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

[suarezguy]

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

It did, as do some other most-recent movies in franchises despite also earning the most-because their budgets were also the largest/increased even more than did the earnings.

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.

What would be onerous about using the original series/Pike era uniforms (or something pretty close)?

 

[The Raven]

Using TOS series uniforms would have been a nice thing to do.

 

[rafterman1701]

I like a balance between continuity and good storytelling. Continuity is a challenge, not a shackle. It also says you're creating a world that builds and grows and not just constantly contradicting yourself. Continuity in a single story is crucial, but even in films they allow some errors to show up if the emotion or story is more important. Some of my favorite canon breaks are when you just ignore something that wasn't thought out and now you don't want to be shackled to a random comment you didn't really have any use for. Seinfeld once mentioned George's brother early in the show. Later, no mention again. Continuity can flex like that, but be careful where you break it. And we all disagree on where that line is.

 

[fireproof78]

What would be onerous about using the original series/Pike era uniforms (or something pretty close)?

Pretty close would have been good, but the original design are ugly, and Captain Pike is my second favorite captain.

 

[Zeppster]

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

You aren't factoring inflation and fact is Into Darkness cost around 200 million to make and only made less than half a million. Figuring in advertising and toy sales it basically doesn't even recoup it's money in todays age. WOK adjusted for inflation only took about 30 million dollars to make and made 200 million(AFI) in box office sales. TVH spent 50 mil and made around 335 million adjusted for inflation.

 

[fireproof78]

You aren't factoring inflation and fact is Into Darkness cost around 200 million to make and only made less than half a million. Figuring in advertising and toy sales it basically doesn't even recoup it's money in todays age. WOK adjusted for inflation only took about 30 million dollars to make and made 200 million(AFI) in box office sales. TVH spent 50 mil and made around 335 million adjusted for inflation.

In Hollywood, no movie "makes money" by their accounting. So, that's an oversimplification of the process, even adjusting for inflation.

Not saying that ST ID made money or-no idea. Just that Paramount was willing to make a third movie which means it made enough.

 

[OpenMaw]

I find this entire thing rather silly to be honest.

So you get all the facts right, all the continuity lines up, the canon is perfect.

But the story is absolutely utterly dreadful.

or, you make a few mistakes in continuity, and tell one of the most compelling/entertaining Trek stories ever.

Wrath of Khan arguably fits the second description. It makes a few mistakes, but it tells a really good, entertaining story that has a heart and a head.

 

[BillJ]

You aren't factoring inflation and fact is Into Darkness cost around 200 million to make and only made less than half a million. Figuring in advertising and toy sales it basically doesn't even recoup it's money in todays age. WOK adjusted for inflation only took about 30 million dollars to make and made 200 million(AFI) in box office sales. TVH spent 50 mil and made around 335 million adjusted for inflation.

I'm also sure if you only count the Tuesdays Into Darkness was out after week nine, Nemesis box office total totally beats it.

It may not have been the most profitable, but people showed up for it.

 

[Crazyewok]

I dont see why we cant have both.

Only a lazy hack writer cant give both.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Wrath of Khan arguably fits the second description. It makes a few mistakes, but it tells a really good, entertaining story that has a heart and a head.

Aside from Khan claiming to know Chekov and "selective breeding" being replaced by "genetic engineering", what other continuity errors were there?

 

[Crazyewok]

Um... there is seven hundred hours of this stuff. I like it and have watched it all my life and still get things confused/wrong.

Your statement is totally unfair to the writers.

There is a huge gulf between small mistakes like colour of phaser beams or getting a date slightly wrong and changing the appearance of a iconic race of aliens......

Small continuity errors are fine.......changing huge swaths of it for no reason is just bad writing.

 

[Crazyewok]

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.

That is likely a episode of next seasons doctor who.

 

[Butters]

I have to agree that a good story and good continuity aren't mutually exclusive. Its not like there are several conflicting accounts to reconcile.

If I was writing a drama set in the eighties, I'd need to do infinitely more research to get it right, and I was there. Not much excuse for the trek writers to not know their subject matter.

