Spoilers New Picard TV Series and Litverse Continuity (may contain TV show spoilers)

[Christopher]

I didn't pick up on that as much. I just always thought he was this way. I think of "Datalore" for instance where one of the big differences was between Data and Lore was Data's lack of emotion. Lore even told him Dr Soong created Data that way on purpose.

No, that was in season 4's "Brothers" where Lore said that. I just checked the transcript for "Datalore," and the word "emotion" doesn't even appear in the episode. Although Picard did say to Data "You feel uncomfortable about aspects of your duplicate."

This is what I've been saying about memory and continuity. Over time, we blur our memories of earlier Trek together, which blurs our perception of the differences between series and eras and the way things changed from one to the other. And that creates the illusion that it was more continuous and unified than it really was.

But I never actually felt Data was truly emotionless throughout the show.

Yes, which is exactly why it was such a bad idea to claim he was. Even if he didn't display humanlike affect like laughter or tears, that didn't mean he didn't have his own kind of emotional response. He had preferences, hopes, concerns, aversions, affinities, etc. that motivated his choices. That's what the word "emotion" means -- a feeling that motivates an entity to act or choose. Brain activity studies have shown that all decisions are emotional decisions, even on the most coldly intellectual of things like math problems. Without emotion, there is no incentive for any action or choice.

That there was some quality there that went beyond simple machine programming.

See, that's the myth I'm complaining about -- that assumption that emotion is more complex than programming. Emotion is programming. We don't learn how to feel; we don't choose whether to feel. Those reactions are automatic and hardwired. What makes our emotions seem complicated is how they interact with our intellect and abstract thought. Animals' reactions to their emotions are simple and straightforward. If they're angry, they fight. If they're afraid, they run. Stimulus and response, plain and simple. But human emotions are interlaced with our ideas and goals and values and that makes them complex and challenging -- you might resist your urge to run from danger if your principles compel you to face your fear, say, or you might resist your sexual desire for someone because of your moral beliefs. Emotion is simple; conscious thought is far more intricate and multilayered. So the idea that it's possible to make a machine that's conscious and thinking but too hard to make one that feels stuff is getting it backward. That's like saying you can build a car so advanced that it can drive itself, but haven't figured out how to make the windows roll down automatically.

Maybe part of it was how Spiner played him, but he wasn't played like a Vulcan.

That's an ironic choice of words, since most actors who play Vulcans convey a lot of emotion.

 

[DEWLine]

And "Parallels" reminds us that everything you've written and that we've read "really" happened. Somewhere in Trek's multiverse...

 

[Greg Cox]

For me, it's like what Tuskin said. I've had books cancelled out. .

Heck, I once wrote an UNDERWORLD novelization that cancelled out one of my own previous UNDERWORLD novels.

 

[LK3185]

Like a few others have said, I'm not all that bothered by continuity following series to series. Its nice sure, but it doesn't break a story if something doesn't fit right.

Whatever the Picard series does won't effect the enjoyment readers had with the litverse the last 2 decades.. and I'm not even a trek lit fan (I'm interested in the books and like this discussion but I'm watching the series for the first time, up to DS9 season six and after is when I'll read the books )
Fun discussion though.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Or, arguably, people take "canon" a little too seriously these days. As I like to point out, the laissez-faire approach to continuity in, say, the old TARZAN or MUMMY movies series would probably make a modern, canon-obsessed fan's head explode.

When Johnston McCulley wrote The Curse of Capistrano, his first serialized pulp novel about Zorro, in 1919, he ended it with the death of the main villain and Don Diego Vega's secret identity as Zorro exposed to everyone. When the character proved popular (partly due to Douglas Fairbanks' film version The Mark of Zorro), McCulley suddenly had the demand for more Zorro stories. So he just pretended that Don Diego's identity was never exposed and the villain never died. He didn't write a story undoing that stuff, he just carried on as if it never happened. Imagine a writer trying to get away with that today.

McCulley was also very vague about the exact era in which the Zorro stories took place, freely combining elements of the Spanish and Mexican eras of California, or writing the year as 18__. And his real name morphed from "Don Diego Vega" to "Don Diego de la Vega."

The James Bond film franchise never tried to establish a strict continuity, so viewers don't look at those films that way

I am a big 007 fan and yes, there is no real continuity except with the recent Daniel Craig films. Oddly enough I feel the opposite there. I prefer standalone stories there. But for the most part Bond films were always separate entities. Sure Spectre reappeared a number of times, and a reference to Dr No was made in From Russia With Love, but other that very minor lines in stories, and characters reappearing in future films, you could watch the Bond films in any order. Star Trek has a much tighter continuity then that.

