Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise

[Captain Robert April]

By that definition, chimpanzees flinging their feces against the wall is "creative."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It worked for Batman (twice)

Puh-lease! Batman's had more reboots than you've had women. The character underwent a major redo before World War II, fer chrissakes.

And it worked. They franchise continued and nobody complained. Your objection was that that type of writing is only satisfactory in "Bugs Bunny" cartoons. The fact of the matter is it's fairly common practice, with the Trek franchise being a notable exception. I do not think you're prepared to assert that one of the reasons behind Trek's success is its adherence to continuity; AFAIK, perceived canon violations is not among the most highly reported reasons for why viewers stopped watching Enterprise and Voyager, and certainly isn't the most common complaint for Nemesis.

When was 2001 rebooted?

The original novel had the Discovery travel to Saturn, where Dave Bowman rendezvous with a giant monolith planted on Japetus (which itself is actually an enormous hyperspace transfer thingie) where he is rapidly evolved into a being of pure energy just in time to return to Earth and prevent a nuclear holocaust. Technical and style problems led to changes in the theatrical version, and all successive novels (2010, 2061, and 3001) were all based on the film.

What he could've done that would've been interesting is to have done a period piece based upon the original H.G. Wells story.

Which--again--would have involved a reboot and a complete abandonment of any past continuity. Did anyone complain? I sure as hell didn't.

What would the Bond movies look like if the writers kept in mind the fact that--given the continuity of the series--agent 007 should be in his mid 80s by now?

Again, they never really kept continuity from movie to movie all that much, any more than Fleming did in the novels. And they could've kept on going the way they were for quite a while (Pierce Brosnan was willing to do another one; it was the first mission/reboot aspect that resulted in Brosnan being shown the door). It just would've been another Bond film, instead of the major event that Casino Royale became.

However you feel about the concept of reboots in general, the public reaction to a new Bond (like a new Doctor Who) sort of illustrates my point. You can only keep consistency so long before it turns into "variations on a theme" and even the fans start to loose interest.

The obsession with continuity is something fairly unique to trek fans which, unfortunately, is something trek writers (and to a greater extent, trek producers) have pandered to just a little too long and too clumsily to keep the show alive.

That's a problem of lazy and unimaginative writers, not a problem with continuity.

Fine. So free the writers from continuity and let them fish for new ideas. Believe me, the complainers will not be in the majority if the new ideas are entertaining. The only time people complain is if writers violate continuity with story ideas that are stupid or confusing, which is one of the things that ultimately killed Enterprise. Who knows, it might kill ST-XI too; if it does, continuity violation will only be the icing on a shit-flavored cake.

It's really only a restriction for those who have no respect for the series and have problems with coloring inside the lines.

Which doesn't answer the question I posed to Captain X: what--other than the possible complaints of fanboys--is a compelling reason to remain inside the lines? Obviously you still have to have some elements of commonality for the product to be recognizable, but beyond that, who really cares as long as the results are good?

 

[Captain X]

And the attempt to be consistent changes what, exactly?

That they are at least attempts, even if they fail due to whatever brain fart someone had when they thought it.

Right, because the last couple of Trek productions have all been Emmy-winning, blockbuster material thanks to their thorough adherence to canon.

Again, this has to do with the people making it, not keeping a consistant internal continuity.

It's not about uncoolness. It's about creative freedom.

No, it's about doing a retrofuturistic take on a show the people making it think is an old, dated, and dead in the hopes the unthinking masses will suck up every drop of it because it has the names Star Trek and JJ Abrams attached to it.

Writers find it easier to come up with cool ideas if they don't have to spend two hundred hours back-checking fifty years of canon to make sure they're not offending the fanboys.

They wouldn't have to. Either they could have a continuity guy on staff just to check everything over, or they could even take 10 minutes themselves to look something up on Memory Alpha.

They can pick and chose which parts of the canon they like and which parts to discard; they can revise, reemphasize, reshape and resize.

Except that's pretty much what's been done for the past 40 years, and they managed to do it without a reboot.

And you know what? Fifty years ago if somebody wants to make a Voyager movie, nobody's going to care whether or not Seven of Nine joins the crew in the Delta Quadrant or if she comes aboard the ship in the beginning of the film as an ex-Borg technical consultant.

That makes no sense, unless of course they have a time machine. Teasing aside, actually there probably would be.

Like everyone else who went to see the Dark Knight in theatres, I care alot more about the movie not-sucking than I do about it being consistent with such-and-such a character's origin story.

I hate to break it to you, but you can only speak for yourself - you are not "everyone". I went to that movie to see the further adventures of Batman, and I have to say that I was a little disappointed given what was started in Batman Begins, but that's a discussion for another place. The main thing is being able to accept something as being believable given the rules that have been established for the show. Unless it's a pointless fluff piece like 5th Element or Galaxy Quest or something, that's what I expect from my entertainment. If you don't need that, good for you, you can be more easily entertained than I can, have fun watching some mindless action flick.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By that definition, chimpanzees flinging their feces against the wall is "creative."

I didn't care for Nemesis either. But I digress...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And the attempt to be consistent changes what, exactly?

That they are at least attempts

What is the value of the attempt? Can you salvage a bad script just by inserting huge amounts of fanwankery, or does the script have to be GOOD?

Or let me put it this way: does a dumb episode become better just because the antagonists happen to be Ferengi? Does it become better just because the Ferengi do not refer to themselves as Ferengi?

Right, because the last couple of Trek productions have all been Emmy-winning, blockbuster material thanks to their thorough adherence to canon.

Again, this has to do with the people making it, not keeping a consistant internal continuity.

