Would you accept a flexible Star Trek timeline?

[Boris Skrbic]

I’d rather the writers spend time writing instead of chasing minutiae on Wikipedia.

? Research is a part of the writing profession. You do it so that not even the most involved viewer is taken out of the story with a “Waitaminute!”, which makes the writer appear unnecessarily sloppy. If wikis are available, and we’re talking about the present day here, avoidable inconsistencies aren’t as easily accepted. Just look at the viewer confusion caused by Spider-Man: Homecoming stating it’s eight years after The Avengers rather than the expected four (confirmed by later movies). People thought it meant something and spent time writing about it when it really was just an avoidable error with no storytelling purpose.

(Of course, one can always minimize the necessary research by going forward rather than weave between the good-old.)

 

[BillJ]

? Research is a part of the writing profession. You do it so that not even the most involved viewer is taken out of the story with a “Waitaminute!”, which makes the writer appear unnecessarily sloppy. If wikis are available, and we’re talking about the present day here, avoidable inconsistencies aren’t as easily accepted. Just look at the viewer confusion caused by Spider-Man: Homecoming stating it’s eight years after The Avengers rather than the expected four (confirmed by later movies). People thought it meant something and spent time writing about it when it really was just an avoidable error with no storytelling purpose.

(Of course, one can always minimize the necessary research by going forward rather than weave between the good-old.)

Star Trek seemed to thrive and survive just fine for many, many years without Wikipedia and eating its own tail.

 

[Tenacity]

I’d rather the writers spend time writing instead of chasing minutiae on Wikipedia.

Continuity editor.

Let say that Picard at some point is telling a story about Worf, and Worf's adopted parents are mentioned. The writer doesn't know (or care) about what they were originally named and simply calls they Bob and Debbie Smith.

The continuity editor as a part of their job does some extremely minimal research and sends the writer a note that the parents were originally named Sergey and Helena Rozhenko.

What could possible be wrong with this?

 

[BillJ]

Canon and continuity should add texture and a bit of flavor, they shouldn't be the entire dish.

 

[Jayson1]

Canon and continuity should add texture and a bit of flavor, they shouldn't be the entire dish.

I agree but if you know your canon you can make a meal out of it. For example who knew Khan would payoff 20 years later or Picard looks great but still built off the back of the worst movie. People in charge should know canon even though natually some stuff will slip the mind. They shouldn't just feel restricted by it. There are often plenty of head canon options around any so called canon restrictions. Jason

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Star Trek seemed to thrive and survive just fine for many, many years without Wikipedia and eating its own tail.

I’m not sure why you’re going in this direction, speaking as if Star Trek of all future-embracing franchises has a problem with writers not being able to Google or use a wiki. DSC writers seem more aware of what came before than those working before them: the issue under discussion has never been research, but rather the extent to which they feel at liberty to bend the canon, and that doesn’t apply to writing as much as it does to producton design.

 

[Prax]

These shows had their own version of Wikipedia to track all the stuff going on. They also had writer's guides and technical guides.

Research is simply a part of writing. There's a word for writers who don't do any research.

 

[Spot261]

I’m not sure why you’re going in this direction, speaking as if Star Trek of all future-embracing franchises has a problem with writers not being able to Google or use a wiki. DSC writers seem more aware of what came before than those working before them: the issue under discussion has never been research, but rather the extent to which they feel at liberty to bend the canon, and that doesn’t apply to writing as much as it does to producton design.

I agree here about DSC, one of the most unfair criticisms it faced early on was that it failed to acknowledge or honour that which had come before, when in reality it went to great pains to do so in ways other iterations had not.

Not sure how much difference the advent of wikis should really make though, anyone prepared to spend time on the research always had the reference books and the source material. For someone working full time on a project it's arguably still preferable in many cases to use those rather than their less reliable modern day counterparts, after all we've seen wikis edited simply to win arguments in TBBS threads and the only people who noticed were, well, us.

The real issue is what you call "bending the canon", which to me sounds a lot like being creative. In terms of priorities I'd rather writers focused on making something interesting and thought provoking than being tied excessively by the detail. I've no doubt we can all think of a few commercial trek novelists whose works are far more dutiful in their adherence to continuity, details and in many cases the real world science than the show itself ever was. Strangely they do not seem to be topping bestseller lists or winning critical acclaim, even within sci fi circles.

 

[Tim Thomason]

The overreliance on Memory Alpha and other reference has caused issues, with them just pasting Star Trek: Star Charts on the walls (disregarding details of future events) and giving Pike some Cardassian awards. Research is great, but it needs to be done right. A writers room including novel writers and previous Trek luminaries should and does help alleviate these supposed issues.

The core story and plan should never be affected by trivial minutiae, but a good continuity overview should help polish every script. And the activities of the art department, even moreso than the plotters, ought to be conducted with extra care.

 

[Prax]

I don't know about Star Trek books, but Star Wars books were almost always on the NYT bestsellers list, usually in the top ten. This was true for almost all the books released between 2000-2014, and they kept a pretty rigorous continuity.

