So how important is canon, then?

[ChallengerHK]

Here's where I think we are at a crossroad: I do not think there is a black and white between Trek fans and MCU and valuing continuity or not. I think, as @BillJ notes, there is a large spectrum. As the joke goes, ask ten Trek fans what they like about Trek and you'll get twenty different answers.

Good joke; never heard that one.

I don't think I'm getting my point across re: Trek v. MCU, so let me try something different. None of this comes from real numbers; it's all conjecture meant to illustrate my point. Although, I don't believe that I'm too far from what the real numbers would show.



Relevant info here is that:
1) Some people place a very low value on continuity. They are to the left of the curves.
2) Other people place a very high value on continuity. They are to the right.
3) There are relatively few numbers of people on either end.
4) As with any such curve, the bulk of data (people) are in the center, the more moderate views of continuity. The vertical lines represents the 50th percentile of viewpoints on continuity. EDIT: The last sentence is incorrect.The vertical lines are the neutral view of continuity.
5) In Trek fandom, notice that the majority view is a negative one, i.e., for them, they can mostly take or leave continuity, and if it wasn't present they probably wouldn't miss it. Some aare indifferent, some may be turned off by the mere mention.
6) In MCU fandom, this is reversed. The bulk of the data points (people) tend to favor continuity, to varying degrees. If it wasn't;t present, they would definitely notice and they wouldn't be happy about it.

What I'm getting at, in responnse to you and Bill, is that yes there is a spectrum, and yes people are different, but this is what I think I'd see if I did a survey and plotted out Trek v. MCU views on continuity.It's the shift of the midpoint that interests me.

That's what I mean by inflexible. If it isn't in the plan it gets binned.

Thanks for the explanation.

Your last section does beg a comment. I've said elsewhere (and I think of it as axiomatic) that there are several ways of "liking" something. Some people like Treknology, for instance. Some like the characters, some like the history, some like the positivity, etc. For each of those ways of liking Trek, there can be individual values on that narrowed topic. For example, I do get a kick out of Treknology, and like Bill I love the original Tech Manual and blueprints, warts and all. Still, when they changed the Enterprise for discovery, I didn't let that stop me from watching. Other elements of continuity, especially those which alter established characterization, but me a great deal. For example, I see no compelling value in having made Zefrem Cochrane an ineffectual drunkard in First Contact. It strikes me as change for the sake of change.

I mention all this because your comments that tonal shifts didn't bother you. Overall, continuity errors bother me because they bump me out of the story, and getting bumped out of the story was what I expected when the GoG were included in the larger movies.

 

[BillJ]

The bulk of the data points (people) tend to favor continuity, to varying degrees.

What kind of continuity though? This is another rabbit hole one can go down, because I would imagine that continuity doesn't mean the same exact thing to everyone out there. There will be folks who want date, months, years, the minutiae to line up to folks who are simply interested in the broad strokes lining up. Both could be said to be interested in "continuity" but are looking for different things out of it.

 

[ChallengerHK]

What kind of continuity though? This is another rabbit hole one can go down, because I would imagine that continuity doesn't mean the same exact thing to everyone out there. There will be folks who want date, months, years, the minutiae to line up to folks who are simply interested in the broad strokes lining up. Both could be said to be interested in "continuity" but are looking for different things out of it.

Read the bottom of the message you responded to. I agree completely, except that I don't view this as a rabbit hole. If you want to understand something, the first step is to define what you're studying. The next is to change some variables and see how things react.

If nothing else, I may be able to turn it into a paper.

 

[BillJ]

I mention all this because your comments that tonal shifts didn't bother you. Overall, continuity errors bother me because they bump me out of the story, and getting bumped out of the story was what I expected when the GoG were included in the larger movies.

Nothing is ever a binary 'yes'/'no'. Some have bothered me over the decades, at the same time, Trek has never been known for an airtight continuity and in the grand scheme of things, a continuity error has never superseded the quality of a story for me.

Even though you're all over continuity, I'm betting there are times you've waved something off because you were engaged in the story, or missed it entirely.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Even though you're all over continuity, I'm betting there are times you've waved something off because you were engaged in the story, or missed it entirely.

Below is the chunk I was suggesting that you take a look at.

I've said elsewhere (and I think of it as axiomatic) that there are several ways of "liking" something. Some people like Treknology, for instance. Some like the characters, some like the history, some like the positivity, etc. For each of those ways of liking Trek, there can be individual values on that narrowed topic. For example, I do get a kick out of Treknology, and like Bill I love the original Tech Manual and blueprints, warts and all. Still, when they changed the Enterprise for discovery, I didn't let that stop me from watching. Other elements of continuity, especially those which alter established characterization, but me a great deal. For example, I see no compelling value in having made Zefrem Cochrane an ineffectual drunkard in First Contact. It strikes me as change for the sake of change.

Yes, all sorts of continuity, and all sorts of ways to being a fan. There are ways to study it, though, and measure it, at least up to a point. My research partner, my buddy Tony, is a Psych PhD, and he's all over it. I'm an English/Writing person, so I tend to be looking at things from different POVs.

 

[BillJ]

There are ways to study it, though, and measure it, at least up to a point.

