Poll Is continuity important?

[Citiprime]

The only difference is that now fans are convinced that visual continuity trumps all when it never has.

Just a personal feel about it, but I've always thought fans give Trek leeway for the transition between TOS to TMP and the TNG-era because of the realities of Trek's beginnings as a canceled 1960s network TV show with a limited budget, as well as Roddenberry being personally connected to the jump with TNG (i.e., "if the creator is ok with this...").

It was not so much a situation where they were making visual changes to explore different directions, as it was here's something the way we intended to do it but never really had the chance to because of circumstances. And I believe Roddenberry's explanation for something like the Klingon forehead ridges was that the Klingons always looked like TMP/TNG Klingons because that's the way it was intended to be.

 

[fireproof78]

Just a personal feel about it, but I've always thought fans give Trek leeway for the transition between TOS to TMP and the TNG-era because of the realities of Trek's beginnings as a canceled 1960s network TV show with a limited budget, as well as Roddenberry being personally connected to the jump with TNG (i.e., "if the creator is ok with this...").

I would not be one of those fans. TMP has always been an outlier for me and certainly not the same as TOS.

And I believe Roddenberry's explanation for something like the Klingon forehead ridges was that the Klingons always looked like TMP/TNG Klingons because that's the way it was intended to be.

As it should have been, because this is a production and updates will happen.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't find it dishonest or gaslighting. As @Greg Cox notes this is an aspect of TV production that is inherent in being a part of that medium. Calling it "dishonest" and "gaslighting" implies malice that I don't believe is there.

Indeed. Were the producers "gaslighting" audiences by expecting us to accept that Saavik was the same character in all three movies, even though she was played by two different actresses?

Theater (and movies and television) expect the audience to buy into the illusion; that's just how it works. If that's dishonest, that's just the nature of the beast. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Just a personal feel about it, but I've always thought fans give Trek leeway for the transition between TOS to TMP and the TNG-era because of the realities of Trek's beginnings as a canceled 1960s network TV show with a limited budget, as well as Roddenberry being personally connected to the jump with TNG (i.e., "if the creator is ok with this...").

Personally there's a few reasons why I was perfectly okay with the visual changes from TOS to TMP and so on.

1. I hadn't been born yet.
2. Designs in the real world looked different between the 60s and 70s as well.
3. We'd never seen modern day Earth, only starbases way out near the final frontier, and the Enterprise herself was said to be old. The Menagerie showed that the basic bridge design was from at least a decade before the start of Kirk's five year mission, and TMP takes places years after it ended.

 

[Greg Cox]

For us older folks, there's also the fact that, beyond just STAR TREK, a somewhat laissez-faire approach to continuity was pretty much standard operating procedure for most ongoing movies and tv series when I was growing up, so there was never any expectation that, say, Castle Frankenstein OR the Starship Enterprise look exactly the same in every sequel. (How many different actors played Felix Leiter in the Bond movies? How come Tarzan has a different Jane this time?)

The modern obsession with "canon" is indeed relatively modern.

Heck, the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce SHERLOCK HOLMES movies, back in the 1940s, abruptly switched their setting from the Victorian Era to the present-day, purely in the interest of wartime patriotism. (The better to have Holmes and Watson foiling Nazis.). I'm not aware of audiences at the time fretting about whether the earlier Victorian-era movies were still "canon" or searching for some sort of in-universe "explanation" involving "alternate timelines" and such.

They just went with it and, honestly, I'm not certain that wasn't a more practical attitude.

 

[fireproof78]

They just went with it and, honestly, I'm not certain that wasn't a more practical attitude.

Honestly, I think that attitude shows way more faith in the audience than current producers necessarily show. It assumes that the audience is intelligence enough to figure out that productions get updated and to roll with it, rather than requiring an explanation for every single change.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Honestly, I think that attitude shows way more faith in the audience than current producers necessarily show. It assumes that the audience is intelligence enough to figure out that productions get updated and to roll with it, rather than requiring an explanation for every single change.

