They are when you get them wrong. One of the most long-standing and legitimate criticisms of ST is lazy writing. When they can't even be bothered to adhere to their own continuity, it diminishes the credibility of the script to anyone who's paying attention. If you're watching a show that's set in Florida, in a single story dwelling, and the lead character goes up two flights of stairs and goes outside into a snowstorm because the writer decided that would be more dramatic and symbolic of the character's struggles, would you dismiss any criticism and say that it's only a TV show and those little details 'aren't important to drama'?
what do people want star trek 3 to be like
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
They are when you get them wrong. One of the most long-standing and legitimate criticisms of ST is lazy writing. When they can't even be bothered to adhere to their own continuity, it diminishes the credibility of the script to anyone who's paying attention. If you're watching a show that's set in Florida, in a single story dwelling, and the lead character goes up two flights of stairs and goes outside into a snowstorm because the writer decided that would be more dramatic and symbolic of the character's struggles, would you dismiss any criticism and say that it's only a TV show and those little details 'aren't important to drama'?
The reason I've always liked the federation-centric stories is because they were 'cool'. By that I mean that starfleet ships and starfleet bases were places where I wanted to be. They were places where I wanted to spend some time. Not so much with the bumpy-headed aliens of the week. But as I said, I think I may be in the minority.
Sorry, but the distinction is this: Star Trek is real within the world of Star Trek. I don't care a whit if the Enterprise is 24 decks or 78. But if they spend years showing me a 24 deck ship and then say they're on deck 78, don't criticize me for calling shenanigans on their lazy writing. When they're trading on the equity of 5 different shows and a dozen movies they have some obligations to the continuity that they themselves have established. It's their ball game. They get to make the rules. I just want them to play by those rules. That's not 'insular'.
I think your being in the minority is a safe bet (not that there's anything wrong with that 
).
A lot of the ideas that revolve around exploring the background details of Trek (the Federation, other member planet species, etc.--whatever is not focused on Kirk/Spock and the secondary characters on the ship) would seem better suited to a TV series or novels. It's not that they lack interest per se, but they would be given short shrift in 2-2.5 hours anyway and probably leave those most interested in such topics feeling frustrated. There are many aspects to Trek, but I think there is a much smaller subset of those aspects suited to a cinematic release (at least one that hopes to be reasonably profitable--money isn't everything but it does pay the bills). Just my 2 cents.
As for obligations to continuity--reboots have precious few such obligations. They are more beholden to their own internal continuity (but even that gets sacrificed to the needs of drama--as happens in movies and TV shows all the time).
).A lot of the ideas that revolve around exploring the background details of Trek (the Federation, other member planet species, etc.--whatever is not focused on Kirk/Spock and the secondary characters on the ship) would seem better suited to a TV series or novels. It's not that they lack interest per se, but they would be given short shrift in 2-2.5 hours anyway and probably leave those most interested in such topics feeling frustrated. There are many aspects to Trek, but I think there is a much smaller subset of those aspects suited to a cinematic release (at least one that hopes to be reasonably profitable--money isn't everything but it does pay the bills). Just my 2 cents.
As for obligations to continuity--reboots have precious few such obligations. They are more beholden to their own internal continuity (but even that gets sacrificed to the needs of drama--as happens in movies and TV shows all the time).
Who is "they?"
William Shatner, for example, had nothing to do with deciding the Enterprise had 24 decks. When he made his film, he might have thought a ship of that size should have more.
It really isn't and has never been. It's a vehicle for drama and drama is going to win every single time. It's why the ships in every single episode/movie move at exactly the speed the plot needs them to move.
It is insular because you want them to make dramatic decisions based on imaginary technicalities.
I understand that and actually agree with you at some level. But that's not a good premise for a movie intended to attract casual fans and non-fans. The only people who might be interested in a film about the nuts and bolts of the UFP are hard-core Trek fans. The rest won't bother to see the film.
