Pitfalls the new series should avoid

[Terok Nor]

My assumption has been, and what I have been responding to, is that there is the thought that the Star Trek canon is so deep and so detailed after 50 years that there are no new stories to tell in the Star Trek universe, and if there were stories, there's no place to put them because the canon is full.

I call BS. What we have is a foundation to springboard more and greater stories.

My thoughts exactly.

If the old continuity is disregarded you just know we'll get remakes of old episodes and "new" takes on characters, events and species we're already familiar with. Here's our introduction to the Borg....again. Here's our first meeting with Q...again. City On The Edge Of Forever - The Remake. Best Of Both Worlds - Better Than Your Dad's Version. No thank you.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It doesn't matter where it goes, as soon as the first photos appear everyone will be bending over backwards of how great it will be.

 

[eyeresist]

I think the canon problem is:
(a) Stories you can't retell in a new or different way because (a1) they've already been addressed, or (a2) it would contradict some tiny bit of canon;
(b) Stories dependent on viewers knowing the canon in minute detail;
(c) Stories that are uninteresting apart from the fact that they fill in some little gap in the canon.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the canon problem is:
(a) Stories you can't retell in a new or different way because (a1) they've already been addressed, or (a2) it would contradict some tiny bit of canon;
(b) Stories dependent on viewers knowing the canon in minute detail;
(c) Stories that are uninteresting apart from the fact that they fill in some little gap in the canon.

This. In fact, I think Abrams Trek suffers from this problem on some level.

I'm not saying that there are not stories that can't be told in the Prime universe, because the books prove that it is still possible. My concern, like @eyeresist, is how beholden the writers will be to it, and how much nitpicking will occur, or reliance on old material to prop up the new show. It's a delicate balancing and act.

 

[cultcross]

My assumption has been, and what I have been responding to, is that there is the thought that the Star Trek canon is so deep and so detailed after 50 years that there are no new stories to tell in the Star Trek universe, and if there were stories, there's no place to put them because the canon is full. Thus the call to "fuck canon," keeping only the basics of Star Trek: warp drive, two nacelles and a saucer, phasers, tricorders, transporters, "to boldly go," and so forth.

I call BS. What we have is a foundation to springboard more and greater stories.

On the contrary, I would say the main problem with the bloated canon is what I call 'continuity porn', the assumption that something is exciting, good, or entertaining solely because it referenced something else, or brought back a character or place that we've mentioned before, or some other nod to what has gone before. Enterprise was terrible at that. And this part of the forum is full of ideas for the new site which are the same thing - Kirk's great neice goes up against General Chang's separatist movement on the orders of Admiral Picard. That sort of thing. Continuity becomes a crutch, a shorthand, an excuse not to be new and different, which is what this new show needs. I've not got a desire for the show to throw out what went before, only that they don't obsess over it. TNG did pretty well at being new and different early on, minus a cameo or two, and the unwise recycling of 'The Naked Time'. I hope Trek 17 takes a similar stride forward away from what's gone before. It's one reason why I'm so against it being a prequel or sandwiched between two existing shows in a 'lost era'.

 

[stardream]

Continuity becomes a crutch, a shorthand, an excuse not to be new and different, which is what this new show needs. I've not got a desire for the show to throw out what went before, only that they don't obsess over it.

I have no problem with little things here and there being thrown in for the hardcore fans as long as they are just that. Little things. A mention of Kirk, the Dominion War or even someone in the holodeck fighting off the Hirogen ...as long as the whole episode is not about THAT. I'd even go so far as a two parter featuring an appearance from a character from one of the earlier shows but just once. The new characters should speak of the past in the way we speak of the past, in a natural casual way. Build on it but don't live there and please don't constantly revisit it.

 

[JWPlatt]

...I've not got a desire for the show to throw out what went before, only that they don't obsess over it...

This is the heart of your concern and I think what I've said supports it. Sure, no repeats of what we've already seen, please, but every use of a phaser is a reference. They should feel free to use and reference the entire canon, assuming the show does not precede Enterprise, etc., but not to retell the same stories (e.g., Naked Time).

But could they do a Rogue One to an old story? Would that still be okay for the canon anarchists?

 

[Kor]

"Flashback" was Trek's "Rogue One."

Kor

 

[Longinus]

I think canon is actually important to many people. Not in the way that the universe needs to be incestuously small and old things constantly referred to, but in a way that there is some sort of roughly consistent larger reality the stories take place in. I love world building I love internally consistent detailed settings. One of my favourite things is Tolkien's Middle-Earth, and in that as well the meticulously detailed fictional reality is a big part of the appeal. Sure, Star Trek can never be similarly consistent, as it is work of many people over 50 years, but all things considered, the prime universe is pretty solid. Look what most of the discussion on this site are about; they are about technology, history and politics of this fictional reality. People care about this stuff.

 

[STEPhon IT]

My assumption has been, and what I have been responding to, is that there is the thought that the Star Trek canon is so deep and so detailed after 50 years that there are no new stories to tell in the Star Trek universe, and if there were stories, there's no place to put them because the canon is full. Thus the call to "fuck canon," keeping only the basics of Star Trek: warp drive, two nacelles and a saucer, phasers, tricorders, transporters, "to boldly go," and so forth.

