Yet both have Gotham City, the Joker, Riddler, Commissioner Gordon. The basic blocks. The tone is different.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Yet both have Gotham City, the Joker, Riddler, Commissioner Gordon. The basic blocks. The tone is different.
The tone is kinda big deal.
I understand that totally, I know many people do see it that way. The problem, though, is trek simply has never been worldbuilt with that much attention to detail and therefore there will always be the outliers to any version of the trek universe you internalise. Different teams and individuals have been generally pretty free to stay within the broad strokes and spirit of the universe but not get too hung up on details, but often the fans actually apply more stringent standards after the fact which obviously means the gaps start to show. It's exactly what has kept this site going so long.
Sometimes this can add to the enjoyment, that's what drives a lot of fanfiction, reconciling the inconsistencies, but people do get angry about this stuff, like bizarrely angry at times and occasionally I do look at the forums and (mentioning no names) start seeing some pretty blatant red flags about people's mental health.
Considering the time it has spanned and the number of people involved the Trek continuity has actually been amazingly consistent.
Yet both are undeniably "Batman".
Oh, there's some consistency sure, but the idea there should be consistency and that as fans we have been somehow wronged when it doesn't all add up is basically destined to end in disappointment. That people can blatantly see this but still hang so much of their emotional well being on the idea anyway is pretty much a recipe for disaster
Discovery fails because it placed itself not in an unknown future after previous Trek and therefore had more opportunity for 'invention', or placed itself much earlier than known Trek, nope it referenced itself ten years before the origin creation in the franchise. Every time it forces something that cannot fit the timeline of what it sold itself in its marketing (ten years before Spock, Kirk etc.), it deserves every bit of criticism and every eye roll.
Well, in the broadest possible strokes, yes. But you can't paint a picture using only broad strokes. (Well, you can if you're doing non-representational art, but roll with me here.) Likewise, you can't tell a story without getting into details of tone, and character, and setting. It's those details that make the story. When they clash, that's usually a bad thing.
Sure. No fictional continuity is perfectly consistent and flawless. As I've posted elsewhere, Conan Doyle even contradicted himself within the Sherlock Holmes canon, and he had the advantage of being a single author with total control over his creation. It's a limit condition, a goal you can only approach asymptotically. Still, it's worth trying to approach it. There's a difference between making that effort, and saying "meh, it's just entertainment, the creators can change whatever they want whenever they want for the sake of a 'good story'."
There are lots of things that make a fictional story "good." The plot, the characters, the themes, the setting, the tone, the look, the way all these things interact with one another and fit together (or don't) and change over time. Continuity is a major component of the setting (and interweaves with most of the other aspects as well). It's hard to try to tell a good story when your setting is internally inconsistent.
Well, speaking just for myself, I try to keep it in perspective, and I think I have a very long fuse. YMMV; I can't speak for anyone else. But I'm self-aware enough to acknowledge that continuity is a big part of why I enjoy genre fiction, and I find it interesting to talk about. It's not the most important thing in my life, but most of my life doesn't get talked about on these forums.
I'm not sure the people making trek have ever consistently (pun intended) tried though. It simply hasn't been a priority.
You'll be happy to know I didn't have you in mind
Technically true. Yet apart of some names, they have basically nothing in common.
They have definitely tried. The approach certainly has been completely different than for example with the Bond films.
Ironically I'd say Discovery shows far more signs of that effort than much of the franchise
Except for the one that states "They're all reboots."
I wouldn't. Disco's approach to continuity is to name drop some familiar things whether it made sense or not, while merrily wrecking the big picture. So the ENT approach, basically.
Last edited:
Sadly Discovery's effort hasn't resulted in good story. Screwing with the timeline has been for gimmick purposes and what do we get out of it? Weird arsed looking Klingons getting bettered by Spock's retro invented sister.
Actually, Discovery's story was pretty good. It was the plotting that was problematic.
A decade before TIS, I could see 200 crew. A major refit before Kirk took over, could have miniaturized major machines. More space and maybe smaller quarters could increase the crew to 400+
That much is certainly clear...other than that the phrase "actual facts" is redundant.
You rarely post facts to support your assertions, however, and you draw determined conclusions from erroneous and incomplete information. Simply because you decide that a particular source of information is unimpeachable - even though it is usually at best second-hand testimony of one sort or another - does not elevate it to the status of incontrovertable fact, nor is your process of reasoning from your cherry-picked information particularly reliable.
I'm still not seeing this.
It's the opposite of "alternate facts".
Similar threads
