Canon: How many times is enough?

[Ithekro]

Yes they are. Sets are window dressing. Costumes too.

And I hate it when productions take this view with historical events just as much as I hate it mean studios decide they don't need to keep anything the same even if they are using the exact same place and time within their own fictional universe. It is a "you already know what it looks like and have plans for the sets, why design a new set for something that shouldn't look any different from the last time it was seen within the franchise? Especially when it should still look like that the next time, in continuity, it is seen again. Even those that was 10 to 50 years ago TV time." (At this point Doctor Who gets invoked and the old TARDIS sets and episode costumes are recreated for appearances of the First Doctor era during the time of the Twelfth Doctor. I mean, if the BBC can do it, CBS should certainly have the funds for it.)

Of course this is also why I am not in theater, or any of those productions...I was trained as a historian. Things not being accurate to history both me sometimes. While I can understand it with productions that can't used real tanks or the location shooting can't be accurate because they built a track of houses over the old battlefield, for a fictional setting like Star Trek, where the studio can control the sets from day one...it shouldn't be that hard to recreate a place that was a set to begin with. Especially if the intend of the episode is to reflect that location. A studio shouldn't just come up with a story to be set on the USS Enterprise for an episode or two, and then make the ship look completely different from what it was before. What would the point be of using that in the story but making it totally different in a time period, within the show's continuity, where it should look like it once did back in the 1960s? You would think that the nostalgia angle would be part of the story's makeup to begin with if they plan to drag the Enterprise into things.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And I hate it when productions take this view with historical events just as much as I hate it mean studios decide they don't need to keep anything the same even if they are using the exact same place and time within their own fictional universe.

It's right there: History vs Fiction.

It is a "you already know what it looks like and have plans for the sets, why design a new set for something that shouldn't look any different from the last time it was seen within the franchise? Especially when it should still look like that the next time, in continuity, it is seen again. Even those that was 10 to 50 years ago TV time." (At this point Doctor Who gets invoked and the old TARDIS sets and episode costumes are recreated for appearances of the First Doctor era during the time of the Twelfth Doctor. I mean, if the BBC can do it, CBS should certainly have the funds for it.)

It's not about money. It's about creating a product that will appeal to the most people. The people in charge of Trek have always tweeked things to keep it appealing to the current audience.

Of course this is also why I am not in theater, or any of those productions...I was trained as a historian. Things not being accurate to history both me sometimes. While I can understand it with productions that can't used real tanks or the location shooting can't be accurate because they built a track of houses over the old battlefield, for a fictional setting like Star Trek, where the studio can control the sets from day one...it shouldn't be that hard to recreate a place that was a set to begin with. Especially if the intend of the episode is to reflect that location. A studio shouldn't just come up with a story to be set on the USS Enterprise for an episode or two, and then make the ship look completely different from what it was before. What would the point be of using that in the story but making it totally different in a time period, within the show's continuity, where it should look like it once did back in the 1960s? You would think that the nostalgia angle would be part of the story's makeup to begin with if they plan to drag the Enterprise into things.

It's fiction. "Accurate" is what the current production team wants.

 

[Ithekro]

Basically what you mean is something that seems pointless to me and something that seems pointless to Hollywood are to separate things that basically make the entire thread pointless.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Basically what you mean is something that seems pointless to me and something that seems pointless to Hollywood are to separate things that basically make the entire thread pointless.

What?

 

[Prax]

Depends, are you running from or to something? Is the engine about to explode? Is your sister under threat?
Also, is it an African or European Crow?

The carriage is in mostly good shape. My sister is safe, and doesn't know I'm coming as everyone loves surprise visits from family. I filed a flight plan with my wife, and I believe the crow is Murican.

 

[Ithekro]

What?

I would value something that fits with the "known" universe of the franchise when a story is set to take place at a known location at a known time within said fiction. That would seem to be pointless to Hollywood because it looks old and dated in science fiction.

Hollywood would value making it took modern for today. Which if that means changing something that came before that shouldn't look any different just because it doesn't look modern now is perfectly acceptable. That seems pointless to me because you have a perfectly fine fictional history to fall back on, but instead waste the concepts to look new and modern. Or at least that is where the line of thinking goes when one thinks of the old sets and costumes as "just window dressing" without any context given to any concept of a timeline within one's own fiction.

Those lines of thinking make discussions about "canon" and "franchise level continuity" pointless.

 

[The Wormhole]

She doesn't say "Even at Warp 9.97995.47, it would take..." Ships can't travel at maximum warp for very long.

Except, warp 9.975 is the ship's top cruising speed, meaning it's the fastest speed they can travel at a protracted length at. From Caretaker:

STADI: That's our ship. That's Voyager.
(It is docked at an upper pylon.)
STADI: Intrepid class. Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor nine point nine seven five. Fifteen decks. Crew complement of one hundred and forty one. Bio-neural circuitry.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would value something that fits with the "known" universe of the franchise when a story is set to take place at a known location at a known time within said fiction. That would seem to be pointless to Hollywood because it looks old and dated in science fiction.