I think the reality is that adhering closely to a continuity, or not doing so, cannot have a negative affect on storytelling. A story is either received well or it isn't, or it is by some and not by others. Sticking to some sort of continuity is being described here as if it's a burden, or as if there's this dichotomy of good story or continuity, and that one must be sacrificed to serve the other.

I'm not surprised there are never any examples to go along with this idea.

 

[The Wormhole]

it works for DW, whereas ST at its core is not about timelines.

Doctor Who wasn't "about timelines" either during the period Terrance Dicks was involved with the show, which indeed holds the franchise's record for least amount of time travelling in general on the show. During this period the Doctor was stranded on Earth in a vaguely defined contemporary time period. They didn't even bother to keep it straight when the show took place, with it being either in the 1970s or the 1980s, depending on the episode you're watching.

I don't know about Star Trek books, but Star Wars books were almost always on the NYT bestsellers list, usually in the top ten. This was true for almost all the books released between 2000-2014, and they kept a pretty rigorous continuity.

Ah, no. Star Wars novels were pretty bad with their continuity in the old EU. Contrary to popular belief, the old EU wasn't nullified as a result of the Disney buy-out and plans to do new movies in the post-ROTJ period. There were plans to end the EU and reboot the novel continuity before that exactly because novel continuity was becoming such a damn mess. Just look up the Legends page for Wedge Antilles if you want to see how rigorous Star Wars EU continuity wasn't.

Ironically, Star Trek novel continuity is actually one of the better shared universe continuities out there, in that it holds up a lot better than most others, and indeed a lot better than most of the Star Trek shows themselves.

 

[Prax]

Ah, no. Star Wars novels were pretty bad with their continuity in the old EU. Contrary to popular belief, the old EU wasn't nullified as a result of the Disney buy-out and plans to do new movies in the post-ROTJ period. There were plans to end the EU and reboot the novel continuity before that exactly because novel continuity was becoming such a damn mess. Just look up the Legends page for Wedge Antilles if you want to see how rigorous Star Wars EU continuity wasn't.

Ironically, Star Trek novel continuity is actually one of the better shared universe continuities out there, in that it holds up a lot better than most others, and indeed a lot better than most of the Star Trek shows themselves.

Oh, nooo, I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken. "Popular opinion" is just the opposite, but it's not true.

Unlike Star Trek, Star Wars books, stories, series, etc, were developed by Lucasfilm, along with the publishers, then an author was hired to write it. There were continuity advisors and they had their own database apart from the wiki. It was easily the largest and tightest continuity of any "expanded universe" especially compared to Star Trek.

Rebooting the EU was specifically due the sequel trilogy, and didn't even happen until episode 7's script was rewritten by a new writer.

Note, the point of my comment was about "bestsellers lists." Star Wars fans are very particular about continuity, and there was a system in place, and a great effort to maintain the continuity. Whenever a contradiction did surface, a retcon would be introduced to maintain harmony. Beyond that, most Star Wars writers talked to each other and had read all the other books. And none of this was done by "sacrificing good storytelling." It's not even part of the equation.

Even though they rebooted the timeline, Lucasfilm is still using that system that was developed in the 90's to maintain continuity across different books, and across different media. It's been very successful. Star Trek has never given even half that effort, so what need is there to complain that maintaining a continuity would hamper good storytelling?

What rings more true is that this kind of argument has come about because people are sick of hearing other people whine about "Canon."

 

[The Wormhole]

It was easily the largest and tightest continuity of any "expanded universe" especially compared to Star Trek.

Five minutes looking over the Legends section on Wookieepedia proves that's a lie. Hell, back by the time the Prequels were in production, the EU was using its infamous "Tiers of Canon" because of all the contradictions between the various forms of tie-ins and the movies themselves.

Rebooting the EU was specifically due the sequel trilogy, and didn't even happen until episode 7's script was rewritten by a new writer.

No, the goal was to give the EU a fresh start as a unified whole, to put an end to all the contradictions. The Disney buy-out and new movies helped fast-track the plan, but it was always going to happen regardless.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

During this period the Doctor was stranded on Earth in a vaguely defined contemporary time period. They didn't even bother to keep it straight when the show took place, with it being either in the 1970s or the 1980s, depending on the episode you're watching.

But why hold that up as some kind of an ideal? I’m actually watching Season 10 on Blu-ray, and the whole idea there was to get away from that period. Besides, there were no wikis, not even VCRs, only viewers who might catch the odd standalone four-parter. Finally, once again it’s not about research, but rather the extent to which you flow with the canon rather than take a clumsy “go wild, than swear all to secrecy” approach.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm sticking with my belief that there is only one, continuous, unaltered timeline.

Why? Because I can.

Visual aesthetic is, IMHO, completely irrelevant to the story. Not every little damn thing needs to be explained. So what if the bridge of the Enterprise looks different in DSC than it did in TOS? We all knew there wasn't a chance in hell that DSC would show this bridge exactly like TOS did. Why do we need to invent convoluted excuses as to why the Discoprise looks different? No explanation is required. It's the same ship, the same bridge, and never fucking MIND what it looks like.

