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

[Bad Thoughts]

75% of one, 25% of the other. I would not want to straightjacket Discovery by forcing the aesthetics of the 1960s on it, either in visually or in narrative, but continuity cannot be dismissed out of hand. Some changes should be expected, and hopefully the new series has room to breathe.

Let's not forget that the setting was chosen as a means of explaining ideas and concepts that appeared in the original series, and to that extent stories should lead towards it. The Federation is unified, but it feels far less integrated than it would in subsequent series.I think it is interesting that there are references to a Vulcan expeditionary force, presumably another scientific and military force that is in competition with Starfleet. Perhaps until that moment in which the defense of the Federation is paramount, they remain separate from one another, coordinating, but with their own agendas. At some level, I think the series wants to explore how people of different backgrounds work together.

 

[BillJ]

Story everyday and twice on Sunday. Fuck continuity.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how anal this comes across.
I can hear William Shatner screaming 'Get a life.'

Maybe? But the showrunners have set themselves up for this with claims of being "superfans".

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Story everyday and twice on Sunday. Fuck continuity.

Maybe? But the showrunners have set themselves up for this with claims of being "superfans".

And when hearing or reading a lot of their comments, they seem to have more experience with TNG and that era of Trek, as opposed to being more students of TOS.

And again, in their efforts to get continuity right, story and feel are taking a back seat. This happened with ENT as well as most of the movies. If you want the spirit and feel of TOS, tell a good story and make it enjoyable to watch. Don't bog it down with a ton of dialogue and rooms of people talking. Get out in space and frigging explore! Tell stories!

 

[Paradise City]

Adherence to continuity is an optional nicety. Good storytelling is essential. Eating icing but the cake is inedible or doesn't taste right makes for a poor eating experience.

 

[Mudd]

The story, obviously.

Every show is someone's first show.

Continuity will not engage them, and may confuse them.

Which brings us back to Discovery's marble-mouthed Halloween mask Klingons.

 

[KennyB]

STORY.

 

[Campe]

Story! Story! Story!

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Gray Fox]

Great storytelling is more important. TOS got Hugo awards for some of the stories. Since then, Treks may get an Emmy nomination for make-up or special effects. Sticking to canon is just a challenge to the writer's skills. You want a story with Romulans? A group of Romulan spies highjack a starship disguised as Vulcans. Who would know? As long as the writer doesn't make it science fantasy and keeps it believable, then the story can work.

 

[Braxton]

I feel that a good team of writer's can adhere to continuity and still tell good stories. I'm not saying a strict adherence needs to be applied to continuity but do your best to stick to it where you can. If a good story can be told but you need to bend something a little in order to do it, then do it but do it in a good way. I felt Star Trek Beyond was the best of the newest Trek films but apparently the general populace didn't. I do believe a lot can be done 10 years before TOS, space is big, the Federation is big, let's explore it. They just have to do it wisely.

 

[Ronald Held]

Story is important, but if you claim it is in the Prone uuniverse, it has to fit in canon wise. Not do a lot of stretching and Potentially come up with unpalatable reasons(excuses) how it can fit in.

 

[seigezunt]

Storytelling, by a mile. Continuity should be a tool, not a straightjacket. Trekkies have gone completely bonkers about "canon."

 

[Long Syntax]

Story. Of course in the context of ST it has to live within a certain framework, but I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to maneuver within the category of continuity / cannon.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Story is important, but if you claim it is in the Prone uuniverse, it has to fit in canon wise. Not do a lot of stretching and Potentially come up with unpalatable reasons(excuses) how it can fit in.

Actually, you could keep it within canon and not worry about fitting in too much. It's a huge galaxy. Not every starship will need to meet Kirk and crew, or Sarek, or be near Vulcan, or have to save Earth.

Just fit it in the timeline, let the story flow and absorb you. Too much worry about continuity, and you'll end up crippling the storytelling, worrying about the next canon minefield.

 

[Kane_Steel]

STD's story wasn't good enough to justify it's drastic deviations from the aesthetics of what this time was supposed to look and feel like.

 

[seigezunt]

I have a strong suspicion that the "canon feel" is going to emerge through plot, and not design trivia. Well, other than those sweet props.

 

[seigezunt]

I do sometimes wonder if all the accrued "canon" (lord, I am really starting to hate that word) has left fans in a position where it's well-nigh impossible to enjoy new Star Trek.

When I see comments like, "I liked this, but it wasn't Star Trek," I kind of feel that way. Have our expectations about what "Star Trek" is or has to be become so intricate and specific that we have fanned ourselves out of being able to enjoy anything that is new that calls itself Star Trek?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I do sometimes wonder if all the accrued "canon" (lord, I am really starting to hate that word) has left fans in a position where it's well-nigh impossible to enjoy new Star Trek.

When I see comments like, "I liked this, but it wasn't Star Trek," I kind of feel that way. Have our expectations about what "Star Trek" is or has to be become so intricate and specific that we have fanned ourselves out of being able to enjoy anything that is new that calls itself Star Trek?

To me, it isn't calling back to past series and/or movies for adherence that will decide whether or not I enjoy something Star Trek. More, it's the writing and production of those things (and their fear of contradicting that history) and trying to get it to work is what ruins the enjoyment.

I could frankly care less if it fits with a million bits of history. If it means a good story can happen but throw most of the history out the window, I'm all for it. I want to enjoy it, not analyze it.

 

[Spider]

I do sometimes wonder if all the accrued "canon" (lord, I am really starting to hate that word) has left fans in a position where it's well-nigh impossible to enjoy new Star Trek.

When I see comments like, "I liked this, but it wasn't Star Trek," I kind of feel that way. Have our expectations about what "Star Trek" is or has to be become so intricate and specific that we have fanned ourselves out of being able to enjoy anything that is new that calls itself Star Trek?

If it doesn't take place on a Connie with the crew in their pastel jammies, it isn't Star Trek. And I'm almost serious. LOL

Star Trek will never again be what the original series was, unless a show is specifically designed to mimic it. We old school campers have either adjusted to that or gave up on Trek a long time ago. Or we just plant ourselves in here and bitch about it. Like all things, Trek has changed with time, some good, some pretty fucking bad, and life goes on.

I'm not willing to give Discovery the slack (and time) I gave TNG to find it's legs. At the time, Trek was in a different world and I watched TNG's horrible silliness anyway, and was finally paid off as the show wonderfully matured in later seasons. I'm hopeful Discovery does the same thing, but much quicker. I'm old and have far less patience than I used to.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek will never again be what the original series was...

You can't go home again.

They'll simply never to be able to replicate what made TOS special. I'm not even sure what made it special. It just is.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

STD's story wasn't good enough to justify it's drastic deviations from the aesthetics of what this time was supposed to look and feel like.

Canon is not aethetics. Those change with the times. Rather, it's consistency and continuity with characters and established in-universe events.