New Trek TV/ Media continuity

[Jsplinis]

Hi everybody,

Back in the early days of Discovery I remember it being explained that Kirsten Beyer was coordinating the tie-in comics and novels for the series to keep them in continuity with the TV show. While they weren't canon, i think the intent was to keep them as faithful to the continuity as possible. They would feed off the TV information but also feed story info back to the TV show too.

I assume that her involvement with Picard media continued that intention of continuity into the Picard storylines, both TV and tie-in.

Does this continuity effort also apply to Strange New Worlds? What about Lower Decks and Prodigy?

Also, how has the effort paid off. Are the comics and novels consistent after 6 years? Have their been any major (or minor) contradictions?

Overall, has the effort paid off with a consistent overall universe of TV, comics and novel storyljnes or did the TV shows just end up overwriting as they went? Either result is ok because CBS/ Paramount have the right to do what they wish with their intellectual property. I'm just wondering if there was a significant difference in how continuity progressed since they made the effort to coordinate.

Thanks for any insight,
jsplinis

 

[Markonian]

The Prodigy novel Supernova and the Prodigy videogame Supernova depict the same adventure but in different ways.
STO has incorporated some elements from the comics, like the mirror Galaxy class and Sisko's new ship.

Main problem is probably that the shows lack some coordination amongst themselves - barely any of the crew from Pike's Enterprise seen in DSC and Short Treks made it to SNW proper.

 

[Christopher]

Main problem is probably that the shows lack some coordination amongst themselves - barely any of the crew from Pike's Enterprise seen in DSC and Short Treks made it to SNW proper.

How is that a problem? Ships change personnel over time. And naturally actors who are signed for one- or two-shot guest star gigs on one show are not necessarily going to be available for recurring or regular roles on a spinoff.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Does this continuity effort also apply to Strange New Worlds?

Kirsten Beyer supervised the IDW mini-series, "The Illyrian Enigma", which deliberated teased out some Illyrian threads between Seasons One and Two of SNW, knowing that Una's trial would be covered by the opening episodes of Season Two.

Unexplained in the "Lower Decks" comic mini-series is how Mariner and Boimler interacted with the space hippies of "The Way to Eden" (TOS).

 

[Christopher]

Unexplained in the "Lower Decks" comic mini-series is how Mariner and Boimler interacted with the space hippies of "The Way to Eden" (TOS).

That was bizarre. It equated the space hippies with Catullans, even though Tongo Rad was the only Catullan among them and Dr. Sevrin was Tiburonian. It also assumed the space hippie attire, makeup style, and slang were unchanged after 120 years, which is exceedingly unlikely. (Unless it's some sort of retro fashion thing, I guess.)

Although it did give us the classic line "Or, as we call them in space, regular hippies."

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's X-Men movieverse level continuity, as always. Take what they want, repurpose what they want, ignore the rest.

 

[Christopher]

It's X-Men movieverse level continuity, as always. Take what they want, repurpose what they want, ignore the rest.

Which has always been more the rule than the exception. Although these days, home video and wikis have made it easier for audiences to keep track of exact details, so series do generally try harder to maintain strong continuity than they did in the past, e.g. the first three Frankenstein films where Frankenstein's lab moves from a tower in the mountains to an outbuilding on the castle grounds to a chamber underneath the castle.

 

[Jsplinis]

I spot checked a couple novels and it appears Kirsten Beyer is involved with coordinating the tie-in novels for all 3 new live-action shows. Is she or some else coordinating tie-ins for Lower Decks and Prodigy?

Also, what is her level of involvement with the comics and novels? How does it compare to Roberto Orci's role with Kelvin tie-ins? Or Richard Arnold's, or Van Citter's or any others who have been in a similar position?

 

[Greg Cox]

Which has always been more the rule than the exception. Although these days, home video and wikis have made it easier for audiences to keep track of exact details, so series do generally try harder to maintain strong continuity than they did in the past, e.g. the first three Frankenstein films where Frankenstein's lab moves from a tower in the mountains to an outbuilding on the castle grounds to a chamber underneath the castle.

Yep. And despite this, I have never, ever seen anybody insist that SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is not "canon" or set in a different "timeline" or a "multiverse" or whatever nitpicky nonsense the internet obsesses over these days. SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is the sequel to BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and FRANKENSTEIN, period, even if the details aren't 100% consistent from film to film.

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon again, there's something to be said for the more laissez-faire approach to continuity series took back in the day. Pretty sure nobody stormed out of SON OF FRANKENSTEIN back in the forties to pen a lengthy manifesto on why the movie wasn't "canon" or set in the original "timeline" as the previous two Karloff movies.

They just wanted a good time at the movies.