--Sran
I agree. Initially I think they considered a pure reboot but rejected it as invalidating everything we'd seen before. This alternate timeline was their way of having their cake (respecting the fans) and eating it too (getting to do whatever they wanted). I think the problem is that if you're talking about a universe that (prior to the timeline divergence) is grounded in the Trek world we've been shown so far, it places some limits on what they can plausibly change. Although plausibility's in the eye of the beholder, I kinda wish they'd just started from scratch. A lot of these arguments would be moot.
I would highly recommend the novels A Time for War, A Time for Peace and Articles of Federation By Keith R.A. DeCandido, known around these parts as KRAD.
I don't expect them to make dramatic decisions based on imaginary technicalities. I expect them to make dramatic decisions within imaginary technicalities. Within the parameters of their fictional world. I don't want to see an F-22 in Game of Thrones without a damn good reason. I don't want to see magic on CSI without a damn good reason. And I don't want Star Trek to ignore how things work in their world just because it happens to be inconvenient to the plot this time around.
If you're honestly arguing that any movie that's set in a fictional world has no obligation to internal consistency then I really have no reply to that.
Have you actually taken a step back and investigated Star Trek's track record as far as internal consistency goes prior to the Abramsverse films? It's an incoherent train wreck that has been given a pass because of creative fans spending decades smoothing over the massive cracks created by having dozens upon dozens of writers with differing visions over seven-hundred plus hours of material.
All I expect any creative team to do is get the broad strokes right, which Abrams and Company have done.
Exactly. The number of inconsistencies in Trek are too numerous to count. It's both unreasonable and unfair to expect a group of writers to completely eliminate even a portion of these in the course of one film. I've no doubt that the people putting these movies together attempt to make them consistent with what's come before, but there's always going to be some small detail they overlook that a minority of fans has a fit about. That's just the way it is.
--Sran
I agree with everything in your first paragraph. The inconsistencies didn't start with Abrams and they've always diminished my enjoyment of the franchise.
You must not like the franchise at all then. The inconsistancies have been there since the beginning of TOS. After all, we never saw Spock smile again.
--Sran
I'll be honest with you, I use to think exactly the way you did about inconsistencies in the narrative. Around the time the first Abrams film came out I was so wound up that I make some of the posters on here look downright sane.
The first time I watched the Abrams film I was furious. How dare he do what he did to Star Trek. Also around that time I was found that I simply wasn't having fun watching anymore. Watching consisted of me looking for gotcha moments that I could bitch and moan about. Canon was all consuming.
Then I did something I should've done years prior...
I went back and started watching the various series with a more critical eye and found they were guilty of the same exact offenses that Abrams film was. I also found something else, Star Trek was incredibly fun to watch again. Something it hadn't been for a very, very long time.
Canon and continuity were a weight that I had been carrying around that was preventing me from enjoying something I loved very, very much.
YMMV.
I guess the operative word is 'diminish'. When they say the 1701-E has 24 decks and then later refer to deck 26, that diminishes my enjoyment but doesn't prevent it. When they find creative ways to edify continuity, when the technobabble seems to have a little more thought behind it, and seems more plausible and consistent and convincing, that enhances my enjoyment and I'd like to nudge the powers that be in that direction.
But I agree with you that this new version is generally more entertaining than a lot of what's come before.
But why let something like that bother you? Whenever I hear someething like that, I usually ignore it. It's not relevant to the film's plot. If they missed a detail like Romulans having pointed ears and didn't explain it on screen, I'd be upset. But saying that whomever is in command of a ship being called "Captain" always applies while referring to Kirk as "Admiral" is something I could overlook.
--Sran
I think sometimes to err is simply human.
I don't know how many times I've written something, proofread it numerous time, then posted it or sent it via e-mail and then realized there was a big, glaringly obvious error in it that I should have caught.
Yeah, the mistake in Star Trek: First Contact stinks, but I can understand it happening.
Similar threads
