I stopped at Jurassic Park.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
I think there's a difference between an author retconning their own work (which I think is sloppy) and a nearly 60-year franchise like Star Trek which has had so many hands touch it.
I'd like to see the different takes from different people. Star Trek cannot, by virtue of the point it's at, have a tight narrative focus. So just let it be a toolset that different writers use to showcase different things.
I'd like to see the different takes from different people. Star Trek cannot, by virtue of the point it's at, have a tight narrative focus. So just let it be a toolset that different writers use to showcase different things.
No. It means that what they did made sense for the story that they told at the time. Then, they decided they wanted to tell another story and utilize something that they killed, destroyed, established one way, etc. Audience members not being able to accept changes or fluid continuity does not make the writers' choices wrong. You don't have to like their choices, but its not yours to decide if its right or not.
Not sure you get to decide what's "wrong".
Which might as well be synonymous with "Trekkie" these days.
I didn't realise this would be a controversial subject!
I also didn't realise that when some people say 'Why are people uncomfortable with change?' they literally meant altering past events and even established designs instead of things changing in-universe due to a progression of time. Because I'm not just uncomfortable with that idea I am absolutely 100% against it, passionately.
I also didn't realise that when some people say 'Why are people uncomfortable with change?' they literally meant altering past events and even established designs instead of things changing in-universe due to a progression of time. Because I'm not just uncomfortable with that idea I am absolutely 100% against it, passionately.
I'm as anal retentive about the lore as any fan, and I sure don't want to be the arbiter of what is and isn't the Franchise Sacred Texts.
Sherlock Holmes once died in a story. When doyle decided he needed him back Holmes "undied."
It's a long standing habit in fiction for writers to change things.
It's a long standing habit in fiction for writers to change things.
I've always found that an "interesting" dichotomy
I consider myself in "recovery".
I'm a stickler for the continuity, but also not a buzzkill. I know my limits with that kind of booze. 
I never read those books but I got the impression it was more of a 'I have additional information to give you that will change your perception of events' kind of retcon rather than an 'actually I was lying when I said his head was cut off and blood was spraying everywhere' kind of retcon.
He killed him because he was tired of the character. Then the fans demanded Holmes be brought back, so he relented. And then there was the money.
FTFY
Nope. It was public outcry. Took 8 years for Doyle to relent.
The Death of The Detective | COVE
editions.covecollective.org
Welcome to fiction.
I mean how it was explained in-universe. There's a big difference between "Actually Picard wasn't vaporised, he's undercover on the pirate ship" and the hypothetical "Actually Kruge didn't fall into lava on an exploding planet, ignore that whole scene, we're now saying that it didn't happen."
Holmes says he faked his death in the fall.
If I recall correctly, Holmes returns to 221B Baker after 5(?) years or so and tells Watson that he didn't actually plummet to his death and that he managed to grab a hold of the cliff face on the way down and that he faked his death kept his survival secret from Watson for... Reasons.
Something about outwitting Moriarty's organization.
There's a fan Term that's been in use since the first Star Trek episode aired in 1966:
YATI = Yet Another Trek Inconsistency
Yet Another Trek Inconsistency - Fanlore
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