Exactly. Sticking to canon doesn't make the show any better. Violating canon could ultimately pay off if it introduces a new and interesting element to the story.

No, it's about doing a retrofuturistic take on a show the people making it think is an old, dated, and dead in the hopes the unthinking masses will suck up every drop of it because it has the names Star Trek and JJ Abrams attached to it.

I'm pretty sure even Abrams realizes that even things with the name "Star Trek" attached will ultimately flop if people think they suck. He is obviously much less worried about what people will think about canon violations (considering most fans are only vaguely aware that Star Trek has a canon and the average moviegoer would find this entire conversation idiotic).

They wouldn't have to. Either they could have a continuity guy on staff just to check everything over...

And again: why would they need to do that if most of the people seeing the movie don't care one way or the other?

Except that's pretty much what's been done for the past 40 years, and they managed to do it without a reboot.

Yes, they "did it" without a reboot. Though in the final six years or so, not particularly well. Probably a result of not being ambitious enough to try new premises and directions with the show. So if you want to take what most people commonly recognize as "Star Trek" and rebuild it into something new while at the same time jettisoning its various mistakes, missteps and misapplications, it's much easier to do that by declaring "Hell, it's been forty years. Let's start over."

Yes, it takes a little more brains and creativity to start over without violating cannon. Just like it takes more brains and creativity to build a house without using nails. Given the option, however, no one has yet provided me with a compelling reason why writers should WANT to avoid violating canon when given the option to do so. Who's going to care other than the fanboys?

That makes no sense, unless of course they have a time machine.

Or if they completely ditch everything that was established to have happened in Voyager and completely retell the entire story with a modified premise, modified events, and modified ending (say, have the Caretaker send Voyager back home in exchange for saving the Ocampa from the Borg or something). No time machine necessary. Just say "fuck it" to canon and write your own story.

How many fanboys will flock to TrekBBS and whine about how the Voyager movie is totally inconsistent with the TV series? How many of them will see it anyway if the movie gets good reviews and turns out to be pretty entertaining?

I hate to break it to you, but you can only speak for yourself - you are not "everyone". I went to that movie to see the further adventures of Batman, and I have to say that I was a little disappointed given what was started in Batman Begins...

Then I take it you are one of the seven people in America who was confused by the fact that the Joker was still alive despite having fallen to his death from a bell tower in a different batman movie?

The main thing is being able to accept something as being believable given the rules that have been established for the show.

The rules are established by the people who MAKE the show. If the makers no longer care for those rules, then it's "fuck the rules, let's try something else."

Again, I don't see any compelling reason why writers should seek to avoid violating canon if they don't have to. In this case, the franchise is basically a beached whale slated to live out the rest of its existence languishing in syndication... seems to me they don't have to.

Whether they actually do or not still remains to be seen, but I--and millions of others--wouldn't really care one way or the other, because I love Star Trek too much to care.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A story that can't be told within the established continuity of an ongoing series is quite simply not a story that can be told within that series. However much it might delight certain people to see The Doctor as a beer swilling Hell's Angel, sorry, that's too far outside the established boundaries. That leaves two options: 1) Figure out a way for The Doctor to be that beer swilling biker that doesn't violate nearly fifty years of backstory, (the real creative option) or 2) find some other venue to tell your story about a beer swilling biker time traveler (the honest option). Try "Knight Rider", they're desperate enough to try anything at this point.

The second a writer says about his story that there's no way to tell it without screwing over the established record, he's admitting that he's either too dumb or too lazy to work around whatever continuity stumbling block he's run up against, and he's admitting that he has no respect for either the work that came before him, those who produced it, and the fans who appreciated it.

 

[Ronald Held]

IMO it did not work for the comic book Superman Post Crisis.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A story that can't be told within the established continuity of an ongoing series is quite simply not a story that can be told within that series. However much it might delight certain people to see The Doctor as a beer swilling Hell's Angel, sorry, that's too far outside the established boundaries. That leaves two options: 1) Figure out a way for The Doctor to be that beer swilling biker that doesn't violate nearly fifty years of backstory, (the real creative option) or 2) find some other venue to tell your story about a beer swilling biker time traveler (the honest option). Try "Knight Rider", they're desperate enough to try anything at this point.

The second a writer says about his story that there's no way to tell it without screwing over the established record, he's admitting that he's either too dumb or too lazy to work around whatever continuity stumbling block he's run up against, and he's admitting that he has no respect for either the work that came before him, those who produced it, and the fans who appreciated it.

I agree with this absolutely.

ASSUMING that the changes we're seeing aren't something that's REQUIRED to tell the story (at its root) that needs to be told (and so far we've been given zero reason to accept that this is the case), then what it means is that "the creators wanted to do something new, just because it was how they wanted to do it."

If, for instance, the version of the Enterprise we see in this flick is different because of timeline-contamination (and if the end of the movie "resets" things back to how we know them to be)... and if there's a REASON for the changes (ie, perhaps the Enterprise is built in Iowa and the "George R. Kirk Memorial Shipyards" and perhaps the 1701's construction is delayed due to huge losses at the "Battle of Nero's Big-Honkin'-Ship-Versus-Captain_Robau" combined with technological advancements made by reviewing captured technology blown off of that "big honkin squid-ship"), then that might be acceptable and might actually make SENSE.

But then, if that's what's done, it's gonna put off the contemporary audience who may not be familiar with "classic trek."

Either way... one of two groups is being put into cognitive dissonance. Either us... the "long-time fans"... end up being put into that state (by the ship, history, etc, never being "reset") or the "potential new fans" will be (imagine, at the end of the movie... "What the @#$*? That's not the same ship!")

