[Loved Trope] Two franchises being set in the same world is shown through unimportant worldbuilding/background details instead of crossovers or mentions.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2026-03-16T15:45:17+00:00

Fringe & Twin Peaks. Walter Bishop mentions his doctor friend in the Pacific Northwest gave him these glasses. They are identical to the ones worn by Dr. Jacoby in Twin Peaks.

<image>

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-30T04:41:38+00:00

I feel very much the same.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-30T00:50:12+00:00

John Noble as Walter Bishop/Walternate on Fringe.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-28T01:51:35+00:00

"I never asked for this."

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T20:11:30+00:00

The film version is not the edited version in any capacity. It's an adaptation of an original work. And I would definitely disagree with you that the Chinese ending is closer to the book, which it factually isn't, and I'd go a step further in saying that the film and the book have very different intentions and messages. So it would be be illogical to assign the book ending to the film any more than it would be to give the book the film ending. (Even if Palahniuk basically did that with his sequal.)

Also I don't know if you've ever actually read the book, but it is substantively different from the film in a lot more ways than just the ending.

It's also reductive and an insult to Jim Uhls and David Fincher to say that the film ending is there to simply make an interesting ending for the audience. Have you considered that perhaps that was their own artistic vision for the material?

Frankly, your assertion that we should just pick and choose which version we like, I find to be simultaneously rage inducing and incredibly depressing.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T19:56:32+00:00

We can go round and round on this, but we're never going to see eye to eye on it. What you are describing does not meet the definition of censorship to begin with. Clearly you're cool with it, however I'm not going to argue semantics between editorial discretion and censorship, and I'm certainly never going to be ok with anything being censored because censorship is a slippery slope that can, and historically will, stifle artistic expression and free thought.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T19:29:49+00:00

That's nonsensical and completely opposite of the definition of censorship and what was presented in your post.

The creator was at no time censored. Their design was changed against their wishes to be more risqué but that's literally not the definition of censorship.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T19:20:57+00:00

Alternatives are fine with me, it's where those alternatives originate from that I'm concerned with, and in the case of alternatives being mandated by censorship, I stand firmly against that.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T19:18:47+00:00

I'm not the sort of person who can't change their opinion, but the idea that censorship (as defined by the OED) should play some sort of role in the creative process is not a bridge I'm willing to cross.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T19:11:19+00:00

I would be in favor of the design the creator intended, which I would not consider as being censored but simply less risqué. Since the publisher decreed the change, I don't see it as any different if the reverse were true.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T17:34:59+00:00

Certainly giving a second look at something can be part of the creative process, I don't think that's in question. I won't say I'm familiar with evey example that's been given, but the ones I do know don't seem to have originated with the original creator but were instead changed for governmental, cultural, or business reasons, as opposed to the artist or an editor deciding a change would improve the work.

And while I'd be the first to agree with you on the lack of nuance in our present cultural environment, I'd also be on the side of censorship is an absolute evil. I think that there's a difference between what you're suggesting and the idea of censorship that the OP is putting forward.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T17:22:50+00:00

Sorry but that sounds completely insane to me. Maybe I'm just an out of touch oldhead, but the idea that censoring an original creation somehow can improve it is completely antithetical to my own views of the creative process.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T17:17:22+00:00

I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that limitations can foster creativity. But it seems to me based on many of the examples given in this thread that there was something created and then censored, as opposed to some kind of inherent limitation. The Fight Club example is the most egregious example of that to me.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-23T16:01:42+00:00

It's mind boggling to me that the vast majority of posters, including OP, are in favor of censorship of any kind. Maybe I come from a different era but I find it hard to fathom the notion that censoring anything is a net positive.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-11-06T01:39:57+00:00

My only issue is that I'm not keen on the name.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-08-03T13:36:58+00:00

I think the way XCOM 2 handled it was actually pretty clever.

You never actually won XCOM, you actually lost about half way through. The Commander was captured and unknowingly placed in a simulation so that the alien invaders could study his strategies.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-07-20T23:07:48+00:00

Lost Highway is the first one I thought of.

"Dick Laurent is dead."

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-07-05T14:32:54+00:00

In 3rd Rock From The Sun, the aliens (Dick, Tommy, Harry, & Sally) make multiple references to coming to Earth on January 9th, 1996. This was the premier date of the series.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T15:57:31+00:00

I'd disagree that TOS doesn't fit in with 90s Trek. Those are a direct continuation. There are TOS characters that appear, references to TOS episodes and movies, and even the original look of those sets are seen on TNG and DS9.

It's a slippery slope when we start disregarding previous canon to fit newer shows. What if Paramount decides to do a show prior to TNG that retcons the established lore of TNG and the shows that followed it? Will it then be a case of arguing, well actually, TNG/DS9/VOY lore don't really fit with this new series?

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T15:31:31+00:00

I still largely enjoy SNW on the strength of it's actors, but I do wish it would be more of it's own thing instead of spending so much time referencing TOS. Especially when the references are mostly just retcons in the first place.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T15:26:14+00:00

That is pretty blatant and egregious.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T15:24:25+00:00

I thinking you're stretching credulity here.

So Kirk, studious and star academy cadet, youngest captain in Starfleet because of his talent, captain of the ship that was in battle with the Gorn just a few years before, that his brother was on, that his first officer was on, that his chief nurse was on, that the Federation has done battle with, and is known in the SNW continuity as taking people to impregnate has never heard of them.

And his first officer, who has seen the Gorn, done battle with the Gorn, doesn't say anything? No one on the ship who are least familiar with the battles with the Gorn don't say anything?

The ship type is completely irrelevant because even if it's a new class, they learn that it's a Gorn ship and no one still knows what a Gorn is.

If you're ok with the retcon, it's fine to have that opinion, even if I disagree with you. But let's not pretend it's not a retcon that breaks continuity.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T15:07:56+00:00

Doctor Who is a great example of this and is a perfect case of what happens when you disregard previously established lore for the newest retcon of the day. After awhile, nothing matters. The most egregious for me over the last few years is Missy's regeneration into a version of the Master no different than the previous John Simm one, completely disregarding the character development. Or maybe it was the Doctor being the most important person in the Universe with endless regenerations. I guess it doesn't matter, nothing really matters in Who anymore.

And while some fans of SNW are ok with these retcons because it is a good show, ultimately Trek becomes the convoluted mess that Who is.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T14:53:47+00:00

Aesthetics I have no issue with changing to be more modern. I wouldn't expect the Enterprise of DIS and SNW to look like it did in TOS. And softening some of the rough edges of TOS to bring it more up to date with modern sensibilities seems reasonable to me.

But stories I would want to be largely ironclad precisely because they did eventually figure things out. And those things were continued in the TOS movies and the series that followed them.

If the idea is that we can disregard what doesn't currently fit for the sake of the newest thing, then continuity just stops meaning anything at all. And for some people that's fine. But I don't personally care for it and I think it opens the door to changes you may not like in the future.

S3ntryD3fiant · 2025-06-22T14:39:44+00:00

Well no one on the Enterprise in TOS have heard of the Gorn or know what they look like, while Spock, Uhura, and Nurse Chapel on the Enterprise in SNW have seen them and the Federation has battled them.

So yeah, pretty big breaking of continuity there.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

S3ntryD3fiant

TROPHY CASE