The Canon/Continuity Debate

[Butters]

Now then, the way I see it is this. The new film uses time travel as an excuse to wipe the existing burden of canon from future history, leaving the way clear for absolutely anything to happen. I know that there is still some debate as to whether this is the case, but for the purpose of this thread, we'll assume that this is the case.

This will have the effect of placing every episode/novel etc of Trek in an alternate continuity, with the exception of the Enterprise series. A lot of the debate in other threads hinges on whether or not this is a good thing and I'm of the opinion that it is.

There was a lot of good episodes, certainly enough to hook me as a fan, and I secretly took pride in my knowledge of trek history. I enjoyed canon enough to place value in the Encyclopedia and saw gaps in history that needed filling. As the seasons progressed however and TNG got silly episodes like 'Masks' and 'Sub Rosa' among others, and early DS9 just seemed bland. Then Voyager promised so much and delivered practically nothing. By the time Enterprise came along, it was pretty much certain it would suck, and it really did.

Not wanting to start arguments about favourite trek, and I certainly can't define what trek means to me beyond being a TV/film thing that I thought was really really good.

What I would like to discuss is why the 40 years of continuity is worth saving, because I'm of the opinion that its not, and that we have reached the stage that Trek needs a return to basics and an unknown future to recapture its magic and viability.

 

[Captain X]

Wow, we've only had this particular discussion in practically every thread in this forum...

 

[Butters]

Wow, we've only had this particular discussion in practically every thread in this forum...

Yes, many threads have indeed been hijacked by this issue, I felt it deserved its own thread.

 

[Kirk1980]

In my opinion, this movie is Star Trek but not the old canon.

To me, it has to rely on its own merits and shouldn't expect me to feel or know anything about these characters, this ship or the story behind them.

That's not to say anything more than just that.... the original tales have been told.

This...this is new.

And separate.

 

[Australis]

As I said elsewhere, what has gone before is a great cornerstone for whatever comes next. At this point in time, the Federation background could largely be kept intact.

I would have said that they don't even need to alter continuity, but after seeing the modified trailer today... hmmmm. I'm reserving judgement.

This could either be a clusterfuck, or the greatest thing ever. I really don't think there will be much middle ground.

 

[BillJ]

Now then, the way I see it is this. The new film uses time travel as an excuse to wipe the existing burden of canon from future history, leaving the way clear for absolutely anything to happen. I know that there is still some debate as to whether this is the case, but for the purpose of this thread, we'll assume that this is the case.

This will have the effect of placing every episode/novel etc of Trek in an alternate continuity, with the exception of the Enterprise series. A lot of the debate in other threads hinges on whether or not this is a good thing and I'm of the opinion that it is.

There was a lot of good episodes, certainly enough to hook me as a fan, and I secretly took pride in my knowledge of trek history. I enjoyed canon enough to place value in the Encyclopedia and saw gaps in history that needed filling. As the seasons progressed however and TNG got silly episodes like 'Masks' and 'Sub Rosa' among others, and early DS9 just seemed bland. Then Voyager promised so much and delivered practically nothing. By the time Enterprise came along, it was pretty much certain it would suck, and it really did.

Not wanting to start arguments about favourite trek, and I certainly can't define what trek means to me beyond being a TV/film thing that I thought was really really good.

What I would like to discuss is why the 40 years of continuity is worth saving, because I'm of the opinion that its not, and that we have reached the stage that Trek needs a return to basics and an unknown future to recapture its magic and viability.

Well, since Enterprise is really a spinoff of Star Trek: First Contact... the fork is being stuck in it as well.

As to why we should preserve 40 years worth of continuity... because it's unique in its own sense. The passion that so many people felt for a obscure sci-fi program of the 60's, that they didn't want to replace it... but build on it. Star Trek inspired so many... I really think it is a slap in the face to ditch it so casually after so many years. I think it'll be difficult for this iteration of Star Trek to replace the 60's series in the minds of many. Even non-fans.

I do think this film could be good in its own right. I just don't think it'll have the staying power of the original.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I do think this film could be good in its own right. I just don't think it'll have the staying power of the original.

I do not disagree but then I also do not see how the two can even be compared.
On the one hand we have a 2 hour movie in 2009 and on the other I don't even know how many hours of TOS tv episodes and movies made long ago when the world and people were different.
Many fans, myself included, have associated TOS with fond childhood memories or have been seeing and living with these stories for decades which doesn't exactly help too.


As for preserving continuity...After 40 years, continuity along with bad writing have driven Trek to the ground, almost killing it.
It is OK to ignore some of it if the filmmakers feel that's what they must do for their movie.
In any case I see more effort from them to preserve continuity than to ignore it.

I think it'll be difficult for this iteration of Star Trek to replace the 60's series in the minds of many. Even non-fans.

