Why Do We Demand Internal Consistency & Continuity in Star Trek?

[The Wormhole]

I agree with you to a degree, but you can't for example

Ep1: We can't back up the EMH
Ep 7: Have a backup of the EMH appear
Ep 16: We can't back up the EMH

Which is it? The worst continuity errors are when the writers ignore limitations they themselves imposed on themselves. You want to get around the limitation then explain to me why it no longer applies don't treat me as an idiot.

And really expecting viewers to remember what happened in previous episodes wasn't even a new thing in the 1990's. Shows like Dallas were doing it in the 1980's.

But I suspect the more we are caught up in a story/characters the more we tend to overlook any continuity errors, whilst the less engaged we the more those errors become apparent.

Well, I was more referring to the greater canvas of the Star Trek franchise. A Star Trek series should not necessarily be beholden to something another series established twenty years prior, the story gets priority over canon. Though it does become inexcusable ignore the canon when you go out of your way to say you aren't going to. However, yes, I agree that each series should be consistent with its own internal continuity and not break any rules established within that series. That is sloppy and lazy.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

"Fan" originates from "fanatic" for a reason. If people love something that they invest their time and money into, envelop themselves in the mythos and stories that have been told and see how things connect up with one shared universe and continuity. The viewers who have been with a franchise for a while will feel like they have a personal stake in it, because they've connected with it in some way.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I expect consistency out of ANY show that I watch.

 

[Spot261]

Personally I don't give two hoots about continuity and can't for the life of me understand why people work try so hard to convince themselves it's there.

It's more about what certain aspects of the fanbase want to be there than what actually is.

Trek is great for the stories, the allegory, the social message, but if you want world building, try Tolkien instead.

 

[Refuge]

I expect consistency out of ANY show that I watch.

I tend to go with this. As a yardstick in the real universe, we value history. We like to think we can learn from it and base some of our expectations of the future on that. Not just the history of humanity but the living world of the planet, the environment, our own universe. We may or may not know how everything works but there is integrity and substance in what we do know. In a fictional universe with characters and 'history' AND the made up universe, I still expect some consistency and integrity of keeping to context and timelines - if that is how the show and story has been sold to us. Not so worried about production values or even (apologies to those who care) but exact measurements of ships etc. but I do roll my eyes at inconsistent usage of say technology - I'm talking to you spore drive! Things that don't fit in context of a stand alone show are fine but within the chosen and known franchise of the writers, they are easily ridiculed.

 

[MacLeod]

I expect consistency out of ANY show that I watch.

Except of course anthology shows (unless they do a sequel episode)

 

[Mojochi]

On the whole, I wouldn't say we demand it. I'd say we get disappointed when it's abandoned, or overlooked, & the reason for that is because when everything has an internal consistence, it clearly makes the experience more enjoyable, & as fans, who by definition can be fanatic, we hope for the same level of involvement from the creators that we have

 

[SPCTRE]

It's a spectrum, not a consensus.

your spectrum will adapt to serve our hive mind TBBS consensus

 

[Jayson1]

Mostly for world-building. You want to believe this universe is real even though it is beyond unrealistic but if things start to connect and you see some logic in how things work it all of sudden starts to make internal sense. As for the characters it's for characters to have some depth and complexity so they feel like they are more than just pawns of the, gimmick of the week. As for fans it's because it's just fun to talk about this stuff and add extra meaning to it all. I doubt TNG was trying to imply that modern music in the 24th century is a dead medium for some reason and maybe it's because humans have lost the edge to make great art. But when you watch the shows and all the old classical music and other old music it does make sense and thus it makes it seem possible that it might be true, wthin that fictional universe.

Jason

 

[eschaton]

I expect consistency out of ANY show that I watch.

I wouldn't go that far. In general I think comedies can get away with lacking internal consistency because often there is humor in things like fourth-wall breaking that totally destroy immersion. In sci-fi, I don't care one whit if Red Dwarf, Futurama, or MST3000 are internally consistent, for example.

Drama does need a consistent world however if it has ongoing characters. In order to emotionally connect with/care about characters (instead of just laugh at them) we need to be able to suspend disbelief and fool ourselves into thinking they're real people. Having a setting which changes for inexplicable reasons does not help the matter.

 

[Forbin]

My view is that a writer should be able to write within the established history of a show, the same as a writer of a historical drama should be able to write within established real-world history. You've got a list of things that happened, don't go contradicting it.

(Then somebody usually says "but fiction isn't history", as if that voids my point, which it doesn't. Writing is writing, continuity is continuity).

