continuity? who cares
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
He just wasn't seen in the pilot. He also wasn't seen in What are Little Girls made Of? and Errand of Mercy. This does not mean he wasn't there.
Heck, in What are Little Girls Made Of? his top assistant (Nurse Chapel) was beaming down to a planet to find her long-lost fiancé -- one would think McCoy would be there to see her off or at least say something...but he wasn't.
They should do it like the Highlander franchise.
Throw canon out of the window with every new movie and series.
Think of the possibilities! You could kill Kirk off in one movie and he would be back in the next, maybe even played by Shatner or Jessica Alba!
Throw canon out of the window with every new movie and series.
Think of the possibilities! You could kill Kirk off in one movie and he would be back in the next, maybe even played by Shatner or Jessica Alba!
3D Master
Rear Admiral
One of the reasons why even Highlander fans hate the sequel films with a fiery passion, so... no.
Sure it does. If you pay attention to what's said in the shows, you discover that stardates don't mean anything.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Sure it does. If you pay attention to what's said in the shows, you discover that stardates don't mean anything.
I reiterate: it doesn't matter.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Continuity is over-stated by both sides of the issue.
As was said before, TNG had nothing to do with TOS, it took place a century later. VOY had nothing to do with TNG, it was on the other side of the galaxy. ENT had nothing to do with the other series because it took place before everything else, TOS wouldn't take place for another 100 years. TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT were all separate from each other whether there was continuity or not. The only series that overlapped was DS9 with TNG and even that was limited.
As I've said before, the best-regarded TOS and TNG movies, The Wrath of Khan and First Contact respectively, were based off of "Space Seed" and "The Best of Both Worlds".
The upcoming movie will feature a scenario mentioned in The Wrath of Khan.
Continuity is not as monstrous as it's made out to be. There's less connection than people think and it's not as bad as it's accused of being.
The entire debate is academic because JJ Abrams isn't going to completely throw everything out any more than replicate minutae as it was before. The extremes of "It should follow contuity at all costs!" and "It should ignore contunity at all costs!" aren't going to happen. It's not going to be as much the same as some people want but it's not going to be as different as some other people want either.
Personally, I don't mind if the movie follows continuity but I don't care if it doesn't either, just do what you're going to say you're doing. If it's similar but not the same, then say it's similar but not the same. It's exactly the same, say it's exactly the same. If it's completely different, say it's completely different.
Don't say it's completely different then keep it exactly the same. Don't say it's exactly the same but make it completely different. Don't say it's similar but then make it completely different or exactly the same.
JJ Abrams has said the movie will be similar so I expect similar but not the same. So long as I know what to expect, then I'll except what I see based on those terms. I would've preferred completely different but I'll live with similar but not the same.
I'm open and that's what more people need to be and not insist "It must be this!" or "It must be that!"
As was said before, TNG had nothing to do with TOS, it took place a century later. VOY had nothing to do with TNG, it was on the other side of the galaxy. ENT had nothing to do with the other series because it took place before everything else, TOS wouldn't take place for another 100 years. TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT were all separate from each other whether there was continuity or not. The only series that overlapped was DS9 with TNG and even that was limited.
As I've said before, the best-regarded TOS and TNG movies, The Wrath of Khan and First Contact respectively, were based off of "Space Seed" and "The Best of Both Worlds".
The upcoming movie will feature a scenario mentioned in The Wrath of Khan.
Continuity is not as monstrous as it's made out to be. There's less connection than people think and it's not as bad as it's accused of being.
The entire debate is academic because JJ Abrams isn't going to completely throw everything out any more than replicate minutae as it was before. The extremes of "It should follow contuity at all costs!" and "It should ignore contunity at all costs!" aren't going to happen. It's not going to be as much the same as some people want but it's not going to be as different as some other people want either.
Personally, I don't mind if the movie follows continuity but I don't care if it doesn't either, just do what you're going to say you're doing. If it's similar but not the same, then say it's similar but not the same. It's exactly the same, say it's exactly the same. If it's completely different, say it's completely different.
Don't say it's completely different then keep it exactly the same. Don't say it's exactly the same but make it completely different. Don't say it's similar but then make it completely different or exactly the same.
JJ Abrams has said the movie will be similar so I expect similar but not the same. So long as I know what to expect, then I'll except what I see based on those terms. I would've preferred completely different but I'll live with similar but not the same.
I'm open and that's what more people need to be and not insist "It must be this!" or "It must be that!"
Last edited by a moderator:
The novels generally accept that McCoy was on leave for his daughter's graduation, so that works fine for me.