Have at it, I wouldn't want to waste the time with it when it can be universally boiled down to three words: fans are finicky.

 

[Nyotarules]

EMH: Tuvok, I understand. You are a Vulcan man. You have just gone without for seven years about.
KOV: Vulcan males are driven to mate once every seven years.
T'POL: On Vulcan, we mate only once every seven years.
PARIS: Ah. This wouldn't be the kind of imbalance that comes around once every seven years?

Seven year Vulcans are like religious humans, they say one thing but do another

 

[BillJ]

Seven year Vulcans are like religious humans, they say one thing but do another

Don't forget to toss Klingons in that pot!

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't see anything precluding sex outside that schedule. T'Pring wanted Stonn, and Stonn wanted T'Pring.

Yep, mate in this context means reproduction.

 

[NCC-73515]

Seven year Vulcans are like religious humans, they say one thing but do another

vulcans typically don't lie

I don't see anything precluding sex outside that schedule. T'Pring wanted Stonn, and Stonn wanted T'Pring.

did they have sex immediately? it was about marriage :b

Yep, mate in this context means reproduction.

canon source? if there is none, that is actual fanon

 

[Nerys Myk]

vulcans typically don't lie

Almost every Vulcan we meet has told a lie.

did they have sex immediately? it was about marriage

Never got to that point, because T'Pring invoked the challenge.

anon source? if there is none, that is actual fanon

Look at the comparisons being made

Spock: No. No. It is not. We shield it with ritual and customs shrouded in antiquity. You humans have no conception. It strips our minds from us. It brings a madness which rips away our veneer of civilization. It is the pon farr. The time of mating. There are precedents in nature, Captain. The giant eelbirds of Regulus Five, once each eleven years they must return to the caverns where they hatched. On your Earth, the salmon. They must return to that one stream where they were born, to spawn or die in trying.

Reproduction.

 

[fireproof78]

I mention all this because your comments that tonal shifts didn't bother you. Overall, continuity errors bother me because they bump me out of the story, and getting bumped out of the story was what I expected when the GoG were included in the larger movies.

Because I don't see tonal shifts as necessarily part of continuity, per se. Especially not with Trek.

 

[NCC-73515]

Almost every Vulcan we meet has told a lie.

Never got to that point, because T'Pring invoked the challenge.
Look at the comparisons being made

Reproduction.

why would the quotes I posted be lies? nothing supports that.

so they didn't, but you said they did. stonn and t'pring did not have the plak-tow.

does the salmon mate outside of its mating phase?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

So how important is canon, then? I think canon is part of the enjoyment of the story, and many fans seem to agree with me, but how important is it for the story-tellers/corporations to ensure that each and every story is consistent with canon?

If we're talking Star Trek specifically, canon has been maintained well considering over 700 episodes, 13 movies, and countless writers working on the shows. I feel like canon only breaks when genuine mistakes are made or intentional retcons are introduced. I'm satisfied with the canon, open to retcons when they work, and the continuity goofs are usully not enough to bother me.

 

[at Quark's]

If we're talking Star Trek specifically, canon has been maintained well considering over 700 episodes, 13 movies, and countless writers working on the shows. I feel like canon only breaks when genuine mistakes are made or intentional retcons are introduced. I'm satisfied with the canon, open to retcons when they work, and the continuity goofs are usully not enough to bother me.

Considering that we are talking about an almost 55 year old franchise here, with several shows, made by different people and writers, it could have been much more of an incoherent mess than it is today. Overall, they mostly tried to keep everything somewhat consistent, I think.

Still, I think I would describe them as no more than "medium" careful, in that while they try to avoid actual inconsistencies, they certainly leave a lot of loose ends dangling at the end of episodes that would 'reasonably' change the game; fantastic technologies never to be heard from again (I suppose every last one of them turns out to be impractical after all when studied more thoroughly?) , or concepts such as the "even primer than prime!" Omega directive, just to tell a one-off story.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Yeah, Star Trek is bad about introducing super tech and then forgetting about it. lol

 

[BillJ]

stonn and t'pring did not have the plak-tow.

No, they were just horny for each other. I wanted Stonn and Stonn wanted me.

 

[BillJ]

You have become much known among our people, Spock. Almost a legend. And as the years went by, I came to know that I did not want to be the consort of a legend. But by the laws of our people, I could only divorce you by the kal-if-fee. There was also Stonn, who wanted very much to be my consort, and I wanted him. If your Captain were victor, he would not want me, and so I would have Stonn. If you were victor you would free me because I had dared to challenge, and again I would have Stonn. But if you did not free me, it would be the same. For you would be gone, and I would have your name and your property, and Stonn would still be there.

 

[BillJ]

so they didn't, but you said they did. stonn and t'pring did not have the plak-tow.

If sex wasn't an issue, why couldn't T'Pring married Spock and had Stonn around as a friend?

 

[NCC-73515]

No, they were just horny for each other. I wanted Stonn and Stonn wanted me.

they're only horny during plak-tow

If sex wasn't an issue, why couldn't T'Pring married Spock and had Stonn around as a friend?

that was part of her plan

did any of you even watch episodes dealing with this? XD