It doesn't have to replace anything in anyones mind.
Time has passed,the old guys have well...gotten old.

I don't have any difficulty accepting recasts and redesigns, both the old and the new version at the same time.
As for non-fans, I doubt they will care at all for the 60's show if this movie is any good, it is successful and more are made.

 

[BillJ]

As for preserving continuity...After 40 years, continuity along with bad writing have driven Trek to the ground, almost killing it.
It is OK to ignore some of it if the filmmakers feel that's what they must do for their movie.
In any case I see more effort from them to preserve continuity than to ignore it.

I don't see continuity and bad writing going hand in hand. Continuity has given us some of our best hours of Star Trek... from The Wrath of Khan to First Contact, from The Menagerie to All Good Things. Bad Writing has us where we are now. More specifically, bad writing in Modern Trek. Both movies listed above were mainstream hits that didn't dump what came before.

I guarantee one of the many writers who post here could have given us a mainstream hit while maintaining cohesion with what's come before. For whatever reason, The Powers That Be have hung Modern Trek's failures at the doorstep of The Original Series.

I hope that the film's a success... I just wished that we didn't have to lose things in continuity to do it.

 

[Ovation]

Why does redoing "the original" mean it's regarded as a "failure"? And furthermore, why does the new one HAVE TO be in "continuity" to be good? Certainly it could have been in continuity (though that is no guarantee of quality--neither is "out of continuity", of course) but Trek is certainly big enough to encompass more than one take on it. Adherence to continuity/canon/whatever term one wants to use should be in service to the story, NOT the other way around. I'd rather complete continuity violation with an entertaining story than one that is slavishly precise with continuity but is boring.

I've read a number of Trek novels (mostly from the early 80s to late 90s, so I cannot comment on recent ones--though I've just gotten three new ones for my "holiday", not work-related reading, so soon I'll have some idea). In the time period I was reading such novels, continuity was all over the place in the novels (I know they were not "canon"--but, in some ways, that's the point). McCoy had different middle initials (E. and H.), Klingons were very short-lived as a species (The Final Reflection--I would really have liked that version of the Klingons to have been the "official" one. It's the Trek novel I have re-read the most), Vulcan "history" differs from one novel to another, the Mirror Universe in TNG novels is nothing like the one seen in DS9, events in novels written between films contradict what is eventually put on screen--and so on.

NONE of that affected my appreciation (or lack thereof) for any novel in particular. I read them as different "takes" on Trek--some closely related to "official on-screen Trek", some less so. Some that were close to "official" were less interesting or entertaining than some which deviated more widely (The Final Reflection again being an excellent example). But I was not bothered in the slightest that there was deviation. Same with the new movie.

 

[BillJ]

Why does redoing "the original" mean it's regarded as a "failure"?

I never said that it meant that The Original Series was a failure. But think of it this way: If Enterprise had been a consistent Top 20 show or if Nemesis had made $400 million dollars, would we be having this discussion?

And furthermore, why does the new one HAVE TO be in "continuity" to be good?

I never said it had to be in "continuity" to be good... just that I'd prefer if it was.

Certainly it could have been in continuity (though that is no guarantee of quality--neither is "out of continuity", of course) but Trek is certainly big enough to encompass more than one take on it. Adherence to continuity/canon/whatever term one wants to use should be in service to the story, NOT the other way around. I'd rather complete continuity violation with an entertaining story than one that is slavishly precise with continuity but is boring.

A professional writer should be able to play by the rules of the sandbox he's playing in. Should we give John McClain heat vision in the next Die Hard because someone thinks it would make it better? Never bought that the history of a given project somehow ties a writers' hands in crafting a good story.

I've read a number of Trek novels (mostly from the early 80s to late 90s, so I cannot comment on recent ones--though I've just gotten three new ones for my "holiday", not work-related reading, so soon I'll have some idea). In the time period I was reading such novels, continuity was all over the place in the novels (I know they were not "canon"--but, in some ways, that's the point). McCoy had different middle initials (E. and H.), Klingons were very short-lived as a species (The Final Reflection--I would really have liked that version of the Klingons to have been the "official" one. It's the Trek novel I have re-read the most), Vulcan "history" differs from one novel to another, the Mirror Universe in TNG novels is nothing like the one seen in DS9, events in novels written between films contradict what is eventually put on screen--and so on.

NONE of that affected my appreciation (or lack thereof) for any novel in particular. I read them as different "takes" on Trek--some closely related to "official on-screen Trek", some less so. Some that were close to "official" were less interesting or entertaining than some which deviated more widely (The Final Reflection again being an excellent example). But I was not bothered in the slightest that there was deviation. Same with the new movie.

But the folks at Pocket Books are bound to the history of the franchise at the time they write a given story. But the live action folks are not bound by what is written in the tie-in fiction. Hence the contradictions.

 

[Ovation]

Why does redoing "the original" mean it's regarded as a "failure"?