If Star Trek hadn't made a fortune with encyclopedias, technical manuals and chronologies then grown up 90's Trekkies may well be up to all this change.

 

[fireproof78]

If Star Trek hadn't made a fortune with encyclopedias, technical manuals and chronologies then grown up 90's Trekkies may well be up to all this change.

True. The books sold a verisimilitude that wasn't embraced by the production staff as much in the actual shows.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

They wouldn't have bought the encyclopedias, technical manuals and chronologies if they weren't already into the idea of it all being one universe that was worth learning more about.

 

[Citiprime]

For us older folks, there's also the fact that, beyond just STAR TREK, a somewhat laissez-faire approach to continuity was pretty much standard operating procedure for most ongoing movies and tv series when I was growing up, so there was never any expectation that, say, Castle Frankenstein OR the Starship Enterprise look exactly the same in every sequel. (How many different actors played Felix Leiter in the Bond movies? How come Tarzan has a different Jane this time?)

The modern obsession with "canon" is indeed relatively modern.

I don't disagree. And this seems to be what Warner Bros. has decided to do with the DC Movies after things going south with Justice League, where they're just telling a self-contained story with each movie for right now. And that seemed to work for Joker and The Batman.

I do think there's a tug and pull with this though, since all you have to do if you don't want these continuity arguments, and obsessing about continuity and how things fit, is to disavow them. The writers and producer could not claim their works to exist within the same continuity if they don't want their work to be judged on that. But the producers and studios want the audience to infer those connections in most cases to generate audience enthusiasm among some fans, and to not start a different argument about which continuity is better if they're split.

I just don't think you can have it both ways. If you tell fans that this is in the same continuity as something that came before, that "we're respecting canon," and pepper your work with Easter Eggs and plot points from the past as the basis for your story, is it not fair to then look at how well it fits since it's the terms that these creators set up for themselves?

 

[fireproof78]

They wouldn't have bought the encyclopedias, technical manuals and chronologies if they weren't already into the idea of it all being one universe that was worth learning more about.

Maybe?

I bought them because I love TOS. I couldn't give a rip about TNG.

I just don't think you can have it both ways. If you tell fans that this is in the same continuity as something that came before, that "we're respecting canon," and pepper your work with Easter Eggs and plot points from the past as the basis for your story, is it not fair to then look at how well it fits since it's the terms that these creators set up for themselves?

And if it doesn't fit well then what? I encourage people to go back and watch MASH, which is considered an excellent show, but it's continuity sometimes wobbles. So, if we were to apply Trek rules a bit then the fact that Hawkeye has a sister, mom and dad, and then is an only child then are they different continuities?

For me, if there is an inconsistency, then it's not an different continuity. It's either being told a different way, in a different medium or from a different perspective. If I go watch Hamlet one night, and then the next night Hamlet is played by a different actor I don't go "Eh, this Hamlet is clearly not the same Hamlet as the last guy, so not the same story."

Stagecraft. It's all stagecraft. Only, fans have devoted unprecedented amount of time and energy in to details that do not matter. And no one asked them to. So, it's not on CBS to have the same slavish devotion to detail as fans do.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

And if it doesn't fit well then what? I encourage people to go back and watch MASH, which is considered an excellent show, but it's continuity sometimes wobbles. So, if we were to apply Trek rules a bit then the fact that Hawkeye has a sister, mom and dad, and then is an only child then are they different continuities?

Comedies have a bit more leeway with what they can get away with. That's why I'm only very disappointed with Red Dwarf's continuity instead of done with the show.

Stagecraft. It's all stagecraft. Only, fans have devoted unprecedented amount of time and energy in to details that do not matter. And no one asked them to. So, it's not on CBS to have the same slavish devotion to detail as fans do.

CBS could have the whole cast play their roles in their street clothes and do the aliens with sock puppets if they want to. We'll just continue to express our opinions about their choices and what's important to us.