I feel like it's a bit of a myth that the Bond movies didn't have any continuity until Daniel Craig came along. Yes, it was certainly a loose continuity, but it was there. Bond deals with various agents of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in six of the first seven films, with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds Are Forever all continuing that plotline. Bond's friend Felix Leiter returns in several films (usually played by a different actor, but still). So does the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Blofeld (again, usually recast). Bond's girlfriend from Dr. No, Sylvia Trench, returns in FRLW. Bond is still driving the Aston Martin from Goldfinger at the beginning of Thunderball. OHMSS is filled with references to the previous five Bond films, because the producers were desperate to reassure audiences that the character of Bond was still the same, even though George Lazenby had taken over from Sean Connery. And the ending of OHMSS is referenced in the Roger Moore film For Your Eyes Only and the Timothy Dalton film License to Kill.

Yeah, they told different stories in each film, but they were following the leads of Ian Fleming's books in that regard. The Bond films weren't any more or less serialized than TOS was, certainly. The character dynamics & format stayed the same, but they told new stories, with the occasional reference to the previous ones.

Boy, I feel out of the loop with some of this stuff. When it comes to Marvel Universe stuff the limits of my exposure are the original Superman movies (with Christopher Reeves). I mean is that even Marvel related?

Reeve. George Reeves was the guy from the 1950s TV show. Major pet peeve of mine.

I did see one of the Batman movies though, the one with Val Kilmer. I see that's Marvel related.

...You're killing me, Smalls.

 

[Jakks]

And then you've got the portion of the officer corps who are in specialty fields (medicine, engineering, ordnance, etc.) where command of a vessel or unit really would not really be a natural progression for them. There are exceptions, of course. For example, US law requires the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier be a qualified naval aviator - but even there are only about a dozen aircraft carriers in the US fleet, and a whole lot more aviators,

It's not a 'law', but it is a naval regulation...there's a difference. Also, perspective skippers of aircraft carriers have to go through and pass Nuclear Power School...which is not easy...you have to know the ship you command.

 

[Greg Cox]

I feel like it's a bit of a myth that the Bond movies didn't have any continuity until Daniel Craig came along. Yes, it was certainly a loose continuity, but it was there. Bond deals with various agents of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in six of the first seven films, with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds Are Forever all continuing that plotline. Bond's friend Felix Leiter returns in several films (usually played by a different actor, but still). So does the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Blofeld (again, usually recast). Bond's girlfriend from Dr. No, Sylvia Trench, returns in FRLW. Bond is still driving the Aston Martin from Goldfinger at the beginning of Thunderball. OHMSS is filled with references to the previous five Bond films, because the producers were desperate to reassure audiences that the character of Bond was still the same, even though George Lazenby had taken over from Sean Connery. And the ending of OHMSS is referenced in the Roger Moore film For Your Eyes Only and the Timothy Dalton film License to Kill..

Although you have oddities like Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS even though they met face-to-face in You Only Live Twice, due largely to the fact that they filmed the novels out of order.

And, yes, I love that McCulley just ignored his own ending for The Mark of Zorro when he realized Zorro was a potential cash cow. I often cite that a proof that retcons are nothing new.

 

[Mysterion]

It's not a 'law', but it is a naval regulation...there's a difference. Also, perspective skippers of aircraft carriers have to go through and pass Nuclear Power School...which is not easy...you have to know the ship you command.

Well, in fact, it is federal law rather than just a Navy regulation:

10 U.S. Code § 5942 - Aviation commands: eligibility

(a)
(1)
To be eligible to command an aircraft carrier or an aircraft tender, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy who is designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer and who is otherwise qualified.
(2)
Paragraph (1) does not apply to command of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that has been inactivated for the purpose of permanent decommissioning and disposal.
(b)
To be eligible to command a naval aviation school, a naval air station, or a naval aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer in the line of the Navy designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
(c)
To be eligible to command a Marine Corps aviation school, a Marine Corps air station, or a Marine Corps aviation unit organized for flight tactical purposes, an officer must be an officer of the Marine Corps designated as a naval aviator or naval flight officer.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 371; Pub. L. 91–198, § 1(1), Feb. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 15; Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title V, § 507, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3357.)

