Will Lack Of Consistency Really Impair Your Enjoyment?

[StarMan]

It won't mine.

Yes, I love coming in here and disseminating every little detail I hear about the production, plot, costume design etc. But, at the end of the day, all I want is to be entertained. Internal consistency is nice - it's cute. It's great to be a fan of something and be able to spot connections here and there that make the moments feel part of the whole. But, it's hardly an absolute which must be adhered to at all costs in my book.

We are talking fiction.

Star Trek seems to have inherited an especially ardent emphasis on canon. Why is this? Because we want to believe in this fiction? Is it because there have been so many god damned episodes heading further and further into the future (and then back) that any retelling would jeopardize the legitimacy of your Trek experience? Is it that you identify so much with the actors who play the part that any change would make your precious Trek experience nothing more than parody and/or fantasy?

Star Trek is an amazing story and I care much more for the story than the minutiae.

Why does all "that stuff" really matter?

 

[Kelso]

No.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

N to the O. No.

 

[Judith Sisko]

If it's a good story brought to us by good actors, I'll be happy.

 

[Valar]

It brings me out of the movie- that's the main problem I forsee.

I almost wish that as a kid I hadn't obsessed over every nuance mentioned in the various series, because that ruined Enterprise for me. When they blatantly did something that didn't mesh with the fabric that Trek had laid down previously,-like having Borg or Ferengi appear or having homocial maniacs as Vulcans- it brought me out of the story they were telling and made me focus in on the flaw.

I mean, bad acting, lousy characters do the same thing, which Enterprise occasionaly had, but those are things that the producers have less control over than the storyline. The storyline is what you start out with- the most controllable variable in the show, so the less haphazardly slapped together the story, the more I will be able to immerse myself in the film, the more I will enjoy it.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I don't think there will be a lack of consitency

 

[archeryguy1701]

As long as I can sit all the way through it and be entertained, then they can be as inconsistant as they like.

 

[Tralah]

If I go to this movie and find myself absorbed in a compelling, entertaining, well acted story, I should be able to ignore almost any inconsistencies unless it's something particularly glaring like the Enterprise being painted pink. Since I doubt we'll see any radical fundamental changes to the Star Trek universe, unless the story and acting just plains sucks, I doubt I'll let the small stuff bother me, or even notice it much.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Absolutely not. I want to see a good Star Trek movie, and I want to see a Star Trek movie that is successful enough at the box office to make it possible for more Star Trek to be produced afterwards. As far as consistency/canon gets in the way of that: get rid of it!

 

[-Brett-]

I haven't seen any evidence that there will be a significant lack of consistency.

No, I don't consider bridge consoles significant.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Lack of consistency within the movie will surely annoy me, since it detracts from the storytelling and action sequences. However, lack of consistency with TOS? I certainly hope there's lots of that... TOS was made in the 60's, after all. Heh, I wasn't even born back then!

 

[Valar]

I should add to my previous comment- I don't consider cosmetic changes significant enough to bring me out of the picture. In fact, if they update the look of the sets, uniforms, actors, aliens- whatever, it will be just like the first time I saw Trek on the big screen- I'll think it's cool and new.

The only thing that would suck is if they did some vast screwing with the old show's theme or characters. If they bring something new to the table and it makes some kinda sense then I'm there with them. If they make Starfleet a warlike force or change the gender of a character [like on BSG] then I'll have a hard time watching it.

like other people said, I see no evidence that something substantial or fundamental has been changed.

 

[EnsignJulka]

I think I will enjoy it, but as long as they keep consistent with the very core of Star Trek which is the characters...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I will enjoy a good story, but I'll enjoy it MORE if it's additive with all the many other stories I already know.

So... since I'll enjoy it MORE if it's consistent... I guess you could turn that around and say "I'll enjoy it less if it's not consistent," huh?

 

[scotthm]

StarMan said:
Internal consistency is nice - it's cute... But, it's hardly an absolute which must be adhered to at all costs...

So very true. In fact, if they called this movie "Space Travellers", and filled it with unfamiliar characters we have no preconceived notions about, it would probably be just as enjoyable.

So... if they're not sticking with any existing backstory, this is the way to go.

---------------

 

[CommanderRaytas]

HunterB5446 said:
I don't think there will be a lack of consitency

Neither do I. But whatever is not consistent with all things previously established as canon- I won't mind them changing things as long as the story is well-told and consistent within itself. That's all I ask for, and I believe that's what we're going to get.

 

[ALF]

No.
Not one Star Trek incarnation is 100% compatible with another. anyway. Even TOS was contradictory within itself.

As others have said, bring on a good story.

 

[Baldus885]

Not even the teeniest, tiniest smallest amount. Not the smallest, most tiny, small amount ever. No.

 

[Kegek]

Kelso said:
No.

Agreed.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

I have OCD so it will impair my enjoyment to some extent. However if it's a good film I'll still enjoy it over all even if I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that it's not right...

Charlie