I never said that it meant that The Original Series was a failure. But think of it this way: If Enterprise had been a consistent Top 20 show or if Nemesis had made $400 million dollars, would we be having this discussion?

No, but you implied the current production team and the studio consider it a failure. I don't see any evidence they think so.

And furthermore, why does the new one HAVE TO be in "continuity" to be good?

I never said it had to be in "continuity" to be good... just that I'd prefer if it was.

It was a somewhat rhetorical question on my part. You may not have expressed such an opinion, but it certainly has been expressed loudly in here by many.

Certainly it could have been in continuity (though that is no guarantee of quality--neither is "out of continuity", of course) but Trek is certainly big enough to encompass more than one take on it. Adherence to continuity/canon/whatever term one wants to use should be in service to the story, NOT the other way around. I'd rather complete continuity violation with an entertaining story than one that is slavishly precise with continuity but is boring.

A professional writer should be able to play by the rules of the sandbox he's playing in. Should we give John McClain heat vision in the next Die Hard because someone thinks it would make it better? Never bought that the history of a given project somehow ties a writers' hands in crafting a good story.

Don't be so hyperbolic. Nothing in the new movie (based on what little information we have) is anything nearly as drastic as what you describe and excessive exaggeration kills whatever point you were trying to make. For your example to be relevant, you would have to have something like Uhura being an empath like Troi, or Spock having the power of flight (sans rocket boots ) or something similar. If we don't make any reference whatsoever to John McClain's wife in the next Die Hard, will it make it a lesser film (in and of itself)? I think not.

I've read a number of Trek novels (mostly from the early 80s to late 90s, so I cannot comment on recent ones--though I've just gotten three new ones for my "holiday", not work-related reading, so soon I'll have some idea). In the time period I was reading such novels, continuity was all over the place in the novels (I know they were not "canon"--but, in some ways, that's the point). McCoy had different middle initials (E. and H.), Klingons were very short-lived as a species (The Final Reflection--I would really have liked that version of the Klingons to have been the "official" one. It's the Trek novel I have re-read the most), Vulcan "history" differs from one novel to another, the Mirror Universe in TNG novels is nothing like the one seen in DS9, events in novels written between films contradict what is eventually put on screen--and so on.

NONE of that affected my appreciation (or lack thereof) for any novel in particular. I read them as different "takes" on Trek--some closely related to "official on-screen Trek", some less so. Some that were close to "official" were less interesting or entertaining than some which deviated more widely (The Final Reflection again being an excellent example). But I was not bothered in the slightest that there was deviation. Same with the new movie.

But the folks at Pocket Books are bound to the history of the franchise at the time they write a given story. But the live action folks are not bound by what is written in the tie-in fiction. Hence the contradictions.

Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't care whatsoever WHY there were deviations. My point is the deviations, in and of themselves, had no bearing on whether I enjoyed a novel or not.

I may end up hating this movie. I may end up largely indifferent to it. I may love it. Whichever reaction I have, rest assured, canon/continuity will have NOTHING to do with.

 

[BillJ]

Why does redoing "the original" mean it's regarded as a "failure"?

I never said that it meant that The Original Series was a failure. But think of it this way: If Enterprise had been a consistent Top 20 show or if Nemesis had made $400 million dollars, would we be having this discussion?

No, but you implied the current production team and the studio consider it a failure. I don't see any evidence they think so.

No I said that Modern Trek was a failure. That is why they're going back to the basics.

It was a somewhat rhetorical question on my part. You may not have expressed such an opinion, but it certainly has been expressed loudly in here by many.

Agreed.

Don't be so hyperbolic. Nothing in the new movie (based on what little information we have) is anything nearly as drastic as what you describe and excessive exaggeration kills whatever point you were trying to make. For your example to be relevant, you would have to have something like Uhura being an empath like Troi, or Spock having the power of flight (sans rocket boots ) or something similar. If we don't make any reference whatsoever to John McClain's wife in the next Die Hard, will it make it a lesser film (in and of itself)? I think not.

Well... Spock flying across the bridge like a rabid orangutan would definitely be out of character for a Vulcan and a military officer. But, yeah I was being hyperbolic.

I've read a number of Trek novels (mostly from the early 80s to late 90s, so I cannot comment on recent ones--though I've just gotten three new ones for my "holiday", not work-related reading, so soon I'll have some idea). In the time period I was reading such novels, continuity was all over the place in the novels (I know they were not "canon"--but, in some ways, that's the point). McCoy had different middle initials (E. and H.), Klingons were very short-lived as a species (The Final Reflection--I would really have liked that version of the Klingons to have been the "official" one. It's the Trek novel I have re-read the most), Vulcan "history" differs from one novel to another, the Mirror Universe in TNG novels is nothing like the one seen in DS9, events in novels written between films contradict what is eventually put on screen--and so on.

