Poll Just how important is adherence to continuity in Star Trek?

[Artoo Atari]

I post this with some trepidation because my intent is NOT to ignite fiery arguments between fans who passionately hold differing opinions. I'm a long-time Star Trek fan new to these boards, and I'm just curious about the overall breakdown on where fans fall on this issue of how strictly new stories should adhere to what has come before.

Should visual aesthetic differences that arise from updates in production or differences in characters and storylines due to casting or writing changes be accepted or rejected? Explained or ignored?

Feel free to discuss, but also feel free not to discuss since this is obviously a topic that has been extensively and hotly debated for a long time. Just wanting to get an idea of the overall mix. Thanks.

 

[Kor]

It's not as important as the bottom line. Whatever keeps Trek financially viable and profitable takes top priority.

Kor

 

[Tenacity]

Depend on what you want to see as a individual. Personally I want a new show to build upon what came before in terms of themes and history.

 

[Artoo Atari]

Just to add a bit of clarification and put it slightly another way with an example:

1) All Klingons should look the same and explanation given if they don't.
2) Klingons look different for "real-world" production and artistic reasons and I can overlook it.
3) I don't care. I just try to watch the show and enjoy the ride.
4) Klingons should change with the ideas of new showrunners without regard for past series.

 

[BillJ]

Just to add a bit of clarification and put it slightly another way with an example:

1) All Klingons should look the same and explanation given if they don't.
2) Klingons look different for "real-world" production and artistic reasons and I can overlook it.
3) I don't care. I just try to watch the show and enjoy the ride.
4) Klingons should change with the ideas of new showrunners without regard for past series.

Four. With the understanding that they not try to sell it to me as being in continuity with previous shows.

 

[Galaxy]

Just to add a bit of clarification and put it slightly another way with an example:

1) All Klingons should look the same and explanation given if they don't.
2) Klingons look different for "real-world" production and artistic reasons and I can overlook it.
3) I don't care. I just try to watch the show and enjoy the ride.
4) Klingons should change with the ideas of new showrunners without regard for past series.

In your poll you ask for opinions on story continuity, your example, however, is based on visual continuity.

Personally I voted for "
Stories should STRICTLY adhere to previous continuity. Differences must be EXPLAINED."
However I would replace MUST with SHOULD.

I am however more open to them changing the look. That they changed the Klingon is design (visual) I am mostly okay with, I do have technical problems with the makeup, it seems to limit the actors facial expressions. That the Klingon have cloaks (Story) bothers me more. If one changes the look one should still be able to tell what it is without an explanation. For example the D7 was poorly done, the Enterprise, the Phasers, Communicators, and Tricorders I consider to be well done visual upgrades.

 

[Artoo Atari]

In your poll you ask for opinions on story continuity, your example, however, is based on visual continuity.

Point taken. By "stories" I meant everything onscreen, not just the scripts. Perhaps I should have written "Episodes/films" instead of "stories". My example was reduced in scope and just happened to be visual, but the poll is intended to be general. Unable to edit it unfortunately.

 

[-Brett-]

Somewhat. Writing and acting are more important by far, but on the other hand the whole point of continuing a long running franchise, as opposed to creating a new IP, is brand recognition. If you're going to throw everything out except the name, why bother?

 

[Galileo7]

Stories should generally adhere to previous continuity. Differences can be ignored.

 

[1001001]

 

[Artoo Atari]

View attachment 5635

Feel free to discuss, but also feel free not to discuss since this is obviously a topic that has been extensively and hotly debated for a long time. Just wanting to get an idea of the overall mix. Thanks.

 

[1001001]

You could have just read or responded to this thread, which is still active:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why...l-consistency-continuity-in-star-trek.294057/

 

[Artoo Atari]

You could have just read or responded to this thread, which is still active:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/why...l-consistency-continuity-in-star-trek.294057/

Once again, I just was interested in seeing the overall mix in percentages which is why a posted a poll. Wasn't necessarily interested in rehashing a discussion as I stated above.

Thanks for the link.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would say generally AND variably. They should mostly adhere to established continuity, but there's lots of cases where they're justified in departing from it. Like, departing from visual continuity to take advantage of 50 years of improvement in visual effects. Or ignoring a part of continuity that is stupid or overly restrictive on future stories, like the warp 5 limit.

They should only depart from continuity when they have a good reason to do so.

 

[Spot261]

View attachment 5635

I voted, sue me!

 

[Lord Garth]

The more rules you make, the more rule-breakers you'll have.

Though I voted for generally adhere and differences can be ignored.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trek needs the courage to tell more stories in seperate continuities. I really enjoy Discovery as it's own thing, but as a direct prequel to The Original Series it's a complete and utter failure. I'm pretty sure it is intended as a reboot, but I suspect market research from higher-ups has led to a directive they have to call it "prime universe" when clearly it's only linked in the way Gotham and Batman (1989) are.

The Kelvin universe had similar issues when Orci and Kurtzman were claiming their timelines only split in 2233. Why are the Klingons different? Why are the characters ages so different? Why is Khan british? But Simon Pegg (and the latest Trek Ency) says the timelines differ before and after Nero's incursion, fixing everything. Life is good, and all continuity headaches are now features.

 

[thribs]

I just think it’s common sense to have a continuity for any given universe created but I know that’s not everyone’s view.

 

[johnnybear]

We wouldn't be having this trouble if the producers of DSC had decided to set their flamboyant show in the future after Voyager! That way anything they say or do would be accepted with a pinch of salt as one of the many improvements they've made to their technology! The only problem they ever have is when they go over a piece of Trek history and change it!
JB

 

[SpyOne]

As usual, by combining the answers to two different questions together you've made it impossible for me to answer.

A pretty close approach to my answer would be:
Stories should GENERALLY adhere to previous continuity. Differences should be EXPLAINED.

I believe Gene Roddenberry is credited with the quote "never let established facts get in the way of a good story."
I'm with that, but emphasis on the word "good".
I forgive that in Realm of Fear the transporter has to work differently than in every other episode where its function is important.
I am far less forgiving of similar errors in other episodes.

Also, I am more forgiving of retcons than continuity errors: Data's graduating class is wrong in Encounter At Farpoint because the writers later changed it. Fine.
But if an episode that says Riker grew up in Paris falls right between two that say he grew up in Alaska, that's not someone changing their mind it's someone doing their job poorly.

It also matters how important the detail is. Which ship Barclay served aboard before transferring to the Enterprise isn't super important. But for Riker and Geordi it kinda is, because it was the same ship. It is relevant to their relationship that they knew each other and served together before the Enterprise.