Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[Amaris]

I'm really not sure what Marvel's movies has to do with this. Are you seriously trying to argue that consistent world building isn't important? That seems to be what CorporalClegg is saying.

It seems there are two camps here. The ones that want a certain modicum of continuity (what you call world-building), and the other camp that claims to eschew all notions of same. I suspect each will never see the other's point of view.

It would be disingenuous to distill it down to two camps. There are many points of view here. I, for example, enjoy world building, but not to the point of tedium. Too much world building leads to a glacial, plodding story, while too little makes the universe a little more forgettable, and malleable. Either one can be successful depending upon the story and the characters. Great story and great characters can make any universe seem plausible, at least for a little while, and can create possibilities branching out into thousands of different points of view.

It would be silly to try and condense that down to only two camps.

 

[Ovation]

I'm really not sure what Marvel's movies has to do with this. Are you seriously trying to argue that consistent world building isn't important? That seems to be what CorporalClegg is saying.

It seems there are two camps here. The ones that want a certain modicum of continuity (what you call world-building), and the other camp that claims to eschew all notions of same. If the characters changed names and species from episode to episode, they'd chalk it up as "Fiction!", and tell the other to suck it up.

I suspect each will never see the other's point of view.

In cases where the "world building" is meticulous and consistent, I can get annoyed if something deviates too far. Trek, however, has been neither of those in its "world building", so I am not bothered one bit by the lack of consistency. I take it as part and parcel of Trek as a whole. Always have (since 1973).

 

[WarpFactorZ]

In cases where the "world building" is meticulous and consistent, I can get annoyed if something deviates too far. Trek, however, has been neither of those in its "world building", so I am not bothered one bit by the lack of consistency. I take it as part and parcel of Trek as a whole. Always have (since 1973).

I appreciate the fact you're a long-term fan (I have also been for almost as long). But saying that you haven't been bothered by "lack of consistency" since 1973 is a bit misleading. The entire notion of Trek continuity wasn't established in 1973. TOS was almost notoriously *inconsistent* -- each episode was independent from the next.

In fact, I would say the popular use of overarching continuity in series wasn't really mainstream until the 80s (soap operas aside). For Trek, it was TMP that started the idea, out of the will to have this new world follow from the previous (and even there, it was a stretch of the imagination).

 

[Kelthaz]

Yeah, I'd say it's more of a spectrum. I definitely lean more towards the side of consistent world building (for lack of a better term), but I wouldn't force myself through crap like the Silmarillion if you put a gun to my head.

Anyway, back to Star Trek, the distance between Earth and Kronos did bother me a bit. The entire film is about a war brewing between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, so having their two home worlds be essentially next-door neighbours with each other took me out of the story. It didn't ruin the film for me, but it did hurt the story.

A potential easy fix would be to replace Kronos in the film with a sparsely populated Klingon border world. That would explain the short travel time and they could even throw a line into the script about how the Klingons are encroaching on Federation territory. That would improve the logical consistency of the universe and up the dramatic tension by showing how easily the Klingons could launch an assault on Earth.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In cases where the "world building" is meticulous and consistent, I can get annoyed if something deviates too far. Trek, however, has been neither of those in its "world building", so I am not bothered one bit by the lack of consistency. I take it as part and parcel of Trek as a whole. Always have (since 1973).

I appreciate the fact you're a long-term fan (I have also been for almost as long). But saying that you haven't been bothered by "lack of consistency" since 1973 is a bit disingenuous. The entire notion of "Trek continuity" wasn't established in 1973. TOS was almost notoriously *inconsistent* -- each episode was independent from the next.

In fact, I would say the popular use of overarching continuity in series wasn't really mainstream until the 80s (soap operas aside). For Trek, it was TMP that started the idea, out of the will to have this new world follow from the previous.

How does TMP start the idea? If there is one film in the franchise that could be left out it's TMP. It pretty much stands on its own.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'm just curious, for all those arguing about how important it is to have constancy in magical space travel minutia, did you bother to get out your calculators and ponder the time it takes for a bird of prey to traverse 299,200,000km at warp 9 back in 1986?

 

[Kelthaz]

I'm just curious, for all those arguing about how important it is to have constancy in magical space travel minutia, did you bother to get out your calculators and ponder the time it takes for a bird of prey to traverse 299,200,000km at warp 9 back in 1986?

Yeah, that has absolutely nothing do with what we're talking about. Focus on the arguments that we're actually making and not the ones that you're assigning to your straw man.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

How does TMP start the idea? If there is one film in the franchise that could be left out it's TMP. It pretty much stands on its own.