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5942

 

[Damian]

Yes, which is exactly why it was such a bad idea to claim he was. Even if he didn't display humanlike affect like laughter or tears, that didn't mean he didn't have his own kind of emotional response. He had preferences, hopes, concerns, aversions, affinities, etc. that motivated his choices. That's what the word "emotion" means -- a feeling that motivates an entity to act or choose. Brain activity studies have shown that all decisions are emotional decisions, even on the most coldly intellectual of things like math problems. Without emotion, there is no incentive for any action or choice

That's why Data's statements that he did not have emotion I think almost came from a sense of irony. Maybe he didn't understand them, or didn't recognize them as such. There was certainly something there. And perhaps the writers were thinking obvious examples like you mention, laughter or tears. I guess when it gets down to it I didn't see much a discontinuity over the years of TNG, except that maybe Data seemed to become more comfortable and natural around other humans over time, probably partly due to his friendships over time, particularly with Geordi. I mean, after all, if he truly had no emotions how could he have a "best" friend, and I think he learned a lot from Geordi.

See, that's the myth I'm complaining about -- that assumption that emotion is more complex than programming. Emotion is programming. We don't learn how to feel; we don't choose whether to feel. Those reactions are automatic and hardwired. What makes our emotions seem complicated is how they interact with our intellect and abstract thought.

Ok, sure, that sounds a lot like instinct. Something intelligent beings can overcome. And I get that. I think the whole Data doesn't have emotions probably is the much more simplistic things we think of with emotion, laughter, tears, love, hate. Those things Data never seemed capable of until he installed his emotion chip. And that's how I interpreted the character. But I think he was written in such a way that his ability to interact, make friendships, and make decision were all there. I think the other characters thought there was something there as well. Look at when Tasha Yar's sister (I forget her name) left him, at the very end of the episode there was something there. I think the writers were always hinting that there was more to Data. That there was some quality there, while he couldn't understand laughter or tears, he still was able to form relationships.

...You're killing me, Smalls

Sorry, I just misread Marlboro's list. My bad. I'm so out of it though, I thought his initial comment about the Gowron eyes had to do with me not being familiar with Marvel. Little did I know it was actually because Superman was not a Marvel character. I'm almost ashamed to admit it but I thought it was all the same thing

Yeah, they told different stories in each film, but they were following the leads of Ian Fleming's books in that regard. The Bond films weren't any more or less serialized than TOS was, certainly. The character dynamics & format stayed the same, but they told new stories, with the occasional reference to the previous ones

Yeah, I should have clarified that a bit, in comparison to later Star Trek series that had a much more tangible continuity. The original series you could watch in pretty much any order, like the Bond films, and never feel all that lost (except maybe the Craig films where watching them in order might be of some benefit).

Although you have oddities like Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS even though they met face-to-face in You Only Live Twice, due largely to the fact that they filmed the novels out of order.

Yeah, also, unlike many Bond films, they filmed On Her Majesty's Secret Service pretty faithfully to the book, resulting in some discontinuities. But OHMSS was my favorite 007 film. I sometimes think George Lazenby gets a bad rap (though retrospective reviews are more favorable) because he was the first to take over for Connery. Perhaps because I didn't watch any Bond films until Timothy Dalton was Bond, I never had issues with other people playing Bond, but I thought he did pretty good. And I have to admit, I loved Telly Savalas as Blofeld. Something about his personality seemed perfect for the role of Blofeld. A dangerous charisma, with just a hint of psychosis under the surface.

 

[Christopher]

Heck, I once wrote an UNDERWORLD novelization that cancelled out one of my own previous UNDERWORLD novels.

I count myself fortunate that I've never yet had to do that with my Trek fiction, that it's all still mutually consistent within itself. Although I've never expected that to last indefinitely. Wished, sure (like hoping any future Trek shows would be reboots), but not expected.

 

[Greg Cox]

I count myself fortunate that I've never yet had to do that with my Trek fiction, that it's all still mutually consistent within itself. Although I've never expected that to last indefinitely. Wished, sure (like hoping any future Trek shows would be reboots), but not expected.

It's funny. I think my editor was actually a bit more embarrassed about that situation than I was. He hemmed and hawed a bit before I cut to the chase.

"Are you asking me if I would have a problem writing a book that completely contradicts my previous book? My only question is, how soon do you need it by?"

I should probably clarify that this was not the editor's idea. It was just that the third UW movie pretty much rendered one of my previous books apocryphal . . . so we had to roll with the punches. Although I do remember at least one indignant review on Amazon, in all caps no less.

