Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[jaime]

That's nice.

Not a reply that relates to anything that I actually said, but nice.

Erm. It's agreeing with your statement about TWOK. It's writing isn't great. (Flipping JavaScript até the rest)

Edit:
I am aware you were being sarcastic...but I actually do think Khan has some woolly writing xD the dialogue would be hokey influence it wasn't the cast acting it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I never got the memo about TWOK being generally considered to have the worst writing in any Trek movie. Sarcasm?

I don't think that's what she was saying.

I think her point was, despite being loaded with continuity blunders it's widely considered the very best Trek has to offer.

 

[Trekkin]

That wasn't my statement.

Literally, or subtextually,

I don't think that's what she was saying.

I think her point was, despite being loaded with continuity blunders it's widely considered the very best Trek has to offer.

Bingo.

Or at least, its the higher end of the curve.

 

[Dukhat]

Sarcasm doesn't come across well in text.

I read your later post, well, later.

Yeah, that was kinda the point. If you'd bothered to continue reading the thread, you'd have known this.

 

[jaime]

That's not the point.

Continuity or canon or whatever is never something any writer in any multifaceted franchise should ever be beholden to.

*ETA: I'll even add that forcing a writer to adhere some sort of fictions set of rules does more to suppress creativity than encourage it.

I disagree. Otherwise, you are writing an anthology at best, or slapping someone else's sticker on your work to make it sell while disprespecting what that sticker is in the first place. (Or just being really unprofessional and lazy about your job.)
A franchise/series, particularly one like Trek, is what it is because of its continuity, however loosely applied at times. Trek is not the Twilight Zone.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Bingo.

Or at least, the higher end of the curve.

Ah, so can I take it as sarcasm?

 

[Trekkin]

Ah, so can I take it as sarcasm?

What are you implying about Trek's curves?

 

[CorporalClegg]

A franchise/series, particularly one like Trek, is what it is because of its continuity.

Not even a little.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Trek, to me, is the most curvaceous of the curvy!


So confused....

 

[Trekkin]

It was sarcasm.

That word is getting a lot of use tonight...Or this morning...Wherever you people are.

I disagree. Otherwise, you are writing an anthology at ...Trek is not the Twilight Zone.

Twilight Zone did have continuity. Sometimes.

And was it the Outer Limits or TZ reboot that'd do the end-of-season 'connect the dots' episodes?

 

[jaime]

Not even a little.

Going back to Twok....that whole premise and story is dependent on continuity and canon. It is a sequel to Space Seed. The following three films all lead straight from that one film. Six follows on, and is tied directly into what we see in Tng in a bunch of ways...and Tng sets up Ds9 and Voy. This is inescapable continuity making up the vast majority of the franchise.
Even when we go to Kelvin, we have whole films predicated around familiarity with the franchise as a whole. Trek, to date, is built on a level of continuity, unless you basically disregard everything bar the original 79 episodes. Even the animated series did sequels to ToS stories. Hmm...hang on...even ToS itself had recurring characters such as Mudd so...yup. Continuity everywhere. It's a bugger to wash out I guess.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Fuller also stated it could be a prequel to either the Prime or Abrams universe.

One of those things that fans take far more seriously than the creators do. Do we really think that they are going to avoid a good story because it contradicts something that happened in TOS, TNG or ENT or any other spinoff/movie?

And its not like trek has not retconned or altered its timeline before

 

[Trekkin]

Going back to Twok....that whole premise and story is dependent on continuity and canon. It is a sequel to Space Seed. The following three films all lead straight from that one film. Six follows on, and is tied directly into what we see in Tng in a bunch of ways...and Tng sets up Ds9 and Voy. This is inescapable continuity making up the vast majority of the franchise.
Even when we go to Kelvin, we have whole films predicated around familiarity with the franchise as a whole. Trek, to date, is built on a level of continuity, unless you basically disregard everything bar the original 79 episodes. Even the animated series did sequels to ToS stories. Hmm...hang on...even ToS itself had recurring characters such as Mudd so...yup. Continuity everywhere. It's a bugger to wash out I guess.

Sure. And as a consequence, contradictions everywhere.

Continuity/canon/whatever is more a 'friendly suggestion,' than a rule. There to be used in whatever manner pleases.

 

[jaime]

And its not like trek has not retconned or altered its timeline before

I think small recons etc are the nature of the beast. I think the big stuff will be avoided as it's their intention to fit into the greater tapestry. No exploding Vulcan this time.

 

[Trekkin]

How about an irreparably, apocalyptically irradiated Qo'nos? Will that have a place?

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I think small recons etc are the nature of the beast. I think the big stuff will be avoided as it's their intention to fit into the greater tapestry. No exploding Vulcan this time.

To me, and others I guess, the look is simply not a must to maintain it. Look at space seed /WOK. Khan said not a word about the acid trip 1960 colors or the radical change to everything a decade or two in universe later.

They hand waved it as minor tech changes and ignored the massive style changes. Szme with the Trek crew and klingons. Did not bat an eye, because at the time in setting they played it up as if they slways looked that way.

 

[Spider]

Hell, TOS contradicted itself and we hold that up as canon, or mentally forgive it or make up excuses. Sounds like we're not applying the same judgement to the rest.

 

[jaime]

Sure. And as a consequence, contradictions everywhere.

Continuity/canon/whatever is more a 'friendly suggestion,' than a rule. There to be used in whatever manner pleases.

I think there's a line though. Otherwise you lose internal consistency to the narrative. You can't have an episode based on Kirk's brother one week, then one on him being an only child the next week, and follow up next season where he goes to his sisters wedding and never had a brother. Prequels have this problem worse than continuing narratives. Lake Armstrong is one line in one film contradicting some random single shots of the moon in previous stories, and requires minimal handwave power. Blow up the moon in discovery, and there's more of a problem. Some will say that stifles creativity... A writer should be free to blow up the damn moon for his/her story dammit! But...if you are a good writer, working in Trek, you find a way to tell that good story without blowing up the moon. Or you use a reset button and try to make it a good one out of professional pride.
You don't unpick half a tapestry to add the next bit, and get to still call it the same tapestry. It isn't. If your job is to work on this tapestry, you are unprofessional and a bit rubbish if you don't get that. Sometimes modern creators remind me of the monty python sketch with the painting of the last supper and kangaroos.

 

[Trekkin]

I think there's a line though. Otherwise you lose internal consistency to the narrative. You can't have an episode based on Kirk's brother one week, then one on him being an only child the next week.

Of course not. That's what movies are for.

'I lost a brother once...'

 

[jaime]

Of course not. That's what movies are for.

'I lost a brother once...'

Lol. I always find the fan rage around that line funny. It was always obvious kirk was talking metaphorically about spock and not his actual brother, without needing to mention the actual brother. It's truly bizarre. No problem with that line at all. I knew someone would mention it as I wrote that post.