Fine, TWOK. Whatever difference it makes. My original point still stands.

 

[Set Harth]

Adding an extra line of dialogue noting the specific passage of speed and/or time is meaningless and unnecessarily superfluous to anyone who isn't a pedant.

Do you imagine that I was suggesting lines of dialogue should have been added? That's not the only way to alter a script. In STID the timeframe would appear to be more ambiguous if some lines were taken out.

There was, however, neither a plot nor a thematic reason to denote the time/speed/distance between Earth and Kronos. So they didn't.

This is exactly the opposite of the perceived problem with the film. If they didn't suggest the amount of elapsed time in any way there wouldn't be an issue. But they did.

It's freaking magic. All of it.

So what? Shouldn't magic have consistent rules?

 

[Nerys Myk]

How does TMP start the idea? If there is one film in the franchise that could be left out it's TMP. It pretty much stands on its own.

Fine, TWOK. Whatever difference it makes. My original point still stands.

Three of the TOS films are linked because the stories they needed to tell. The next two not so much. Its not the sort of tight continuity one would find in serialized TV. TNG's continuity wasn't that tight either. It was still a very episodic show. Other shows were much tighter and paved the way for the arc and continuity heavy shows we have today. DS9 was the show that most resembles the modern style of TV. Voyager and Enterprise slipped back in to the episodic format. Though the Xindi season was a nice attempt at breaking out of that format.

That said, I always give props to Star Trek, because in spite of the haphazard way the franchise was put together, it manages to fit together remarkably well.

 

[fireproof78]

In cases where the "world building" is meticulous and consistent, I can get annoyed if something deviates too far. Trek, however, has been neither of those in its "world building", so I am not bothered one bit by the lack of consistency. I take it as part and parcel of Trek as a whole. Always have (since 1973).

I appreciate the fact you're a long-term fan (I have also been for almost as long). But saying that you haven't been bothered by "lack of consistency" since 1973 is a bit disingenuous. The entire notion of "Trek continuity" wasn't established in 1973. TOS was almost notoriously *inconsistent* -- each episode was independent from the next.

In fact, I would say the popular use of overarching continuity in series wasn't really mainstream until the 80s (soap operas aside). For Trek, it was TMP that started the idea, out of the will to have this new world follow from the previous.

How does TMP start the idea? If there is one film in the franchise that could be left out it's TMP. It pretty much stands on its own.

Well, from one point of view, TMP was built from material designed to stand on its own as Star Trek Phase 2, hence Ilia and Decker, and the new science officer, who then had to be killed to bring Spock back. It was complicated

I would be inclined to see TWOK as more the building up towards a continuous story, with Nick Meyer's influence on pulling in details from TOS, and disparate drafts to inform his story. However, continuity was not the driving force, so much as action and reaction that would underpin the story's theme of revenge and aging.

Personally, I think Meyer had among the better viewpoints on continuity in that it is important, but can be sacrifice for the sake of telling the story better. Things such as Chekov not being in Space Seed, yet Khan recognizing him don't harm the story by their inclusion, but are on in line with continuity.

As with many issues in fan debate, I think there is a middle ground to be had.

Adding an extra line of dialogue noting the specific passage of speed and/or time is meaningless and unnecessarily superfluous to anyone who isn't a pedant.

Do you imagine that I was suggesting lines of dialogue should have been added? That's not the only way to alter a script. In STID the timeframe would appear to be more ambiguous if some lines were taken out.

There was, however, neither a plot nor a thematic reason to denote the time/speed/distance between Earth and Kronos. So they didn't.

This is exactly the opposite of the perceived problem with the film. If they didn't suggest the amount of elapsed time in any way there wouldn't be an issue. But they did.

If I have one complaint with Abrams Trek it is the pacing, and the insistence on making things happen so blasted fast. Trek 09 is just as guilty, and in my opinion would have benefited from being opened up a little.

I mean, it is not really necessary for Kirk to overhear Uhura's distress call, take the KM test, and have a hearing within 24 hours of each other. Realistically, such events could have been used to weave a pattern of events leading to Vulcan's destruction, and the emergency fleet assembly.

To Set's point, the removal of the Chekov's line indicating the time at which the anomaly was detected eliminates many problems right there.

Same idea for ID, though I could not state such moments as quickly

 

[Nerys Myk]

I appreciate the fact you're a long-term fan (I have also been for almost as long). But saying that you haven't been bothered by "lack of consistency" since 1973 is a bit disingenuous. The entire notion of "Trek continuity" wasn't established in 1973. TOS was almost notoriously *inconsistent* -- each episode was independent from the next.

