• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

continuity? who cares

they took them themselves seriously most of the time.
but, they still had continuity conflicts within tos to the point one wonders which
canon to follow on certain issues.
;)

the line from return to tommow which makes the characters to have really bad amnesia considering both errand of mercy and wolf in the fold.

some other conflicts..
whether vulcan had been invaded in the past..


we know the stardates have to reflect some thing more then just time sequence due to the star dates for dagger of the mind taking place right in the middle of the star dates for miri.

dagger of the mind (2715.1 - 2715.3)
miri (2713.5 - 2717.3)

so much for being able to tell when something happened time wise just by stardate.

how the mind meld is viewed is another.
it goes from something so private vulcans dont speak abot it amongst themselves in dagger of the mind to something that spock does pretty willingly in later episodes.
 
pookha said:
they took them themselves seriously most of the time.
but, they still had continuity conflicts within tos to the point one wonders which
canon to follow on certain issues.
;)

the line from return to tommow which makes the characters to have really bad amnesia considering both errand of mercy and wolf in the fold.

some other conflicts..
whether vulcan had been invaded in the past..


we know the stardates have to reflect some thing more then just time sequence due to the star dates for dagger of the mind taking place right in the middle of the star dates for miri.

dagger of the mind (2715.1 - 2715.3)
miri (2713.5 - 2717.3)

so much for being able to tell when something happened time wise just by stardate.

how the mind meld is viewed is another.
it goes from something so private vulcans dont speak abot it amongst themselves in dagger of the mind to something that spock does pretty willingly in later episodes.
Click to expand...

IMO they never put canon before a good plot or story line. On another thread someone pointed out that in the first season Spock's parents were implied to be dead. I didn't believe that poster at first, but then I rechecked "This Side of Paradise" and "The Corbomite Manuever" and I agree with him. Then later on we meet his living breathing parents. So what, I'm glad they didn't get carried away with canon or else we wouldn't have had the "Babel" episode. Another inconsistency would be Kirk's attitude toward androids in "What Little Girls are Made of" verses his attitude in "Requiem for Metheusla". In one he considers that "Roger Korby was never here" (ie not human), in the other he falls in love with one claiming "She's human".

I could point out others but I just can't take canon of a fantasy world too serious. ST was about great characters, a great format, and great stories. I wouldn't want to lose any great stories because of strict adherence to consistency or canon. If the Romulans do appear in this new film, even though they were supposedly never seen until "Balance of Terror", if they story line is good, it won't bother me.

IMO TOS went out of its way to lighten things up upon occasion. "The Trouble With Tribbles" "A Piece of the Action" just can't be taken too seriously and neither should ST. Its entertainment - fun, dramatic, thought provoking, exciting, adventurous -- not the real world. A little poetic license in the canon to give a better story line is well worth it to me.
 
3D Master said:
...and the few times they gave conflicting dates, nothing would have taken away from the show if they had paid attention to previous dates.
Click to expand...

IOW, the continuity was sloppy but it wouldn't have "taken away from the show" if they'd been less sloppy.

Duh. :guffaw:

If one applies the standards that some fans insist on applying only to those parts of "Star Trek" that they don't care for to TOS, one knows that TOS continuity barely existed where many details were concerned.

I hope - and expect, from what I've heard - that Abrams and his team's careful treatment of continuity is going to make the approach of the later Trek TV shows look fantastically and nitpickingly respectful by contrast. And fans, as usual - as per TWOK, for example - will decide just how acceptable this loose continuity is based on whether they enjoy the film in general.
 
I just want a good story. Who cares if it does not line up completly with what we have seen on TV. This is not reality we are talking about....its fantasy. Sit back and enjoy it....reboot, or not:)
 
maryh said:
I just can't take canon of a fantasy world too serious.
Click to expand...

ST canon only really applies to the writers and editors of licensed ST tie-ins, to help their work not be at odds with the parent series. The writers of onscreen ST were always free to retcon previous facts if it strengthened a particular new script.

The only reason we fans started hearing about "canon" is that fans would challenge Gene Roddenberry (and the actors) about why certain episodes ignored tech, characters and events from the licensed tie-ins that would have solved a dilemma on the canonical shows.
 
^That is why the captain, James Kirk, had 3 different middle names/initials.
James R. Kirk (WNMHGB)
James Tony Kirk (Omega Glory)
James Tiberius Kirk (most episodes)

Canon is what is shown on screen. But which canon do we follow? Any one of them will piss someone off, so let us start afresh. As long as someone wears a sombrero I'll be happy!
 
