Yes, exactly. Season 1 knew what it wanted to be. When it was over, I remember thinking "alright, not bad, I'm excited to watch this show grow the beard."

But it never did. In retrospect, Season 1 is the strongest season the show had to offer. Each subsequent season got a little worse as plots got more confusing, themes got more muddled, and no breakout characters emerged to carry the show through an abundance of narrative turmoil and worldbuilding strangeness. But above all else, seasons 3 and 4 are just boring. I don't care about the crew or their mission. The most interesting characters are consistently the outsiders: Pike, Vance, Rillak. I'll be watching season 5, but mostly out of a sense of obligation and morbid curiosity.

As much as I like SNW, it's still not quite the show I've been waiting since 2005 for: seven curious officers on a ship called Enterprise set in the mid-25th century. I worry that SNW has robbed us of the opportunity to see the classic formula set in the immediate post-TNG era... even though that seems to be what season three of Picard was explicitly setting up.

Pfft, Geordi is the least of Worf's problems at that table. Data is literally a walking computer, Troi can read minds, and Riker is evidently the greatest poker player who ever lived.

Star Trek is cool

I don't really care if they mess around with continuity if continuity is interfering with a good story they want to tell. My point is that the SNW writers are making a clear and concerted effort to maintain continuity.

The background music that plays behind M'Benga's confession is a callback to "The Battle For Peace," the soundtrack for the climatic battle between the Enterprise, the Excelsior, and Chang's Bird-of-Prey at the end of The Undiscovered Country.

And of course when that confession escalates to confrontation, it transitions to the iconic Klingon leifmotif, first heard in The Motion Picture.

What about Paramount+ is worse than all the other streaming services? Aren't they all hoovering up data about our watch habits? Isn't that the point?

If you don't want to stream it and you don't want to buy it outright, I don't know why you're asking us to tell you what the only remaining option is, matey.

To point one, yep, fair. I've unceremoniously dropped "The Enemy Within" into a context it was never intended to be examined from.

To point two, I agree that Janeway was both the source and the termination of Tuvix' personhood, but I don't see the relevancy. What bearing does Tuvix's personhood have on how we describe Janeway's actions, or the discussion about whether those actions were justified?

That is true and to @ValueSubtracted's point, speaks to the fundamental difference between the morality tale that each episode is setting up for our consideration. "The Enemy Within" aims to make the viewer uncomfortable by suggesting that Kirk's decisiveness is derived from his "evil" half and isn't offering any commentary on the personhood of the "evil" half. So much so that they short circuit that possibility by slapping an expiration date on EvilKirk.

Best I can give you is that it's still technically murder if you kill a condemned man.

It depends on whether or not you think the act of distributing is part of the commonly understood definition of canon.

The definition most reasonable Trek fans operate on is "the shows and movies made by the rights holders," although most aren't aware they've internalized that second part because nobody wants to admit they spend any amount of time caring about "the rights." (Ask them if they think Continues or New Voyages is canon and you'll cut to the heart of that matter real quick.) That latent "rights holders" qualification isn't there out of any particular deference to Paramount, it just gives us a convenient and durable boundary that a huge, varied, and global fanbase can largely agree on. Paramount decides what Star Trek to produce, but that decision results in canon Star Trek because it's a simple enough boundary for Trekkies to collectively accept without much friction.

Point being, Paramount is part of the definition but Paramount is not the source of authority for the definition. The fans are. This is an important distinction if you want to investigate whether or not this ugly Prodigy business has altered or clarified the definition of canon.

This act of cancelling and archiving is uncharted territory, yes. Assuming you agree with my earlier definition, it comes down to whether or not you think there are more qualifiers hiding after the word "made." Something like "made, released, and currently being distributed," which is an interesting set of qualifiers to add because it would decanonize pre-remaster TOS.

Personally, I think that's too much control over the definition to hand to Paramount. We care about "made" because it's the most minimal way to establish this "rights holders" boundary. I think we could have a reasonable debate over whether or not "released" is already part of the intuitively understood definition (i.e. "are deleted scenes canon?") but I would wager most Trekkies will agree that "currently being distributed" is not part of the intuitively understood definition.

So, yes. Prodigy is still canon.

It was hit and miss. Every once in a while they knocked it out of the park, but other times it became /r/BannedFromStarTrek or /r/BannedFromDaystrom.

Heads up that you've followed a Lemmy instance so you're going to get an absolute firehose of comments in your feed.

But if you want to check out our discussion thread on the season premiere, enjoy! https://startrek.website/post/12660

That's a Mastodon instance. startrek.website is a Lemmy instance.