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

[suarezguy]

Good story telling is what matters. Adherence to continuity should never be more than a secondary issue at best.

Well if you are contradicting a past episode, especially heavily contradicting, you are at least suggesting that your storytelling is better (since the past episode is to be ignored) so it should be.

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.

I don't think Kurtzman, Fuller or Goldsman have written a lot of good or better stories (though Meyer has) so I'd rather they didn't contradict and cause to be ignored or dismissed older stories including ones that were better.

 

[BillJ]

I think a great story would be how Abraham Lincoln, after taking in a show at the Ford Theatre, led an army against the Nazi colony on Mars to thwart their effort to build an Earth-destroying laser. But I suspect people would either argue this violates historical continuity, or see it as a fun ride that isn't taking itself seriously.

Alternate History is a big thing. Right now I'm reading a series of books by Harry Turtledove, about the US using nukes during the Korean war and how it spun out of control. I also doubt anyone really thinks Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter...

I don't get the big deal about continuity? Honestly, I didn't get it even when I was all "Heil, Roddenberry!" in my youth.

 

[The Raven]

It isn't canon you're tossing away. It is continuity with the old, which after seven hundred hours of this stuff, becomes a barrier for both writers and viewers.

Star Trek shouldn't be this insular subject that one needs a PhD in its fictional history to enjoy.

But alot of Star Trek fans pretty much have a PhD in the shows history. People enjoy it for the fact there is a rich history to the show. If you as a writer can't handle this go write for a different show.

 

[Kor]

Missed the bit where he was holding the freakin' thing in his hand? He said they stole it to build this device. Now it's there. And how the f--k are they supposed to confiscate something out of his head?

Maybe the device they recovered from the jump ship was broken.

But yes, ST:ID has various issues with its narrative. And I really don't care. I enjoy the movie purely for Cumberbatch's performance.

But alot of Star Trek fans pretty much have a PhD in the shows history. People enjoy it for the fact there is a rich history to the show. If you as a writer can't handle this go write for a different show.

There are plenty of casual viewers that wouldn't know the difference. The writers and producers have to make a product that will appeal to a broad audience, rather than something esoteric and cliquish that requires deep knowledge of 700 hours of prior lore just to understand what's going on.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

But alot of Star Trek fans pretty much have a PhD in the shows history. People enjoy it for the fact there is a rich history to the show. If you as a writer can't handle this go write for a different show.

Problem being you become so insular, no one new wants to get into it. Then you have an aging and dying fanbase with no one to refill the ranks. And, eventually, Star Trek dies.

 

[Dukhat]

Alternate History is a big thing. Right now I'm reading a series of books by Harry Turtledove, about the US using nukes during the Korean war and how it spun out of control. I also doubt anyone really thinks Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter...

Not to mention The Man in the High Castle.

But alot of Star Trek fans pretty much have a PhD in the shows history. People enjoy it for the fact there is a rich history to the show. If you as a writer can't handle this go write for a different show.

Or simply admit it's a reboot and then do your own thing. You don't need to be versed tooth and nail in the history of Star Trek in order to make a good show of your own. It will either stand on its own merits or it won't.

 

[BillJ]

Not to mention The Man in the High Castle.

I knew I was missing a big one. Thanks!

 

[The Raven]

Writing episodes which don't spit on the shows history does not require writing stories which casual fans will not understand. You have to get and keep the Star Trek fan base to stick to the show along with getting new people to watch. You can write shows which follow canon of the pre existing shows and are great stories at the same time. If you want to pay zero attention to canon, then put the show after all the existing stories and have at it.

 

[BillJ]

Writing episodes which don't spit on the shows history does not require writing stories which casual fans will not understand.

You're not spitting on anyone. You are just updating it for modern times, much like they did with the visuals. We're they spitting on the people who designed the sets of TOS when they created new ones?

 

[Jayson1]

Aren't we missing something in the canon/continuity debate! Canon/Continuity means something different when your doing a story from scratch as oposed to doing something in universe/setting that has already been established. If the story you want to tell can't be told within the established rules why are you using that as your setting to begin with?

Putting "Discovery" in a new line of continuity would not impact anything they have already done and if anything it would open the door up to more options because who knows what might happen. Maybe the Federation looses the war or Sarek gets killed. Just once I would like someone to tell me how the show's quality is impacted by it being a Prime universe show. Other than trying to force a connection to the other shows I don't see the benefit and frankly that kind of connection is impossible if you change so much that the connection feels unbelievable.

Jason

 

[suarezguy]

Problem being you become so insular, no one new wants to get into it. Then you have an aging and dying fanbase with no one to refill the ranks. And, eventually, Star Trek dies.

But just three or two movies into a new continuity (but with the original and ostensibly most popular characters) Beyond and I would also say ID underperformed. And Discovery seems to be willing to be pretty insular or more insular in being subscription streaming and having a MA rating.

 

[BillJ]

But just three or two movies into a new continuity (but with the original and ostensibly most popular characters) Beyond and I would also say ID underperformed.

I love how Into Darkness underperformed when it made the most money at the box office in the history of the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I love how Into Darkness underperformed when it made the most money at the box office in the history of the franchise.

Star Trek: Born to Runner-Up!

 

[The Raven]

You're not spitting on anyone. You are just updating it for modern times, much like they did with the visuals. We're they spitting on the people who designed the sets of TOS when they created new ones?

Changing the look of the sets, fine make those changes. I don't like the changes of the Klingons. If they didn't call them Klingons I would have thought it was a different species (that I see as a problem). You have a small amount of rules that really need to be followed in the year 2256, if you can't follow them find somebody that can.

 

[BillJ]

You have a small amount of rules that really need to be followed in the year 2256, if you can't follow them find somebody that can.

You have a huge amount of stuff that has to be followed. From Enterprise, to various mentions of the time period in later shows. There is a lot out there.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Changing the look of the sets, fine make those changes. I don't like the changes of the Klingons. If they didn't call them Klingons I would have thought it was a different species (that I see as a problem). You have a small amount of rules that really need to be followed in the year 2256, if you can't follow them find somebody that can.

1979 called, they want their complaint back.

 

[The Raven]

I would bet you could fit what is really know about this period on one piece of notebook paper.

 

[The Raven]

Enterprise explained the look of the Klingons, it was a settled issue.

 

[Phoenix219]

What book is that? Hah, the last line seems to be suggesting something very similar to what people were expecting to be the explanation for the DSC Klingons, and fits the augment virus plot. Hahaha.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What book is that? Hah, the last line seems to be suggesting something very similar to what people were expecting to be the explanation for the DSC Klingons, and fits the augment virus plot. Hahaha.

It's from Best of Trek #3 (collected articles from Trek fanzine) published in 1980.