NONE of that affected my appreciation (or lack thereof) for any novel in particular. I read them as different "takes" on Trek--some closely related to "official on-screen Trek", some less so. Some that were close to "official" were less interesting or entertaining than some which deviated more widely (The Final Reflection again being an excellent example). But I was not bothered in the slightest that there was deviation. Same with the new movie.

But the folks at Pocket Books are bound to the history of the franchise at the time they write a given story. But the live action folks are not bound by what is written in the tie-in fiction. Hence the contradictions.
Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't care whatsoever WHY there were deviations. My point is the deviations, in and of themselves, had no bearing on whether I enjoyed a novel or not.

I may end up hating this movie. I may end up largely indifferent to it. I may love it. Whichever reaction I have, rest assured, canon/continuity will have NOTHING to do with.

I don't think canon/continuity will make it or break it for me either. Except in the case of it being mediocre. Before this film... I could find something to like in even mediocre episodes/movies, tidbits about Earth's fictional future which added to a much larger fictional tapestry. If this film is mediocre and does away with the current continuity... then I'll just gracefully bow out of Trek. For some it end in 1969, for some in 1979, for some after The Next Generation finished and for me it'll be 2009. 700 episodes and 10 movies ain't a bad run.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What I would like to discuss is why the 40 years of continuity is worth saving...

It's worth saving archivally - on DVDs and published works.

It's not desirable to follow it slavishly going forward, IMAO, and they're not.

 

[FalTorPan]

What I would like to discuss is why the 40 years of continuity is worth saving...

It's worth saving archivally - on DVDs and published works.

It's not desirable to follow it slavishly going forward, IMAO, and they're not.

Agreed.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

For me, I think a certain amount of attention to canon is important - otherwise, why call it Star Trek at all? Why not just develop a completely new scifi universe and start a new franchise from scratch? One in which there ARE no boundaries or 40+ years of this pesky little thing called 'canon'.

However, keeping 'the basics' intact is not the same as sitting around obsessing about the color of the transporter beam or whether or not the internal doors on the ship opening and closing have the 'correct' wooshing sound to them.

I think it's important to hold on the the big stuff - the stuff that makes Star Trek...well....Star Trek: the major races, the existence of the Federation and it's ideals, the existence of Star Fleet and it's ideals, the basic look of the major classes of ships, the fundamentals of the technology (the existence of things like transporters, replicators, communicators, warp drive, etc), the fundamental ideals of any major characters taken from the original, etc.

But do I care if Kirk comes from Iowa or Indiana or if Romulan Ale is the correct color? Not in the slightest.

 

[SonicRanger]

I once tried watching First Contact with a non-Trek fan...

In college, a friend of mine wanted to ask out a certain young woman on a "date" of sorts, and he thought it would be a good idea to rent the newly released "First Contact" and show it in the dorm lounge, which me there as the mutual acquaintance of both of them. He thought "First Contact" would be the easiest Trek film for a non-fan to watch. Initially I agreed with him. But as we watched the film, I realized how much there was to explain to a non-fan for the film to make any sense at all. The "date" was a disaster... although not just because of the incomprehensibility of the film.

Trek has just gotten more and more baggage, and Trek is on a sinking ship. Trek needs to decide which bags are absolutely necessary to grab and take to the lifeboat, letting the rest of the baggage go down with the sinking ship.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Id argue that starting over from scratch isn't the best viable option either. What will they do restart from scratch every 40 years? Tell the same stories over again and again with small changes to account for society?

There maybe some value in that, but I fail to see why it is required. If for no other reason to ensure there is a story to be told. When you are starting over like you may do why even retain the fan base you use to have.

The question then becomes one for the fans of the old series and the people who didn't like the old series. Is there a fundamental change in the series that makes you attached to it that if it was reset you wouldn't care anymore. What holds you to Star Trek?

For those who dont like Star Trek, why, and would a new movie or series really change any of that?

 

[Ovation]

It's not so much about making people who don't like Trek into people who do (though there is an element of that, of course) but rather about making people who haven't bothered yet to "get into" Trek interested. On that front, making a film that has too many moments where someone has to bring a Trekkie along as a reference to ask "what is that" or "why is this happening" or "what the hell is..." would be disastrous.

 

[Carbon Unit]

I think the best Star Trek has been that which respects canon when it can and at the same time disregards canon in favor of a great story when necessary.

At this stage, being a slave to continuity is a weight around the neck of the franchise. And, it's impossible. 40 years of continuity to respect is a little constraining.

 

[Mr. B]

At this stage, being a slave to continuity is a weight around the neck of the franchise. And, it's impossible. 40 years of continuity to respect is a little constraining.

I don't see how it's that big of an issue if you are moving forward in the universe rather than revisiting existing characters and events like this movie is doing. Voyager is a fine example, IMO.