Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 3x02 - "Wedding Bell Blues"

[Turtletrekker]

"Where does 'Star Trek' want to take me now?" [Leonard Nimoy about the reboot movies.]

I prefer the full quote...

"Canon is only important to certain people because they need to cling to their knowledge of the minutia. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say 'where does Star Trek want to take me now?'"

Truer words were never spoken. The Thermian approach of treating the original episodes as historic documents that should be treated as sacrosanct does nothing but limit storytelling possibilities. Even Gene Roddenberry didn't treat the original episodes as sacrosanct or absolute.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

"Continuity is good actually." - Me.

 

[fireproof78]

I prefer the full quote...

"Canon is only important to certain people because they need to cling to their knowledge of the minutia. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say 'where does Star Trek want to take me now?'"

Truer words were never spoken. The Thermian approach of treating the original episodes as historic documents that should be treated as sacrosanct does nothing but limit storytelling possibilities. Even Gene Roddenberry didn't treat the original episodes as sacrosanct or absolute.

This.

Continuity can be good but used as a bludgeoning instrument against a story misses the point of the story.

Reddit - The heart of the internet

www.reddit.com

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Continuity can be good but used as a bludgeoning instrument against a story misses the point of the story.

But without continuity and consistency stories lose cohesion and if we stop caring about connectivity then we never have series or sagas.

Stories are an art form and must be carefully crafted. Failings of continuity are absolutely failings of the story. Whether your plot contradicts what you are meant to be a sequel/prequel to as much as if it contradicts itself.

 

[Campe]

"Continuity is good actually." - Me.

Continuity is fine. But it’s a tool. Not the end all be all of whether or not a story is good or not. That’s how some Trek fans treat it.

 

[Ssosmcin]

But without continuity and consistency stories lose cohesion and if we stop caring about connectivity then we never have series or sagas.

Stories are an art form and must be carefully crafted. Failings of continuity are absolutely failings of the story. Whether your plot contradicts what you are meant to be a sequel/prequel to as much as if it contradicts itself.

Well, Star Trek isn't a saga. From TAS on, it's additional stories based on a 1960's TV show created by Gene Roddenberry.

At the end of the day, much as it may matter to some, it really doesn't. It's all fiction. Nothing anything done today rewrites what was done earlier and nothing done in 1966-69 cancels out anything done since. The IP owners can say something is canon or not, that's as important to the individual as each person wants it to be. Roddenberry de-canonized portions TAS and TFF, others reversed it. Realistically, it's meaningless because it's not really an ongoing story. All we can really expect at this point is for each series to conform to its own internal logic. If it doesn't, then I'm sure fans will call it out.

I joke, kvetch and comment about how some characters fit this or will become that, but it doesn't really matter. Each show tells their stories in the way they need to.

I choose to ignore anything saying SNW actually is the backstory to the TOS characters, but that's a personal choice. But if they wanna tell those stories, I'll either enjoy them or I won't. I'll still have an opinion on it.

 

[cooleddie74]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[The Wormhole]

Continuity is fine. But it’s a tool. Not the end all be all of whether or not a story is good or not. That’s how some Trek fans treat it.

Or to twist a quote from TUC to this situation, Continuity is the beginning of entertainment, not its end.

 

[Mudd]

No duds.

It was GR's intention, per TMOST, that Kirk's first command had been a smaller vessel. Which only makes sense.

 

[cooleddie74]

And in my own Mandela effect that's been stuck and rattling around inside my brain since childhood, that vessel was the Lydia Sutherland.

 

[The Wormhole]

It was GR's intention, per TMOST, that Kirk's first command had been a smaller vessel. Which only makes sense.

That always gets me about people who insist the Enterprise was Kirk's first command, do they really believe command of one of the twelve most advanced ships of the line would be assigned to a new Captain with no prior command experience?

 

[fireproof78]

But without continuity and consistency stories lose cohesion and if we stop caring about connectivity then we never have series or sagas.

Stories are an art form and must be carefully crafted. Failings of continuity are absolutely failings of the story. Whether your plot contradicts what you are meant to be a sequel/prequel to as much as if it contradicts itself.

I disagree. Continuity is not the same as consistency. Consistency of story depends on the character and my engagement with them, not just in hitting the minutia. It's my engagement with these characters and investments in their outcome that make the story important, not if small details are held up.

Continuity is fine. But it’s a tool. Not the end all be all of whether or not a story is good or not. That’s how some Trek fans treat it.

Exactly. Some of the most positively regarded stories and sagas have Inconsistencies.

 

[cooleddie74]

That always gets me about people who insist the Enterprise was Kirk's first command, do they really believe command of one of the twelve most advanced ships of the line would be assigned to a new Captain with no prior command experience?

Even John Harriman had to have commanded some other ship prior to the Enterprise-B. I know in the (always non-canon) novelverse he got the command through nepotism thanks to his father being a revered Starfleet Admiral, but even in that case he'd commanded another vessel of some kind before the 1701-B was commissioned.

 

[fireproof78]

That always gets me about people who insist the Enterprise was Kirk's first command, do they really believe command of one of the twelve most advanced ships of the line would be assigned to a new Captain with no prior command experience?

Yes, because many assume Kirk was born awesome and capable and never needed growth to become the leader seen in TOS. That his leadership was a default setting rather than something he learned and developed over time and through failure or making mistakes.

 

[The Wormhole]

Even John Harriman had to have commanded some other ship prior to the Enterprise-B. I know in the (always non-canon) novelverse he got the command through nepotism thanks to his father being a revered Starfleet Admiral, but even in that case he'd commanded another vessel of some kind before the 1701-B was commissioned.

Definitely. The Enterprise B would have been the flagship and possibly even the second of the newest and most advanced starship class. There would be eyebrows raised if command of that ship had been given to a Captain with no previous commands, even if he were the son of an influential Admiral.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And in my own Mandela effect that's been stuck and rattling around inside my brain since childhood, that vessel was the Lydia Sutherland.

I thought that was his love instructor.

 

[cooleddie74]

Everyone served as his love instructor.

 

[Tuskin38]

yeah iirc the TOS writers bible even stated Kirk commanded a 'destroyer type' vessel before the Enterprise.

I think SNW's Farragut could classify as that.

 

[Commander Troi]

And in my own Mandela effect that's been stuck and rattling around inside my brain since childhood, that vessel was the Lydia Sutherland.

OK, I've never heard of that ship. Where'd you get that?

 

[Nerys Myk]

OK, I've never heard of that ship. Where'd you get that?

TrekLit