Marketing guys would almost certainly object to that as well... why make a "toy" or a model or whatever, if the "new Enterprise" is replaced at the end of the flick?

SO...

Either

(1) The old-time fans are left annoyed that they've seen their Trek "laid to rest" and REPLACED by something largely unrelated...

or...

(2) The casual moviegoer who is targeted as a "potential new fan" is annoyed,

OR...

(3) This is a spectactular triumph of filmmaking which somehow manages to avoid feeling like a "cheat" to anyone.

I think #3 is EXTRAORDINARILY unlikely. But it's still possible.

The thing is... unless the movie really accomplishes #3... the filmmakers have HARMED their cause, regardless of which way they've gone.
There's no way I can imagine a need to make the sort of changes we've seen... and no way I can imagine justification for the changes as anything necessary at any level (recasting, sure, that's necessary... upgrading set-construction quality, sure... but changing major elements of the design? Not a chance).

When someone makes unnecessary (and, upon review, not terribly popular!) changes to an existing work of art (and that's what we're talking about here, after all), it's usually egotism-driven. And it's usually seen as just that by the audience.

I think that the redesign of the Enterprise (and of the interior sets) is really largely egotism, not story-driven in any way. The Enterprise sets just look IDIOTIC... and the Enterprise redesign looks far less believable and far more "goofy" than anything we've seen before (1950-style fender details on the nacelles are an IMPROVEMENT over technically-believable heat-pipes?)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A story that can't be told within the established continuity of an ongoing series is quite simply not a story that can be told within that series.

Right. That's why we have REBOOTS. If the writers and producers want to tell a story that won't fit into the continuum, start a new continuum. When the story is entertaining, nobody cares. When the story isn't entertaining, everyone pretty much ignores it and sticks to the old continuum.

However much it might delight certain people to see The Doctor as a beer swilling Hell's Angel, sorry, that's too far outside the established boundaries.

Unless the writers figure out how to get away with it and still keep the viewership high, in which case, it aint.

The second a writer says about his story that there's no way to tell it without screwing over the established record, he's admitting that he's either too dumb or too lazy to work around whatever continuity stumbling block he's run up against, and he's admitting that he has no respect for either the work that came before him, those who produced it, and the fans who appreciated it.

And writers are supposed to respect the fans of other people's work why?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think that the redesign of the Enterprise (and of the interior sets) is really largely egotism, not story-driven in any way. The Enterprise sets just look IDIOTIC... and the Enterprise redesign looks far less believable and far more "goofy" than anything we've seen before

Which is pretty much one of the things that gives me hope for this movie. Some of the past Trek productions had the flavor of a fifty-something ex football player trying to reclaim his former glory (and Nemesis tried the "Let's do another Wrath of Khan!" thing and totally botched the execution). DS9 broke the mould (mostly) which is part the reason why I loved it so much. Voyager and Enterprise went screaming and crying back TO the mould when they too had a chance to do something different, which is part of the reason they were so lame.

The problem with doing a new story NOW is that one basically has to take the 24th century series into account if you want to jump into the future; if you want to ditch that history and ignore it completely you wind up sort of rudderless and wind up with something that is way TOO different and people loose interest. Sometimes, the better option is to start with what you have: go back to the beginning and refit the franchise.

Then when it's over you can come back to this message board and I can say you "Cary, this is an almost totally new Star Trek, you don't know it a tenth as well as I do!"

 

[BillJ]

"Hell, it's been forty years. Let's start over."

This statement says it all for me. Either star-over or don't, these guys are trying to do it half way and that worries me.

 

[Captain X]

What is the value of the attempt? Can you salvage a bad script just by inserting huge amounts of fanwankery, or does the script have to be GOOD?

You can write a good script that also stays within established continuity pretty easily, I've even done it a few times myself - it really isn't all that hard.

Or let me put it this way: does a dumb episode become better just because the antagonists happen to be Ferengi? Does it become better just because the Ferengi do not refer to themselves as Ferengi?

You're using an example of bad decision-making and bad writing like it actually makes your point, except it doesn't. But then by your reasoning, Acquisition was actually a good idea because even though it violated canon, it introduced something new and interesting (at least according to the people who made the show and the people who liked it).

Exactly. Sticking to canon doesn't make the show any better. Violating canon could ultimately pay off if it introduces a new and interesting element to the story.

Not if it fucks up something you've already established. If you were trying to make a dramatic point with something by establishing it and then went back on it, you basically ruined what you've already set up. That's a sign of a bad show.

I'm pretty sure even Abrams realizes that even things with the name "Star Trek" attached will ultimately flop if people think they suck. He is obviously much less worried about what people will think about canon violations (considering most fans are only vaguely aware that Star Trek has a canon and the average moviegoer would find this entire conversation idiotic).

The average moviegoer thinks Star Trek is nerdy and probably won't go to see this movie anyway, but by all means, continue deluding yourself into thinking otherwise.

And again: why would they need to do that if most of the people seeing the movie don't care one way or the other?

Oh, I don't know, quality control, actually giving a shit about what you're doing, stuff like that.

Yes, they "did it" without a reboot. Though in the final six years or so, not particularly well. Probably a result of not being ambitious enough to try new premises and directions with the show.

I don't know why you can't seem to understand this point, but bad decision making on the part of the people producing the show and shoddy writing is what made VOY and ENT suck, not having to follow continuity, however poorly they managed to do it.

So if you want to take what most people commonly recognize as "Star Trek" and rebuild it into something new while at the same time jettisoning its various mistakes, missteps and misapplications, it's much easier to do that by declaring "Hell, it's been forty years. Let's start over."