 

[mb22]

Yep. And despite this, I have never, ever seen anybody insist that SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is not "canon" or set in a different "timeline" or a "multiverse" or whatever nitpicky nonsense the internet obsesses over these days. SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is the sequel to BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and FRANKENSTEIN, period, even if the details aren't 100% consistent from film to film.

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon again, there's something to be said for the more laissez-faire approach to continuity series took back in the day. Pretty sure nobody stormed out of SON OF FRANKENSTEIN back in the forties to pen a lengthy manifesto on why the movie wasn't "canon" or set in the original "timeline" as the previous two Karloff movies.

They just wanted a good time at the movies.

That was before television, home media and the internet. If you were lucky, there might be a novelization or periodical serialization to remind you about the details (assuming these retellins weren't different from the released film).

 

[Greg Cox]

That was before television, home media and the internet. If you were lucky, there might be a novelization or periodical serialization to remind you about the details (assuming these retellins weren't different from the released film).

True, but it also meant that audiences didn't constantly stress out over "canon" and "timelines" instead of just enjoying the shows. There may be something to be said for that approach to viewing this stuff.

Is it just me or is the endless fretting and hand-wringing over "canon" in danger of actually draining some of the fun out of being a fan?

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Is it just me or is the endless fretting and hand-wringing over "canon" in danger of actually draining some of the fun out of being a fan?

It's not "just you."

In another thread, I commented that I can manage to still keep both DC's Final Frontier and the prologue from ADF's Star Trek Log Seven in my headcanon. But strictly the broad strokes: they were already contradicting each other on the fine details, and some of DC's fine details were downright laughable ("Internally Metered Pulse Drive"?!? Really, DC??) even before they were directly contradicted by the TNG writers' guide.

(I'm reminded of the old chestnut about somebody, who was always asking things like "is it hot in here or is it just me?" and "is it cold in here or is it just me?", rising up out of the coffin at his/her own funeral and asking, "Is everybody dead in here, or is it just me?")

 

[Christopher]

Decades ago, I tried to reconcile everything in my (what's now called) "headcanon" by ignoring inconsistencies, but then I realized that it didn't matter if they took place in the same "reality," because they're all unreal. It's far simpler just to enjoy each book as its own version of the universe. If two books fit together, fine, but if they don't, that's fine too, because they don't have to. And forcing them to fit together by ignoring details is not letting yourself appreciate their own individual variations on the theme. I don't need to reconcile, say, The Lost Years with DC's Final Mission annual any more than I need to reconcile Batman: The Animated Series with Batman '66. They're just alternate fictional takes on the same idea. And that variety is part of the fun. Trying to force everything together into a homogeneous mass just prevents you from appreciating the alternative versions for what they are.

 

[mb22]

Decades ago, I tried to reconcile everything in my (what's now called) "headcanon" by ignoring inconsistencies, but then I realized that it didn't matter if they took place in the same "reality," because they're all unreal. It's far simpler just to enjoy each book as its own version of the universe. If two books fit together, fine, but if they don't, that's fine too, because they don't have to. And forcing them to fit together by ignoring details is not letting yourself appreciate their own individual variations on the theme. I don't need to reconcile, say, The Lost Years with DC's Final Mission annual any more than I need to reconcile Batman: The Animated Series with Batman '66. They're just alternate fictional takes on the same idea. And that variety is part of the fun. Trying to force everything together into a homogeneous mass just prevents you from appreciating the alternative versions for what they are.

Fine, but the producers of Trek should do what DC has done and forthrightly state that different productions are in different continuities and that whole concept of Trek 'canon' is over. Instead, they continue to act like there is still some semblance of a continuity/canon to deal with.

 

[mb22]

True, but it also meant that audiences didn't constantly stress out over "canon" and "timelines" instead of just enjoying the shows. There may be something to be said for that approach to viewing this stuff.

Is it just me or is the endless fretting and hand-wringing over "canon" in danger of actually draining some of the fun out of being a fan?

Regarding classic horror films -- the only two films in the 1956-74 Peter Cushing Hammer Frankenstein series to show any real continuity were the first two: Curse of Frankenstein and Revenge of Frankenstein. All the rest had no relationship with one another aside from Cushing, and his character was sometimes depicted as thoroughly evil, sometimes borderline good, depending on the film.

Universal's Dracula films have only two strongly related entries: the 1931 Bela Lugosi Dracula and 1936's Dracula's Daughter -- Son of Dracula (1943) with Lon Chaney Jr. and House of Dracula and House of Frankenstein (1944 and '45) with John Carradine (and 1948's Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein with Lugosi) have no connection.

 

[Christopher]

Fine, but the producers of Trek should do what DC has does and forthrightly state that different productions are in different continuities and that whole concept of Trek 'canon' is over. Instead, they continue to act like there is still some semblance of a continuity/canon to deal with.

