• 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
Ghel said:
I'll bite. First, with 55 years of episodes and hundreds of hours of programming to sift through, you could sift through Trek 24/7 and miss things. At some point, a writer just has to tell a story.

In addition, things that one person finds to be an insurmountable continuity error, another person may find easily explainable. Ex. For 7 of 9 to be captured by the Borg, it had to take place years before Q forced Picard's encounter with the Borg. You could say that this is an "error" by the writers. You could also assume that 7s parents were the Trek equivalent of UFO hunters and roll with it.

Finally, sometimes there are stories or characters that are just fun to write about or watch. As a writer, I don't believe it's lazy to say "Am I throwing out this good story because of a throwaway line in another series most people aren't going to remember anyway, or should I just tell the story?!?" Both the Borg and the Ferengi show up in Enterprise though Picard doesn't "discover" them for about another 100 years. So we pretend that the NX-01 doesn't have internal cameras or nobody connected the old cyborgs who fled earth to the new Borg threat Q just provided for us.

Even TOS contradicts itself in many episodes, but we don't claim Gene Roddenberry or Gene Coon were "lazy." This seems only directed at modern writers, who also have MUCH more history to sift through when making a story.
Click to expand...
Error is a good addition to the list, although if its your job to write Trek, I think you should be pretty familiar with what came before.

If you watched the Borg and Ferengi episodes, it was explained in such a way that you could conceivably see why first contact was never recorded before the time of Picard's Enterprise. There was some clever writing in those episodes.
Nerys Myk said:
Other than "lack of care"? Wanting to tell a good story. Needing to ditch some problematic cultural artifacts. Just to name two.
The number of Easter Eggs and homages to past shows belies the idea they don't care, are lazy or don't do research.
Click to expand...
You couldn't do a "good story" without breaking canon?
 
Trelane_Squire_of_Gothos said:
Error is a good addition to the list, although if its your job to write Trek, I think you should be pretty familiar with what came before.

If you watched the Borg and Ferengi episodes, it was explained in such a way that you could conceivably see why first contact was never recorded before the time of Picard's Enterprise. There was some clever writing in those episodes.

You couldn't do a "good story" without breaking canon?
Click to expand...
Canon is just the stories. Continuity is mutable. As any perusal of Star Trek can show you.
 
‘Canon’ is a false construct. False because it is made up of a long series of facts that are often erroneous or contradictory within themselves. Star Trek is so far from being consistent with itself (and has been since TOS) that the entire concept of any kind of overarching, unifying canon is a joke anyway.

Canon was broken decades ago and what’s more, it was broken by Roddenberry himself. Not just once as well. Star Trek was being produced under the aegis of Roddenberry that ran roughshod over so-called ‘canon’ until the day the Great Bird died.

Fuck canon. It’s the enemy of creativity and imagination. Fuck it. Piss on it. Shit on it. Then burn it and piss on the last embers in it’s fetid, rancid ashes…

From Richard Arnold:

People who worked with Roddenberry remember that he used to handle canon not on a series-by-series basis nor an episode-by-episode basis, but point by point. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific point non-canon.

See, people can easily catch us, and say "well, wait a minute, in 'Balance of Terror', they knew that the Romulans had a cloaking device, and then in 'The Enterprise Incident', they don't know anything about cloaking devices, but they're gonna steal this one because it's obviously just been developed, so how the hell do you explain that?" We can't. There are some things we just can't explain, especially when it comes from the third season. So, yes, third season is canon up to the point of contradiction, or where it's just so bad... you know, we kind of cringe when people ask us, "well, what happened in 'Plato's Stepchildren', and 'And the Children Shall Lead', and 'Spock's Brain', and so on — it's like, please, he wasn't even producing it at that point. But, generally, [canon is] the original series, not really the animated, the first movie to a certain extent, the rest of the films in certain aspects but not in all... I know that it's very difficult to understand. It literally is point by point. I sometimes do not know how he's going to answer a question when I go into his office, I really do not always know, and — and I know it better probably than anybody, what it is that Gene likes and doesn't like.[3]— Richard Arnold, 1991
Click to expand...