Or you could just move on and do something original.

Yes, it takes a little more brains and creativity to start over without violating cannon.

Ah yes, because we wouldn't want to do anything that would require intelligence and creativity...

Just like it takes more brains and creativity to build a house without using nails.

Which has about as much to do with anything in this conversation as apples have to do with oranges.

Given the option, however, no one has yet provided me with a compelling reason why writers should WANT to avoid violating canon when given the option to do so.

No, you just won't accept any reasons because you've already made up your mind about it that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong and nothing but a "fanboy".

Or if they completely ditch everything that was established to have happened in Voyager and completely retell the entire story with a modified premise, modified events, and modified ending (say, have the Caretaker send Voyager back home in exchange for saving the Ocampa from the Borg or something). No time machine necessary. Just say "fuck it" to canon and write your own story.

And this has what to do with the discussion? If you reboot the franchise anything that follows it doesn't much matter. Not that I much cared for VOY anyway.

How many fanboys will flock to TrekBBS and whine about how the Voyager movie is totally inconsistent with the TV series? How many of them will see it anyway if the movie gets good reviews and turns out to be pretty entertaining?

You ask as if I care.

Then I take it you are one of the seven people in America who was confused by the fact that the Joker was still alive despite having fallen to his death from a bell tower in a different batman movie?

You know, if you actually read something before responding to it, you might actually look like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but it looks like you missed the part where I based what I thought of TDK as a continuation of what Batman Begins started, so your attempt to be condescending has failed.

The rules are established by the people who MAKE the show. If the makers no longer care for those rules, then it's "fuck the rules, let's try something else."

Which is pretty much what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga said, and look how great that worked out for them.

Again, I don't see any compelling reason why writers should seek to avoid violating canon if they don't have to. In this case, the franchise is basically a beached whale slated to live out the rest of its existence languishing in syndication... seems to me they don't have to.

They don't have to, but when they don't their stories tend to suck. But hey, if you don't see the point in making a good show, I'm sure Berman and Braga would love to have someone to keep them company.

Whether they actually do or not still remains to be seen,

No, it's pretty obvious that the intent of this movie is to reboot the franchise, even if it's using a half-assed in-universe explanation to do it.

but I--and millions of others--wouldn't really care one way or the other, because I love Star Trek too much to care.

How ironic, I care because I love Star Trek, but then I'm not a drooling fan boy who has to rationalize everything and be an apologist for all the brain farts made by the people making the show.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What is the value of the attempt? Can you salvage a bad script just by inserting huge amounts of fanwankery, or does the script have to be GOOD?

You can write a good script that also stays within established continuity pretty easily...

And yet you still can't seem to think of a reason why writers SHOULD stay within continuity.

Not if it fucks up something you've already established.

And yet you still haven't given me a reason why the writers should care what's already been established. Actually, you haven't even given me a reason why the fans should care, let alone the writers.

If you were trying to make a dramatic point with something by establishing it and then went back on it...

If I were to go back on something I established, it would be in the editing process before the final draft was submitted. I don't have much of a problem with going back on SOMEBODY ELSE'S work, especially if the continuity it apparently violates is pretty much external to the entire premise of the story.

This is why nobody cares whether or not Khan is a result of "Eugenics" as in Space Seed or "Genetic Engineering" as in Wrath of Khan. Likewise, why the fans didn't care that Khan's crew was sporting equipment similar to that which wouldn't be seen on the Enterprise until TMP, or why nobody noticed that Scotty thought Kirk was still alive despite having seen him die in Generations. Writers in these cases ignored continuity because they knew that only the most anal-retentive fanboys in the universe would even notice, let alone complain, so they simply retconned the old to better fit the story they were trying to tell and... surprise surprise, the only people who noticed were the most anal-retentive fanboys in the universe.

You STILL have not given me any halfway decent reason why the writers should have to stick to canon. Take these examples: why should Harve Benet And Jack Sowards have made sure Chekov said "Eugenics" instead of "Genetic Engineering?" Why should Ronald D. More and Brannon Braga have spent the time to double check through every single episode of TNG and all six previous movies just to make sure they weren't violating canon? Is Data's mentldown at Armagosa any less funny just because finally catches the punchline about a Ferengi in a gorilla suit... months before the Enterprise crew actually knew what the Ferengi even looked like?

If that's the kind of thing you would want Trek writers to be concerned about, I have to say your displeasure with the new Trek movie does not bother me one iota.

The average moviegoer thinks Star Trek is nerdy and probably won't go to see this movie anyway

In which case, Star Trek is doomed anyway. You can't produce a decent work of art just by pandering to an esoteric niche market of detail-obsessed nerds. I mean, you could, but it would be lame and probably wouldn't generate enough buzz to warrant a sequel.

I don't know why you can't seem to understand this point, but bad decision making on the part of the people producing the show and shoddy writing is what made VOY and ENT suck

In which case consistency with continuity--or the lack thereof--becomes water under the bridge because the writing sucked. The converse is also true, that nobody cares about continuity if the writing is awesome. An ENT story arc involving the Earth-Romulan War could still be incredibly entertaining even if the writers totally ignore the fact that the Earth ships are supposed to be using "primitive atomic weapons" instead of phasers and photon(ic) torpedoes.

Ah yes, because we wouldn't want to do anything that would require intelligence and creativity...

Not more than is actually required to do the job. Making sure to keep up with canon just isn't necessary, especially the apparent canon violations that the local fanboys keep bitching about.

I mean, honestly: the Enterprise being built in Iowa? Are you fucking serious?! The number of people who either know or care what was written on the TOS dedication plaque probably couldn't cover a basketball court and you expect writers to remain consistent with that?

