic points of the story are there. This concept is totally alien to many people. Stories are no longer rough archetypes, but the exact media (film or book) with all it's details. People can't tolerate contradictions, and clamor for canon. And that leads to the urge to explain and connect everything, and stuff like Midichlorian, the virus that makes Klingons look human, or the convoluted Zelda timeline. A couple years ago J. Michael Straczynski (of Babylon 5 fame) suggested to reboot the original Star Trek. Not as a prequel, or an alternative universe, but just a new show with new actors, unconnected to the original, telling new and modern stories. He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk?

le-mark 2y ago
> If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk? Just don’t call it “Hamlet”! Copyright infringement aside, Star Trk wasn’t that great, as Charles suggests, it was all we had.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Crowds generally like sequels and canon even if it makes films worse. We did get a reboot of Star Trek with someone else playing Kirk. It was technically an in universe reboot and it was dumb. It probably would have been just as dumb if it wasn’t an in universe reboot.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  It was dumb in that it replaced intelligent ideas with action.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Indeed — we also had the fan-made Star Trek Continues, which was essentially perfect as a modernisation with the same set-dressing yet higher production values; and Kirk appearing in Strange New Worlds in ways that make perfect (to the limit TV ever does) sense, telling new and old stories without needing to break or reject the old world building (time travel is a wonderful narrative aid for that) or characterisation.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    That was a prominent problem. But in general I feel the larger issue is that films are getting sequels because sequels are commercially safer, and then writers are being asked to figure out why. Especially when it’s a franchise revitalization and the actors are old but they want the nostalgia points.
Spivak 2y ago
I think this is the result of narrative structure falling by the wayside in lots of popular canons. You can tell a million variations of the odyssey because Odysseus is nobody. You can plop just about any set of characters into the story and it works. We still have stories like this, the Mission Impossible series is the same story told differently, the new Twister is a retelling, anyone can be James Bond. But if you want a long running series you need an interesting universe to explore (which requires rules and consistency) and/or compelling characters people want to put in situations. It's why Family Guy can do a Star Wars episode but Star Wars can't do Family Guy, it's why the Ghost Buster's retelling flopped because they thought it was a narrative story but it was actually a character story.
- lupire 2y ago
  Which one of Family Guy and Satr Wars is a long running series, and whiux one is not? Why doesn't Doctor Who fit your classification? Star Wars and Family Guy are totally different genres. Family Guy is a farcical comedy.
m463 2y ago
> People ... are increasingly unwilling to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in fictional universes. When I was young and read scifi, it was more solitary and personal. I read it, thought about it, and moved on in a solitary way. But over time, things have changed. Now I read more fiction, I select the fiction differently, and I communicate with others about it. The big difference seems to be that when young I encountered my fiction, and nowadays I choose my fiction. Do other people do this? Does it lead to higher expectations?
lupire 2y ago
The Orville is that Star Trek reboot. "A better Discovery than Discovery". Also most iterations of Star Trek were almost entirely unconnected to the others.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Yes, though I'd also say that Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks have similar (TNG) vibes to The Orville. And I'd put all of Picard in the same bucket as Discovery. The characters in each of those felt like someone saw the fan-made Star Trek Renegades and pitched the core ideas with a bigger budget. And I expect more of that with the Section 31 show.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
On the other hand, the most financially successful set of films in film history(MCU) takes place in a self acknowledged multiverse.
staticman2 2y ago
>>> He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk? Assuming he really said that... it's really irksome that he took a scenario where the classic Shakespeare plays are interpreted by different actors while still using the original scripts, and claimed he would be doing something similar if hired to write his own star trek scripts. It's pretentious B.S. to make the Hamlet comparison when what he's proposing is closer to how they make James Bond flicks.

le-mark 2y ago

> If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk? Just don’t call it “Hamlet”! Copyright infringement aside, Star Trk wasn’t that great, as Charles suggests, it was all we had.

jncfhnb 2y ago

Crowds generally like sequels and canon even if it makes films worse. We did get a reboot of Star Trek with someone else playing Kirk. It was technically an in universe reboot and it was dumb. It probably would have been just as dumb if it wasn’t an in universe reboot.

WalterBright 2y ago
It was dumb in that it replaced intelligent ideas with action.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Indeed — we also had the fan-made Star Trek Continues, which was essentially perfect as a modernisation with the same set-dressing yet higher production values; and Kirk appearing in Strange New Worlds in ways that make perfect (to the limit TV ever does) sense, telling new and old stories without needing to break or reject the old world building (time travel is a wonderful narrative aid for that) or characterisation.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  That was a prominent problem. But in general I feel the larger issue is that films are getting sequels because sequels are commercially safer, and then writers are being asked to figure out why. Especially when it’s a franchise revitalization and the actors are old but they want the nostalgia points.

Spivak 2y ago

I think this is the result of narrative structure falling by the wayside in lots of popular canons. You can tell a million variations of the odyssey because Odysseus is nobody. You can plop just about any set of characters into the story and it works. We still have stories like this, the Mission Impossible series is the same story told differently, the new Twister is a retelling, anyone can be James Bond. But if you want a long running series you need an interesting universe to explore (which requires rules and consistency) and/or compelling characters people want to put in situations. It's why Family Guy can do a Star Wars episode but Star Wars can't do Family Guy, it's why the Ghost Buster's retelling flopped because they thought it was a narrative story but it was actually a character story.

lupire 2y ago
Which one of Family Guy and Satr Wars is a long running series, and whiux one is not? Why doesn't Doctor Who fit your classification? Star Wars and Family Guy are totally different genres. Family Guy is a farcical comedy.

m463 2y ago

> People ... are increasingly unwilling to accept ambiguity and uncertainty in fictional universes. When I was young and read scifi, it was more solitary and personal. I read it, thought about it, and moved on in a solitary way. But over time, things have changed. Now I read more fiction, I select the fiction differently, and I communicate with others about it. The big difference seems to be that when young I encountered my fiction, and nowadays I choose my fiction. Do other people do this? Does it lead to higher expectations?

lupire 2y ago

The Orville is that Star Trek reboot. "A better Discovery than Discovery". Also most iterations of Star Trek were almost entirely unconnected to the others.

ben_w 2y ago
Yes, though I'd also say that Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks have similar (TNG) vibes to The Orville. And I'd put all of Picard in the same bucket as Discovery. The characters in each of those felt like someone saw the fan-made Star Trek Renegades and pitched the core ideas with a bigger budget. And I expect more of that with the Section 31 show.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

On the other hand, the most financially successful set of films in film history(MCU) takes place in a self acknowledged multiverse.

staticman2 2y ago

>>> He said, let's treat Star Trek like a Shakespeare play. If multiple actors can play Hamlet, why can't there be multiple interpretations of Kirk? Assuming he really said that... it's really irksome that he took a scenario where the classic Shakespeare plays are interpreted by different actors while still using the original scripts, and claimed he would be doing something similar if hired to write his own star trek scripts. It's pretentious B.S. to make the Hamlet comparison when what he's proposing is closer to how they make James Bond flicks.