There's even thematic continuity issues.
Do we like Roddenberry Trek, Meyer Trek, Moore Trek, or Shatnerverse.
Do we like Roddenberry Trek, Meyer Trek, Moore Trek, or Shatnerverse.
What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
But... he never mentioned his half-brother, either. So there is precedent for this (not counting the precedent of every single television drama ever made where the characters' siblings are only mentioned when they appear onscreen).
I agree this is a bit of a nitpick. It rests on two assumptions:
1. That Klingons are a monoculture who do everything identically across the entire culture. What's more likely is that Klingons, like humans, are made of hundreds of different cultures, each with their own funerary practices.
2. That the actions of Captain Georgiou did not fundamentally alter Klingon culture into abandoning their bodies in the battlefield, because the risk of Federation body-mining was probably a risk too high for a war-based culture to take.
Sybok is the most radioactive continuity in Trek isn't he? I mean, so much so even Christopher Bennet doesn't mention him.
True. Mind you, GIANT TOMB SHIP is a pretty good Klingon concept.
Except when the continuity is stupid.
Yeah, like JJ trek,
If this was a Kelvin thing, I think any writing adhering to that continuity would be hobbled out the gate.
Good story telling.
But it's nice to have both.
But it's nice to have both.
Except when the (new) story(telling) is awful.
To your point...
With 24 distinct and un-unified houses...I see no reason for all Klingons everywhere in the galaxy to feel the same way about honor, war, The Federation, or....dead bodies. Just look here on Earth for a prime example of one species having 100's of different beliefs.
i think the caliber of writing in JJ trek is so horrible, and the plot holes so large... adhering to it would be setting yourself up to continue to wrote bad stories in a bad way.
Agree to disagree. It isn't the "best writing ever" but it certainly is on par with most of Star Trek.
I thought it was neat that Worf did that. Was something fun and Enterprise come up with a cool way of explaining. Was it needed not really, but it was very clever never the less. The new Klingons don't even have hair.
For myself, I am for storytelling adherence. I can adapt if the stories are good. I mean, if I read the medieval stories of King Arthur, I am going to find stories that contradict other stories in the canon. However, if the stories keep me enthralled and adhere to a certain feeling of what an Arthurian story is like, I am for the ride.
That's cute. Precious, really.
Problem I'm finding is that the answer to the thread topic seems to suggest that the sacrifice of continuity (and canon for that matter), was going to free the writers up for good story telling. It's possible to have both continuity and good story telling.. and sadly, it's possible to have dodgy continuity and disappointing story telling.
Bingo. I mean, ultimately, if it absolutely HAD to be a choice, then I'd choose good storytelling, but: 1. I would suggest that a sincere attempt to adhere to continuity is PART of good storytelling, and 2. I refuse to believe that *somewhere* in 50 years+ of Star Trek there doesn't already exist a proper context in which to tell any given story - and even if there somehow isn't, use any appropriate point in space or time to create it. Don't shoehorn things where they don't fit or belong. Try harder.
That's just it. In order to have a coherent narrative, you must have continuity. If a character puts a pistol in a desk drawer, it had better not be in the chandelier two scenes later.
More to the point: You're watching a film. You see a woman sit down and place her purse on the table to her right. The camera cuts away to the other person, and when it cuts back to the woman, her purse is to her left. Another set of cuts, and the purse is back on her right. That is a continuity error. Critics will rightly eviscerate you over such a misstep.
If a story, whether written or filmed, lacks a consistent internal framework that allows the consumer to buy in to the reality being weaved, the consumer has every right to walk away and do something more interesting. A social contract has been broken. When the consumer takes up your work, they are saying, "Tell me a lie. And make it a great one." If your work isn't up to the task, you can't blame the consumer for putting your work back on the shelf without finishing.
As a writer, I live and die by this. If I hadn't bothered to keep a coherent continuity across the last five novels, well, there wouldn't be five novels. And rightly so.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
