What's more important, good story telling or adherence to continuity?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Neither of which Star Trek has consistently delivered on.
I like any thread to which I contribute, with one exception from TNZ for which it is against the rules to mention. The motivations for my affinity may differ from thread to thread.
Or not, which is why I object to the forced choice (but not the thread).
LOL. I disagree, but I like well-phrased humor even more. Points to you.
You mention that as though Trek fans never had a complaint about anything before Discovery...
In general story telling is the key.
Specifically to Trek (or any franchise with a long running established lore) I feel like both are integral. So far with Discovery I'd say that while it is most certainly Star Trek in many ways it also feels like a total misfit compared to every previous show nor does it fit with the KT despite all of the visually similarities.
Specifically to Trek (or any franchise with a long running established lore) I feel like both are integral. So far with Discovery I'd say that while it is most certainly Star Trek in many ways it also feels like a total misfit compared to every previous show nor does it fit with the KT despite all of the visually similarities.
That wasn't my point. My point is, DSC is the new punching bag and will get beat up for things prior incarnations have done.
May be repetitive, but I'll keep on saying it-Star Trek has never been consistent with continuity, and DSC is no exception.
Interesting characters played by good actors (which I find in DSC so far) are important too, along with story. Maybe they're part and parcel.
I will say this about visual/aural continuity. I just watched Star Wars ep. vii again. I LOVED the production/design, especially inside the starkiller base. Those dark halls and narrow, oblong lighting panels, just like the Death Star! It felt great. They built a universe in 1977, kept it consistent over 40 years, and you get to keep returning to the same universe of looks, sounds, even pacing beats and dialog style. That's the only reason I paid good money for the thoroughly pedestrian movie, Rogue One. I got to spend two hours in that universe that has been my companion since 1977. I wish they had tried a lot harder to fit first ENT and now DSC into the look and feel of TOS. It could have been done with modern production values. I do appreciate the sonic shoutouts I am hearing in DSC. They're a little incongruous when things look so different, but so be it.
I will say this about visual/aural continuity. I just watched Star Wars ep. vii again. I LOVED the production/design, especially inside the starkiller base. Those dark halls and narrow, oblong lighting panels, just like the Death Star! It felt great. They built a universe in 1977, kept it consistent over 40 years, and you get to keep returning to the same universe of looks, sounds, even pacing beats and dialog style. That's the only reason I paid good money for the thoroughly pedestrian movie, Rogue One. I got to spend two hours in that universe that has been my companion since 1977. I wish they had tried a lot harder to fit first ENT and now DSC into the look and feel of TOS. It could have been done with modern production values. I do appreciate the sonic shoutouts I am hearing in DSC. They're a little incongruous when things look so different, but so be it.
This is interesting, because a franchise is all about continuity, right? If storytelling trumps continuity, than Discovery isn't Star Trek, but if continuity becomes more important we get something middling like Enterprise. This is why Discovery should have followed Voyager; it would have avoided all these issues.
False premise, because a franchise is not "all about continuity." It *involves* continuity.
No. A franchise is about trademarks and profit.
People are worried about the minutiae of cannon not being adhered to on Discovery, but there are numerous examples of the minutiae of canon not being adhered to on every Trek show. Continuity is the secret sauce, but the story is the meal.
Agreed,
And Discovery has some quality writing and a quality story. the most important part.
This is true.
None of my disappointment about the show has anything to do with continuity or the lack thereof, nor has it to do with adherence or lack thereof to utopian nonsense or "Gene's vision." It's not just not good, and I've been hanging in longer because it's Star Trek than I would if it weren't.
If TOS had the budget of Star Wars, then things probably would have been different. Note the basic set design of TMP was carried on in Trek for 20 years.
The other thing is: Trek is supposed to look more advanced than OUR current world. We have no clue what's advanced and what's not in the SW universe.
They are not mutually exclusive. For Pete's sakes do you think Alan Moore ever sat at his desk moaning "Glycon, guide me DC has told over fifty years worth of stories about Superman, how ever can I craft a meaingful tale about the Man of Steel whilst taking all of that into account?" No, that dude dumped everything out on the desk took concepts A, B, C and stuck them together and saw that if A/B/C then D was a necessary truth and D made for a badass story. Too many come to Star Trek and are intimidated by the volume of sccumulated material and see it as an obstacle, rather than a resource to be mined, too few have had the wit and will to overcome that fear and push through to repurpose the pieces in service of something genius
Unlikely. The look of TOS is firmly rooted in the time period -- just look at other futuristic TV and film sci fi of the period.
The real game changer was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was not embraced initially by contemporary audiences. But soon after, fare like Space: 1999 and then Star Wars aped it. So did TMP.
But TOS fit in nicely with everything that preceded Kubrick's film. It obviously took visual and story cues from Forbidden Planet, Tom Corbett, This Island Earth, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, etc. A bigger budget would have resulted not in a different aesthetic but simply more. For it's time, TOS was one of the highest budgeted TV shows, too.
The easiest comparison is with Lost in Space. Both have saucer ships, control panels with rows and rows of blinking lights, velour uniforms, ray gun pistols and rifles, and alien landscapes obviously in sound stages. None of this is inconsistent with the expectations of the day.
One of my favorite episodes is "Fury" from Voyager. In it the characters state that you can't turn the ship during warp, even though we saw that happen dozens of times throughout all the other shows, and funnily, still did well after that episode.
Similar threads
- Locked