You're confusing two separate things. The actual canon, the shows and movies, is still consistent, at least as much as a large fictional canon from multiple creators over decades can be reasonably expected to be. The tie-in literature is a completely different beast. It is the automatic default that tie-ins are not canonical, by definition, and there's no reason why anyone should expect them to be. They're supplementary works telling stories that could potentially have happened within the canon as it stood at the time of their writing, but they're still separate from the actual canon, and neither the canon nor other tie-ins are required to be consistent with them. As I often say, if canon is "history," then tie-ins are the equivalent of historical fiction. There's no reason to expect two different works of historical fiction to be consistent with each other; all that's required is that their conjectures are consistent with known history, that they feel as if they could plausibly have taken place in the gaps between documented historical events.

True, It's become more common in recent years for tie-ins to be consistent with each other, and sometimes even to be counted as canon or "beta canon," but that's the exception, not the default. And screen canons still routinely ignore and overwrite their allegedly "canonical" tie-ins -- for instance, Star Wars: The Bad Batch depicted Caleb Dume's Order 66 experience in a somewhat different way than the earlier comics had, and Tales of the Jedi retold a portion of the Ahsoka novel in a different way.

In Trek tie-ins, mutual consistency has always been the exception. There have been periods where certain subsets of tie-ins have built an internal continuity -- a number of the Pocket novels in the later 1980s, most of the Pocket novels from 2000-2021, various comics series from DC, Marvel, and other publishers -- but those continuities have never been universal among all tie-ins, and for most of the history of Trek tie-in fiction, different works have only been consistent with screen canon at the time while freely ignoring or contradicting each other. There is no reason for Paramount to "forthrightly state" what has always been obvious to anyone who pays attention. Nobody has to issue a declaration that water is not land. It just isn't.

 

[mb22]

You're confusing two separate things. The actual canon, the shows and movies, is still consistent, at least as much as a large fictional canon from multiple creators over decades can be reasonably expected to be. The tie-in literature is a completely different beast. It is the automatic default that tie-ins are not canonical, by definition, and there's no reason why anyone should expect them to be. They're supplementary works telling stories that could potentially have happened within the canon as it stood at the time of their writing, but they're still separate from the actual canon, and neither the canon nor other tie-ins are required to be consistent with them. As I often say, if canon is "history," then tie-ins are the equivalent of historical fiction. There's no reason to expect two different works of historical fiction to be consistent with each other; all that's required is that their conjectures are consistent with known history, that they feel as if they could plausibly have taken place in the gaps between documented historical events.

True, It's become more common in recent years for tie-ins to be consistent with each other, and sometimes even to be counted as canon or "beta canon," but that's the exception, not the default. And screen canons still routinely ignore and overwrite their allegedly "canonical" tie-ins -- for instance, Star Wars: The Bad Batch depicted Caleb Dume's Order 66 experience in a somewhat different way than the earlier comics had, and Tales of the Jedi retold a portion of the Ahsoka novel in a different way.

In Trek tie-ins, mutual consistency has always been the exception. There have been periods where certain subsets of tie-ins have built an internal continuity -- a number of the Pocket novels in the later 1980s, most of the Pocket novels from 2000-2021, various comics series from DC, Marvel, and other publishers -- but those continuities have never been universal among all tie-ins, and for most of the history of Trek tie-in fiction, different works have only been consistent with screen canon at the time while freely ignoring or contradicting each other. There is no reason for Paramount to "forthrightly state" what has always been obvious to anyone who pays attention. Nobody has to issue a declaration that water is not land. It just isn't.

I should have been more clear -- I was only referring to the shows and movies. I haven't considered the tie-ins as canonical since I was a kid.

 

[Christopher]

I should have been more clear -- I was only referring to the shows and movies.

Then why bring it up in response to my post which was exclusively about Star Trek tie-ins?

 

[mb22]

I guess I was just responding to the topic in general and didn't read your message as carefully as I should have, sorry.

 

[Stevil2001]

It's not "just you."

In another thread, I commented that I can manage to still keep both DC's Final Frontier and the prologue from ADF's Star Trek Log Seven in my headcanon. But strictly the broad strokes: they were already contradicting each other on the fine details, and some of DC's fine details were downright laughable ("Internally Metered Pulse Drive"?!? Really, DC??) even before they were directly contradicted by the TNG writers' guide.

(I'm reminded of the old chestnut about somebody, who was always asking things like "is it hot in here or is it just me?" and "is it cold in here or is it just me?", rising up out of the coffin at his/her own funeral and asking, "Is everybody dead in here, or is it just me?")

What do you have against "internally metered pulse drive"?