What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Because it was a learning process. Even Shatner notes this in his memoirs, that the 1st season they had a different way of carrying themselves and handling the props and the like. What made TOS was kind of the Magic School Bus attitude "Take chances, make mistakes and get messy." They were willing to try something new and different that hadn't been done before.
In my opinion, trying to replicate that, for the sake of continuity, is what will doom many productions. Because, then there is no willingness to take a risk for fear of violating continuity.
That's how I view it, for any story "universe". It's a framework to hang the story on.
Along with the NXerprise's encounters with the Xyrillians, the Suliban and the Romulans.
Classify all that shit. It won't ever be relevant to our front-line space defenders.
Didn't they have a dust-up with the Gorn, too? Not that they'd ever get hostile again, of course.
Mirror Universe.
Oh, OK. I quit watching after season 2.
Continuity IS storytelling.
You can't give Joe Monsterhunter a pistol but tell him demons are immune to bullets, and then have the finale be him using the pistol to shoot the demon. That breaks the story.
I differentiate somewhat between continuity that was simply stated ("The eugenic wars were in 1996", "No woman are allowed for Starfleet Captains"), because in this case the character simply might remember stuff wrong, or be mistaken. On the other side how stuff works is crucial for me - Don't solve your problem by beaming through enemy shields!
Into Darkness had lots of problems here, when it introduced planet-to-planet beaming, but then didn't use it in the finale where it would have solved everything. Whereas OTOH ST09 played very loose with the history of Trek as well, but never in universe-breaking ways, so I was completely fine with everything there.
You can't give Joe Monsterhunter a pistol but tell him demons are immune to bullets, and then have the finale be him using the pistol to shoot the demon. That breaks the story.
I differentiate somewhat between continuity that was simply stated ("The eugenic wars were in 1996", "No woman are allowed for Starfleet Captains"), because in this case the character simply might remember stuff wrong, or be mistaken. On the other side how stuff works is crucial for me - Don't solve your problem by beaming through enemy shields!
Into Darkness had lots of problems here, when it introduced planet-to-planet beaming, but then didn't use it in the finale where it would have solved everything. Whereas OTOH ST09 played very loose with the history of Trek as well, but never in universe-breaking ways, so I was completely fine with everything there.
All I can say is this whole canon debate has gone much smoother in my head-trekbbs. There we all agreed that canon is in the eye of the beholder. Some see it as a new timeline were others take a more broad aproach to what canon is and see "Discovery" being good enough to count. Are only arguments are over whether or not the show is good within the frameworks we have all put it in and when we disagree we make sure to end any argument with a hug to show that we respect each opinion even if we disagree with it.
Jason
Jason
I don't think Spock would make a statement on something (The Eugenics Wars) he wasn't sure of.
Good story telling of course. But consider...the writers and producers of Star Trek over the course of 50 years are the ones who asked us to invest in continuity. With Star Trek the Motion Picture, the franchise made the decision that we should see this as one, ongoing saga. So the continuity is also important, unless you tell us this is outside of said continuity. Stating this is set in the Prime Timeline seems like a deception to me. They know that most Trek fans' loyalties are to the original timeline, so they make us think it's going to be. However, it fits perfectly into the Kelvin timeline. Had I known that, I would be disappointed, but still won over by the pilot's quality.
I agree. I think most people are less upset about the actual changes than they are that they feel like they were lied to. If they didn't use the word "Prime" people wouldn't be arguing over canon. They would be wondering what things will be the same and what things will be different. People would love to see how old concepts are updated instead of finding it weird that this new stuff is something we are supose to pretend was always their without even giving people a good enough way to fan wank it away because they wanted to set it so close to a show that not only existed but is also the most dated one of them all! I would argue that ever other show besides TOS is still futuristic looking enough that any of these modern updates would still feel natural yet they went for the one that hasn't been futuristic looking in 50 years.
Jason
First, we shouldn't dismiss Comic Book Guy fans who are watching for every canon violation they find out of hand. That's how they enjoy Star Trek. So what?
Secondly I agree that good storytelling is more important than canon, but I also think the producers of today's Trek don't trust its premise. Star Trek is about moving forward, not backwards. And yet here we are, back in the 23rd century. Why do you think that is?
Secondly I agree that good storytelling is more important than canon, but I also think the producers of today's Trek don't trust its premise. Star Trek is about moving forward, not backwards. And yet here we are, back in the 23rd century. Why do you think that is?
Short answer: story trumps continuity.
Long answer: STORY TRUMPS CONTINUITY.
People nitpicking the dates, the ship designs, uniforms and props are 100% wrong. I understand sometimes your heads needs things to match up, but Enterprise tried DESPERATELY to make things fit, but the stories rarely delivered, so clearly, story story story.
Write the best damned stories and do your best to make them fit with continuity, but if there's a minor glitch here or there, don't sacrifice quality of story to close a minor continuity gap.
Long answer: STORY TRUMPS CONTINUITY.
People nitpicking the dates, the ship designs, uniforms and props are 100% wrong. I understand sometimes your heads needs things to match up, but Enterprise tried DESPERATELY to make things fit, but the stories rarely delivered, so clearly, story story story.
Write the best damned stories and do your best to make them fit with continuity, but if there's a minor glitch here or there, don't sacrifice quality of story to close a minor continuity gap.
Because they're the ones who scream the loudest, and bring the rest down. We need to shut them up with red hot pokers.
100% wrong.
No matter what people were told they'd still be complaining. Because the people making the most noise are the ones who will complain about everything all the time. Let's be clear: this is the prime timeline, they're making a visual retcon. END OF STORY.
As I pointed out in another thread, Janice Lester never said "Women aren't allowed to be captains". The actual conversation is:
JANICE: The year we were together at Starfleet is the only time in my life I was alive.
KIRK: I never stopped you from going on with your space work.
JANICE: Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women. It isn't fair.
KIRK: No, it isn't. And you punished and tortured me because of it.
JANICE: I loved you. We could've roamed among the stars.
KIRK: We'd have killed each other.
JANICE: It might have been better.
She's not saying she can't be a captain. Rather, she's saying that in Kirk's world of starship captains (i.e. himself), there's no room for her.
I don't care what the showrunners say. I believe this IS a reboot, especially after seeing the first two episodes. Which is fine. I don't mind it being a reboot (and I love the show so far, BTW). Not a ret-con, but a full on reboot. But they can say it takes place in the prime timeline as much as they want, and I will never believe them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