No, you just won't accept any reasons...

The reasons you haven't bothered to provide?

Well, I would say you have given me plenty of reasons why YOU would want to adhere to canon... perhaps you could give me a list of trek fiction you have produced with this kind of fidelity so we could see how well that's worked out for you?

And this has what to do with the discussion? If you reboot the franchise anything that follows it doesn't much matter.

It matters to the fans who stay WITH the franchise after the reboot. I suppose it doesn't matter to you, who are more interested in the integrity fictitious future continuity than the television production that encompasses it.

You ask as if I care.

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of those people who actually CARED about Star Trek.

You know, if you actually read something before responding to it, you might actually look like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but it looks like you missed the part where I based what I thought of TDK as a continuation of what Batman Begins started...

I caught that perfectly fine. The overall point is that Batman Begins was essentially a reboot of that entire franchise, with some damn impressive results. The Dark Knight was a continuation of the reboot, with equally impressive results.

Fans of the Batman franchise were not at all bothered by the reboot, or the apparent contradiction of continuity between the series that Michael Keaton started and the series that Christian Bale started. If that mindset is so alien to you, then I don't suppose you will be missed when you disown all future trek productions for the venial sin of violating your precious continuity.

They don't have to, but when they don't their stories tend to suck.

Isn't this the same thing you just accused me of earlier? I thought you said that bad decisions made by writers has nothing to do with their attempts to adhere to canon? Now you say their stories suck because they don't stick to canon? Is that REALLY where you're going with this?

But hey, if you don't see the point in making a good show...

If "consistency with canon" is your yardstick for a good show, I find it hard to imagine how you EVER enjoyed Star Trek. Except maybe in the days when it was too new to HAVE a canon, in which case there was nothing to violate...

How ironic, I care because I love Star Trek, but then I'm not a drooling fan boy who has to rationalize everything and be an apologist for all the brain farts made by the people making the show.

Then I suggest you should just stick to reruns. They certainly don't violate canon.

 

[trekkerguy]

^^^ Well said on all counts.

 

[Captain X]

And yet you still can't seem to think of a reason why writers SHOULD stay within continuity.

And yet you still haven't given me a reason why the writers should care what's already been established. Actually, you haven't even given me a reason why the fans should care, let alone the writers.

Apparently quality is a foreign concept to you, as it is an insufficient reason in your view to have any kind of continuity. So basically your saying the show should be like South Park or Family Guy, which while both good shows, are not meant to be serious dramas the way Star Trek is.

If I were to go back on something I established, it would be in the editing process before the final draft was submitted. I don't have much of a problem with going back on SOMEBODY ELSE'S work, especially if the continuity it apparently violates is pretty much external to the entire premise of the story.

I would.

This is why nobody cares whether or not Khan is a result of "Eugenics" as in Space Seed or "Genetic Engineering" as in Wrath of Khan. Likewise, why the fans didn't care that Khan's crew was sporting equipment similar to that which wouldn't be seen on the Enterprise until TMP, or why nobody noticed that Scotty thought Kirk was still alive despite having seen him die in Generations. Writers in these cases ignored continuity because they knew that only the most anal-retentive fanboys in the universe would even notice, let alone complain, so they simply retconned the old to better fit the story they were trying to tell and... surprise surprise, the only people who noticed were the most anal-retentive fanboys in the universe.

There were people who noticed, and not all of them are "anal-retentive fanboys", they just weren't brainless gushing fanboys either. Some let it slide, some came up with explanations for the mistakes to make them fit, some bitched about the mistakes, and some were content to acknowledge that the mistakes had been made and not worry about them too much because they weren't real big issues.

You STILL have not given me any halfway decent reason why the writers should have to stick to canon.

Like I said, apparently quality isn't a major concern of yours. That or you have a very different idea of just what continuity means.

Take these examples: why should Harve Benet And Jack Sowards have made sure Chekov said "Eugenics" instead of "Genetic Engineering?"

You're comparing semantics with radically rebooting everything in the Star Trek universe? Wow.

Why should Ronald D. More and Brannon Braga have spent the time to double check through every single episode of TNG and all six previous movies just to make sure they weren't violating canon?

They wouldn't have had to, they just would've had to flip through the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and they should've done it to make sure they didn't fuck up like they did.

Is Data's mentldown at Armagosa any less funny just because finally catches the punchline about a Ferengi in a gorilla suit... months before the Enterprise crew actually knew what the Ferengi even looked like?

Actually it just wasn't funny on its own, but whatever, it's just another example of a mistake that could have been avoided by scanning through one article in one book.

If that's the kind of thing you would want Trek writers to be concerned about, I have to say your displeasure with the new Trek movie does not bother me one iota.

They aren't big problems, but when mistakes can be avoided, they should be.

In which case, Star Trek is doomed anyway. You can't produce a decent work of art just by pandering to an esoteric niche market of detail-obsessed nerds. I mean, you could, but it would be lame and probably wouldn't generate enough buzz to warrant a sequel.

So? I'd rather it be dead than shit on.

In which case consistency with continuity--or the lack thereof--becomes water under the bridge because the writing sucked. The converse is also true, that nobody cares about continuity if the writing is awesome. An ENT story arc involving the Earth-Romulan War could still be incredibly entertaining even if the writers totally ignore the fact that the Earth ships are supposed to be using "primitive atomic weapons" instead of phasers and photon(ic) torpedoes.

It matters because you keep trying to say the bad stories were a result of "canon" as opposed to just a lack of creativity and bad writing.

Not more than is actually required to do the job.

