You know what I'm really getting at.
Anyway, TAS has always had a complicated relationship with Canon.
Last edited:
Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Anyway, TAS has always had a complicated relationship with Canon.
Continuity is important in some aspects, but not all.
We've all gotten used to characters being recast. I mean, we're up to how many actors playing Spock, now? 3? More if you include stuff like ST Continues.
Robert April being played by a black actor seems to keep coming up, but that's an example of a change that is unimportant, especially given that he made his first appearance as an animated character and has only appeared in print since then. If Idris Elba can be cast as Heimdall and rock that role all the way to Asgard, nobody should bat an eye about a black Robert April.
The kind of continuity stuff that bothers me is stuff I've mentioned before about various things. Here are a few examples:
1. Small universe syndrome where we see characters like Uhura, M'Benga, etc appear long before they should, and for no reason other than fan service. You can cast the exact same actors playing new, fresh characters.
2. Stuff like having transporters, phasers, and the Borg in a series like Enterprise. Or a cadet promoted to the captaincy of the Enterprise in JJ-Trek
3. Having Michael Burnham be Spock's sister. (Kind of a throwback to number 1)
4. The endless redesign of the Klingons.
Anyway, you get the idea.
We've all gotten used to characters being recast. I mean, we're up to how many actors playing Spock, now? 3? More if you include stuff like ST Continues.
Robert April being played by a black actor seems to keep coming up, but that's an example of a change that is unimportant, especially given that he made his first appearance as an animated character and has only appeared in print since then. If Idris Elba can be cast as Heimdall and rock that role all the way to Asgard, nobody should bat an eye about a black Robert April.
The kind of continuity stuff that bothers me is stuff I've mentioned before about various things. Here are a few examples:
1. Small universe syndrome where we see characters like Uhura, M'Benga, etc appear long before they should, and for no reason other than fan service. You can cast the exact same actors playing new, fresh characters.
2. Stuff like having transporters, phasers, and the Borg in a series like Enterprise. Or a cadet promoted to the captaincy of the Enterprise in JJ-Trek
3. Having Michael Burnham be Spock's sister. (Kind of a throwback to number 1)
4. The endless redesign of the Klingons.
Anyway, you get the idea.
I'm an agent of chaos.
Before they should,? How so?
It can of course but my response was more a curious question around the idea that it will do so every time.
See, my Trek journey is filled with inconsistencies. To me that's part the experience and doesn't disturb me to the point of new universe to account for the inconsistencies.
If the writers can't keep it straight why should I care?
This is how I’m coming to feel about the franchise in general.
I love an interconnected universe but when trying to do that with a franchise that spans 50+ years, it's folly. Add to that, the fact that producers/show runners/etc who have come along over the years don't really make any effort to bring everything together in one neat little package. Plus, it's important to remember that these people are most interested in telling good stories, not whether a factoid in TOS matches up with a factoid in Voyager, or whatever. If continuity and story clash, story wins every time.
I learned that when I met a Trek writer at a small con and participated in a trivia contest. I knew more about Trek. It changed my view and I'm less antagonistic about continuity.
I’m not antagonistic about it. I’m just struggling reliving the past over and over again. I struggle to find what Trek has become interesting.
It's not a big deal to me. The franchise spans 56 years with 13 movies, 8 live-action series and 3 animated offerings.
I think as long as the basic nuts-and-bolts are there, and you're not suddenly saying that Klingons are arboreal lifeforms from Pluto and you're not trying to say that Kirk was the captain of the USS Pantyhose wiht Mr. Riker was his ship's chief engineer, I think it's probably ok.
I think as long as the basic nuts-and-bolts are there, and you're not suddenly saying that Klingons are arboreal lifeforms from Pluto and you're not trying to say that Kirk was the captain of the USS Pantyhose wiht Mr. Riker was his ship's chief engineer, I think it's probably ok.
I’m somewhat invested in continuity, and when used well it enriches an ongoing story, but I’m not precious about it, and recognize that it is utterly mutable.
The canons of most religions have been repeatedly revised, added to, and contradicted within themselves throughout history, and those are belief systems that have driven countless lives, societies and wars. I don’t really understand holding an entertainment franchise like Star Trek to a more strict notion of total consistency than believers do their own gospel, who must freely and implicitly accept, to quote Ned Flanders, “the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.”
I think growing up reading comics made a more relaxed view of continuity necessary. In terms of mainstream superhero comics they’ve implemented small retcons without rebooting a universe or character, or automatically siloing everything off as existing in separate continuities, from the very beginning. You have to get used to the the idea that details, and at times specific stories and characters, will be changed without the throwing out the entirety of what came before that comes with a hard reboot.
Continuity should be a tool to make a shared fictional universe of stories feel connected and cohesive, and to increase depth and scope. Continuity shouldn’t be an albatross around creators’ necks that is given greater authority than those currently telling the stories.
