Canon is awesome.
Continuity is crucial to ongoing stories.
Continuity is crucial to ongoing stories.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Only that of their own creation.
*And even then only that which is germane to the plot.
*And even then only that which is germane to the plot.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but Star Trek operates on canon and continuity... for over 40 years now.
Uh no.
Star Trek is five plus decades of constant reinterpretations, re-envisions, and an immeasurable number of "retcons".
"Canon" is a construct created by fans for fans. It has absolutely no place in any creative discourse. Or at least it didn't until this current lot started with all the disingenuous pandering.
Star Trek is five plus decades of constant reinterpretations, re-envisions, and an immeasurable number of "retcons".
"Canon" is a construct created by fans for fans. It has absolutely no place in any creative discourse. Or at least it didn't until this current lot started with all the disingenuous pandering.
Oh, spare me. "Creative discourse". Star Trek moved to adopt an in-universe history with the STII-III-IV trilogy, linking it up to the TOS (which had ignored this, not uncommon for the 60s). TNG continued this out of the gate, and the rest followed suit. Yes, they have played fast and loose with continuity over the years, but for the most part there has been a collective agreement to adhere to a semblance of canon. You are one of the minority voices who thinks you're being avant-garde by eschewing this in favour of "creative discourse".
News flash: no one wants that. People watch Star Trek for many reasons, but a big one is the canon.
No again.
The vast majority of people who goe see a movie or watch a new series don't give a shit what happened in the last one. The whole idea of "connected continuity" is a very new concept. And even then, there were a whole helluva lot of people for whom Endgame was their first Marvel movie.
The vast majority of people who goe see a movie or watch a new series don't give a shit what happened in the last one. The whole idea of "connected continuity" is a very new concept. And even then, there were a whole helluva lot of people for whom Endgame was their first Marvel movie.
An early example of in-universe continuity and canon in storytelling in a franchise was references to James Bond's tragic marriage. Though two of the first three films after his wife's murder didn't reference the marriage in any way, shape or form the producers began tossing in references to reinforce that the Connery and then the Moore, Dalton and Brosnan 007s were the exact same man with the same life experiences, just on a floating timeline that asked you to ignore the changes in appearance and then painfully obvious drop in age from Moore to Dalton.
So there was in-universe canon and continuity, just adhered to as loosely as possible because the actors kept changing every few years or so and they had to keep the character, well, essentially, ageless after 1985 so he wouldn't end up a seventy-odd-year-old senior citizen by the final Brosnan entry in the series.
So there was in-universe canon and continuity, just adhered to as loosely as possible because the actors kept changing every few years or so and they had to keep the character, well, essentially, ageless after 1985 so he wouldn't end up a seventy-odd-year-old senior citizen by the final Brosnan entry in the series.
Well, that's nice. But Star Trek isn't something that people just decide to watch. You can't compare it to the Marvel movies. You just can't. It's not that popular, nor will it ever be. The new series are designed to "fit" as well as they can into the established universe. Disco season 1 didn't but they quickly corrected that.
Star Trek isn't the James Bond franchise. If the latter had continued years in the future with a series of 007s spanning decades, then you could argue differently. But just like the Marvel and DC universes, the stories focus on a single set of characters. Star Trek is unique that it doesn't do that.
And I don't know about you, but I always found that to be special. It was one of the few series that tried (as much as they could) to keep a continuity. It was like reading adventures in Larry Niven's "known universe" -- it was fun to tie everything together. Why some want desperately to tear that down is beyond me...
Hey, I'm the one who's still deeply disappointed the DSC and SNW Enterprise don't look a lot closer to the TOS, DS9 and ENT interpretations of the Constitution-class starship. Add to that the rejection of much of the visual dictionary from this era we knew from 1964-2005. That said I'm just bringing up how some franchises use a looser, floating continuity for their own internal reasons.
And somehow still work despite the suspension of disbelief and shrugging by audiences.
I'm closer to your viewpoint than Clegg's and probably a lot more. I just try to pick the right fights.
And somehow still work despite the suspension of disbelief and shrugging by audiences.
I'm closer to your viewpoint than Clegg's and probably a lot more. I just try to pick the right fights.
I'm fascinated by the idea of a series with no continuity now. Main characters could get killed off and just appear again next episode like nothing happened. One episode the crew works for Starfleet, next they're mercenaries. One week the ship is taking alien ambassadors to a distant galaxy, the next FTL hasn't been invented and they've never encountered aliens. The ship and sets look entirely different every episode.
As usual hyperbole is engaged.
This is Star Trek, it should be warpbole.
We have to embrace Gene's Vision™. Time Warpbole.
Let's do the Time Warp again.
Doctor Who's Terrance Dicks said it best when he said "continuity is only whatever I can remember."
A little bit, but the idea really has gotten into my head. I'd be curious to see what a series that takes the 'no continuity' rule to its limit would be like. Whether that could lead to anything interesting. Not a Star Trek series though, I like my Star Trek continuity.
Ah, for a simpler time.
Lots of people like it. I don't mind it but I sure as hell won't treat it as the most important thing, or even why I like Star Trek.
I think the continuity of a fictional universe of interconnected stories is only valuable as a tool/avenue to tell stories, as opposed to using it as a constraint that limits their potential.
Also, I don’t dislike canon, or continuity, but it doesn’t have inherent value. Individual stories, franchises, etc. have to use it to tell a compelling new story for canon to be worth anything.
Also, I don’t dislike canon, or continuity, but it doesn’t have inherent value. Individual stories, franchises, etc. have to use it to tell a compelling new story for canon to be worth anything.
Yeah, I don't want everything to be references and connections all the time, though it is nice sometimes. I just dislike contradictions and crave consistency.