So you like half-assing things, how interesting.

Making sure to keep up with canon just isn't necessary, especially the apparent canon violations that the local fanboys keep bitching about.

Says one fanboy to another.

I mean, honestly: the Enterprise being built in Iowa? Are you fucking serious?! The number of people who either know or care what was written on the TOS dedication plaque probably couldn't cover a basketball court and you expect writers to remain consistent with that?

Yep. Again, a mistake that could have been avoided, not that it's real high on the things to be worried about. In fact I could care less at this point, because there's already so many major things wrong with the movie that where the ship was built really doesn't matter, as the movie is a reboot anyway.

The reasons you haven't bothered to provide?

Quality, dedication, satisfaction with a job well done, pride in one's work, quaint stuff like that.

Well, I would say you have given me plenty of reasons why YOU would want to adhere to canon... perhaps you could give me a list of trek fiction you have produced with this kind of fidelity so we could see how well that's worked out for you?

Follow the link in my sig. Ironically, it's a reboot, but just of Enterprise so as to fit it better into established continuity. I also write for another show I had for a while called "Star Trek: Endeavour", but it's since folded.

It matters to the fans who stay WITH the franchise after the reboot.

How? Everything is changed, why would anything in any of the other series that took place after TOS matter?

I suppose it doesn't matter to you, who are more interested in the integrity fictitious future continuity than the television production that encompasses it.

Uh, what? English is your first language, isn't it? In any case, your example came from a series I really don't much care for to begin with, so I'm apathetic about anything to do with it.

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of those people who actually CARED about Star Trek.

I care about the franchise as a whole and feel that a reboot of the whole franchise is stupid and unnecessary, but it doesn't make me like shows that might have had good premises but ended up sucking.

I caught that perfectly fine. The overall point is that Batman Begins was essentially a reboot of that entire franchise, with some damn impressive results. The Dark Knight was a continuation of the reboot, with equally impressive results.

And my point was that I had some minor disappointment because of some recons that were made between Batman Begins and TDK - you know, continuity between the two movies.

Fans of the Batman franchise were not at all bothered by the reboot, or the apparent contradiction of continuity between the series that Michael Keaton started and the series that Christian Bale started. If that mindset is so alien to you, then I don't suppose you will be missed when you disown all future trek productions for the venial sin of violating your precious continuity.

I didn't care about a reboot there because so many other reboots had come before it, and I was never that big of a fan of it prior to the Keaton movies anyway. But of course this has nothing to do with either the disappointments I had with TDK or with the reboot of the Star Trek franchise, it's just a pot shot at someone who disagrees with you about a show.

Isn't this the same thing you just accused me of earlier? I thought you said that bad decisions made by writers has nothing to do with their attempts to adhere to canon? Now you say their stories suck because they don't stick to canon? Is that REALLY where you're going with this?

No. Let me make a simple analogy - all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Good continuity doesn't necessarily mean a story within it will be good, but bad continuity usually results in a bad story.

If "consistency with canon" is your yardstick for a good show, I find it hard to imagine how you EVER enjoyed Star Trek. Except maybe in the days when it was too new to HAVE a canon, in which case there was nothing to violate...

DS9 was pretty good, and I liked a lot of the concepts, even if I didn't care for some of the executions. And just because they fucked up occasionally doesn't mean I hated the show either. But then there are no degrees with you, so I can see how you would think that.

Then I suggest you should just stick to reruns. They certainly don't violate canon.

 

[AJBryant]

I didn't care about a reboot there because so many other reboots had come before it, and I was never that big of a fan of it prior to the Keaton movies anyway.

You beat me to the point.

I was just going to say this same thing.

WHICH Batman (Bat-Man, Batman, BatMan, The Bat Man, etc.) are we supposed to care about? Just about EVERY version of Batman has been a reboot or revision of some sort. Heck, there are even different Batmans (Batmen?) in different universes (I assume) in concurrent comic books at the same time there are different Batdudes in the movies.

Short of the first few years of the comics, and perhaps the first movie serial, there have been nothing BUT changes to Batman. It's rather hard to talk about canon where there *is* no consistent canon or time frame to begin with.

Doing a Trek story in the TOS universe requires either an adherence to the canon, or a tossing away of it. One will probably cheese off the fans, and the other won't. If you can make a Trek film that will attract a non Trek audience, great -- but why would you START to make a Trek film that will turn off the one audience you can *rely* on to give it a chance?

It doesn't make sense.


Tony

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Apparently quality is a foreign concept to you

What the hell does timeline consistency have to do with quality?

I would.

Good for you. Why should I?

Like I said, apparently quality isn't a major concern of yours.

What does quality have to do with timeline consistency?

That or you have a very different idea of just what continuity means.

Apparently I do, since AFAIK "Continuity" is not a synonym for quality. If it was, then TOS would be perhaps the worst of all Star Trek productions for its arsenal of glaring inconsistencies.

You're comparing semantics with radically rebooting everything in the Star Trek universe?

The fact that Eugenics and Genetic Engineering are two completely different concepts escapes you? As far as consistency, Chekov might as well have suggested that Khan was a cyborg created by the Communist Party of India. If anything, making him a product of genetic experiments is as much a reboot of Khan's background as ST-XI is a reboot of the franchise, in that the fictional past is rectonned for dramatic and/or technical reasons and nobody really gives a damn because it's Star Trek.

They wouldn't have had to, they just would've had to flip through the Star Trek Encyclopedia...

And why should they have to do that if the extra consistency won't improve the quality of the story?

Actually it just wasn't funny on its own, but whatever, it's just another example of a mistake that could have been avoided by scanning through one article in one book.