 

[Jayson1]

I wouldn't go that far. In general I think comedies can get away with lacking internal consistency because often there is humor in things like fourth-wall breaking that totally destroy immersion. In Sci-fi, I don't care one whit if Red Dwarf, Futurama, or MST3000 are internally consistent, for example.

Drama does need a consistent world however if it has ongoing characters. In order to emotionally connect with/care about characters (instead of just laugh at them) we need to be able to suspend disbelief and fool ourselves into thinking they're real people. Having a setting which changes for inexplicable reasons does not help the matter.

Some comedies but then you got something like "Arrested Development" which is one callback after another. Also when you do stuff that is more character oriented the jokes have to make since because it feels like someone that the character being laughed at would do.

Jason

 

[Mage]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Seriously, I suspect that matters more to some viewers than others. It's a spectrum, not a consensus.

IMO, the entire thread could have stopped after this comment.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Why shouldn’t we? It’s just basic good storytelling that the world be consistent and internally make sense.

Because some other TV has low storytelling standards we should lower our standards?

 

[Spot261]

Why shouldn’t we? It’s just basic good storytelling that the world be consistent and internally make sense.

Because some other TV has low storytelling standards we should lower our standards?

Because it was never the point, never really written into the show from the word go and only really was ever considered when various showrunners realised that fans were expecting it.

Trek is about a message, about ideas, the setting is just that, a setting which allows those ideas to be expressed. It was never supposed to be a Tolkien esque epic world to be explored, which is exactly why it falls apart so readily under analysis.

It's ironic that for some reason it is singularly prone to attracting fans who are looking for exactly the opposite, who see the ideals of inclusivity, tolerance and diversity as less important than the deck counts on the ship or the appearance of Klingons.

Just to demonstrate how ridiculous the irony of this can be, we've literally seen people arguing against representation of disabled people on the show, something which is exactly in fitting with the purpose and ethos of trek, why it has such an enduring cultural impact, because they don't feel it fits in with "canon" about the medical technology on the show.

It's hard to imagine any more clear an example of missing the woods for the trees.

 

[BillJ]

Just to demonstrate how ridiculous the irony of this can be, we've literally seen people arguing against representation of disabled people on the show, something which is exactly in fitting with the purpose and ethos of trek, why it has such an enduring cultural impact, because they don't feel it fits in with "canon" about the medical technology on the show.

Yeah. That one had me scratching my head.

 

[Takeru]

I expect consistency within a show but not in a franchise. There's really no reason why Discovery should take anything from TOS into account beyond broad strokes for example.
Even the movies didn't bother with details, TWOK only works as a Space Seed sequel if we squint really hard and make up explanations in our head, Kahn totally met Chekov off screen, starfleet didn't notice a missing planet, no one ever bothered to check what the genetic supermen bend on domination where doing in exile. Kahn himself got a new personality, the Space Seed version probably would have blamed himself for his failure to succeed instead of blaming Kirk and throwing everything away for petty revenge.

The TNG version of the klingons might as well be a different species from the TOS version, they have nothing in common and it's not just the make up, they behave completely different. Which is funny because one of the major complaints about Discovery is that the klingons are completely different ... yeah, so? What's new?

Star Trek was really food at pretending to be consistent during the 90s but was it really? The Trill in DS9 are not the Trill from TNG and just like with the klingons I'm not just talking about the make up change, in TNG the host was just a flesh vehicle the symbiont was driving from the belly like Krang. The original, Riker and female versions of Odan were all portrayed as exactly the same character, there was no merging of personalities.

 

[eschaton]

Because it was never the point, never really written into the show from the word go and only really was ever considered when various showrunners realised that fans were expecting it.

Trek is about a message, about ideas, the setting is just that, a setting which allows those ideas to be expressed. It was never supposed to be a Tolkien esque epic world to be explored, which is exactly why it falls apart so readily under analysis.

TOS was definitely not about continuity. I mean, outside of the characters on the Enterprise, you had what?

• Mudd reappearing once
• Arguably reusing The Cage footage for The Menagie
• A reference to the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble With Tribbles
• The Klingons and Romulans used as recurring antagonists (albeit with different characters each time)

That's it really. The show was entirely episodic, and (other than the Menagerie two-parter) no episodes ever had sequels. There weren't even off-hand remarks inserted into the script about past adventures. This changed quickly though after TOS. TAS had several episodes (Yesteryear, More Tribbles, More Troubles, Mudd's Passion) which were basically fankwanky sequels to threads from TOS.

