Poll Is continuity important?

[Christmas Canon Spock]

I don't think that's a job.

It's not because that is not the relevant part of Star Trek. Star Trek is about the stories, the characters, and the positive application of technology in the human journey, or potential other consequences. Star Trek is a fantasy imagining in to the future, closer to the Jetsons, vs. Star Wars is which is closer to Arthurian legend.

 

[Neopeius]

The continuity ship sailed for Trek a looooong time ago. Now I just hope any given episode is self-consistent and good. Trek generally excels when it forges new paths and shucks its baggage (frex, I think First Contact is the best Trek movie -- but/because it's basically not a Trek movie.)

As for how important continuity is, as a science fiction author, I think it's of high importance. I work hard to walk that walk, making sure details are consistent across books, and also getting the science accurate (within the parameters of SF and the requisite handwaves to write a speculative story).

Doing this and maintaining readability (especially when the work is to be accessible to teens) is hard. But I do it. And that's why I have less tolerance for folks who don't bother.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

As for how important continuity is, as a science fiction author, I think it's of high importance. I work hard to walk that walk, making sure details are consistent across books, and also getting the science accurate (within the parameters of SF and the requisite handwaves to write a speculative story).

I would be curious to read your work.

I view continuity as very important for my work. For others, I am more forgiving. And if other people are writing across a franchise I am even more forgiving.

 

[Neopeius]

I would be curious to read your work.

I view continuity as very important for my work. For others, I am more forgiving. And if other people are writing across a franchise I am even more forgiving.

Sure -- a series with many writers, with stories they compose months in advance, I get it. It's easier to maintain consistency with The Expanse than Trek.

Trek just gets these snowballs where they do something dumb, and then every series has to do that dumb thing.

Like, I can kind of get why ships had to fight at catapult range in Star Trek II. But then after that, every starship fight was at catapult range for no reason...

As for my work, these are my books. What do you write?

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Sure -- a series with many writers, with stories they compose months in advance, I get it. It's easier to maintain consistency with The Expanse than Trek.

Trek just gets these snowballs where they do something dumb, and then every series has to do that dumb thing.

Like, I can kind of get why ships had to fight at catapult range in Star Trek II. But then after that, every starship fight was at catapult range for no reason...

As for my work, these are my books. What do you write?

Thank you for the link.

I haven't published anything because feel the urgent need to perfect the continuity to the point of real history. So, I spend more time researching technology, physics and weapons design than actual story writing.

I go to Trek because I take it less seriously, dumb snowballs and all.

 

[Lord Garth]

"The Omega Glory" is one of those episodes that I think is pretty good until it goes hideously off the rails in the last act.

I actually legitimately like the first 90% of "The Omega Glory". I like the last 10% as a Guilty Pleasure.

But one thing I will stick up for in that last portion is the point Kirk brings up about how "Those words were spoken so badly. Without meaning." I hate canned responses to anything or canned expressions in general. When it's canned, someone is just saying something just to say it. They're not putting any thought into it and forgot the original thought behind it a long time ago, if they ever truly knew it or remembered it.

 

[Trelane_Squire_of_Gothos]

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.

Not aligning with established canon is lazy work. It should align.

 

[The Emissary]

As for how important continuity is, as a science fiction author, I think it's of high importance. I work hard to walk that walk, making sure details are consistent across books, and also getting the science accurate (within the parameters of SF and the requisite handwaves to write a speculative story).

Doing this and maintaining readability (especially when the work is to be accessible to teens) is hard. But I do it. And that's why I have less tolerance for folks who don't bother.

Same for me. I think that's why continuity in various franchises stands out for me. I am an author as well and the idea of not having a cohesive internal structure really bothers me. It feels like it renders the entire thing to be pointless. Why bother establishing anything if you are just going to ignore it or contradict it down the line? I don't subscribe to the idea that when it comes down to it and a choice has to be made between continuity and a really good story - the story should win out. I don't think such a dichotomy even needs to exist.

Once a sprawling, interconnected universe is created - then adhere to it. If they would rather ignore what came before, then stick to a "Twilight Zone"/"Tales from they Crypt" etc. format. The latter allows singular stories that put a focus on that one specific plot without the "baggage" of an internal history.

