Imagine if we had lost such a classic Trek episode as "ENT: Acquisition" because of all the canon/continuity issues... 
What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have good story telling despite having to maintain continuity. And let's remember, Discovery is probably not going to be the last ever Trek show produced. If it does reasonably well, the next show could be set in the prime timeline after TNG/DS9/Voy. And there we will probably see more unshackling of creative talent.
Imagine if we had lost such a classic Trek episode as "ENT: Acquisition" because of all the canon/continuity issues...
Ah the probably origin story for the favorite holonovel, "Vulcan Love Slave".
It is not just continuity that is an issue with the show so far, but also inconsistency, and inaccuracy.
For instance, the Brig of the Shenzhou is on Deck 9, but seen from the outside of the ship, its more like Deck 4 somewhere further up. The Shenzhou has X number of decks, but there is mention of a deck which doesn't exist.
I can understand feeling confined by the legacy and cannon of the show - but for the love of Kahless - Keep consistency with your own world you are building!!!!
Trek more than most shows, tries to ground it's universe in both our future, and its own history and rules. Does good storytelling really need you to use "100 years" instead of "65 years"? Or does this _____ need to be the first time something happened? Do you have to reinterpret everything in your vision, to tell a good story.
Only time will tell. Once the season ends, we can look back and see if the story told, was both good, and worth all the missteps and "liberties" taken regarding continuity.
For instance, the Brig of the Shenzhou is on Deck 9, but seen from the outside of the ship, its more like Deck 4 somewhere further up. The Shenzhou has X number of decks, but there is mention of a deck which doesn't exist.
I can understand feeling confined by the legacy and cannon of the show - but for the love of Kahless - Keep consistency with your own world you are building!!!!
Trek more than most shows, tries to ground it's universe in both our future, and its own history and rules. Does good storytelling really need you to use "100 years" instead of "65 years"? Or does this _____ need to be the first time something happened? Do you have to reinterpret everything in your vision, to tell a good story.
Only time will tell. Once the season ends, we can look back and see if the story told, was both good, and worth all the missteps and "liberties" taken regarding continuity.
At some point I think we will stop seeing shows as prequels or set in the future of other shows but simply being in the future of earth. I think that is where Trek is headed and none of the shows will connect with it except for references and maybe a few nods to the old school fans. What will be interesting is what the next show does. I think it will move away from the chains of canon even more and the one after that. I don't think Trek has that "Doctor Who" ability to always stay connected to even the old stuff because the changing nature of time travel and the Doctor almost demands change. .
I have a question though for people who feel the current show is canon. What exactly did we see in the pilot episode's that demanded the show be a canon based pequel setting in the prime universe? Most tv settings do serve a purpose and frankly if you do a prequel then the very idea is to show something that is more primitive than what you had seen before or if it is a established character to show them at a earlier stage of development. Why else use a past setting other than to go for some nostiga or to use something that was going on then to reflect what is going on today. Kind of like how the Korea War in "MASH" is actually about the Vietnam war.
The whole story feels like it could have easily been set 100 years in the future and nothing about it really seems to feel like it is something that would not work as a story in any other setting .A good prequel I think makes you feel like that more primitive setting helps make the story even better. The Klingon War I guess is a established event but frankly it seems like the Federation was always at war with them so it doesn't feel unique and it doesn't even have the luster of the Earth/Romulan war or the Eugenic's War or even the Carddisian War. It's basically just another conflict with the Klingons which we have seen plenty of over the years only made worst because the Klingons don't even seem to be Klingon anymore so now it's just a war with a new species that hasn't been developed.
Jason
I have a question though for people who feel the current show is canon. What exactly did we see in the pilot episode's that demanded the show be a canon based pequel setting in the prime universe? Most tv settings do serve a purpose and frankly if you do a prequel then the very idea is to show something that is more primitive than what you had seen before or if it is a established character to show them at a earlier stage of development. Why else use a past setting other than to go for some nostiga or to use something that was going on then to reflect what is going on today. Kind of like how the Korea War in "MASH" is actually about the Vietnam war.
The whole story feels like it could have easily been set 100 years in the future and nothing about it really seems to feel like it is something that would not work as a story in any other setting .A good prequel I think makes you feel like that more primitive setting helps make the story even better. The Klingon War I guess is a established event but frankly it seems like the Federation was always at war with them so it doesn't feel unique and it doesn't even have the luster of the Earth/Romulan war or the Eugenic's War or even the Carddisian War. It's basically just another conflict with the Klingons which we have seen plenty of over the years only made worst because the Klingons don't even seem to be Klingon anymore so now it's just a war with a new species that hasn't been developed.
Jason
A
Amaris
Guest
A part of good storytelling is that it makes sense within its own universe. If it can't do that, with moderate consistency, then it's not storytelling, it's just bullshitting.
Anyone who values adherence to continuity with a 51-year old show over telling a ripping space yarn that adheres to the spirit of that old show, if not the letter, is a crazy person.
Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of crazy people out there.
Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of crazy people out there.
I agree so why not disregard that continuity if you don't feel the need to stick with it? If it's okay to change the Klingons and the tech what is the point in stoping there? You could tell a story were all Starfleet ships are crewed by robots and still capture the spirit by still doing social commentary and and having a fun space adventure with these robot crewmembers who are into exploration and have friendly banter with each other.
"Orville" captures the spirit of Berman era Trek and it isn't even a Trek show. Canon is not the most important thng to good stories but for some reason the people who most want the show be part of canon are also the ones that are okay with the most changes to it. People who are the most concerned with canon are the ones who want a reboot that basically would toss all of it out. Only thing I can really tell is that I think everyone has a different opinion on what canon, exactly is. It seems to mean something different to everyone. Some it seems to be nothing more than the basic setting of space travel on a Federation starship with a certain feel to it. For others it's more about the little details that go into creating a universe from both it's cultures and technology and it's various big events.
Jason
This. Case in point, X-Men: First Class. Ignores or changes lots established in the previous three X movies (i.e. Charles and Erik meeting as teenagers), but the end result is a really good movie which is better for the changes made.
I think both are important, but good story telling is more important by a small margin.
I forgot about the Charles and Erik thing but it was established in the next movie that Charles basically erased everyone's memories in the world so history's version of the Cuban Missile Crisis is going to be different from what really went wrong and then the next movie involves time travel so you do got that as a means to explain any changes since it basically wiped out all the early movies.
Jason
I agree if the show is canon but if it's a reboot I don't see the problem. Unless you can explain a reason that makes sense for Picard to be a amphibian. Perhaps he was infected by a chemical many years ago on a mission and this new trait went dormant for many years. If "Discovery" did the story I suspect they would just establish that it's now part of his character and we don't need for it to make sense because it will be just a visual reboot when we give Picard some gills.
Jason
Where were you when Brannon Braga wrote 'Threshold' and made Janeway and Paris have lizard babies
But crazy people don’t know that they’re crazy. Now, I know that I’m crazy, therefore I’m not crazy. Isn’t that crazy?
No offense.... but, there is no discontinuity in Star Trek, just limited brains who watch it. Why everyone need predigested facts, think your own, get your own explanation... Doug Drexler uses the word apebrain on trekyards to explain how the most scifi fans think about canon etc.
Are you implying that there can't be both in the same story?
Would you want Discovery to do a really good story this season but it has Burnham with a completely different upbringing (nothing Vulcan) and her original family is alive, but again a really good story?
Because continuity means nothing after all.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how anal this comes across.
I can hear William Shatner screaming 'Get a life.'
Similar threads
- Locked
