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

[Jayson1]

It's why we should think if more like a shared universe instead of canon. Continuity being more strict within each show but you also got to at least sort of feel like everything is in the same universe to maintain the shared universe. A shared universe is less about one ongoing story but for making sure the aliens feel the same,character crossovers,some big event details stay the same, and the tech feels somewhat consitent in abilities and look but the tech is mostly for the ones that share the same time period. More the shows are separted by distance through time the more loose you can play with overall visuals and tech abilities.

Jason

 

[BillJ]

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?

I think it is more about whether or not something is a good idea or not. The canon considerations are always secondary for me.

Is Michael Burnham being Spock's sister a "good" idea? We saw the backlash over Sybok (Luckenbill, like Martin-Green is a good actor, that got saddled with bad material.), so I'm not sure who in the writers room thought it was a good idea to go back to that well? I'm not sure the optics were all that good with Burnham either. The first female minority lead on a Star Trek series that is supposed to be a polished officer in line for command immediately has a breakdown over Klingons then has to go running to a white parental figure for guidance.

So while it doesn't violate the letter of continuity in the Prime universe, I think it was a decidedly bad idea to try and connect Burnham to Spock/Sarek. It kinda shifted the spotlight away and added unneeded baggage to what was supposed to be the center of the show.

I was hoping she would stand on her own in season two. But we all know that isn't going to happen...

 

[cooleddie74]

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.

You mean it's not tight-fitting uniforms without pockets?

We were LIED TO.

 

[Spot261]

You mean it's not tight-fitting uniforms without pockets?

We were LIED TO.

Life lesson for the day, you are always being lied to.

 

[cooleddie74]

Trip and Malcolm would agree with you.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[1001001]

That was pretty funny, those two getting rolled.

 

[cooleddie74]

And by DSC-era Klingons, no less.





(*Runs*)

 

[Spot261]

Some security officer

 

[lawman]

On reflection (and this ties back into the "suspension of disbelief" thing, as does so much of this discussion), I think the varying opinions about this may relate to people's different levels of tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

Take the Daniel Boone example, or any of several others mentioned here. You have a situation that basically boils down to "X could be true, or Y could be true, but they can't both be true." That's a logical contradiction, and when there's a logical contradiction within a story/ series/ franchise/ shared universe (or basically any scale depiction of a supposedly single reality), it bothers me. Logically contradictory things don't exist in the real world (and this is one of the reasons I'm not religious IRL), so I don't want them in my fiction, either.

A fair number of other people apparently have a much greater capacity for cognitive dissonance, as witness the various posters who say "I don't care if it makes sense as long as it's fun." (And meanwhile IRL, religion exists.)

 

[Dukhat]

And by DSC-era Klingons, no less.





(*Runs*)

Too funny!

 

[Spot261]

On reflection (and this ties back into the "suspension of disbelief" thing, as does so much of this discussion), I think the varying opinions about this may relate to people's different levels of tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

Take the Daniel Boone example, or any of several others mentioned here. You have a situation that basically boils down to "X could be true, or Y could be true, but they can't both be true." That's a logical contradiction, and when there's a logical contradiction within a story/ series/ franchise/ shared universe (or basically any scale depiction of a supposedly single reality), it bothers me. Logically contradictory things don't exist in the real world (and this is one of the reasons I'm not religious IRL), so I don't want them in my fiction, either.

A fair number of other people apparently have a much greater capacity for cognitive dissonance, as witness the various posters who say "I don't care if it makes sense as long as it's fun." (And meanwhile IRL, religion exists.)

The question for me then becomes, how on earth do you enjoy anything?

Any work of fiction inherently will contain some inconsistency at some point along the line, that's unavoidable, it's part of the definition.

Trek in particular is notably riddled with them, infamous for it in fact, so why torture yourself by looking so closely for something you know will bother you?

 

[1001001]

I think it is more about whether or not something is a good idea or not. The canon considerations are always secondary for me.

Is Michael Burnham being Spock's sister a "good" idea? We saw the backlash over Sybok (Luckenbill, like Martin-Green is a good actor, that got saddled with bad material.), so I'm not sure who in the writers room thought it was a good idea to go back to that well? I'm not sure the optics were all that good with Burnham either. The first female minority lead on a Star Trek series that is supposed to be a polished officer in line for command immediately has a breakdown over Klingons then has to go running to a white parental figure for guidance.

So while it doesn't violate the letter of continuity in the Prime universe, I think it was a decidedly bad idea to try and connect Burnham to Spock/Sarek. It kinda shifted the spotlight away and added unneeded baggage to what was supposed to be the center of the show.

I was hoping she would stand on her own in season two. But we all know that isn't going to happen...

I see your point, but the discussion is specifically about continuity.