And Paula Block:

Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was not canon. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And – okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one – after he got TNG going, he... well... he sort of decided that some of The Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in The Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.[4]— Paula Block, 2005
Click to expand...

Roddenberry broke canon point by point whenever he felt like it and as far as he was concerned then the new (TNG) overwrote the old (TOS).

If Roddenberry wasn’t sanctimonious about this thing, why should any fan be? If Roddenberry could apply revisionist thinking to his own creation, why can't the fans?

People need to get over the whole concept, because the notion of a consistent Star Trek 'canon' as it stands is fucked anyway and has been since pretty much the start.

And it was Roddenberry who fucked it.

Yours,

Captain James R. Kirk.
 
Last edited:
Here's a way for current Trek to align with continuity. A scene on a Starfleet starship on a current ST show.

Science officer:
Very strange anomaly, checking memory banks for similar phenomena, here it is.

The starship Enterprise commanded by Captain James R. Kirk encountered a zone of darkness, a phenomenon never encountered before. And a hundred years later, the starship Enterprise-D commanded by Jean Luc Picard encounters a zone of darkness, a phenomenon never encountered before.

So this is the ------ time we've encountered a zone of darkness.

Insert "second" in the blank above and the makers of the episode will be described as being lazy for violating TOS canon. Insert "third" in the blank and the creators will be described as being lazy for violating TNG canon.

The only solution? Don't tell the story.
So the only way to make everybody happy is not to tell any more Star Trek stories.

Although some fans may praise the makers of this current ST story for slavishly adhering to the very much official TOS Canon of "James R. Kirk".

Robert
 
Richard S. Ta said:
Roddenberry broke canon point by point whenever he felt like it and as far as he was concerned then the new (TNG) overwrote the old (TOS).

If Roddenberry wasn’t sanctimonious about this thing, why should any fan be? If Roddenberry could apply revisionist thinking to his own creation, why can't the fans?

People need to get over the whole concept, because the notion of a consistent Star Trek 'canon' as it stands is fucked anyway and has been since pretty much the start.

And it was Roddenberry who fucked it.

Yours,

Captain James R. Kirk.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't know where this standard started but it was by Roddenberry and it hasn't been adhered too consistently even in TOS or TNG. How the hell do we treat it as sacrosanct when it wasn't from the beginning?
 
The standard started for me when I watched 90s Trek and was really impressed with how well it fit together and built upon what came before. It created this feeling that there was an actual world that the writers all knew everything about, and they were giving us glimpses of it that we could use to piece it all together. That's the kind of thing that can turn a viewer into a fan, and a fan into someone who spent way too much money on books.
 
Ray Hardgrit said:
The standard started for me when I watched 90s Trek and was really impressed with how well it fit together and built upon what came before. It created this feeling that there was an actual world that the writers all knew everything about, and they were giving us glimpses of it that we could use to piece it all together. That's the kind of thing that can turn a viewer into a fan, and a fan into someone who spent way too much money on books.
Click to expand...
TOS did the same thing, incongruities and all. What brought me in as a fan is the characters and their stories and how they interacted in their world. The broad strokes were close enough that it felt like a different world, but differences in backstories or worldbuilding were less concerning to me. That is exactly what books are form is getting in to the details, not the shows themselves.

Honestly, what I think is the most interesting part, is how the writers sell the verisimilitude, because they don't actually know everything about the world but they fake it really well.
 
Lord Garth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a fair assessment, I think.
Lord Garth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Better Call Saul is the best prequel ever, I think. Every week I'm blown away.
 
JonnyQuest037 said:
I'm SO sick of the "TOS was inconsistent!" complaint. It's a cliché, and it's not even true. Outside of things like James R. Kirk, UESPA, and "Vulcanian", all of which occurred early in the first season, TOS had pretty tight continuity, especially for its day.
Click to expand...
It really did't. There's a reason why the acronym "YATI" exists.

