• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll Is continuity important?

How important is continuity in Trek?

  • Total voters
    113
1001001 said:
As for the whole April thing...let's just say the purists never disappoint.
Click to expand...

It really isn't about being a purist for me. Black Robert April? Bring it on, I hear the man playing him is an excellent actor. Black Robert April coexisting in the same universe as white Robert April, supposedly being the same character? My brain simply can't make that one work.

Maybe it makes me an awful person, but it is what it is.
 
BillJ said:
It really isn't about being a purist for me. Black Robert April? Bring it on, I hear the man playing him is an excellent actor. Black Robert April coexisting in the same universe as white Robert April, supposedly being the same character? My brain simply can't make that one work.

Maybe it makes me an awful person, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I land firmly in the "Who Gives A Flying Fuck?" category.

I literally could not care less whether a once-used cartoon character from 50 years ago is played by an actor of the "same race" or not.
 
I can make both exist in the same universe just fine. It's as if both are historical reenactments. I mean, it's essentially how TOS and TAS can both exist in the same universe. One's a cartoon, and isn't, so they can't both be photographically literal expressions of what things look like in-universe. Ditto for the two Saaviks, and now all the different actors playing the same character (Sarek, Spock, Uhura, Amanda, Kirk, M'Benga, and so on). I guess ditto also for the NCC-1701 herself.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
I can make both exist in the same universe just fine. It's as if both are historical reenactments. I mean, it's essentially how TOS and TAS can both exist in the same universe. One's a cartoon, and isn't, so they can't both be photographically literal expressions of what things look like in-universe. Ditto for the two Saaviks, and now all the different actors playing the same character (Sarek, Spock, Uhura, Amanda, Kirk, M'Benga, and so on). I guess ditto also for the NCC-1701 herself.
Click to expand...

I'm just firmly in multiverse territory at this point, it just makes the most sense to me. It is, of course, a mileage may vary type of situation. Maybe April, in and of himself, wouldn't be a deal breaker, but when factored in with everything else, I have trouble seeing SNW or Discovery as part of the same universe as TOS.

When I look at Uhura now, whether it be Zoe Saldana or Celia Rose Gooding, I can't see a character who nestles up to her captain to express fright like we saw in TOS. That is problematic when trying to do something across a fifty-plus year time period where so much has changed during the time between the two.
 
blssdwlf said:
At the time there was only one TV series so it did seem that they were trying to get back to the timeline that was TOS. It can't be said today with all the extra variant timelines/universes floating around. Tomlinson's going to die? Nah, Pine-Kirk's universe doesn't unfold the same way. SNW-Kirk's events happen differently too. Tomlinson's going to be fine. He might not marry his sweetheart though. Something something alternate timelines. ;)
Click to expand...
I take the Teal'c approach: "Our's is the only one of consequence." In the moment that story is all that matters.

1001001 said:
I literally could not care less whether a once-used cartoon character from 50 years ago is played by an actor of the "same race" or not.
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
BillJ said:
If nothing is really important, whether it be April's race or changing the dates of the Eugenics Wars (like what a lot of fans want done), what exactly is the point of continuity to begin with? If anything goes, then what does it really matter if it is a single timeline, multiple timelines or just The Simpsons concept of continuity?
Click to expand...
Not all data points are created equal. Some are very important. Others aren't. Continuity is a frame not a painting.
 
fireproof78 said:
Anson is supposed to be stressed though, right?

What's with the wave though?


I would say not really, no. Look at "City on the Edge of Forever." Edith is guaranteed to die yet people still care. Or, for me, Tomlinson's death in "Balance of Terror" still gives me a lump in my throat by the end.

Investment in characters is not dependent on the length of continuity.
Click to expand...

Continuity is important though. The last 4 or so years these new trek shows have trashed continuity for no real reason. Sure there have always been some issues with continuity but not ones so glaring. The visual continuity is the worst. I do give credit to what I've seen of snw kn the previews that they have at least tried to bring the look closer to toss. The viewscreen is still ridiculously large and a window. Sigh.
 
It's pretty obvious that it's more important to some fans than it is for others. In fact the numbers are pointing to an almost 50/50 split.
 
Pubert said:
Continuity is important though. The last 4 or so years these new trek shows have trashed continuity for no real reason. Sure there have always been some issues with continuity but not ones so glaring. The visual continuity is the worst. I do give credit to what I've seen of snw kn the previews that they have at least tried to bring the look closer to toss. The viewscreen is still ridiculously large and a window. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Now visual continuity I'm pretty loose on. TOS was made over half a century ago on a fraction of the budget anything post '87. I want the look updated, but I want it to honor the look of the original.

Also - they need the space. Imagine Discovery's directors working on the original bridge - they'd smash the set to pieces in minutes filming in their modern chaos "everything is happening!" style.
 
Ray Hardgrit said:
It's pretty obvious that it's more important to some fans than it is for others. In fact the numbers are pointing to an almost 50/50 split.
Click to expand...
My question is it as important as it is portrayed here? Is it ruining viewing experiences to the degree oft lamented online? Are individuals unable to enjoy a Trek show because of continuity or is that the icing of frustration on top of an already irritated cake?
 
fireproof78 said:
My question is it as important as it is portrayed here? Is it ruining viewing experiences to the degree oft lamented online? Are individuals unable to enjoy a Trek show because of continuity or is that the icing of frustration on top of an already irritated cake?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I think the people coming up with lists of canon violations are definitely past the point where they've made up their mind, though who knows what the straw that broke the camel's back was.

Personally I'd say I definitely enjoy Discovery less because of things like its Klingons, like I enjoy Babylon 5 less because of its ropey CGI and wobbling sets, but it's an annoyance, not a barrier. Like someone lightly kicking my chair while I'm watching.

But if they ever do something like reboot TOS without it being an alternate universe then I'm just plain out. The contradiction in continuity would be important enough to be a total deal breaker for me.
 
fireproof78 said:
I take the Teal'c approach: "Our's is the only one of consequence." In the moment that story is all that matters.
Click to expand...

You know that very same episode Daniel figures out that one of the universes that he is looking at isn't his because that Carter is a Captain and not a Major in his universe.

But if you're truly taking Teal'cs approach then they Star Trek is a multiverse ;)

fireproof78 said:
My question is it as important as it is portrayed here? Is it ruining viewing experiences to the degree oft lamented online? Are individuals unable to enjoy a Trek show because of continuity or is that the icing of frustration on top of an already irritated cake?
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me anymore as I treat each series as it's own universe in a big multiverse of Star Trek. Stargate SG1 did it and was successful. Comics do it and knock on wood, MCU will too. TOS and TNG established alternate universes being consistent helps with certain stories of sci-fi/sci-fantasy.

What causes confusion IMHO is when production staff publicity says it's the same continuity and when you look at it you see apples and oranges instead of only oranges. Yeah they're both fruits but there is a bit of gaslighting claiming the apple looks like an orange. That leads to either indifference because we're desensitized to it or to annoyance that a series we care about is getting messed with. All IMHO.
 
Last edited:
blssdwlf said:
You know that very same episode Daniel figures out that one of the universes that he is looking at isn't his because that Carter is a Captain and not a Major in his universe.

But if you're truly taking Teal'cs approach then they Star Trek is a multiverse ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, and?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top