All you need is to remember the line where it's mentioned that Kirk's middle name is Tony, then type it.

Hmmm.

10 years ago, even 4 or 5, I might've gone back to check but nowadays I don't think it's worth it to potentially sit through 51 minutes just for the sake of answering a question I posed in a thread. Nah. We'll just move on, it's besides the point.

"James Tiberious Kirk" or simply "James T. Kirk" will do just fine and the latter is very likely. I can't see anyone besides strawmen being up in arms if the name isn't "James R. Kirk" for instance.
 
I was wondering.

Now this movie WILL almost 100% guaranteed "violate established canon"
to some extent. The uniforms will not match for example, and the bridge, too, won't be the same one that was in TOS.
Now if those things don't match, which by far goes beyond minor oversights and errors of the past-
why should adhering to canon be of any importance here?

It's Star Trek 2.0 and they should do what they want with it, because it doesn't fit in with the old material anyway. For once, a radical reimagining may make sense. Going on with what was created would drag Trek even further into the technobabble and alien-of-the-week vortex. A new fresh vision is needed.

What I hope for, though, is that they will then adhere to this new canon and not radically change it with every new installment like Superman or whatever.
I mean really remaking TOS, even as a series, would definitely have its appeal. Imagine a "modern" version of space seed for example.
 
TeutonicNights said:
What I hope for, though, is that they will then adhere to this new canon and not radically change it with every new installment like Superman or whatever.
Click to expand...

Think of every ST episode and movie as a re-enactment of various captain's and officers' official logs. Visual changes don't matter a damn when you're telling a good story, but to slavishly copy every visual aspect of every TOS episode and put it on the big screen is not going to attract a new audience. Even ST: TMP didn't attempt that. "Canon" is for the creators of licensed tie-ins, no one else.

Did you get this cut up about the switches of actors for Saavik, Senator Cretak or Cochrane? Or the engineering grill partitions and bridge flooring that didn't match TOS in "Trials and Tribble-ations"?
 
as i noted before i care more about getting what made the characters right and the general gist of the trek universe.

really if they include seek out new life and new civilizations they will be doing better then a lot of the prior trek films.
;)
 
TeutonicNights said:
Now this movie WILL almost 100% guaranteed "violate established canon"
to some extent.
Click to expand...

No, it won't.

The uniforms will not match for example, and the bridge, too, won't be the same one that was in TOS.
Click to expand...

Those don't mean anything.

What I hope for, though, is that they will then adhere to this new canon and not radically change it with every new installment like Superman or whatever.
Click to expand...

There is no "new" continuity. This film fits into the existing one. I don't care how it looks. That is not a reason to declare this movie a reboot. Unless something more concrete happens, there's no reason not to assume this is part of existing Trek continuity.

Lord Garth said:
Sector 7 said:
James Tony Kirk (Omega Glory)
Click to expand...

?! I either never heard or don't remember this one. If someone doesn't mind, can they quote the dialogue?
Click to expand...

There is none. James Kirk's middle name was *never* said to be Tony. Not in this episode or any other.
 
Tony Kirk does have a nice ring to it, though. The theme song could be by A3 and Spock could be played by "Little" Steven Van Zandt.

"Oof, madonn', raise the fuckin' shields!"
 
As long as the movie doesn't turn out to be a holodeck recreation by Will Riker because he needs to reflect on the history of the original NCC-1701 Enterprise because he's agonizing over what cologne to wear to his dinner date, I'll be fine with whatever happens to continuity.

I hope we see the Romulans and to *really* tick off all of the rabid continuity-canon freaks, the Romulans better have transwarp drive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Help me find my next Audiobook.
Replies
8
Views
356
Dr Bonezee
D
G
Star Trek***USS Enterprise - Gran Travieso Hustle City 2
Replies
0
Views
114
Gran Travieso
G
I
We need more Short Treks
Replies
16
Views
665
The Wormhole
The Wormhole
R
  • Locked
What Are Your Thoughts on the Future of Star Trek After Star Trek Legacy?
Replies
1
Views
947
1001001
1001001
A
I don't like this news about SNW season 3 from Screen Rant
15 16 17
Replies
338
Views
20K
Phoenix219
Phoenix219
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top