Poll Is continuity important?

[fireproof78]

As I said before, I think there's a sane, practical middle ground between abandoning continuity entirely, so that everything is completely undone the very next story, and treating every single detail from every single episode as sacred and immutable.

Our choices are not "anything goes!" vs. "100% consistency at all times."

Exactly. I often time see very black and white thinking along the lines of continuity in so far as, it's all important or none of it is important!

To me, no. There are tiers of continuity for me that range in their value and importance. An individual episode being in continuity with the next is not a 100% requirement as it depends on the story being told. A series being 100% consistent is not even close to my expectation, and series with a franchise are even thinner still.

 

[1001001]

As I said before, I think there's a sane, practical middle ground between abandoning continuity entirely, so that everything is completely undone the very next story, and treating every single detail from every single episode as sacred and immutable.

Our choices are not "anything goes!" vs. "100% consistency at all times."

Do you even watch Star Trek?!?!?!?

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. I often time see very black and white thinking along the lines of continuity in so far as, it's all important or none of it is important!

To me, no. There are tiers of continuity for me that range in their value and importance. An individual episode being in continuity with the next is not a 100% requirement as it depends on the story being told. A series being 100% consistent is not even close to my expectation, and series with a franchise are even thinner still.

Exactly. The problem with these debates is that they often devolve into reductio ad absurdum arguments that assume that anything less than total consistency means that, okay, "let's just turn Spock into a six-armed Martian belly dancer then."

Again, a decent respect for continuity doesn't mean that changing this or that detail is the equivalent of tossing everything to wind. Or choices are not total chaos or rigid literalism.

To put it another way, "canon" is not an either/or thing like being dead or pregnant, where you are or you aren't. It's a spectrum, and there are sliding scales and judgment calls as to which bits of continuity are a Big Deal and which matter less in terms of the Big Picture, or to today's audiences.

And where the lines are is going to totally depend on each viewer's priorities and expectations, stemming from their own individual experiences with Trek.

 

[The Emissary]

While this is a contentious subject - I find it really interesting.

There are three types of continuity issues that aren't always brought up separately (At least in other places I've seen this topic being discussed). It's all jumbled together which really muddies the conversation.

1. One type of continuity issue is minor things - recasting, wardrobe error, deck layout error, dates being wrong, etc. I wouldn't care, for example, if in one scene Tuvok has Lt. Jr. Grade pips and then the next he has his normal lieutenant commander pips. That is discontinuity but it's so obvious that it was a minor wardrobe error and it was a single scene. But let's be honest - we aren't usually talking about something so superfluous when we are angry at continuity issues.
2. The second type is kind of in the middle - A throwaway line that isn't always something to throw away. For example, Worf saying phasers were invented until the 23rd century. I kind of understand why this quick line wasn't remembered for ENT. Same for Spock saying the Eugenics Wars taking place in 1996. O'Brien's inconsistent rank (not a wardrobe error). I get why writers don't remember every single line ... but in the world of Memory Alpha/Beta ... I'm not so fond of giving this pass anymore.
3. The third type is much bigger - Klingons suddenly appearing as orcs (the TOS to TNG change was explained), the Trill change between TNG and DS9, the Romulans having bumpy foreheads, Klingon First Contact, Borg First Contact, light sensitivity for Terrans, Q suddenly being able to die, several styles of alternate FTL travel being explored in VOY alone but not one takes hold and dilithium still used in the 31st century, time travel working 10000 different ways, technology inconsistency across the shows that supposedly take place at the same time (I'm not talking about better CGI or no jelly bean buttons), etc.

Honestly? I care. It's not that I'm a "hater" or trying to find things to complain about. I don't follow online content that complains about "wokeness" or make it a point to find something, anything, to hate about Star Trek. It's just my personality to want to see interconnectivity and completeness. I love when certain plot points have a full conclusion and explanation. I love when cross overs occur or references are made between series or even within them.

I'm honestly not a fan of the arguments against continuity. It just doesn't make sense to me enter into a sprawling, interconnected universe only to say "Damn the continuity. Story matters more." As if the two are mutually exclusive, anyways.

To make matters worse - when they get it right they really get it right. Which makes the errors more egregious. You know they had to do some research for episode III of the TNG - Unification two-parter in DISCO or learning about the Watchers from a single episode of TOS. Yet ... they screw up on other things. Like ...huh? Are they reading Memory Alpha for one topic and getting bored mid-way on another and just spit balling? It's weird that so much effort can be made in some regards and not in others.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The third type is much bigger - Klingons suddenly appearing as orcs (the TOS to TNG change was explained), the Trill change between TNG and DS9, the Romulans having bumpy foreheads,

Those are just small/"minor things" mis-categorized as large/"much bigger" things.

 

[blssdwlf]

Exactly. The problem with these debates is that they often devolve into reductio ad absurdum arguments that assume that anything less than total consistency means that, okay, "let's just turn Spock into a six-armed Martian belly dancer then."

Then let's avoid that!

Again, a decent respect for continuity doesn't mean that changing this or that detail is the equivalent of tossing everything to wind. Or choices are not total chaos or rigid literalism.

Very true. Comics do this all the time with multiverses and we can see this in different scifi shows that have a multiverse setup.

To put it another way, "canon" is not an either/or thing like being dead or pregnant, where you are or you aren't. It's a spectrum, and there are sliding scales and judgment calls as to which bits of continuity are a Big Deal and which matter less in terms of the Big Picture, or to today's audiences.

Unless it's a story point like trying to find the right universe or timeline to return to. Star Trek being Star Trek, that can happen

And where the lines are is going to totally depend on each viewer's priorities and expectations, stemming from their own individual experiences with Trek.

Or more specifically the lines are going to totally depend on each writer/creator/producer of Star Trek's priorities and expectations, stemming from their own individual experiences with Trek. We, the audience, are just along for the ride. But I do think the powers that be could get rid of a ton of confusion by just saying everything is a multiverse like in comics and other scifi shows. It would definitely generate less continuity arguments and spawn different discussions. IMHO.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The change could have been poignant and had real meaning. In an episode like "Far Beyond the Stars" or "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang", it could have been mentioned that Robert April was black and a personal hero of Captain Sisko

Just because he's black he has to be a hero to Sisko?

Oof.

 

[1001001]

I'm honestly not a fan of the arguments against continuity. It just doesn't make sense to me enter into a sprawling, interconnected universe only to say "Damn the continuity. Story matters more." As if the two are mutually exclusive, anyways.

I don't know that many people are actually against continuity.

It's simply a question of how much it matters to you.

Or, as the Great Homer Simpson said:

 

[fireproof78]

Are they reading Memory Alpha for one topic and getting bored mid-way on another and just spit balling?

No. They lack time to go through and find all these details. They are not paid enough read all the minutia and lack the time to make it all fit together.

We fans have all the time in the world: writers don't.

The third type is much bigger - Klingons suddenly appearing as orcs (the TOS to TNG change was explained),

With due respect to fans who value continuity, the Klingon thing is still a burr in my saddle. The Klingons were explained: 25 years later. How did fans tolerate the discontinuity between TOS, to TMP and up to ENT's "Divergence." Was TOS in a different continuity then for 25 years? And what about the variations of Klingons we saw, especially in TUC and on TNG?

What I notice is not that we focus on the discontinuities as much, but the threshold for tolerating them is significantly less. Like, it disrupts the ability to engage with the story less. While TMP was controversial but at least accepted.

To me, at least, the argument is for apathy towards the current production staff while past writers get a pass.

That's a discontinuity that frustrates me more.

 

[Kor]

And I wish they would have just left well enough alone instead of doing that contrived storyline in ENT to "explain" Klingon smooth foreheads.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

And I wish they would have just left well enough alone instead of doing that contrived storyline in ENT to "explain" Klingon smooth foreheads.

Kor

Agreed.

It's an interstellar empire. Species variety is expected and not to be avoided.

 

[Greg Cox]

1. The third type is much bigger - Klingons suddenly appearing as orcs (the TOS to TNG change was explained).

1. 
   The change from the TOS Klingons to the TMP Klingons was not explained until twenty-five years after the fact, so Trek survived for a quarter of a century without any sort of onscreen explanation for that makeup change.
   
   So was that too big a change -- before Enterprise finally got around to "explaining" it in 2004?
   
   (Says the guy who, admittedly, raised an eyebrow when Mark Lenard's bumpy-headed Klingon Commander first appeared onscreen way back in '79.)
   

 

[at Quark's]

And I wish they would have just left well enough alone instead of doing that contrived storyline in ENT to "explain" Klingon smooth foreheads.

Kor

I thought Worf's line in DS9 about the subject was perfect: we do NOT discuss it with outsiders!

(As if the writers were saying: get a life, don't obsess over details like that, and just enjoy the show.)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I thought Worf's line in DS9 about the subject was perfect: we do NOT discuss it with outsiders!

(As if the writers were saying: get a life, don't obsess over details like that, and just enjoy the show.)

Yep. It ought to have been the last word on the subject, but alas....

 

[fireproof78]

1. 
   The change from the TOS Klingons to the TMP Klingons was not explained until twenty-five years after the fact, so Trek survived for a quarter of a century without any sort of onscreen explanation for that makeup change.
   
   So was that too big a change -- before Enterprise finally got around to "explaining" it in 2004?
   
   (Says the guy who, admittedly, raised an eyebrow when Mark Lenard's bumpy-headed Klingon Commander first appeared onscreen way back in '79.)

What was your reaction to Lloyd's Kruge?

 

[blssdwlf]

I thought Worf's line in DS9 about the subject was perfect: we do NOT discuss it with outsiders!

(As if the writers were saying: get a life, don't obsess over details like that, and just enjoy the show.)

Yep. It ought to have been the last word on the subject, but alas....

It should've been the only word on it. But it was funny that they brought it up on a time-travel episode. Any other explanation would've been just not as fun to watch (like the ENT episode.)

With due respect to fans who value continuity, the Klingon thing is still a burr in my saddle. The Klingons were explained: 25 years later. How did fans tolerate the discontinuity between TOS, to TMP and up to ENT's "Divergence." Was TOS in a different continuity then for 25 years? And what about the variations of Klingons we saw, especially in TUC and on TNG?

I was too young to notice the difference back in the late 70s. When I started watching as a teenager I assumed these were different looking and tougher Klingons. It wasn't like they were called the same names of Klingons we had seen in TOS like Kor, Kang and Koloth so it didn't bother me. By the time Kor and the other Klingons appeared with the newer look there was an explanation for it (for better or worse.) IMHO. (But I still personally consider TOS as it's own continuity )

 

[Greg Cox]

I preferred DS9's approach as well: Just wink at it and move on.

 

[JoaquinSlowly]

1. 
   The change from the TOS Klingons to the TMP Klingons was not explained until twenty-five years after the fact, so Trek survived for a quarter of a century without any sort of onscreen explanation for that makeup change.
   
   So was that too big a change -- before Enterprise finally got around to "explaining" it in 2004?
   
   (Says the guy who, admittedly, raised an eyebrow when Mark Lenard's bumpy-headed Klingon Commander first appeared onscreen way back in '79.)

Going by Trek tradition/Enterprise’s explanation of TMP’s Klingons precedent, we have 20 years before they “need” to explain the Disco Klingons at this point.

So if they need to (a big if, and ‪‪I lean toward “no, they don’t”) they have the vast majority of 2 decades to do it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I preferred DS9's approach as well: Just wink at it and move on.

After mentioning two possible theories which both turned out to be true!

 

[Greg Cox]

Going by Trek tradition/Enterprise’s explanation of TMP’s Klingons precedent, we have 20 years before they “need” to explain the Disco Klingons at this point.

So if they need to (a big if, and ‪‪I lean toward “no, they don’t”) they have the vast majority of 2 decades to do it.

Exactly. As I used to joke: Want an explanation for the DISCO makeups? Just wait until 2042!