What set things in motion, however I think was TWOK. TMP was an attempt at a new adventure, and didn't work. TWOK was a direct sequel to a TOS episode, and acclaimed. It was followed up with two further movies which gave the TOS characters their first true serialized arc. In general with Trek movies, the fanwankier the movie, the more popular they were. TUC, for example, while it's not a direct sequel, seems to have been in part written to help square the circle of how the Klingons evolved from being ruthless antagonists to the uneasy allies we see in early TNG - serving as a "prequel" to the TNG era. And the most beloved TNG-era movie - First Contact - is double fanwank, fleshing out Zephram Cochrane and the origin of human warp flight and serving as a sequel to BoBW. In contrast, the other Trek movies - which were jumped-up TNG episodes - were mostly not popular. Hell, even the reboot movies follow this format, even if not set in the prime continuity. The first two movies are full of fankwank like Pike and Khan. Star Trek: Beyond is a standalone adventure, and underperformemed.

We could also extend this to series post TOS. TNG's first-season attempts to bring back stories from TOS were lill-advised, but people generally liked the episodes which built on TNG's developing cast of recurring characters. DS9 broke from the Trek format a bit, but it was the fanwankiest of the series by far in terms of expanding on what TOS and TNG had established. VOY went its own way, and never did as well in ratings and critical acclaim. ENT floundered early on when it basically took the VOY format, but as it developed its own mythos in season 3, and turned to pure fanwank in season 4, it won over more hardcore fans - if not general viewers.

The fact of the matter is the bulk of Trek fans don't want the TOS format updated for today. They don't want to use the Trek formula to endlessly explore new sci-fi issues. They want a deepening exploration of what's already been established.

 

[Spot261]

I expect consistency within a show but not in a franchise. There's really no reason why Discovery should take anything from TOS into account beyond broad strokes for example.
Even the movies didn't bother with details, TWOK only works as a Space Seed sequel if we squint really hard and make up explanations in our head, Kahn totally met Chekov off screen, starfleet didn't notice a missing planet, no one ever bothered to check what the genetic supermen bend on domination where doing in exile. Kahn himself got a new personality, the Space Seed version probably would have blamed himself for his failure to succeed instead of blaming Kirk and throwing everything away for petty revenge.

The TNG version of the klingons might as well be a different species from the TOS version, they have nothing in common and it's not just the make up, they behave completely different. Which is funny because one of the major complaints about Discovery is that the klingons are completely different ... yeah, so? What's new?

Star Trek was really food at pretending to be consistent during the 90s but was it really? The Trill in DS9 are not the Trill from TNG and just like with the klingons I'm not just talking about the make up change, in TNG the host was just a flesh vehicle the symbiont was driving from the belly like Krang. The original, Riker and female versions of Odan were all portrayed as exactly the same character, there was no merging of personalities.

Exactly, what consistency we have really relies on the viewer not looking too closely or asking too many questions. Sadly we've had fifty years of people doing exactly that only to be horrified to discover that consistency and continuity don't quite make skin deep in this franchise.

Why people so attracted to world building become so obsessed with a setting which is notable for not really bothering is, curious.....

The fact of the matter is the bulk of Trek fans don't want the TOS format updated for today. They don't want to use the Trek formula to endlessly explore new sci-fi issues. They want a deepening exploration of what's already been established.

I'm not sure that's the case at all. Even if we don't delve into the viewing figures but look just at this forum alone, there are currently 27,630 members. Reading through the canon forums however, the contingent who are visibly passionate about this stuff actually only really boils down to maybe thirty or forty names which keep recurring and being disproportionately vocal in a setting specifically designed to accommodate exactly that niche interest.

Spend more time in the lounges and you find hundreds upon hundreds of genuine fans who know the franchise just as well (or, frankly much better) but simply don't care about the minutiae and don't bother venturing up to challenge that mindset because...why would they? They're too busy either having fun or asking questions which actually matter.

I honestly believe the obsession with "canon" is actually symptomatic within a tiny minority who are disproportionately vocal within those areas precisely because it's the only placed they get taken seriously, with the end result of the superficial appearance of a fandom way too focused on the details for their own good, whilst the sensible majority just leave them to it.

 

[BillJ]

I honestly believe the obsession with "canon" is actually symptomatic within a tiny minority who are disproportionately vocal within those areas precisely because it's the only placed they get taken seriously, with the end result of the superficial appearance of a fandom way too focused on the details for their own good, whilst the sensible majority just leave them to it.

For me, it comes down to engagement. If the story is engaging me, then I tend to look the other way on in-universe "issues". If it isn't, then I begin to talk about everything about the show, including the failing of being able to keep things straight. Especially when the writers are self-proclaimed "super fans".

Though to be honest, the Discovery production crew kinda stepped into all of this when they proclaimed it as "Prime". Should've just said it was "Star Trek" and allowed the fans to interpret the show in any manner they chose.