And it's OK. Because the actors sell the hell out of the story and setting and it works great. But, if I watch some things back to back then I find them. It's still a great show.
 
There is a beautiful post by Doug Drexler today on this very topic:

Confessions of a Continuity Junky.
On a cultural level Star Trek has meant more than anyone would have ever expected. That's something you can't know until a good chunk of time has passed. Clearly the most important impact that Star Trek has had on society is the catalyst it has been in making people excited about the future. These days that is an anomaly. Here is one of the basic rules of the Universe: Dream positive and big, get positive and big. Dream dysfunctional, get dysfunctional. If you haven't learned that yet, get after it.
So why is Star Trek so powerful, and why does resonate so soundly with it's fans?
For one thing, it's is about ideas.
It's about surprising people with new ways to look at things... sometimes really big things. God, petty nationalism, the waste of war. The idea that love is not black or white but comes in many shades. You know, Star Trek was saying those things long before it was fashionable, and for Star Trek to remain as smart as it has been, it needs to continue to ask uncomfortable questions. Because that is where the best Star Trek... the best drama, comes from.
It's about Inspiration.
There was a time where I thought that maybe my job on Star Trek was a little on the frivolous side. Playing with spaceships and ray guns. Then I witnessed the stream of visitors to the show. Mars rover drivers from JPL, astronauts, heads of state, Ronald Reagan, the King of Jordan, The Dalai Llama. I was there when Steven Hawking asked to be lifted out of his wheel chair and put in the Captain's chair. I can't tell you how many times scientists have told me that they became who they are because of Star Trek.
But there is an even more basic and primal motivator designed into Star Trek by it's creator, which has grown it's influence and popularity exponentially... Continuity. The engine block of it's fan devotion, and something that has been cultivated carefully, and over time.
The Powerful Psychology of Continuity.
Continuity: The state or quality of being continuous. An uninterrupted succession or flow; a coherent whole.
As Psychology Today said, "Familiarity breeds enjoyment and comfort". Star Trek is comfort. Comfort is knowing that your favorite meal, artist, music, friend, is there for you. You count on a delightful flavor, a brush stroke, a riff, a smile. Spock found comfort in his friend Kirk's iron-clad continuity of character and described it thusly; "If I drop a hammer on a positive gravity planet, I do not need to see it fall to know that it has indeed fallen". Spock counted on the continuity of his captain's thought processes, and likened them to the steadfastness of gravity itself. Continuity sums up Star Trek and it's half century of logic defying success. It is the joy of knowing it's history, it's taste,and it's texture. Knowing it will be there, as sure as gravity. Like a favorite song whose rhythm and melody you anticipate, and ultimately the joy than accompanies the fulfillment of that promise.
Part of the reason for the enormous success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is it's incredible inner logic and continuity. The spotty success of the DC Film Universe has been it's unpredictable adherence to inner logic. By allowing every new director to re-invent characters based on personal tastes, they have hobbled a potentially monstrous franchise. Outstanding quality control and inner logic supersedes the director at Marvel, and is the reason it has become the cinematic juggernaut that it is.
Roddenberry knew how to grow the Star Trek fan base. He understood the power of engendering a proprietary attitude in his fans. He did this by working to make sure that they felt a part of the show, and that they were not just spectators. He did it by making sure that the melody, and rhythm fans anticipated were there, and like a favorite song, resulted in that all important feel-good endorphin cascade. In the seminal work, The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E Whitfield, Roddenberry referred to it as "The Believabilty Factor", and it applies equally to technology, characters, and the tapestry of it's history. As a calculated plan to cement and assure the future success of Star Trek, Roddenberry wisely suggested that Michael and Denise Okuda organize a compendium of facts, aesthetics, and historical pivot points so that the shows writers, and ultimately it's fans, would believe in this sprawling Universe, engage their pituitary glands, and bask in the warm cascade of endorphins.
It is the irresistible charm and promise of being able to invest your time in understanding it both dramatically and aesthetically, and be assured of the validity of that time. Sacrificing consistency would erode the willingness of fans to commit to invest in it by buying books, blueprints and model kits. In other words, that sense of validity gives you permission to indulge yourself. Another no-less calculated and powerful endorphin getter is the joy of being able to strike up a conversation, with any devotee, in any part of the world, and be able to discuss, debate, and speculate the details. This is possible because of Star Trek's carefully built and adhered to inner logic and continuity.
This intuitive architecture is the foundation of it's magic. That foundation supports all 600 plus hours.

