• 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
F. King Daniel

F. King Daniel

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
In the wake of Robert April's recasting and SNW's pseudo-reboot of TOS, as well as debate over Jean-Luc's parents this season of Picard, I'm curious how important continuity is to the Trek experience for everyone.

Personally I do see the appeal of a massive interconnected continuity, but moreso I see the freedoms given to the DC universe where Bruce Wayne can be hero in the movies, a lovable goof in the classic shows but a child soldier-rearing monster in Titans. They wouldn't blink twice at a bigger U.S.S. Enterprise, a secret sister for Spock or black Captain April.
 
I must admit, I would rather have that 'massive interconnected continuity', up to the tiniest details. I do think that Trek does have a lot of that though, there are continuity easter eggs that even I don't recognize at first..! But with 55+ years of ongoing stories, I think it cannot be avoided that certain things will be reimagined along the way...
 
If they want to have a interconnected universe then yes, details matter. That doesn't mean that things can't be changed intentionally or accidentally, but they do matter to some degree.
 
I'm not bothered. I'm a (slash) fic writer, establishing connections where canon contradicts itself, leaves gaps or even refuses to go to is my "job". I like a challenge. To me, inconsistencies are puzzles to be solved with my own personal headcanon.
 
I don't care too much, it's entertainment.

Although there are limits to that. For example, I wouldn't like a re-imagining that totally betrays the spirit of the original. For example, a 're-imagining' of TNG that shows that they're all cynical hypocrites that spout the Federation ideals but really are only out there to accumulate advantages for themselves in whatever way when they can get away with it.
 
I understand that 100% continuity with a show that’s been on the air for 50+ years isn’t always going to happen. I get that, and am ok with some wiggle room in this regard. What annoys me is when continuity is purposely and knowingly changed to suit some new producer or writer’s take on things. When it comes to Star Trek specifically, it feels like they are changing things for their own reasons and using the ST IP as a way to booster their own stuff rather than just have it stand on its own merits. Case in point: Did Michael Burnham really need to be Spock’s adopted sister or Sarek’s adopted daughter? Did that really have any impact on the character as shown in DSC? Not really, in my opinion. In retrospect, it feels like the creators of that show didn’t have enough faith in their product to be able to stand on its own; they had to link it to TOS in order for it to succeed. But then they go and change every aspect of TOS to suit the new show, and the viewer is just supposed to accept it.

Is this a rant about newTrek? It’s not supposed to be. I’ve watched DSC, PIC, LDS, PRO, and am awaiting SNW. It’s not like I’ve stopped watching any of it and just bitch about the show here because I have nothing better to do with my time. But as far as continuity goes: No, it’s not perfect. Not by a long shot. But there are aspects of all the shows that I enjoy regardless of that. And there are just as many aspects that I find annoying and silly. I just wish the producers of DSC back in 2017 had the balls to declare their show a reboot rather than link it to TOS by the barest of threads.
 
Last edited:
F. King Daniel said:
In the wake of Robert April's recasting
Click to expand...

I’m not losing sleep over this. Not because I agree with the recasting per se as TAS is and always has been canon and a part of the prime timeline in my eyes. But because it fulfilled the wishes of the Trek Bros who have long had a problem with Discovery being canon, even after its moved to the 32nd century. Now, DIS, ST & SNW can be seen as part of a Discoverse - the visual reboot of Trek, and separate from the prime timeline - and we can all move on from perceived controversies in these shows. The Trek Bros should actually be applauding this recasting, which only exists because many of them shared the same view as those that did the recasting of April of TAS being non-canon. Meanwhile the producers can do whatever they want going forwards and do Kirk/Spock slash or whatever canon breaking stories they want to do.
 
My first Trek was Where No Man Has Gone Before. My second was Balance of Terror.

Who explained those discontinuities to me? No one.

It's fine to have broad strokes but minor details are not important.
 
No single fictional universe is internally consistent, not even Tolkien's mythos. Every single one breaks its own continuity in various ways, so why should Star Trek be any different?

I still chose the middle option because I think continuity and canon have importance, they just shouldn't be viewed as an unbreakable gospel, and especially not if it stands in the way of a good story.
Like, with stuff like the Robert April casting I don't even understand where the issue is, it's not like it invalidates any continuity, just the appearance of a badly drawn character who appeared in one episode of the cartoon spinoff, I think that's no issue at all.
 
There are always going to be elements that don't really line up or age well (such as not being used to women on the bridge, or women not being able to command starships), but on the whole I like things to stay aligned with what's come before (otherwise most of the knowledge in my brain is completely useless, lol).

But if someone wants to reboot Trek then by all means go nuts with creating something new out of the old elements, it worked for BSG.
 
Lord Garth said:
Anyone who complains about the casting of a black Captain April should have the stones to admit that it's not continuity they're complaining about.
Click to expand...

I don’t care one way or the other, but it is a continuity violation.
 
Continuity breaches throw the audience out of the story. That is an undeniable characteristic of fiction. The greater the continuity breach, the further one is thrown out of the story. That said, one could envision far more serious continuity breaches than the color of Robert April's skin, and I'm far more concerned with other established characteristics of April. And of course, eliminating April entirely would be the worst continuity breach of all.
Lord Garth said:
Anyone who complains about the casting of a black Captain April should have the stones to admit that it's not continuity they're complaining about.
Click to expand...
A Black Robert April is a bit of a surprise, but for me, accent and mannerisms are far more important.
Being rather enamored of Diane Carey's vision of the April era, I would object to any April who wasn't partial to sweaters, or who didn't have a noticeable British accent (Coventry, was it? My memory isn't that good), or a command style that was at once both avuncular and professorial. And likewise, I'd readily accept any April who did match the accent and personality Diane Carey described. Regardless of his ancestry (and as San Francisco's Museum of the African Diaspora points out, we all have African ancestry, even lily-white honkies like me) or the color of his skin.
 
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