Why should the writers take the extra time to check the consistency of a throwaway remark when the majority of FANS won't even go to that effort?

So? I'd rather it be dead than shit on.

1) A shit-covered franchise is better than a dead one (at least you can clean it off in the sequel)
2) You STILL have yet to give any coherent reason why revising past chronology is equivalent to "shitting on" Star Trek. There are many things I've always loved about Trek, but it's fictitious historical consistency isn't one of them.

It matters because you keep trying to say the bad stories were a result of "canon" as opposed to just a lack of creativity and bad writing.

No, I said lack of creativity is bad enough when your writing staff is constrained by a set of arbitrary and irrelevant writing conventions. Untie the writers' hands, and then they can REALLY have fun.

Unless they suck, in which case tied or untied they're going to write your show into the ground.

So you like half-assing things, how interesting.

How is intentionally hobbling yourself with stupid rules that none of your fans care about equivalent with "half-assing things?"

Honestly, I keep asking but you keep dodging the question. If the AUDIENCE doesn't care about consistency, why should the WRITERS?

Yep. Again, a mistake that could have been avoided

All you need to do is justify the dual assertion that
1) It should have been avoided
2) It was a mistake

If the fans don't care where the Enterprise was built, why should the writers care? Hell, if the majority of people who go to see this movie have no idea where the Enterprise was "supposed" to have been built before STXI, then what precisely does it detract from the story to show it being built somewhere else?


Seriously, stop and deal with this issue first: why should anyone--either the fans or the writers--actually care about timeline consistency?

 

[ancient]

Let's say there are three classes of continuity:

1.) Critical:
These are basic Star Trek facts:
-Spock is a Vulcan.
-The ship is called Enterprise.
-They use "warp drive"...
-The arrowhead.

2.) Non-critical canon:
The more nerdy detail stuff that we all know. They are not always the same in canon storys because they aren't all that important.
-Klingon foreheads. (or lack thereof, on TOS)
-Kirk was born in Iowa (From TVH)
-You can't use phasers at warp. (violated several times.)
-You can't use warp in a system. (violated about 10,000 times)

3.) And finally, there is non-canon (official, fanon, behind-the-scenes): These are things you would never know if you just watched the show/movies, but you learn from books or on-line fandom.
-The name of Kirk's parents.
-Where the Enterprise was built.
-Captain April.
-The size of the Enterprise.

Now, it seems to me, that Abrams has only violated a few things in (3), and that's pretty much it. And that's just based on a 2 minute trailer and a lot of internet rumors. Since the 'new look' of the universe is apparently explained by the time-travel plot-device, the design changes don't even really count from a purely canon-counter pov.

To be honest, I'd be way more excited if they were using the original designs. I'm not pissed at the new look, but it doesn't get me excited either. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Now, if the movie does turn out to suck then I'll join the bitchfest. (which seems unlikely to me based on universally good reviews by people who have seen it so far)

 

[Captain X]

What the hell does timeline consistency have to do with quality?

Yeah, what does being consistent with what you've established have to do with being taken seriously or as a sign of quality?

Good for you. Why should I?

*bats eyelashes* because you care... *blows kiss*

What does quality have to do with timeline consistency?

Yeah, what would taking a little extra effort to do a good job have to do with being consistent with your work?

Apparently I do, since AFAIK "Continuity" is not a synonym for quality. If it was, then TOS would be perhaps the worst of all Star Trek productions for its arsenal of glaring inconsistencies.

No, you just think "continuity" is a synonym for lack of quality because you're too busy being pissed at people who disagree with you about a show to see that poor writing and half-assing a job is what contributed to the lack of quality of said show.

The fact that Eugenics and Genetic Engineering are two completely different concepts escapes you?

Considering that one involves selective breeding in an attempt to produce offspring with desired traits and one involves modifying genes to produce offspring with desired traits, no, it's not lost on me at all.

As far as consistency, Chekov might as well have suggested that Khan was a cyborg created by the Communist Party of India. If anything, making him a product of genetic experiments is as much a reboot of Khan's background as ST-XI is a reboot of the franchise, in that the fictional past is rectonned for dramatic and/or technical reasons and nobody really gives a damn because it's Star Trek.

Someone fucked up a little bit on an origin story!

That and it's been used interchangeably throughout the run of the franchise, and they fucked up a lot worse on an episode of DS9 with exactly when Khan was alive being a tyrant.
Yeah, that's totally like completely rebooting everything about the franchise all because you're delusional to think it might be "cool" and that anyone other than the very fans you're going to piss off would watch it anyway. But then there are no degrees with anything when it comes to apologists.

And why should they have to do that if the extra consistency won't improve the quality of the story?

Because it would actually improve the quality of the story if the story had any substance to it to begin with.

Why should the writers take the extra time to check the consistency of a throwaway remark

Quality, pride in their work, generally giving a shit, quaint things like that.

when the majority of FANS won't even go to that effort?

Keep bashing your fellow fans, they love you for it.

1) A shit-covered franchise is better than a dead one (at least you can clean it off in the sequel)

You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd. And fucking things up worse by definition means that it isn't "better".

2) You STILL have yet to give any coherent reason why revising past chronology is equivalent to "shitting on" Star Trek.

Gee, why would making the collective works of so many people over 40 years that so many people have come to enjoy completely irrelevant by like shitting on something they like and care about?

There are many things I've always loved about Trek, but it's fictitious historical consistency isn't one of them.

Yes, we've established that quality is not a major concern of yours.

No, I said lack of creativity is bad enough when your writing staff is constrained by a set of arbitrary and irrelevant writing conventions.