Well the point is keeping the franchise fresh and futuristic. The future is always changing and science fiction needs to keep up to remain viable.

Hollywood would value making it took modern for today. Which if that means changing something that came before that shouldn't look any different just because it doesn't look modern now is perfectly acceptable. That seems pointless to me because you have a perfectly fine fictional history to fall back on, but instead waste the concepts to look new and modern. Or at least that is where the line of thinking goes when one thinks of the old sets and costumes as "just window dressing" without any context given to any concept of a timeline within one's own fiction.

No one is changing the "history", they're just updating the visuals. At best they are adding to the history. Which is not a waste if it get more people interested in the franchise.

Those lines of thinking make discussions about "canon" and "franchise level continuity" pointless.

I don't see why. The continuity isn't about the style of shirt Kirk wears or the shape of the Enterprise's nacelles. It's the events, the situations, the stories, the ideas and the characters.

 

[Prax]

Except, warp 9.975 is the ship's top cruising speed, meaning it's the fastest speed they can travel at a protracted length at. From Caretaker:

So, I went and looked this up. They can sustain warp 9.75 for up to 12 hours(VOY: The Swarm). In the technical manual it says 9.9 for up to twelve hours. Voyager can achieve a maximum warp of 9.975 and sustain it for some short length of time without exploding(or imploding). Warp travel depends on spatial conditions(like gravity, magnetic fields, gases, and all that other crazy stuff), and also depends on the fuel, the condition of the engine, condition of the hull, etc. Traveling at higher warp damages the ship(TNG: The Chase) Maximum warp for the Enterprise is 9.9.

 

[Spot261]

So, I went and looked this up. They can sustain warp 9.75 for up to 12 hours(VOY: The Swarm). In the technical manual it says 9.9 for up to twelve hours. Voyager can achieve a maximum warp of 9.975 and sustain it for some short length of time without exploding(or imploding). Warp travel depends on spatial conditions(like gravity, magnetic fields, gases, and all that other crazy stuff), and also depends on the fuel, the condition of the engine, condition of the hull, etc. Traveling at higher warp damages the ship(TNG: The Chase) Maximum warp for the Enterprise is 9.9.

I can't help but wonder how much that helps when you watch an episode written by someone who doesn't care.

 

[BillJ]

Continuity between the shows really is an illusion. They are going to write what they want to write. They need the Romulans to have a cloaking device a hundred years prior to "Balance of Terror"? They are going to do it. They need the World War III casualty total to seem more terrifying? They need to get to Kronos in four days? They are going to do it.

They are going to do what they need to do for the story they are wanting to tell.

 

[Spot261]

Continuity between the shows really is an illusion. They are going to write what they want to write. They need the Romulans to have a cloaking device a hundred years prior to "Balance of Terror"? They are going to do it. They need the World War III casualty total to seem more terrifying? They need to get to Kronos in four days? They are going to do it.

They are going to do what they need to do for the story they are wanting to tell.

This. Continuity is more about the mindset of the viewer than what actually happens on screen. People who by their nature are inclined to look for patterns, consistency, objectively verifiable facts they can catalogue will impose that on a show like trek which by it's nature requires the pretence of some form of advanced science. This, I think, occurred late to the people making the show who then made some efforts to rationalise the discrepencies and start imposing a level of consistency that was never intended in the beginning to pacify that portion of the fanbase.

Of course this doesn't work in practise because the creative types making a show over the course of a few months are never going to be as attentive to the ever increasing back catalogue of established details as obsessive fans who have literally decades to pore over each and every line, every prop, every technological detail at their leisure. The more effort that goes into giving a veneer of continuity the more it encourages people to expect that continuity to be perfect, to treat it as something that not only should they expect but something whose absence represents a failing. People actually become angry about this stuff, they become invested in the infallibility of something that was only ever intended to be the best that could be done on the day, working with the resources and time available.

The greater the number of films and shows made, the greater the number of details to get right, consequently the chances of missing something.

The greater the effort made to make this work, the more superficially convincing the illusion and hence the greater the cognitive impact of the errors that are made.

No one expected that half a century later the random objects used as props would still be analysed the way they are, that throwaway lines put into the script for dramatic effect would be scrutinised for inconsistencies in relation to other such throwaway lines someone else wrote months or years before. Nor should people making a show reasonably be put under that sort of pressure, they have a difficult enough job as it is making something that is dramatic, relevant and meaningful, something which takes the ethos of trek and gives it modern production values.

They can do without being met with a barrage of public abuse, even threats, because they upset people with nowhere near their talent people who equate enjoying a tv show with cataloguing fictional stardates, planetary alignments and phaser outputs, people who equate watching a show with scientists in to being a scientific activity in itself and can't understand why others do not.

That isn't to say doing those things is bad in itself, but keeping some sense of perspective is healthy and if people find themselves becoming angry, personalising perceived errors as being a transgression or affront by the people making the show, then the time has come to step back and re evaluate what really matters, what role the show is playing in their lives.

