What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?

[alex08060]

Star Trek does have back stores from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOG, all the movies and even ENT to add to the lore. DIS is a pre sequel with Star Trek history it needs to follow but writers do seem good enough with the spore drive and making it a section 31 story which is classified in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOG so I can expect a good story and continuity.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

No offense.... but, there is no discontinuity in Star Trek, just limited brains who watch it.

I find this statement hilariously entertaining. There is no discontinuity in the Star Trek universe if you're not paying attention or are willfully choosing to ignore it.

 

[unimatrix7]

Good storytelling is, to me, most important.

But I think you can have both. Continuity need not be ball and chain, and why make a Star Trek production if you aren't interested in its world? Call it something else. I dunno.

 

[marsh8472]

I find this statement hilariously entertaining. There is no discontinuity in the Star Trek universe if you're not paying attention or are willfully choosing to ignore it.

no discontinuity. It just appears like there is because the viewer is occasionally shifting to another quantum reality in the same way Worf did in "Parallels".

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

no discontinuity. It just appears like there is because the viewer is occasionally shifting to another quantum reality in the same way Worf did in "Parallels".

Well, that explains it. Now I know why I lost my wristwatch.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I thought it was neat that Worf did that. Was something fun and Enterprise come up with a cool way of explaining. Was it needed not really, but it was very clever never the less. The new Klingons don't even have hair.

It wasn't neat nor clever. It was DUMB. No, it was COLOSSALLY STUPID! If the writers of Enterprise didn't realize that the comment in DS9 was a joke, then they're failed hack writers. What we wiped off the screen in those few ENT episodes was massive fanwank. Jesus, any self-respecting Trek fan should admit that.

 

[fireproof78]

I find this statement hilariously entertaining. There is no discontinuity in the Star Trek universe if you're not paying attention or are willfully choosing to ignore it.

Bring your own concrete, as my Hollywood friends would say

 

[The Raven]

It wasn't neat nor clever. It was DUMB. No, it was COLOSSALLY STUPID! If the writers of Enterprise didn't realize that the comment in DS9 was a joke, then they're failed hack writers. What we wiped off the screen in those few ENT episodes was massive fanwank. Jesus, any self-respecting Trek fan should admit that.

Being you had some of the same people working on DS9 and working on Enterprise so you can't say they didn't realize. Nothing wrong with making episode that old school fans would enjoy. You don't like the explanation so it is dumb, love that logic.

 

[cultcross]

I find this statement hilariously entertaining. There is no discontinuity in the Star Trek universe if you're not paying attention or are willfully choosing to ignore it.

I imagine the meaning is 'create convoluted explanations for the errors' which is fine as a fan exercise, I've enjoyed it myself on occasion. The only problem is when it bleeds onto screen. We no more needed to know why the Klingon makeup changed than we needed to know why the same bird of prey's bridge is totally different in Star Trek III and IV, or how the crew can operate Klingon controls without a hitch in IV but can't string together a basic sentence in VI. Just the needs of different stories.

 

[Prax]

It's not all bad. We did get to see Uncle Phil in Klingon make up.

 

[ralfy]

I think the two work hand-in-hand.

 

[mos6507]

why make a Star Trek production if you aren't interested in its world?

Prebuilt brand recognition. That's what drives all reboots that deviate from the source material. Just crass marketing logic.

I think where Discovery is annoying is its attempt to try to convince people it's not violating canon when it is. The wiser move would be to just not be apologetic or rationalize and just do it. But to attempt to sort of force people to "eat their wheaties" so to speak, well, it never works. To do that while admitting they're looking forward to the fan on fan feuding (as Isaacs did) is, um, NOT good marketing logic unless you believe any publicity is good publicity.

 

[Albinator]

Storytelling all day long is the only right answer.

I think Discovery is straddling that line very well. They're fitting with canon and continuity, but not being hamstrung by it and bending it when needed to create a better story.

 

[Longinus]

As others have pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, I'd also like to point out that most glaring continuity inconsistencies in Trek have not been caused by the writers having some amazing story idea they absolutely had to do, they have been caused by the writers being lazy and recycling concepts from older shows and putting them in a context where they don't make sense.

 

[Wulfsa]

I find this statement hilariously entertaining. There is no discontinuity in the Star Trek universe if you're not paying attention or are willfully choosing to ignore it.

My pleasure to entertain you. This statement was not meant to be realy serious. But if you want to find failures and discontinuities you will find it, if you want to think around (what i prefer) you can do that to.

 

[JWPlatt]

What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?

Forced choices are invalid. Both are possible.

Sadly, my kids recognized this before they were out of the lower half of single digits of age.

...false dichotomy...

I guess that's the official nomenclature for it. Yep.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

Ive watched Star Trek since I was very young. My mother watched TOS when it first aired, and introduced me to it at a young age. I grew up in the TNG-DS9 era. I love Star Trek. And I'm really enjoying Discovery.

Ive not looked forward so much to a new episode each week since the first airing of DS9.
The story is interesting, the characters are complex and compelling, even if they arent all likeable. And it looks gorgeous.

I do struggle with the new look of the Klingons, mainly because some of the actors just clearly arent confortable in the makeup or the language. Every version of Trek has had different Klingons, though, sometimes majorly different and sometimes subtle, but different nonetheless. So this doesnt stop me from enjoying the show.

"But spock never mentioned a sister!"...no. nor did he mention who his father was until he'd come aboard. Nor did he mention his (half) brother until he actually comandeered the Enterprise. Seems perfectly reasonable that he'd never mention an adopted sister.

The minor differences here and there arent a problem to me. Star Trek has never been completely internally consistent. The much heralded "canon" is full of discrepancies. And it doesnt matter. Star Trek is broadly consistent, and each show or film has worked for its audience of the day. Discovery is doing the same.

So my view is story first. And Discovery has me looking forward to the next episode each week. Id say that checks the box.

 

[jaime]

Continuity is hard, needs writers and viewers to, like, remember shit. There may even be like, reading something or like, paying attention or something. And who wants that? It would like get in the way of The like, really dark and mature story, like how some things get killed or how someone is like really badass and like, that’s like, a good story, cos then you really care for the characters cos you don’t like, want them to be a badass with like armour and stuff. Or like Mass Effect, which like, I didn’t finish, but it was really cool...like Star Trek, but like better cos it had real people who blow shit up.
I mean that continuity stuff is like, cool for some stuff, like how Michaela is like Spocks Mum, but I only know that cos his dad was in that movie a few years ago, and like she died there and was Winona Ryder, so there like no continuity anyway.
And I really like michaela, because she’s like the characters I write in my fanfiction, and everyone knows that’s like, the future, because of like fifty shades made money and that was like fanfic, and now we have the gender games where even like the writers name is fanfic.
But yeah, remembering all that old shit is hard, it’s like, history, and like, what use is history?

 

[The Overlord]

Forced choices are invalid. Both are possible.

Sadly, my kids recognized this before they were out of the lower half of single digits of age.


I guess that's the official nomenclature for it. Yep.

Do you really have to be condesending towards me, just because started a thread you don't like?

Yes you can have both, but one can get in the way of the other. If the writers have a good Romulan story, should they not use it because of Balance of Terror?
Continuity within the show itself is important but throwing out ideas to match the continuity from episodes that airied 50 years ago seems very counterproductive, new viewers may not have seen those episodes.

 

[Butters]

To answer another way. I expect good story telling, from discovery, because its made by professionals and because I'm paying for it.

I expect adherence to continuity because its called Star Trek.