"GREG COX: MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!"

 

[Christopher]

Like I often say, writing tie-ins is like writing historical fiction. It's stuff that might have happened in between the events documented onscreen. If new "historical documents" (as the Thermians would say) are discovered that contradict our speculations, then we update our speculations to fit. It's just an occupational hazard of a speculative enterprise.

And of course it applies to science fiction in general, because new scientific discoveries can scuttle our speculations. There's the famous case where Isaac Asimov wrote a story predicated on the notion that Mercury kept one face permanently toward the Sun, and the discovery that it actually rotated 3 times for every 2 orbits was made shortly thereafter, so the story was already obsolete by the time it was published.

 

[Greg Cox]

I once edited a thriller novel that featured a cameo appearance by an elderly Charles Manson in prison. Manson died before the book came out, but I kept the scene in the book anyway.

 

[Dayton Ward]

I adopted an approach similar to Christopher's a long while back: On-screen events are what "really happened," while the stuff we do is "historical fiction." That said, we've always done our part to remain consistent with what's on the screen, regardless of the curve balls thrown our way.

Nobody said it was gonna be easy, but it usually is kinda fun.

 

[Damian]

One of the many things I love about the novels. Among other things I've seen times when they've explained away inconsistencies in creative ways that makes you go, hmm, that makes sense now.

 

[marlboro]

One of the many things I love about the novels. Among other things I've seen times when they've explained away inconsistencies in creative ways that makes you go, hmm, that makes sense now.

This is very true, but sometimes it is a double-edged sword because it brings flaws to my attention that I never noticed before.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the ENT two-parter seemed to take great pains to replicate the full-on 1960s Constitution-class bridge set-lighting

Wasn't that bridge actually built by a fan, and the ENT showrunners asked if they could use it?

 

[Tuskin38]

Wasn't that bridge actually built by a fan, and the ENT showrunners asked if they could use it?

No, only a couple of the props were, not the entire thing.

Only thing I can remember off the top of my head is that the scope on the tactical console came from the Star Trek New Voyages set.

https://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki...rt_II_(episode)#Sets.2C_props.2C_and_wardrobe

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Although you have oddities like Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS even though they met face-to-face in You Only Live Twice, due largely to the fact that they filmed the novels out of order.

Yeah. It's a shame that they couldn't do the entire Blofeld Trilogy in the order of the books with the same actor throughout. From what I understand, they originally announced OHMSS as the next film following Goldfinger, but a harsh winter in Switzerland scuttled their filming plans. I wonder if the acting opportunities in OHMSS and the book version of YOLT might've kept Connery interested enough to stick around for longer.

Yeah, also, unlike many Bond films, they filmed On Her Majesty's Secret Service pretty faithfully to the book, resulting in some discontinuities.

Yeah. That was actually a case where the recasting of both Bond and Blofeld worked in their favor. You didn't think much about the fact that they'd both met before and their only disguises in-universe were a pair of glasses and severed earlobes.

But OHMSS was my favorite 007 film. I sometimes think George Lazenby gets a bad rap (though retrospective reviews are more favorable) because he was the first to take over for Connery.

Yeah. I think so. The publicity campaign on You Only Live Twice was centered around "Sean Connery IS James Bond!" All of the subsequent Bond actors certainly had an easier time of it than Lazenby, who not only was an inexperienced actor, but had to take over from an incredibly popular star strongly identified with the role, AND do it in a movie that broke the formula of the previous five films. It's no wonder that it didn't work out in the long run.

And I wrote one of those retrospective reviews myself a couple years ago.

And I have to admit, I loved Telly Savalas as Blofeld. Something about his personality seemed perfect for the role of Blofeld. A dangerous charisma, with just a hint of psychosis under the surface.

Me too! He was also a lot more physically threatening than any of the other Blofeld actors.

Oh, and fun fact: Telly Savalas' Blofeld was the visual inspiration for Bruce Timm's version of Lex Luthor on Superman: The Animated Series.

"Are you asking me if I would have a problem writing a book that completely contradicts my previous book? My only question is, how soon do you need it by?"

Would you ever write a version of the Eugenics Wars where they weren't a secret war hidden from the general public, Greg? Or would that just be too much Khan for any one man?

 

[Daddy Todd]

Great review of OHMSS. I agree completely. I fell in love with Diana Rigg as Tracy, and I’m 100% totally gay. But I’d go straight for Rigg!