 

[Neopeius]

I don't subscribe to the idea that when it comes down to it and a choice has to be made between continuity and a really good story - the story should win out. I don't think such a dichotomy even needs to exist.

Amen. I hear that with regard to science in science fiction. If the science has to be sacrificed for the story, it's not science fiction. If the story is good and hinges on the science, it's science fiction.

 

[Santa Kang]

Not aligning with established canon is lazy work. It should align.

Nah.

 

[Trelane_Squire_of_Gothos]

Nah.

^ lazy work.

 

[Santa Kang]

Playing connect the dots and painting by the numbers is about as lazy at it gets.

 

[Clamp]

Not aligning with established canon is lazy work. It should align.

Are you of the body?

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Not aligning with established canon is lazy work. It should align.

No, it shouldn't. It's nice when it does, and when it doesn't it is OK, and fans are able, being rational, thinking, people, can connect the dots, or adjust. Or not. But, it "shouldn't" do anything. It can line up, or the artists can chose to take it a different direction.

Thus is the nature of art.

 

[Forbin]

Consider, if your writing, say, a novel set in historical times. This is how I feel writing Trek should be done. If you write a novel taking place during the Battle of Britain, you can make it about fictional characters and show how they act and react, and have their fictional lives interact, perhaps, with famous people. But you can't change the major events of history, or change historical people. You can't change Spitfires into jet fighters and Messerschmitts into Fokker triplanes. If one can write a historical novel in that manner (and I've read many), one should be able to write a Trek story using established events, characters and details.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

one should be able to write a Trek story using established events, characters and details.

But, Trek has not always done this. It's tried a weird mix of It's own continuity and adjusting to current times.

I get the idea treating Trek like a historical period but that's not how it was consistently done and so I didn't expect it.

 

[Richard S. Claus]

Consider, if your writing, say, a novel set in historical times. This is how I feel writing Trek should be done. If you write a novel taking place during the Battle of Britain, you can make it about fictional characters and show how they act and react, and have their fictional lives interact, perhaps, with famous people. But you can't change the major events of history, or change historical people. You can't change Spitfires into jet fighters and Messerschmitts into Fokker triplanes. If one can write a historical novel in that manner (and I've read many), one should be able to write a Trek story using established events, characters and details.

But... that's the difference between writing about history and about the future. Past events are established, while future events are an open canvas.

I really don't think it's a great comparison. In spite of what some people think, the 23rd Century of Star Trek (or whatever, pick your century) is not a historical period. It's a fictional future. I can say for sure that in 1960 the Soviets' shot down a U2, Harper Lee's 'To Kill A Mockingbird' was published and JFK won the election. What happens in 2060, 2160 or 2260 isn't a matter of historical record. It's a matter of artistic interpretation, as even the vaunted 'source', the canon often contradicts itself.

Comparing period drama to science fiction is a false equivalence. They both do different things, using different conventions, for totally different reasons.

 

[Lord Garth]

Better Call Saul, IMO, is how you do a prequel. You don't know all of the character's fates and how different characters got from Point A to Point B isn't a straight path. It also helps that it's made by the same people who made Breaking Bad (the original series over there) and they have the same actors.

Strange New Worlds doesn't have the same people who made TOS or the same actors. That's impossible. But what it does have are characters whose fates are unknown. And for the characters who end up on TOS, they don't have to have a straight path. The best thing for SNW to do is to not look like it's just waiting around for TOS to happen. If that means subverting expectations and not going with what people just assumed, then so be it. I want to be kept guessing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Consider, if your writing, say, a novel set in historical times. This is how I feel writing Trek should be done. If you write a novel taking place during the Battle of Britain, you can make it about fictional characters and show how they act and react, and have their fictional lives interact, perhaps, with famous people. But you can't change the major events of history, or change historical people. You can't change Spitfires into jet fighters and Messerschmitts into Fokker triplanes. If one can write a historical novel in that manner (and I've read many), one should be able to write a Trek story using established events, characters and details.

Or just move the story from one war to another. I've seen modern reboots that swapped out Vietnam for Afghanistan, for example.

 

[Santa Kang]

Or just move the story from one war to another. I've seen modern reboots that swapped out Vietnam for Afghanistan, for example.

Yep there was a time when Reed Richards and Ben Grimm were WWII vets and Charles Xavier fought in Korea.