Given the huge array of differences in humans such diversity in aliens would be expected.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
I agree. More Trek species should have a diverse, wide variety of appearances.
In retrospect it's a shame we didn't get both smooth-headed and ridged Romulans in the TNG/DS9/VOY Era. Odd because the ridged ones showed up in ENT but then in-universe we didn't see them again for more than 200 years.
I think having augment virus Klingons and movie/TNG Klingons on screen together could work well, especially as we're getting closer to TOS, though they will need to find a good excuse to spend a moment explaining it.
Also alien diversity is good and sensible, but I feel like they've already got the full range of human diversity in aliens for free just by the fact that they're played by humans.
Also alien diversity is good and sensible, but I feel like they've already got the full range of human diversity in aliens for free just by the fact that they're played by humans.
That's why these very new movies, Alien 1+2, Terminator 1+2, Back to the Future 1-3, Star Wars 4-6, Harry Potter 1-8, LotR 1-3, all failed. Who wants to see stories that connect perfectly, right?
Hyperbole. Well,at least I know not to take the argument seriously.
I feel like there may be a bit of miscommunication going on here. Because when someone says they don't want continuity, I take it as meaning that they... don't want continuity. Am I misunderstanding?
All I see is someone stating that audiences in general don't give a
about continuity when sitting down in the theater to watch the latest film. Not that it is unwanted, or that it can't be done well. Only that a lot audience members will sit down and watch the film in front of them, not to watch how it connects to the last film.It's important to some. But, it isn't the most important thing, especially in a franchise like Trek, which is not a series of films but a 50+ mixed media franchise with contradictions throughout, including Klingon appearances.
No doubt mileage varies because the pylons will be wrong in Strange New Worlds.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're never going to see TOS Klingons ever again.
That's why these very new movies, Alien 1+2, Terminator 1+2, Back to the Future 1-3, Star Wars 4-6, Harry Potter 1-8, LotR 1-3, all failed. Who wants to see stories that connect perfectly, right?
So perfectly connected that Luke and Leia kissed...
Thing is, canon still exists in a multiverse. And a big reason can’t be continuity, because Trek has always been all over the place.
I don't think the parallels between how people treat fandom and religion are surprising at all TBH. I don't think this is really because fandom is all that much like religion, but some aspects of religion were always a lot more like fandom than people liked to admit. I mean, through a lot of human history, books were just really, really expensive (till the printing press was invented). People had access to a limited number of stories, and many of the stories which were written down were religious texts. So we see those with knowledge debating the limited body of knowledge intensely, trying to come up with hypotheses of why there were inconsistencies between two gospels, for example, or attempting to use the genealogy in the Old Testament to come up with a creation date of the world. Books like Paradise Lost and Inferno can be straight-up looked at as fanfics of the bible.
While I think there's a big desire for logical consistency among a certain kind of pendant - in religion or in fictional works - that's not the case for most people however. Mythology and folktales have been chock full of stories regarding legendary characters that are inconsistent with one another - and in some cases nonsensical even internally. Indeed, sometimes the nonsensical aspects of a story are part of what gives them a dreamy, otherworldly aspect that makes someone feel vaguely spiritual. But ultimately the purpose of the story is to covey a theme, meaning, or feeling, not to regale us with exactly what happened. It's to get across some "deeper truth."
If we're talking about modern storytelling, I think the most important thing by far is to be able to connect with the characters emotionally, and to be able to suspend disbelief and take them as real people. If you have that down properly, people will forgive any number of plot holes and inconsistencies. I think something like the MCU has been generally successful because they have this down cold. The continuity is added flavor for the die-hard fans, because the movies are highly similar structurally once you get past the individual characters involved, which would make them annoyingly repetitive with limited continuity.
While I think there's a big desire for logical consistency among a certain kind of pendant - in religion or in fictional works - that's not the case for most people however. Mythology and folktales have been chock full of stories regarding legendary characters that are inconsistent with one another - and in some cases nonsensical even internally. Indeed, sometimes the nonsensical aspects of a story are part of what gives them a dreamy, otherworldly aspect that makes someone feel vaguely spiritual. But ultimately the purpose of the story is to covey a theme, meaning, or feeling, not to regale us with exactly what happened. It's to get across some "deeper truth."
If we're talking about modern storytelling, I think the most important thing by far is to be able to connect with the characters emotionally, and to be able to suspend disbelief and take them as real people. If you have that down properly, people will forgive any number of plot holes and inconsistencies. I think something like the MCU has been generally successful because they have this down cold. The continuity is added flavor for the die-hard fans, because the movies are highly similar structurally once you get past the individual characters involved, which would make them annoyingly repetitive with limited continuity.
Well, they have been with Tellarites and Andorians, and Picard brought back flat headed Romulans.If only the producers of Trek did that more often with aliens.
I have to agree on this point overall, though the MCU having characters that I connect with really struggles.
But, overall, yes the characters are the more important part of any story. It being a way to draw people in to this imaginative world, capturing the viewer's attention and leaving them interested in learning more. However, what I tend to see happen reminds me a bit of when Tolkien was writing the Hobbit initially and sending it to his son, Christopher, who would write back comments like "Last draft his eyes were blue and now they are green." Obviously, attention to detail matters not always in the same way. And that's where I land. Do I like it when there is great continuity? Sure, but it's not a requirement for me to enjoy a franchise.
Furthermore, Star Trek is not like a film series in which continuity is expected from part one to part two. It is a series of loosely connected shows and films that make connections as it serves the story told.
An excellent point of where people are willing to forgive an incongruence when they are invested in the characters. Luke and Leia kiss, Luke is very satisfied with the kiss and smiles at Han. Then, in the next film, Leia has "always known."
Continuity is not a zero sum game. There are ways to tolerate it and still treat it as the same continuity. Mileage will vary as to what will and will not be tolerated.
Clearly that just means that it's totally okay to kiss your brother in the Star Wars galaxy!
It's like Back to the Future, and Marty's mom, The kiss tells Leia that Han is the guy for her, even if she doesn't know why at the time.
Every galaxy has its own Mississippi.
I bet you have a purty mouth.
That's what Cousin Sister once told me.
My favorite example of that is TNG S3 - " Who Watches The Watchers", where they refer to the Mintakins as " Early Proto-Vulcans" <-- however these said "Proto-Vulcans" are logical and peaceful, and most seem to have their emotions in check or very subdued...
Early Vulcans logical and peaceful with a hint of emotional control?
Whomever wrote the episode didn't really watch the original Star Trek much did they? But, back in the day I didn't see the TNG writing or production staff raked over the coals for this one, even though it clearly showed they had no knowledge of Star Trek Canon or Continuity when it came to the Vulcan civilization.
You can be guaranteed if any Kurtzman Star Trek production made an error like the above, they'd be castigated over their lack of respect for Star Trek Canon.