The canons of most religions have been repeatedly revised, added to, and contradicted within themselves throughout history, and those are belief systems that have driven countless lives, societies and wars. I don’t really understand holding an entertainment franchise like Star Trek to a more strict notion of total consistency than believers do their own gospel, who must freely and implicitly accept, to quote Ned Flanders, “the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.”
I think growing up reading comics made a more relaxed view of continuity necessary. In terms of mainstream superhero comics they’ve implemented small retcons without rebooting a universe or character, or automatically siloing everything off as existing in separate continuities, from the very beginning. You have to get used to the the idea that details, and at times specific stories and characters, will be changed without the throwing out the entirety of what came before that comes with a hard reboot.
Continuity should be a tool to make a shared fictional universe of stories feel connected and cohesive, and to increase depth and scope. Continuity shouldn’t be an albatross around creators’ necks that is given greater authority than those currently telling the stories.
The most vital tool regarding continuity is your own 'head canon.'
Then, it all becomes a restaurant where you choose what you like off the menu, ignore the stuff you don't like, and don't be an a$$ to the staff.
Then, it all becomes a restaurant where you choose what you like off the menu, ignore the stuff you don't like, and don't be an a$$ to the staff.
Russell T Davies, the once and future showrunner of Doctor Who wrote in his book The Writer's Tale that if it comes to a choice between serving the story or adhering to continuity, serving the story always wins, even if that means completely jettisoning the continuity altogether.
As it should be.
/THREAD
As it should be.
/THREAD
There should be a strong thread running through the shows, but it's not all going to line up "quite" perfectly. Too many episodes, too many writers over too much time. You shouldn't get too wound up.
I can hand wave most continuity issues, but it would be better not to have them.
I can hand wave most continuity issues, but it would be better not to have them.
This discussion makes me think of That ‘70s Show. Their stories began in the spring of 1976, and concluded in the winter of 1979, but it had 5 Christmas episodes rather than 4. This doesn’t destroy the world they’ve created, it didn’t invalidate the first Christmas episode by virtue of the last one, and it doesn’t mean that each season must an alternate universe.
All it means is that the creators felt free to tell whatever story they wanted without worrying about contradicting what came before, and it is totally insignificant to the overall story.
The casting of Robert April doesn’t necessitate throwing TAS in the trash, or even specifically The Counter-Clock Incident, it just means the creators chose to cast Adrian Holmes, and make him an Admiral. And frankly, neither recasting or rank changes/inconsistencies are new to Trek with this instance, and I think are more on the unremarkable side than not.
All it means is that the creators felt free to tell whatever story they wanted without worrying about contradicting what came before, and it is totally insignificant to the overall story.
The casting of Robert April doesn’t necessitate throwing TAS in the trash, or even specifically The Counter-Clock Incident, it just means the creators chose to cast Adrian Holmes, and make him an Admiral. And frankly, neither recasting or rank changes/inconsistencies are new to Trek with this instance, and I think are more on the unremarkable side than not.
Yeah but his era is replete with stories where he screws up inner-story logic for the sake of another dramatic cryfest. Stories like "Father's Day" come to mind. The story tells us specifically the rules behind the monsters' mannerisms. The story readily breaks the rule by having the monster attack the wrong person responsible for their being there, or if nothing else didn't go after everyone involved. Just to bring out another lacrimal secretion...
...even easier is the tearfest series 2 finale where Rose is permanently separated from the Doctor in an episode whose ending would end any number of droughts very quickly, per a truck's worth of exposition so large that even Chris Chibnall would be impressed and awed by. Fans whined and bleated about Rose so permanently, so what happens? All that drawhaaaaaaaaamatic setup is flushed down the toilet just for her to return on a whim and to set up even even bigger cryfest. Let's hope RTD2's era isn't a case of "rinse and repeat" or that his era won't patronize the audiences so cheaply.
Still, that's not as insulting as the Doctor turning to the camera and scold viewers like in Orphan 55 because they ran out of telling the same idea that required any creativity. The 60s episodes did environment talks as well but they sure as hell didn't condescend to the audience in the process. That's the difference. And, yes, 60s stories weren't always perfect either. People have rightly complained about those...
You don't want great new stories?
I guess that's one way of looking at it, though you might as well just have someone read you a calendar.
Once you've started changing ethnicity of characters, you've moved firmly into reboot/multiverse territory for me. Though I don't see "reboot" as the dirty word some folks around here do. I want to see new interpretations of classic characters, but they actually need to be new interpretations.
Bring on a black or Asian or middle-eastern Superman/Clark Kent. Just don't try to tell me it exists in the same reality as the Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill version of the character. Allow new creators to do new stories that examine the world of the here and now.