Why Do We Demand Internal Consistency & Continuity in Star Trek?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
If I'm reading a post using Big Blue, and somebody else is reading it using that white background that makes my eyes bleed, how could we both be in the same continuity?
Maybe we'll be lucky, and she'll have an uncle played by Tony Todd or something.
Discovery is trying to be edgy. So we'll have Tony Todd play her entire family. Like that Eddie Murphy movie from a few years ago.
They still have that fake boob for the love scene he'll be in?
Busey?
Screw it. Let's do this before I change my mind.
Screw it. Let's do this before I change my mind.
Busey has a Trump connection I assume. Maybe the new Busey-you can get him to join to help add some extra class to the board!
Jason
Too many writers not crosschecking or caring - all those cooks in the kitchen.
But having limitations can be good for storytelling. Whilst not related to writing 'Bruce' the shark in Jaws rarely worked so they had to adapt because they couldn't show the shark as much as planned in the script, and we likely got a better movie because of that limitation.
It's all about finding a balance between canon and the freedom to try new things. You clearly want them to try new things and takes chances but it also has to feel like it is logical for that character to do it or for it to make sense within the universe. If you want to do a story about Klingons invading the Ferengi for example you would best to use canon as a means of setting it up by saying something like the Ferengi were bribing Klingon leaders in the great house and the Klingon's desire for battle compelled them to act strongly. This is better than making the invasion make no sense and say it happened because the Klingon leader Graypok(who we never heard about before and for some reason is no longer Gowron who isn't even mentioned) has decided to invade them because he broke up with the Queen of the Ferengi named Shazar who we have also never heard about. Also the Klingons are green and the Ferengi now have tails because it will be really cool for a scene they want to do. Might make a fun story but it would make no sense and it would make the whole Trek universe feel even more fake. Unless your doing a reboot and then, have at it! Make as many changes as you want as long as it will be fun to watch. Of course eventually your reboot will then start to have it's own continuity and all of sudden you always now have to deal with green Klingons and Ferengi with tails.
Jason
Jason
Most of what we do is react to what is already in the can. I do wonder if fan expectation has coloured aspects of Discovery somewhat but I suspect current story telling is mostly based on survey. A demographic and market has had its profile assessed, the competition has been factored in and the story we get is a 'product'. It's too late to expect the Klingons to look like they will in ten years time based on the Discovery ones. They look as they do and we have to suck that one up, but we have every right to comment on it. We didn't set all the boundaries or play on them.
It's not like this sort of shit didn't happen with the earlier Treks though. I remember in the 50-Year Mission reading about how VOY did character design, and it was absolutely "focus groupy" when it came to certain characters. Neelix was designed to try to appeal to children, for example.
Gosh. I think the adult me is more sensitive to the qualities of Neelix - his kindness etc. He and Naomi were very much family together and for Star Trek kids, Naomi was a good kid. I read the actor who played Neelix wanted to be the EMH.
See, here’s the problem with this whole debate:
There’s no way to seriously argue about whether or not something adheres to “canon” when we can’t even agree on what “canon” is.
Michael Burnham is one example.
On one hand, neither Spock nor Sarke ever mentioned Spock having an adopted sister. Nothing prior to Discovery ever even teased a possibility.
Then again, we have clear evidence that Spock had a sibling never mentioned before Star Trek V. This has happened before.
So what is “canon”? Does he have siblings or not? Could he have even more siblings? I mean Sarek lived a long time. They never said he only had one child, did they?
This is just one tiny example. Is “canon” inclusive or exclusive? If we can’t agree on that, how can we possibly decide whether anything seen later adheres to that or not?
There’s no way to seriously argue about whether or not something adheres to “canon” when we can’t even agree on what “canon” is.
Michael Burnham is one example.
On one hand, neither Spock nor Sarke ever mentioned Spock having an adopted sister. Nothing prior to Discovery ever even teased a possibility.
Then again, we have clear evidence that Spock had a sibling never mentioned before Star Trek V. This has happened before.
So what is “canon”? Does he have siblings or not? Could he have even more siblings? I mean Sarek lived a long time. They never said he only had one child, did they?
This is just one tiny example. Is “canon” inclusive or exclusive? If we can’t agree on that, how can we possibly decide whether anything seen later adheres to that or not?
This is incorrect.
You should watch Timeless and any daytime soap. They retcon stuff quite frequently.
While it wasn't about continuity in the sense of "serialized stories" (TV simply didn't do that back then), it definitely had continuity in the sense of worldbuilding. As time went on we learned more about Starfleet, about Vulcan, about each of the major characters. And there were occasional low-key callbacks to previous episodes... "The Deadly Years" referenced the Corbomite trick, "Trouble with Tribbles" referenced the Organian treaty, "By Any Other Name" referenced the galactic barrier from "WNM" and Eminiar VII from "Taste of Armageddon"; "Assignment: Earth" referenced the time-travel trick discovered in "Naked Time"; "That Which Survives" referenced Janus VI, home of the Horta; "Turnabout Intruder" referenced the Tholians and events from "The Empath." And I may be missing a few.
I'd quibble about that somewhat. The movie "fleshed out" continuity superficially at best; it actually rather casually contradicted things previously established about Cochrane in TOS and even about World War III in TNG itself. If you want continuity fanwank done right, I'd direct your attention to ENT S4.
I don't really see those things as mutually exclusive. Seems to me they can and should be complementary. Certainly many of the Trek novels have managed to strike that balance... no reason the on-screen material shouldn't be able to do the same.
Last edited:
The NX-01 wasn't canon until it was. 35 years after the premiere of TOS and nearly 22 after TMP introduced the 22nd century ringship into the Enterprise lineage.
Within an episode? Yes
Across the franchise? No
There is no overarching "story" to star trek, just lots of smaller ones with the superficial appearance of a coherent setting to link them together.
Similar threads
- Locked