 

[blssdwlf]

Heck, the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce SHERLOCK HOLMES movies, back in the 1940s, abruptly switched their setting from the Victorian Era to the present-day, purely in the interest of wartime patriotism. I'm not aware of audiences at the time fretting about whether the earlier Victorian-era movies were still "canon" or searching for some sort of in-universe "explanation" involving "alternate timelines" and such.

Honestly, did any of those universes have explicit alternate universes and time travel capabilities? Why would the audiences at that time fret about something that isn't in their story or did they have those plot devices?

I don't find it dishonest or gaslighting. As @Greg Cox notes this is an aspect of TV production that is inherent in being a part of that medium. Calling it "dishonest" and "gaslighting" implies malice that I don't believe is there.

You're right. I don't think there is any malice in using their "creative intent" to deliver their specific vision of the new old series. I just looked up some recent interviews from Akiva Goldsman and he's upfront about his willingness to alter things so that's honesty that can be respected.

I am looking forward to seeing how Star Trek will update their database...

 

[fireproof78]

Comedies have a bit more leeway with what they can get away with. That's why I'm only very disappointed with Red Dwarf's continuity instead of done with the show

I treat comedies and dramas the same. MASH and other comedies stand out way worse to me than much of Star Trek.

CBS could have the whole cast play their roles in their street clothes and do the aliens with sock puppets if they want to. We'll just continue to express our opinions about their choices and what's important to us.

Ultimately, yes.

But, the larger question is, is it entertaining?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I dunno. They should do an experiment. Make an episode where the continuity's all wrong, make another episode where the aliens are all sock puppets, and make a third episode where the cast are just wearing jeans and t-shirts for the whole thing, and see if any of the three has any negative effect on how entertaining people find them.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I dunno. They should do an experiment. Make an episode where the continuity's all wrong, make another episode where the aliens are all sock puppets, and make a third episode where the cast are just wearing jeans and t-shirts for the whole thing, and see if any of the three has any negative effect on how entertaining people find them.

That's any two episodes of TOS + The Final Frontier.

 

[fireproof78]

I dunno. They should do an experiment. Make an episode where the continuity's all wrong, make another episode where the aliens are all sock puppets, and make a third episode where the cast are just wearing jeans and t-shirts for the whole thing, and see if any of the three has any negative effect on how entertaining people find them.

Are the stories solid? What about the characters?

And, yeah, with the jeans thing, see The Final Frontier.

 

[Greg Cox]

I just don't think you can have it both ways. If you tell fans that this is in the same continuity as something that came before, that "we're respecting canon," and pepper your work with Easter Eggs and plot points from the past as the basis for your story, is it not fair to then look at how well it fits since it's the terms that these creators set up for themselves?

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation.

On practical level, you should be able to, say, overlook one inconvenient line from one old episode without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

"85% canon" ought to be good enough for most practical purposes, as well as for the average viewer.

 

[The Wormhole]

If you wanna do shows where you go back to old characters and settings and change some things around, or make additions that may or may not fit well with what’s come before, why set it in the same continuity to begin with?

Paramount is convinced people won't support another continuity, and go out of their way to make sure there is only The One. The closest thing we got to another was the Kelvin Timeline, and even that's just adjacent to The One in a manner that allowed Leonard Nimoy to make cameos.

Until Paramount decides to allow another continuity that has nothing to do with The One, we're just going to have to accept The One is going to be changed to reflect the times.

 

[fireproof78]

Paramount is convinced people won't support another continuity, and go out of their way to make sure there is only The One. The closest thing we got to another was the Kelvin Timeline, and even that's just adjacent to The One in a manner that allowed Leonard Nimoy to make cameos.

Until Paramount decides to allow another continuity that has nothing to do with The One, we're just going to have to accept The One is going to be changed to reflect the times.

Which is what Trek has always done.