There's nothing constraining about being internally consistent - it's like having a guide to follow, and it gives you the ability to pretend like what you've established is its own little fictional history, with your own little Lincolns and Washingtons.

Untie the writers' hands, and then they can REALLY have fun.

Easiest way to untie their hands would be to have them create their own new show.

Unless they suck, in which case tied or untied they're going to write your show into the ground.

Which means its pointless to reboot a franchise that has enough problems with it without those problems being added to.

How is intentionally hobbling yourself with stupid rules that none of your fans care about equivalent with "half-assing things?"

Yeah, how is not giving a shit about the quality of your work because you couldn't be bothered to put in more than a bare minimum of effort anything like half-assing?

Honestly, I keep asking but you keep dodging the question. If the AUDIENCE doesn't care about consistency, why should the WRITERS?

It's not dodging to point out that just because you don't care that plenty of other fans don't care - after all, that's why they're fans.

All you need to do is justify the dual assertion that
1) It should have been avoided
2) It was a mistake

No I don't, it's very evident that a mistake was made simply by seeing those two scenes and having a memory longer than a goldfish.

If the fans don't care where the Enterprise was built, why should the writers care?

You =/ not all fans.

Hell, if the majority of people who go to see this movie have no idea where the Enterprise was "supposed" to have been built before STXI, then what precisely does it detract from the story to show it being built somewhere else?

You =/ the majority of fans, either. And frankly underestimating fans is the primary reason any show sucks, let alone a show that has a lot of smart and attentive people who go on to be things like engineers and scientists make up a good chunk of your audience. Assuming they are nothing by teenaged boys are why we got Seven of Nine and T'Pol as large-breasted women running around in skin-tight clothing with all the male characters drooling over them.

Seriously, stop and deal with this issue first: why should anyone--either the fans or the writers--actually care about timeline consistency?

Because they have half a brain and care about things like quality and consistency.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What the hell does timeline consistency have to do with quality?

Yeah, what does being consistent with what you've established...

When did JJ Abrams ever establish anything in Star Trek?

Good for you. Why should I?

*bats eyelashes* because you care... *blows kiss*

Sure I do. Just not about canon.

Yeah, what would taking a little extra effort to do a good job have to do with being consistent with your work?

Who is the "you" in "Your work?" JJ Abrams didn't write TOS. Neither did anyone else on the staff for STXI. If anything, they're contradicting Gene Coon and Matt Jeffries... is there a reason I should be upset about THAT?

No, you just think "continuity" is a synonym for lack of quality

No, "continuity" is a synonym for "progression" and has nothing whatsoever to do with quality.

Unless you're talking about INTERNAL continuity of a particular story, and we're not.

Someone fucked up a little bit on an origin story!

No, they just changed the origin story because the old one was outdated. Doesn't constitute a fuckup anymore than changing Kirk's middle initial to "T" because it sounds better.

Yeah, that's totally like completely rebooting everything about the franchise all because you're delusional to think it might be "cool" and that anyone other than the very fans you're going to piss off would watch it anyway.

You think the fans would be pissed about a reboot? Why, because it isn't consistent with the backstage barely-canon fan lore of TOS?

Because it would actually improve the quality of the story if the story had any substance to it to begin with.

How does consistency with OTHER stories add to the quality of the story being told at the moment?

Quality, pride in their work, generally giving a shit, quaint things like that.

If it bothers you that much that writers do not nitpick their own work as thoroughly and obsessively as you do, you should probably stop watching Star Trek.

Keep bashing your fellow fans, they love you for it.

How is it "bashing" to say that most fans of Star Trek actually have LIVES and don't spend all their free time scouring Memory Alpha looking for continuity violations?

You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.

Star Trek isn't a turd, and re-writing a past timeline is not equivalent to "fucking things up."

Gee, why would making the collective works of so many people over 40 years that so many people have come to enjoy completely irrelevant by like shitting on something they like and care about?

A reboot makes Star Trek irrelevant?

Yes, we've established that quality is not a major concern of yours.

Continuity is not a synonym for quality.

There's nothing constraining about being internally consistent

Then you only need to be consistent to the overall story itself. You don't need to be consistent with the ENTIRE FRANCHISE. Do or don't makes no difference to the quality of the story.

it's like having a guide to follow, and it gives you the ability to pretend like what you've established is its own little fictional history, with your own little Lincolns and Washingtons.

Except the history is still PRETEND, a work of fiction, and is therefore subject to the imagination of the writers who are currently working on it. That's why there's so much broad variation and flavor in the Trek novels. A good number of them contradict each other, but only the novels in a series have to be totally consistent with one another.

Easiest way to untie their hands would be to have them create their own new show.

Which is fine if you want an awesome new show. What if you want an awesome STAR TREK show?

It's not dodging to point out that just because you don't care that plenty of other fans don't care - after all, that's why they're fans.

THAT's why they're fans? Wait, you think the thing Star Trek fans like about the show is the fact that it is internally consistent with its own canon?

You =/ not all fans.

So, let's ask the fans.

And frankly underestimating fans is the primary reason any show sucks let alone a show that has a lot of smart and attentive people who go on to be things like engineers and scientists make up a good chunk of your audience.

Considering the vast majority of people DON'T g on to be things like engineers and scientists, I again remind you that no franchise can survive strictly by catering to a niche market of detail-obsessed nerds.

Of course, you've made it clear that you think anyone who DOESN'T obsess over the irrelevant minutia of Star Trek enough to become seriously distracted by continuity violations is less intelligent than you are, so I imagine you're going to take it personally that JJ Abrams wasn't smart enough to produce a trek show personally tailored to your liking.