Spoilers Does moving the Eugenics Wars into the 21st century fundamentally change things?

I often used to wear out my finger knuckle scrolling past it all. Literally to the point it had a fever and I needed to take pills, put ice on it and take internet breaks. Now I use to great effect.

Piss on the minutia, imo. The broad strokes are plenty of continuity for me.

 

What we saw in ST: Picard was nothing more than Soong grabbing a folder on Khan dated from 1996.

What I got from that is that the Eugenic Wars still happened in 1996... so nothing was moved or retconned.
Soong merely used this folder to continue the augment research which culminated in the creation of the Augments we saw in Star Trek: Enterprise.

 

Exactly. Well put.

 

I mean, one of multiple dictators conquered a good chunk of Asia...

What you saw may not be what I saw...

 

Spoiler: SNW

What about SNW's premiere where Pike actually says the January 6 2021 riot on Capital Hill led to the Second American Civil War, which led to the Eugenics Wars, which led to World War III?

 

He didn't say "led to," he just said "then." And he could've been simplifying or speaking inaccurately for rhetorical purposes.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, it's the Eugenics Wars, plural, which allows for the possibility of one in the 90s and one decades later.

 

Marvel is a different product from Marvel?

Trek has a much longer history and the more you ignore canon the less the entire established story line makes sense.

 

Honestly, Marvel's history is probably much longer than ST's, given the sheer volume of material they have published over the course of approximately 80 years. And the more you ignore ST canon, the more the entire established history of ST makes sense, since ST is full of contradictions from start to finish.

 

Nope. Trek has been released on and off since 1966; the Marvel Universe began in earnest in 1961 and retroactively incorporates comics from as far back as 1939.

A canon is an overall whole, not the individual details. And it's just a set of stories, works of creativity, not reality. And that means it's subject to revision and refinement as long as it's still being created, because that's how creativity works.

 

I was referring more to history on the screen, but I guess that distinction doesn't really matter. I do think I have seen Marvel fans take issue when canon isn't respected. I don't read a lot of comic books though, so I do not have much concern for it.

I don't follow you here. It absolutely takes creativity to make new, interesting stories that do not contradict existing ones.

 

You really aren't that familiar with Marvel, are you? They've been notorious for always making mistakes and contradictions to the point they even officially acknowledged it and turned it into a game for their readers to play.

 

Continuity is good, but it is tunnel vision to see it as the singular overriding priority of fiction. It is one tool in the kit, and there are other things that are often more important.

Besides, no creation is perfect, and people have the right to try to improve their creations as they go. That's how creation happens in the first place, through trial and error and refinement. There's always more room for improvement; as the saying goes, "Art is never finished, only abandoned." All creators would like to continue refining and improving their work after they're forced to release it, and you can find many instances of creators (myself included) making further revisions and corrections in their work when they have the opportunity to re-release it. It is blind, if not outright cruel, to say that creators should be denied the right to continue striving to improve their work.

 

I agree with the majority of the individuals who voted in the poll that seem to place a higher importance on sticking with canon.

I do not think aligning with canon should be viewed by writers as just a "tool" (something they can use for reference or entirely ignore).

I do think labeling Trek story lines that do not align well with canon imperfect "creation" is a good use of a descriptor.

 

Continuity is frosting.

Characters, story and themes are the cake.

 

I'd say continuity is more important than that. But continuity exists to support the stories, not the other way around. Support is important, but as you add more things that need to be supported, you often need to adjust and rebuild the support structure to handle the new weight.

 

No: it's always ongoing.

Er...no it doesn't.

 

The older I get the less I care about canon. Its impossible to.have it all fit perfectly. I used to enjoy trying to twist things to fit but have for the most part taken a more casual attitude towards it.

 

Exactly this. Funny how canon used to be really important to me, while now I think it's one of the least important things in my whole life.

 

Back in my teenage years, I would froth at the mouth and insist Canon is some sort of god which must be revered and adhered to Or Else. Now as an adult, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass.