Good to know you're secretly Lord Garth a member I specifically responded to.
Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Yeah, I have to admit I gave up on the DC universe entirely after one too many reboots and stories about 'everything you thought you knew is wrong'. It just made everything feel entirely meaningless after a while.
I mean I have made it clear that I'm not a stickler for continuity in this thread and think that continuity shouldn't stand in the way of a good story.
But your comparison here is extremely flawed. The movies, the 1960s show, Titans...those are NOT the same DC universe. Those are 3 different continuities, more actually considering that Batman has had several separate series of movies. That's why DC and Marvel have more freedom, because they create many adaptions of their properties that are independent continuities from the comics and each other.
Just look at some of the different continuities the X-Men have: The mainstream comics, the marvel noir comics, the manga-verse, alternate universes like Ultimate Marvel and the Age of Apocalypse, the Movies, the 1990s cartoon, the X-Men Evolution cartoon, the Wolverine and the X-Men cartoon, the Kitty Pryde and the X-Men pilot from the 80s, the version of them that showed up in Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, the version that will soon show up in the MCU etc. etc. etc.
And all these are completely independent of each other, in many of them characters have completely different histories, personalities, relationships etc. And nobody's bothered that the characters are different, because they aren't the same characters, they are counterparts, adaptions etc. And even so there's a lot of fans who get worked up when they feel an interpretation of a character is too different from their mainstream incarnation.
Star Trek on the other hand maintains the idea that there's only two continuities that the shows and movies are focusing on; the Main Universe, and the Kelvin Universe. Star Trek says all the shows and movies (minus the Kelvin ones) take plac ein the same universe, the same continuity. Of course that doesn't offer as much freedom as DC and Marvel with their adaptions that are all set in their own continuities.
This is a public forum, dearie, everybody can respond to every message.
When have I said I don't consider DSC, and by extension SNW, a Visual Reboot?
This quote is kind of hilarious considering that Roy Thomas has spent at least half of his writing career building stories out of reconciling decades old continuity questions that no one cared about as much as him ("Why DID the Golden Age Sandman and Tarantula have such similar yellow and purple costumes?"). Heck, the term retcon (short for "retroactive continuity") was first popularized because of Thomas.
This is my general philosophy on continuity. It can be a great tool and can enhance your story if you use it well, but after a while it just becomes a burden. So I take continuity changes and violations on a case by case basis.
Exactly. I lost interest a bit more with each successive DC reboot, because cumulatively it just creates a feeling of "Well, why does any of this matter?"
On Trek's various continuity questions:
-I'm fine with Robert April being black. He was a footnote in Trek continuity at best, and making the TOS era a bit more diverse whenever possible is a good thing. I'm honestly more bothered by Yeoman Colt suddenly being an alien.
-I haven't cared for the "Spock has a Secret Sibling" thing either time that Trek has done it, both because I feel it was unnecessary and because I feel it needlessly dilutes the character of Mr. Spock. The same with him having learning difficulties as a child.
-I haven't seen any of Strange New Worlds yet, so I'm taking a wait & see approach on Chapel, M'Benga, Khan's descendant, etc. Maybe I'll like 'em and think they fit in with TOS continuity just fine. Maybe I won't and I'll just consider them alternate universe versions or something. My big hope is that their James T. Kirk will still be the same basic guy we saw in TOS.
-The Klingon thing was probably best left unexplained. Most every explanation I've ever heard for it has been horribly convolutely fanwank, including that ENT two-parter. I think DS9 had the right idea when they essentially said that the potential explanations were all silly and we should all just move on. If it were up to me, I'd just say that each of the 24 Klingon Houses established in DSC has a different physical appearance. The dark-skinned TOS Klingons were one house, the lighter-skinned TOS Klingons were another, the TMP Klingons, the TSFS Klingons, the TUC Klingons, the TNG Klingons, and the Kelvin Klingons were other variations, and the DSC Klingons were the most different-looking variety yet. Simple.
I might as well say this upfront: I don't think of SNW as a natural lead-in to TOS. Nor did I expect it to be. I treat it like a reboot, and like it on its own terms.
Based on what I've seen and heard about it so far, I suspect that this will be my feeling as well.
Yeah, no. Most producers of the modern Trek shows were born in the 1970s, with the exception of Akiva Goldsman who was born in 1962, before Star Trek even existed. Doug Drexler started working on Star Trek during TNG's third season. Indeed, the first episode he did work on was The Defector, which aired New Year's Day 1990. I'll admit, I haven't been able to find any information as to when Mike McMahan or Kirsten Beyer were born, but I doubt either one of them were born after 1990. So in other words, Drexler has not been working on Trek since "before the current production people were even born" as you assert.
I like things to interconnect and I do think continuity is important ***overall***.
However, I am also cool with minor changes, whether it be recasting for a number of reason, updating the visual design of the Enterprise to make it more believable or "realistic" to a modern audience, or even updating the race of a minor character. I can consider it the same universe and still recognize that there will always be inconsistencies because it is a fictional universe.
Ex. I was someone who didn't need to know why the Klingons changed between TOS and TMP. I am cool pretending that they always looked that way. DS9 chose to point out the difference and Enterprise chose to try to explain it, but I didn't *need* them to try to explain it away.
Similarly, even in 2022, computers don't use data-tapes and Alexa is way more naturalistic than the Enterprise "voice." I don't need the SNW Enterprise to suddenly revert to a technology that was already outdated by the late 1980s or speak like a typewriter simply because TOS used those affectations.
Regarding Robert April, as a minor character in the Animated series, I truly don't care that they changed him from a white guy to a black buy any more than I care that the Trill of TNG were very different visually from the Trill in DS9.
However, I am also cool with minor changes, whether it be recasting for a number of reason, updating the visual design of the Enterprise to make it more believable or "realistic" to a modern audience, or even updating the race of a minor character. I can consider it the same universe and still recognize that there will always be inconsistencies because it is a fictional universe.
Ex. I was someone who didn't need to know why the Klingons changed between TOS and TMP. I am cool pretending that they always looked that way. DS9 chose to point out the difference and Enterprise chose to try to explain it, but I didn't *need* them to try to explain it away.
Similarly, even in 2022, computers don't use data-tapes and Alexa is way more naturalistic than the Enterprise "voice." I don't need the SNW Enterprise to suddenly revert to a technology that was already outdated by the late 1980s or speak like a typewriter simply because TOS used those affectations.
Regarding Robert April, as a minor character in the Animated series, I truly don't care that they changed him from a white guy to a black buy any more than I care that the Trill of TNG were very different visually from the Trill in DS9.
He didn't say "working on," he said "involved in" (and also "some") which goes back at least to the NYC Federation Trading Post being opened in '76. I'm sure there are people younger than 45 working on the shows in reasonably high places.
Well, if that's the criteria then:
Kurtzman was born in 1973
Goldsman was born in 1962
Michelle Paradise was born in 1972
Terry Matalas was born in 1975
The Hageman brothers were born in 1974.
Yeah, still doesn't look like Drexler's involvement with the franchise is predating the birth of anyone calling the shots.
I never said you weren't a Trek fan.
That was just a generalization.
If that's the case, why can't their be more than one Robert <Insert different Middle initial> April who Captained the USS Enterprise before Pike and is now a Flag Officer.
Wouldn't that fix continuity?
Captain April was only seen on TAS. A Saturday morning cartoon from the 19 fucking 70s.
Or just go with the current interpretation and skip over the labyrinthian approach.
A more detailed answer for @STEPhon IT because I was at work when I saw her post.
Fine, a black Captain Kirk would strike me as odd, at first. If you want a soundbite from me, there's your soundbite. We should live in a society where skin color should matter as much as hair color or eye color, but we don't. But I'd get used to it, and, like I said, I regard DSC and SNW as reboot-y anyway. SNW more so than DSC, since it actually takes place on the Enterprise and isn't going to do a 930-year time-jump to make the issue become irrelevant.
The Batman (2022) has a black Commissioner Gordon and the actor who played him is the best live-action version of Gordon I've ever seen. He nailed the part. It's not integral to Gordon's character for him to be white. Just like it's not integral to Kirk's character for him to be white. It's only integral to Kirk's character that he be Human.
In SNW, April feels like an actual character to me. Do you know what my image of April was before? Just a Proto-Pike (who was also a Proto-Kirk) who looked like a Filmmation character in the '70s, and looked like a photoshop of Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology in the '90s. He wasn't a character. He was a non-character. I haven't seen "The Counter-Clock Incident" since I want to say 1998 or 1999, somewhere around there, and all I remember of him is that he sounded like James Doohan and his wife sounded like Nichelle Nichols. That's it. His face was a placeholder. His voice was generic. His status as first Captain of the Enterprise was boilerplate. Now, thanks to SNW, I have a real face to attach to the name, a real voice, an actual personality, what he does, and how he knows Pike. I won't say anything more because of spoilers, but he feels like a character now, instead of a non-character.
As far as cartoons, I like TAS. For a Saturday-morning cartoon from the '70s, it's pretty good, but it's still a Saturday-morning cartoon from the '70s. Before the '90s, cartoons were not highly-regarded. During the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, they played before the movies in theaters. They had to be written to appeal to adults, but they were silly. Then cartoons largely migrated to TV in the '50s where adults weren't watching them before the movies, so cartoons became geared squarely at children. So not only were they silly, they were silly and just for kids. From the '50s to the '80s, cartoons were almost all childish and ridiculous. Any exceptions were extreme exceptions. "The Counter-Clock Incident" itself is an episode where Kirk gets turned into a baby! '70s cartoons are notorious for being pretty bad. TAS rises above most of those cartoons but it doesn't rise above actually being one. It's good for what it is, and I like it for what it is, but that's as far as it goes. It's fun to think of it as the fourth season of TOS, but I'm not beholden to the idea.
During the '90s, someone figured out that they should start making cartoons in such a way that parents could stand watching them with their children, so they started writing them on two levels and then they actually began to become tolerable. But before that, no one took cartoons seriously. Before The Simpsons, the only adult cartoons on Primetime TV were The Flinstones and -- for one season -- The Jetsons. And those were back in the '60s and two of the extreme exceptions I'm talking about.
In a way, '80s cartoons (the decade of my childhood) are even worse. As bad as '70s cartoons were, at least they didn't exist just to sell toys. If someone were to make a live-action show today based on something from my '80s childhood, I wouldn't ever ask them to be beholden to exactly the way things were when I was a kid. I'd just ask them to take the essence of the idea and do something better with it.
Circling back to TAS, like I said upthread, TAS has always had a complicated relationship with Canon. During the '80s and '90s, it was non-canon. In the '00s, suddenly it became canon again. Now, in the 2020s (I still can't just type '20s without thinking of the 1920s), it's quasi-canon. Parts of it are canon, parts have been modified to fit canon, and other parts of it just aren't. It's always going to shift between "On again", "Off again", "Kind of, sort of", "The Hell with it", and "Who the Hell cares, anyway?" It's not iron-clad canon, it never was iron-clad canon, and it never will be.
So, yeah, when people start treating TAS as sacred just to win a Holy Canon War, it's going to make me look at them funny because I'm thinking, "Oh, so now TAS is suddenly so important to you?" And it's going to make me wonder about the motivations as to why.
Fine, a black Captain Kirk would strike me as odd, at first. If you want a soundbite from me, there's your soundbite. We should live in a society where skin color should matter as much as hair color or eye color, but we don't. But I'd get used to it, and, like I said, I regard DSC and SNW as reboot-y anyway. SNW more so than DSC, since it actually takes place on the Enterprise and isn't going to do a 930-year time-jump to make the issue become irrelevant.
The Batman (2022) has a black Commissioner Gordon and the actor who played him is the best live-action version of Gordon I've ever seen. He nailed the part. It's not integral to Gordon's character for him to be white. Just like it's not integral to Kirk's character for him to be white. It's only integral to Kirk's character that he be Human.
In SNW, April feels like an actual character to me. Do you know what my image of April was before? Just a Proto-Pike (who was also a Proto-Kirk) who looked like a Filmmation character in the '70s, and looked like a photoshop of Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology in the '90s. He wasn't a character. He was a non-character. I haven't seen "The Counter-Clock Incident" since I want to say 1998 or 1999, somewhere around there, and all I remember of him is that he sounded like James Doohan and his wife sounded like Nichelle Nichols. That's it. His face was a placeholder. His voice was generic. His status as first Captain of the Enterprise was boilerplate. Now, thanks to SNW, I have a real face to attach to the name, a real voice, an actual personality, what he does, and how he knows Pike. I won't say anything more because of spoilers, but he feels like a character now, instead of a non-character.
As far as cartoons, I like TAS. For a Saturday-morning cartoon from the '70s, it's pretty good, but it's still a Saturday-morning cartoon from the '70s. Before the '90s, cartoons were not highly-regarded. During the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, they played before the movies in theaters. They had to be written to appeal to adults, but they were silly. Then cartoons largely migrated to TV in the '50s where adults weren't watching them before the movies, so cartoons became geared squarely at children. So not only were they silly, they were silly and just for kids. From the '50s to the '80s, cartoons were almost all childish and ridiculous. Any exceptions were extreme exceptions. "The Counter-Clock Incident" itself is an episode where Kirk gets turned into a baby! '70s cartoons are notorious for being pretty bad. TAS rises above most of those cartoons but it doesn't rise above actually being one. It's good for what it is, and I like it for what it is, but that's as far as it goes. It's fun to think of it as the fourth season of TOS, but I'm not beholden to the idea.
During the '90s, someone figured out that they should start making cartoons in such a way that parents could stand watching them with their children, so they started writing them on two levels and then they actually began to become tolerable. But before that, no one took cartoons seriously. Before The Simpsons, the only adult cartoons on Primetime TV were The Flinstones and -- for one season -- The Jetsons. And those were back in the '60s and two of the extreme exceptions I'm talking about.
In a way, '80s cartoons (the decade of my childhood) are even worse. As bad as '70s cartoons were, at least they didn't exist just to sell toys. If someone were to make a live-action show today based on something from my '80s childhood, I wouldn't ever ask them to be beholden to exactly the way things were when I was a kid. I'd just ask them to take the essence of the idea and do something better with it.
Circling back to TAS, like I said upthread, TAS has always had a complicated relationship with Canon. During the '80s and '90s, it was non-canon. In the '00s, suddenly it became canon again. Now, in the 2020s (I still can't just type '20s without thinking of the 1920s), it's quasi-canon. Parts of it are canon, parts have been modified to fit canon, and other parts of it just aren't. It's always going to shift between "On again", "Off again", "Kind of, sort of", "The Hell with it", and "Who the Hell cares, anyway?" It's not iron-clad canon, it never was iron-clad canon, and it never will be.
So, yeah, when people start treating TAS as sacred just to win a Holy Canon War, it's going to make me look at them funny because I'm thinking, "Oh, so now TAS is suddenly so important to you?" And it's going to make me wonder about the motivations as to why.
Last edited:
Historical note: Jonny Quest was also originally a prime time cartoon geared for the entire family instead of primarily toward children.
TAS has been very important to me since September 8, 1973. It debuted a year after I fell in love with live action Trek and I watched them both concurrently, and also read their respective novelization lines concurrently. Despite Gene and Richard Arnold's post-1987 pronouncements, TAS has always been canon and sacred to me. . . despite my performatively perverse rhetorical stance that the only truly canonical STAR TREK is the novelization of The Motion Picture, despite the Great Bird and Paramount's official stance.
That said, I have no problem with Adrian Holmes' casting as Robert April or SNW's contradiction of "The Counter-Clock Incident." In fact, I welcome this change. I retroactively wish that Fred Bronson and the animators at Filmation had had the presence of mind to step outside of the white default in 1975. Given the pro-social messages early seventies children's television and daytime public educational television was trying to transmit, I think it would've been welcomed.
Pfft... Why are you bringing facts into an argument? Aren't we just supposed to say what we feel, without any regard as to whether or not what we say is accurate?
Can confirm.
FWIW, "The Counter Clock Incident" Fred Bronson has come out in favor of Adrian Holmes' casting as April.
It would probably remind him of the early days of getting TNG off of the ground and the baby steps his team had to take to find their footing to their foundation for Star Trek.