The difference between TNG & STD

[CharlesPhipps]

I never accused Discovery of raping my childhood, and I even said that your review was fair. I don't know why I'm obliged to like Short Trek. For the record, I do like Tilly (and Saru). If I'm hyperbolic and indignant, it's only because I hate CBS and strongly dislike Alex Kurtzman.

Well I wasn't referring to you in particular.

The loyalist segment of Star Trek fandom has quite effectively managed to portray 'Axanar' as the guilty party in that dispute, but so much else of what I loved or was looking forward to has been fucked to make way for Discovery; Star Trek Continues, Star Trek Renegades, even STAGE 9 was shut down to make room for a crap premium version. If Orville fans build a project, they get a retweet from Seth Macfarlane. If Star Trek fans build a project, they get a cease and desist letter.

It's a shame that the issue there is the one that it is. Fan films are something that Star Trek was supportive of and supported by for many years. Unfortunately, the whole business with several individuals caused an enormous pain in the ass under copyright law. Bluntly, if people start charging for stuff, though, you can potentially lose your copyright. Blame the US intellectual property law system.

So, given all that, how am I supposed to feel when I see the "real" Star Trek being made by people who are on the record as not caring about continuity, people who give endless and nonsensical reasons for changing every little detail (have you heard the utter poop they used to justify making the Bat'leth even more impractical than it already is?) and people who just straight up lie about their own franchise ("I think in the past the Klingons have always been portrayed as the bad guy.")?

I feel that crypto-history is a fun game for fans. I've spent a decade of my life on forums talking about the intricacies of Star Wars Legends history--but one should never become too attached to one's fan vision of it because, as fictional, it is mutable.

If I'm a fan of "A Song of Ice and Fire", do I have to like "Game of Thrones"? If I'm a "Harry Potter" fan, do I have to like "Fantastic Beasts"?

Nope. On the other hand, I tend to think if it's not something you want to add to your personal canon then it's just a thing.

I love Highlander and Highlander the series. I don't CARE about the other stuff because it's just water off a duck to me.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

[CharlesPhipps]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

Is there a consistency or what not to it?

[CharlesPhipps]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

Is there a consistency or what not to it?

I think Short Treks basically exist to allow the writers to ignore the main plots and do whatever they want.

There have been some really strong character stories (Saru, Calypso) while the others are mostly comedies.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

Is there a consistency or what not to it?

I think Short Treks basically exist to allow the writers to ignore the main plots and do whatever they want.

There have been some really strong character stories (Saru, Calypso) while the others are mostly comedies.

Eh cool I guess.

[Mecha82]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

Is there a consistency or what not to it?

I think Short Treks basically exist to allow the writers to ignore the main plots and do whatever they want.

There have been some really strong character stories (Saru, Calypso) while the others are mostly comedies.

Those are strong point of shorts. Allowing writers freedom without having to care about main plot and giving us strong character stories.

[Yukaphile]

Independent artists still need to eat, pay the bills, and so on, CharlesPhipps. It's ironic you claim to hold to leftist values, yet support the greedy elite clinging to these older franchises and keep people back from making passion projects except as anything other than a "free" endeavor, and how do you support yourself with "free?" We are NOT robots!

[TGLS]

I don't really get it, is Short Treks supposed to be taken seriously?

Calypso obviously was.

The Trouble with Edward was a comedy. So was Q&A.

To be fair, from a canon perspective, Q&A is easy enough to fit in, and so was the Mudd episode from Season 1 of Short Treks. The serious ones were all referenced, except Calypso, which is apparently coming into play in season 3. Of course, the commercial at the end of Edward should be ignored, in canon terms.

[Ixthos]

I haven't seen the short, but is it possible that they are deliberately portraying that captain as being in the wrong, that this basically was a lead up to her being court marshalled?

I love Highlander and Highlander the series. I don't CARE about the other stuff because it's just water off a duck to me.

Complete side note to the topic, but have you seen Highlander: the Quest for Vengeance? That was a great film if a little more gory than I had expected. What are your thoughts on it?