Sure it does. If you pay attention to what's said in the shows, you discover that stardates don't mean anything.
I reiterate: it doesn't matter.
What they actually say and show onscreen is the only thing that might possibly matter in discussions about continuity.
Yes. And, we're told it's an origins movie. A story that's never been told before. So, why would Abrams throw everything out or even ignore the most significant parts of what's gone before if the purpose of the movie in the first place is to show how Kirk, Spock, and the others all got together to become the legendary crew whose exploits are so well chronicled?
Continuity will matter pretty much to the extent it's mattered in any other Trek story. Use the facts that are convenient, well-known, incontestable, or significant. Then, fudge the rest as necessary.
If it was a complete reboot or had no continuity with at least a chunk of Trek's fictional history, it wouldn't really be an origins story would it? It would truly be something new with the Star Trek name. By ALL accounts from those involved, that's not what we're getting.
Last edited:
Gimmie the Spider-Man approach. The spiderman movies never really contradicted what went on before, but the ynever dwelt on it either. If you only saw the movies, you could follow along just fine. There were easter egg kinda things for the fans of the comics, but that wasn't the point of the movie. (I think the only real change was the gamma-irradiated spider changes to a GM spider)
I want nuTrek to do the same. I want a great story, and hopefully not a big contradiction of canon. I think you can tell a fun story without having to throw in the obligatory showing off of how much canon they are respecting. But I also don't want Spock to be a female LDS smoker with anger management issues.
I want nuTrek to do the same. I want a great story, and hopefully not a big contradiction of canon. I think you can tell a fun story without having to throw in the obligatory showing off of how much canon they are respecting. But I also don't want Spock to be a female LDS smoker with anger management issues.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
The real difference was Spider-man have organic webshooters instead of a mechanism and a compound he created.
But the thing about the Spider-man films is, it's simply it's own universe. There's no continuity whatsoever with the comics. It's its own entity. And I do not want that for Star Trek.
Agreed RobertScorpio. (see sig quote)
On another thread somebody said that the reason TOS was so enduring was because they didn't take things so seriously all the time. Being so wrapped up in canon so as to explain away fiction because of events in reality (the actor hadn't been hired yet) is taking things too seriously. I just don't need everything in the fictional show to follow what would happen should it be reality.
ST was such a great format with great characters that it lended itself to all types of entertainment. They did comedy, tragedy, drama, romance, science fiction, social commentary, and cerebral stories equally well. Since it didn't get obsessed with canon or take itself so seriously it was the most enduring and versatile of the shows. I would hate to see them lose that by strict adherance to an imaginary canon.
Yeah, but even that would be relatively minor compared with the actual point of Spidey -- he still shoots webs and saves people. He's still in love with Mary Jane, and he still goes after Green Goblin and Doc Oc. I think the idea of Peter Parker being friends with the son of Green Goblin is cannon, so most of the major bits are there.
And any movie is going to be somewhat disconnected -- it's a complete story in itself, and would never work as part of some other storyline. You can't expect people to walk into a movie theater knowing all the background. It would hurt the movie to have it so dependant on knowing about so previous event that the movie makes no sense without it. Sure you can reference it -- having a flashback to the earlier event is fine, but you shouldn't make a movie that's a conituation of a TV story because the audience probably hasn't seen that episode.
You shouldn't cantradict the established stories, but going too heavy into canon is only going to alienate people who aren't up on canon.
I'm not "explaining away fiction", I'm saying that the licensed ST tie-in fiction is very good at filling in continuity gaps. Many great ST novels and comics have come about because the authors answer the fan concerns of "Huh"?
I am sure that the next wave of ST novels and comics will have heaps of fun patching together any discontinuity brought about by the new movie. It's all part of the fun, and the movie itself doesn't need to address McCoy's upcoming leave, or Chekov's disappearance to the lower decks, or Chapel's change of hair colour in "Turnabout Intruder" and TMP.
Luke Lightsaber
Captain
OMG! THEY CHANGED THAT BLUE BUTTON ON THAT ONE CONSOLE!!!!!!
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Wrong. They barely touched on anything continuity, and the few times they gave conflicting dates, nothing would have taken away from the show if they had paid attention to previous dates.
And they damn well took themselves seriously. If they didn't take themselves seriously you would have gotten the Stargate series. Empty, vapid, space blaster scifi.
It is exactly because they took themselves seriously, that they could produce tragedy, drama, romance, and social commentary, and take comedy, and science fiction and make it deeper than some quick space blaster scifi.
Similar threads
- Locked