I admit I'm biased because I prefer the Discoprise. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in imagining every episode of TOS happening exactly as the show said it did, just with a DSC appearance. Your mileage may vary, of course; feel free to imagine, say, DSC happening exactly as we're seeing, just with a TOS motif. There's no right or wrong, here.

And before anyone else brings up the bloody Temporal Cold War, or any of the other time travel incidents we've seen: For all we know, each and every one of those was always part of history. You can't prove they weren't.

 

[Prax]

Five minutes looking over the Legends section on Wookieepedia proves that's a lie. Hell, back by the time the Prequels were in production, the EU was using its infamous "Tiers of Canon" because of all the contradictions between the various forms of tie-ins and the movies themselves.

The "tiers of Canon" were never infamous, and the new system is essentially the same, with its own tiers. I'm assuming you haven't really read this stuff, or read about all the effort that was put into it, or are just repeating things. No other EU has had what star Wars did and does, especially with how large it was.

Lucasfilm has stated that the main reason they rebooted the EU was to bring back Chewbacca, and give the sequel trilogy a blank slate. They've outright said it. And they didn't plan on doing it initially, until plans for the sequels changed.

The Tiers were simple, for the use of writers, and show the degree of rigorousness that was going on there.

Lucas Canon-Movies, scripts, novelizations, etc. Stuff that George created or was the most involved in.

This is still the case now that George is gone. The movies take precedence, and all other material must wait for them.

Continuity Canon- every thing from around 1990 onwards, when books began being published. It cannot contradict "George Canon" because it could not be written before he established it. For instance, there were no prequel books or comics published before the prequel films were released. That timeline/era was off limits to the writers.

In the new EU, this is the equivalent of "Canon"

Secondary Canon- older material from the 80's. This material was made available to the writers for reference, and they could take a story or character from it, and add it into continuity.

In the new EU, this is exactly what "Legends" now is.

Noncanon- books or comics with an "Infinities" logo, or sometimes a "Tales of." These were "what if" stories, and not intended to ever be part of continuity.

In the new EU, there are still "noncanon" stories being published.

Nothing has changed, which is what authors who have written both before and after have stated. And all of this is besides the point that a publisher aiming for a tight continuity can make the bestsellers list over and over again.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

One substantial change is that George Lucas can no longer throw a wrench into the works and none of the filmmakers have that kind of absolute power, which essentially means that the films are now ”C-canon” also, as absurd as that sounds, but it’s easily seen if we look at Solo, for example, with its numerous references to the EU. Yes, they still take priority, and I’m sure the Story Group would apply the odd retcon if a director were truly passionate about ignoring an established fact, but it hasn’t been a real problem so far.

Another difference is that EU publications had greater freedom because George Lucas wasn’t going to make more films and he’d made it clear that whatever they did wouldn’t necessarily be part of his story anyway, whereas now the canon tie-ins can only go where the films definitely won’t and preferably they must connect with a current film, as with the leadup to TROS. That’s probably why the Old Republic era remains unexplored, even though I’m sure there is plenty of interest in it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

All this comparing of Trek and Star Wars novel continuities, and no mention that Gerorge based his novelverse on that of Star Trek?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It’s mostly relevant in that it removes the misunderstanding that non-G “canon” was approved by Lucas, but otherwise you can see the differences in that same quote: the Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn’t include tie-ins and Bermanverse writers worked with it but nothing that would keep track of the rest, which didn’t even have their own single continuity stitched together with retcons.

 

[The Wormhole]

The "tiers of Canon" were never infamous, and the new system is essentially the same, with its own tiers.

Nope. I quote Wikipedia on this one:

In April 2014, Lucasfilm rebranded the Expanded Universe material as Star Wars Legends and declared it non-canonical to the franchise. Chee said in a 2014 Twitter post that a "primary goal" of the Story Group would be to replace the previous hierarchical canon (of the Holocron) with one cohesive one.

One substantial change is that George Lucas can no longer throw a wrench into the works and none of the filmmakers have that kind of absolute power, which essentially means that the films are now ”C-canon” also, as absurd as that sounds,

No, the films still disregard the novels and tie-ins all they want, even the new "we swear these are totally 100% official canon" novels and the Story Group doesn't have any real authority over the filmmakers. If the Story Group had the kind of power everyone makes it sound like they have, they could simply have told Abrams in The Force Awakens that "hey, no, Maz Kanata's planet is not on the path between Starkiller and the Hosnian system" instead or contorting themselves with whacked out explanations as to why the laser beam from Starkiller was seen passing by Maz's planet on its way to Hosnian. Or then there's The Last Jedi which showed Rey and Poe meeting each other for the first time, despite the fact they were already well acquainted in the tie-ins.

Solo's most controversial inclusion was Darth Maul's cameo, but that wasn't really an example of the Story Group's authority per se. The character in the script was simply identified as "Boss" and Ron Howard was provided a list of characters he could choose "Boss" to be, and he chose Darth Maul.