Design Aesthetic
Similarly, the visual aesthetic of Star Trek carefully nurtured a sense of reality and continuity, by avoiding starfleet designs that are "science-fictiony", and based flatly on what is perceived as "cool". Cool for cools sake is cotton candy. There can be no substance to it, and it cannot withstand the test of time.
Design practicality, form following function, and dogged adherence to established design history is one of Trek's super-powers. The best starfleet designs are those that exhibit a basic understanding of real world technology. The more the audience examines it, the more layers it reveals, the more evidence that it's been thought out, and the more fun and interactive it becomes. Trek designers like Okuda, Sternbach, and Probert know where it’s all going, how it comes apart, and what it does. We relish that part of it, and that’s what gives it its pedigree.
The fun and linchpin of the starfleet design ethic essential to it's ability to capture the imagination is, once again, consistent inner logic. Fans can identify a phaser strip, a characteristic warp nacelle from a specific era, an airlock, or a life boat hatch. This is the sport. Fans crave being in the know. Devotees love learning the ins and outs. How stringently production adheres to such contrivances will be equaled by a return in fan devotion.
Works such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and the various tech manuals, make writing and designing for Star Trek that much more difficult. Trek writing staffs have long felt hog-tied by what was perceived as restrictive rules and regulations. But consider this, director\writer Nicholas Meyer, a man credited with saving Star Trek with "The Wrath of Khan" once said, "Creativity demands boundaries, and thrives on restrictions".

Sentimentality
Sentimentality is powerful, and something Star Trek has built on for half a century.
In Star Trek's second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Sulu says, "Take a penny, double it everyday...In a month, you'll be a millionaire". That sums up Star Trek fandom, but you need that first penny in order to make it work. Sentimentality is impossible to achieve without continuity. Continuity has long been a Star Trek god, and it has imbued a seemingly endlessly durable Universe with supernatural longevity, it's success is a complex tapestry. But it is a fickle god, and if you pull out certain threads the tapestry may unravel. Continuity and sentimentality is the fragile thread which runs though Star Trek giving it it's tensile strength, but it is also the fire in which it burns. This magic architecture requires reliability, and steadfast nurturing. Fans must be able to count on Star Trek, otherwise they will learn not to count on it, lose faith, get discouraged, and become cynical.
We've all experienced the power of continuity. Muscles aren't made overnight. They are formed through repetition and consistency. It is the same for the muscles of the mind, spirit, and yes, Star Trek, and it's fandom. It is a decidedly universal constant. Human beings are continuity and comfort seeking organisms, and we respond to those things in everything we do..
This is the corner stone of Star Trek. It is the joy of knowing it's history, it's taste, and it's texture, dramatically and aesthetically, and knowing it will be there, like the rock of Gibraltar, and as sure as gravity.
Doug Drexler
Click to expand...
 
Hey, he said all that stuff I was trying to say, only he did it much much better than I did!

Thanks for linking that. I feel like it should be the last word on the topic but I dunno, maybe someone can link it again on page 222.

I mean I'm not saying that people who say that continuity isn't important to them are wrong. If it's not important to you, then that's fine! Lots of people feel the same way. But the people who do find it important aren't going to enjoy the series any better if they 'get over it'. It'll just mean that part of the magic's gone for them.
 
Last edited:
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