I call BS. What we have is a foundation to springboard more and greater stories.

Oh yeah. Try writing one of those things (Trek scripts) sometime. Keep on dwelling into the same stories and it will look like fanwankery. Starting off fresh is not a bad thing and it would be interesting where the writers can take it.

 

[JWPlatt]

New or old setting, the writers are still contemporary humans with all the same limitations in a business about entertainment on a weekly budget and schedule. As we've seen, a rebooted universe doesn't ensure new ideas. Creative writers would be just as creative with a rich backstory to build upon.

 

[uniderth]

The cannnon is certainly important for consistent storytelling. Could t me in as one that thinks we can stick to cannnon without it being continuity porn. I guess for me staying with cannnon is not the same as referencing it. It's possible to write a Trek show that maintains cannnnnon yet has very few references to it.

I wonder if people complain about our real world having a bloated cannnnnon and that there are no more stories to tell.

 

[eyeresist]

^ Need a few more n's in there.

 

[Takeru]

The cannnon is certainly important for consistent storytelling.

It's really not, the new series can ignore or actively contradict the established canon and still be consistent in itself and that's the only consistency that matters.
Trying not to contradict TNG for example is nothing but fanwankery, that series will be 30 years old next year, it really shouldn't matter anymore. Let's say they have a great story for the new series and suddenly someone remembers "That contradicts a fact established by TNG in 1990!", should they change their script? Of course not.

Could t me in as one that thinks we can stick to cannnon without it being continuity porn. I guess for me staying with cannnon is not the same as referencing it. It's possible to write a Trek show that maintains cannnnnon yet has very few references to it.

Even if they do that, fans will still complain which is another problem of a bloated canon, fans really have a hard tome to differentiate between actual canon and the canon that only exists in their head!
Look at Enterprise's portrayal of the vulcans early in its run for example, nothing they did contradicted anything, many people still complained that they somehow got vulcans "wrong" although the only thing the writers contradicted was the assumption that all vulcans acted like Spock.

Even Jolene Blalock fell into the canon trap, she was supposed to eat in a scene with her hands and pointed out that vulcans don't touch their food with their hands and ate a breadstick (iirc) with a fork and a knife instead. Her intentions were good but it was ridiculous, just because the fact "Vulcans don't touch their food with their hands while eating" was established at some point that doesn't make it true for all vulcans ever.
How many rules (formal and informal) exist on earth that many people simply don't care about? It's almost as if a society consists of individuals with their own values and ideas.

A huge canon is problematic because it can stop you from telling the story you want to tell and if it doesn't you'll still have fans breathing down your neck. Canon creates problems but adds nothing of value to a new show, it only matters to longtime fans who spend way too much time thinking about details and minor bits of information.

What I really want to say is:

Screw canon, get rid of it and reboot the shit out of Star Trek and nothing half assed like JJ Trek.
And that doesn't mean they shouldn't respect what came before but that's still possible with a reboot, unlike what some fans seem to think respecting Star Trek does not mean bending over backwards to not contradict stuff.

The new series should be Star Trek in spirit not in every detail that was aber said about everything.

 

[eyeresist]

Even Jolene Blalock fell into the canon trap, she was supposed to eat in a scene with her hands and pointed out that vulcans don't touch their food with their hands and ate a breadstick (iirc) with a fork and a knife instead. Her intentions were good but it was ridiculous, just because the fact "Vulcans don't touch their food with their hands while eating" was established at some point that doesn't make it true for all vulcans ever.

Leaving aside the canon issue, I don't think this is actually true. T'Pol's manner of eating a breadstick was supposed to be funny.

 

[uniderth]

I dunno. That seems like pretty weak excuse. "There's some limitation on my story so I'm just going to throw that limitation away." Why? Tweak your story a bit. I'm doing this right now. I'm writing a story about how I think Enterprise should have happened. I had this really great plot about the unification of earth and how the corporate elite were overthrown, etc. But then I found out the Beverly Crusher explicitly say the earth was unified in 2150. My story was taking place about 2155. I guess either I have to throw away my story or Beverly's line. Wrong. I'm just adjusting the plot so that the earth is already unified but most of the same events can still happen roughly the same. I still get to tell my story AND keep it consistent with the rest of Trek. For me, cannnnon/continuity isn't a ball and chain; rather it's more like a guide.

 

[Kor]

The "cannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnon" is useful for context. I just hope to God that they don't end up doing a bunch of fanboyish call-backs to previous continuity, requiring a deep knowledge of the previous lore to fully understand what's going on with the new stuff, at the expense of solid storytelling that stands on its own merits. *cough* ENT S4 *cough*

Kor

 

[cultcross]

I got really sick of those 'how the camel got it's hump' stories on Enterprise. What minute trivial piece of Trek lore will be explained this week?

 

[Longinus]

I got really sick of those 'how the camel got it's hump' stories on Enterprise. What minute trivial piece of Trek lore will be explained this week?

Well yeah, that sort of continuity is not needed.

 

[Kemaiku]

Canon should just be ignored at this point, any competant storyteller should be able to do what they want with the Star Trek universe without 20 neckbeards pointing out 5000 things they can or can't do for "some reason" because a crappy script 30 years ago made one throwaway reference.