 

[Tallguy]

And I hate it when productions take this view with historical events just as much as I hate it mean studios decide they don't need to keep anything the same even if they are using the exact same place and time within their own fictional universe....

Ahhh. But what if one production did a terrible job on, say, Ford's Theater? Would you want another production to re-use it?

For all we know the Star Trek sets are TERRIBLE recreations of the 23rd century, playing to the worst stereotypes of the most ignorant notions of the era.

Then they go and install THAT version on all the new Galaxy class holodecks so now it will never go away! (And Scotty was so drunk he didn't even notice! You could have put him on a 20th century Nimitz bridge and he would have thought he was "home"!)

 

[Jedman67]

The carriage is in mostly good shape. My sister is safe, and doesn't know I'm coming as everyone loves surprise visits from family. I filed a flight plan with my wife, and I believe the crow is Murican.

Based on the information you provided, it will take you either 4.75 minutes or 2.5 hours depending on your definition of miles* (*TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT).
If you use the Star Trek 2009 definition of miles you will arrive instantaneously; however she will have already left for a 3 week vacation to the mountains just moments prior to your arrival.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They stated in the show many times how long they could maintain their maximum warp.

Voyager's maximum warp and it's maximum SUSTAINABLE velocity are two different things. Stadi apparently doesn't know what that difference is, which is odd considering she's the helmsman...

POP QUIZ:
My sister lives in Chicago, off of Irving Pkwy, at the eastern end near Lake Shore dr.

I live about 75 miles away(as the crow flies).

I wish to go visit her. I will drive there in my horseless carriage built within the last 5 years.

How long will the trip take me, one way?

If you get on the expressway (the 90-94 or the 57 or, hell, even the 88) between 9:00 and 10:00am, AND if you don't drive like a little old lady, it'll take you about 45 minutes. If, on the other hand, you leave at any other time of the day, no matter how you drive or what route you take, it will take you three and a half hours.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Basically what you mean is something that seems pointless to me and something that seems pointless to Hollywood are to separate things that basically make the entire thread pointless.

Basically.

 

[suarezguy]

Trek continuity should have been kept loose and flexible, like the James Bond movies or the X-Men film franchise.

I think characters dying off and then being alive again is one of the worst tendencies in comic books and their adaptations and a pretty embarrassing, off-putting low level of continuity.

Edit:

Continuity between the shows really is an illusion. They are going to write what they want to write. They need the Romulans to have a cloaking device a hundred years prior to "Balance of Terror"? They are going to do it.

And a lot of viewers dropped out from watching that show in part from it seeming to be too carelessly highly different from what was established before (as well as being, in their view, not entertaining enough in itself).

 

[Butters]

Nah. It matters. I don't want to call it canon, this isn't a religion and we don't have to believe any of it to be a committed viewer. Its continuity that matters. Continuity and internal logic are both important to experience of following a TV show.

I know the 'Raped my childhood' brigade gave adherence to establish continuity a bad name in the early 00s, but its not a big ask to try to be consistent, especially not when research materials are so readily available. I get it, its science fiction, its all made up anyway, but there is an extensive lore of established made up stuff to both draw from for inspiration, but 'fact' checking is the price of that rich history.

In the year 2260, star fleet wore a certain style of uniform, were issued with a particular style of phaser, and we know this because we saw it. A bigger budget means the props don't need to look like Styrofoam and plywood, but they do need to look like they did the last time we saw them on screen.

I also think its disingenuous to suggest that the casual viewer doesn't care about the details. The aim of the studio is to hook people, make them care, invest in the show and come back for more. That won't happen with a lax regard for its own history. Why should a viewer care about the thing that is Star Trek if the powers that be don't.

The new series is to be serialized, so when they mention some random fact about a world or ship or crew, it'll register somewhere in my head and I'll process it, try to preempt what might happen in the next episode, like a clue in a mystery, I like to guess the outcome. Those clues, those facts, those details, don't just carry to the next episode, they carry to the next season, the next series, the next movie. If one established fact isn't important, then non of them are, and disbelief can no longer be suspended. Absolutely anything can happen on the whim of the writer/producer, and I've no interest in that.

 

[Prax]

I can't help but wonder how much that helps when you watch an episode written by someone who doesn't care.

When it comes to technical continuity, they care to a degree. I'm not the one who brought this up. It's mostly trivial, and was used by a poster as an example of "See? Star Trek has no continuity!"

If they didn't care about setting rules and trying to follow them, why do they create writer's "bibles"?

These writer's guides are pretty explicit. Even if they deviate from them here and there, or make mistakes, it takes another leap to make the hyperbolic "There's no continuity" or even "only in broad strokes."

That may be true for the original series, which didn't have a lot of continuity, but not for the others. In the majority of episodes of the four spin off series, there's references to events of prior episodes. In many, there are references to other series.

This is just basic world building and character building that many writers seem to enjoy including.

 

[Jedman67]

I'm definitely in favor of establishing new continuity; keeping everything consistent in the DSC universe would be important.
As far as what 'came before' I don't think individual writers should just pick and choose, but if something makes a good story; just keep the 'verifiable' information consistent.