Like you said, if someone objects on the basis of acting, writing, plot etc. that's completely understandable.

There's nothing discontinuous about Michael Burnham. And that is not, IMHO, a reasonable basis to criticize her.

That's my only point.

 

[BillJ]

I see your point, but the discussion is specifically about continuity.

I went off the rails a bit, but it was something I had been thinking about for a while.

 

[lawman]

The question for me then becomes, how on earth do you enjoy anything?

I enjoy lots of things. Having high standards doesn't get in the way of that. Sturgeon's Law applies, of course, but the remaining ten percent is worth holding out for.

Any work of fiction inherently will contain some inconsistency at some point along the line, that's unavoidable, it's part of the definition.

I don't agree with that. Inherent? Part of the definition? How do you figure?

That said, even to the extent that various otherwise good works do contain logical contradictions, it's necessarily a matter of degree, not of kind. It's not all or nothing. An inconsistency about some obscure bit of trivia that's not really relevant to the plot or characters, or one that was genuinely unavoidable for (reasons), or one that's only seemingly dissonant but can be rationalized away with a little logical inference, is a lot easier to swallow. On the other hand, an inconsistency about something major, obvious, and/or central to the story, one that's committed as a matter of choice and could have been avoided, and/or one that has no readily available explanation, or even that eschews explanations that are available in the narrative context...

...like, for instance, completely changing the look of the Klingons, their ships, and everything else about them, in a story where Klingons are central, in complete defiance of almost everything previously established about them including a retcon in the last series that could have been used to explain varying appearances and/or internal dissension, for no apparent reason other than "somebody in charge felt like it"...

...something like that yanks me out of a story.

Trek in particular is notably riddled with them, infamous for it in fact, so why torture yourself by looking so closely for something you know will bother you?

I wouldn't say Trek is "infamous" for it. On the contrary, as I've posted before, I think Trek continuity hangs together far better than that of most other TV properties... certainly compared to others originating in the 1960s and/or others with hundreds of episodes behind them.

Regardless, though, I'm hardly "torturing myself by looking so closely." I'm talking about stuff that jumps out at me. I couldn't avoid noticing it if I wanted to.

 

[Captain Crow]

It has been a frequent thing for decades among Star Trek fans: "This happened in this episode so why does this happen instead in a later episode" and stuff like that.

Why do we care or bother?

Other television series seldom do. Take the famous western "Daniel Boone". Built around an actual historical figure and often featuring other historical figures and historical events. Yet it paid no heed whatsoever to internal or historical consistency or continuity.

One episode in the third season focused on a plot to assassinate President George Washington.

Yet later that season, several episodes concerned events in the Revolutionary War and made reference to General Washington. Fully a decade BEFORE Washington became president.

Another episode focused on former Vice President's Aaron Burr's plot to set up his own country in the American southwest. This occurred fully 30 years after most of the events in the series.

So why do we make such a big deal about a science fiction series set in the future being internally inconsistent?

A rather vocal minority of Trek fandom =/= all of Trek fandom.

If you're going to have a passive aggressive go at a specific section of the fan base you've got a problem with then properly identify that section of them. Don't go around making blanket assumptions that since a portion of a group does something that the entire group must do it as well.

 

[Spot261]

Having high standards doesn't get in the way of that. Sturgeon's Law applies, of course, but the remaining ten percent is worth holding out for.

I'm not sure why you would make the link between "high standards" and "consistency" in a tv show which is mostly episodic to be honest. Frankly if the two are synonyms trek is rubbish.

I don't agree with that. Inherent? Part of the definition? How do you figure?

Because it's fiction, fiction is basically lies, lies by definition fall apart if you look at them closely enough. Al fiction contains inconsistencies, it's part of what it means to be fiction.

I wouldn't say Trek is "infamous" for it.

Yeah, it really is. It's notorious for it. It's what has kept the fandom arguing for fifty years

 

[MacLeod]

Let me ask this,

In a book series do we/you expect them to have internal consistency and continuity?

 

[Spot261]

Let me ask this,

In a book series do we/you expect them to have internal consistency and continuity?

Entirely depends, if they are written as a coherent whole telling an overarching story by a single author or cooperating group of authors it's reasonable to expect some effort yes.

Read: Lord of the Rings, Song of Fire and Ice, Revelation Space, Harry Potter and even those have well documented errors

If they are episodic, written in disparate batches by authors who aren't cooperating on making that consistency a project and have stated no intent to do so, or a single author whose vision changes over time, no not really

Read: Star Trek, James Bond, Discworld

 

[Refuge]

I enjoy lots of things. Having high standards doesn't get in the way of that.

I'm like you I have high standards for my story telling too. I loathe being patrinonised

 

[Spot261]

So when should we start expecting Trek to be internally consistent? Will the previous fifty yeas no longer be canon?