In fact, I would say the popular use of overarching continuity in series wasn't really mainstream until the 80s (soap operas aside). For Trek, it was TMP that started the idea, out of the will to have this new world follow from the previous.

How does TMP start the idea? If there is one film in the franchise that could be left out it's TMP. It pretty much stands on its own.

Well, from one point of view, TMP was built from material designed to stand on its own as Star Trek Phase 2, hence Ilia and Decker, and the new science officer, who then had to be killed to bring Spock back. It was complicated

Yep. And then when they need to bring Spock back again, it was Saavik and David who got the boot. Then they had to bring the Enterprise back.Quite often they were backtracking to change things that happened in the previous films back to the status quo.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yeah, that has absolutely nothing do with what we're talking about. Focus on the arguments that we're actually making and not the ones that you're assigning to your straw man.

You're arguing that constancy of imaginary space travel speeds across imaginary distances is important to maintain the integrity of a story. If that's the case, then there should absolutely by consistency of space travel speeds across real distances, right?

TVH blatantly broke, not only the fictional "world" rules, but the real world rules of 1000x SoL travel.

Assuming my math is correct (And it's usually exceptionally terrible.), then the entire TVH round trip should have taken just under two seconds. But the whole sequence (at least the return trip) took several minutes on screen.

And, in terms of proportional magnitude, it's an even more egregious offence. But I'm guessing it probably didn't "take you out of the story."

 

[Nebusj]

Assuming my math is correct (And it's usually exceptionally terrible.), then the entire TVH round trip should have taken just under two seconds. But the whole sequence (at least the return trip) took several minutes on screen.

And, in terms of proportional magnitude, it's an even more egregious offence. But I'm guessing it probably didn't "take you out of the story."

It's strange but, yeah, somehow, using screen time to show something which was meant to be presented as dangerous and tense and momentous was effective.

Personally, I'm agreeable to a lot of the New Trek paradigm, particularly since it's brought a lot of needed energy and emotional investment to the proceedings. But I would feel more comfortable if it took the Enterprise a little longer to travel from Earth to Vulcan or Kronos than it takes me to drive to the hipster bar two and a half blocks away for pinball league.

(I am not saying that I want every minute of the voyage shown on screen; that would be dull, and good filmmaking should avoid being dull except for deliberate effect. I just think it'd be better off not drawing attention to implausibly short travel times. Earth to Vulcan in one scene cut is fine; Earth to Vulcan in four in-universe minutes is a distraction.)

(Also I normally walk, but will drive if it's pouring out or bitterly cold.)

 

[RoJoHen]

There is something to be said for the inclusion of quieter character-building scenes while ships are en route to their destinations. It's a good way to denote a longer passage of time and to explore the relationships between the crew.

 

[Set Harth]

What are "imaginary distances"?

 

[Ovation]

Distances between imaginary worlds?

 

[Kelthaz]

You're arguing that constancy of imaginary space travel speeds across imaginary distances is important to maintain the integrity of a story. If that's the case, then there should absolutely by consistency of space travel speeds across real distances, right?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Fictional universes are free to make up whatever crazy and magical rules that they want, but they should strive to tell stories without breaking those rules whenever possible to maintain the integrity of the story. Break the rules of physics all you want, but it's important that a story follows its own rules.

 

[Sindatur]

You're arguing that constancy of imaginary space travel speeds across imaginary distances is important to maintain the integrity of a story. If that's the case, then there should absolutely by consistency of space travel speeds across real distances, right?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Fictional universes are free to make up whatever crazy and magical rules that they want, but they should strive to tell stories without breaking those rules whenever possible to maintain the integrity of the story. Break the rules of physics all you want, but it's important that a story follows its own rules.

Is your contention that JJTrek is breaking it's own rules, or breaking Past Trek Rules?

If Past Trek, which Warp Scale are you going by? TOS, where they could leave the Galaxy or get to the middle of the Galaxy in days or hours or Voayger, where it took 75 years to get from the far end of The Delta Quadrant to Earth, or somewhere in between like in TNG?

 

[Jedi_Master]

I'm really not sure what Marvel's movies has to do with this. Are you seriously trying to argue that consistent world building isn't important? That seems to be what CorporalClegg is saying.

I think the argument is that "consistent" is in the eye of the beholder. Every fictional world breaks down eventually when subjected to intense scrutiny.