Star Trek really came to life for me when I watched Space Seed for the first time. I was already familiar with the Wrath of Kahn as a film I enjoyed, but when Kirk discovered the Botany Bay, I immediately knew that we were about to meet Kahn.

Continuity rules!

 

[OpenMaw]

Aside from Khan claiming to know Chekov and "selective breeding" being replaced by "genetic engineering", what other continuity errors were there?

Well those two are the most often brought up, and it is one that Nick Meyer brings up in his director's commentary, and basically says "Eh... What evs."

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I don't see it as an "either/or" situation.

Adherence to continuity does not need to be a shackle that prevents good storytelling. I think good stories not only could be told while (generally) adhering to Trek continuity, but in fact I think generally adhering to continuity is one of the best things about the stories the trek franchise has told us.

That is to say, continuity enhances those stories, and enhances Star Trek overall.

...and I'm saying "generally" adhering because we all know that Star Trek continuity has been bent and tweaked over the past 50+ years. However, aside form the Kelvin universe films, Star Trek has kept a relatively tight continuity, and I think that has been a positive trait for the stories being told that span the franchise.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't see it as an "either/or" situation.

Adherence to continuity does not need to be a shackle that prevents good storytelling. I think good stories not only could be told while (generally) adhering to Trek continuity, but in fact I think generally adhering to continuity is one of the best things about the stories the trek franchise has told us.

That is to say, continuity enhances those stories, and enhances Star Trek overall.

...and I'm saying "generally" adhering because we all know that Star Trek continuity has been bent and tweaked over the past 50+ years. However, aside form the Kelvin universe films, Star Trek has kept a relatively tight continuity, and I think that has been a positive trait for the stories being told that span the franchise.

For me the strength of continuity is that it makes the universe feel like a real place which is kind of hard thing to do when you have things like spaceships and transporters and aliens who speak English. Plus it's something that helps make something that has a strong fanbase that people get invested in instead of something people might watch, kind of be entertained and forget about it 10 minutes after they watch.

Which brings up the question. Is "DIscovery" trying to create new fans or just new viewers because those two things are not the same IMO. I'm a fan of "Star Trek" but I am a viewer of "Veep." IN many ways "Veep" is better than Trek but at the same time I don't really delve into how the universe operates and wonder about spin-offs or any continuity flubs. If any new fans they bring in for the show aren't going to be on the internet, talking about it and bitching about it like old fans do, then Trek won't have much of a future as a franchise.

Jason

 

[Galileo7]

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.

Agree.

 

[Destructor]

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

I honestly believe that if Ron Moore knew the impact putting that joke into Trials & Tribbleations would have, he'd have left it on the cutting room floor. It was a JOKE. A joke about how the Klingons look different in TOS. Want to know why they look different in TOS? It was the sixties and they had less money. Want to know why they look different in DISCO? It's 2017 and it's got a feature film budget. The DS9 writers decided to make a joke about the discontinuity, but 'Enterprise', in what I believe was the best of intentions, took that joke and ran with it and now fans get their heads wrapped up in why there is visual discontinuity between two shows made 50 years apart. But when TMP came out nobody lost their minds over the new look. They just rolled with it. Which is what you need to do now. You need to roll with this.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I'm bothered by continuity sometimes and not by others.

NOT BOTHERED BY:

* Klingons looking like orcs
* Starships looking advanced
* Uniforms being different from sixties miniskirts and gold shirts
* Changed actors

BOTHERED BY

* Spock getting a sister he never mentioned
* Klingons suddenly caring about the bodies of the dead

And even I think I'm nitpicking about the bodies thing.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Story,

Trek is a mangled mess of Christmas tree lights. Unpacking it and seeing what it looks like in a straight line is near Impossible.

Write a good story with good continuity in and of itself. Cause if the show sucks, I don't give a crap how well it adhered.

I mean, I'd LIKE it to adhere to continuity but, then you have to ask yourself "what continuity" you want it to adhere to.