log in or register to remove this ad

 

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Ryujin

Adventurer
I am looking at it from the perspective of someone who just saw a prediction that failure to hold to continuity is a problem. Pretty clearly a "use continuity as a constraint" situation.

I agree that Enterprise squandered its opportunities until Manny Coto got the reins, but by then it was too late. That being said... having based its story on something from a FASA game would not have been a better choice. So, I don't think that claiming third-party story ideas are particularly grand holds here.
Thinking more of the history as a backdrop, than strip-mining stories wholesale. The Romulan War. The Four Years War.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
Yeah, and given how they ended the first season, even though it's picked up for a second. . .how do you really continue a series called Star Trek: Picard, when the first season ends with .
Did you watch until the end of the episode!?!? Star Trek: Picard is definitely carrying its main character forward into Season 2. With an interesting twist that allows for some interesting storytelling.

I'm skeptical about a Pike-based series because it's even more of a prequel and they've already shown a seriously lackadaisical attitude towards continuity.
Star Trek and continuity? Hah! Star Trek has never been good at continuity, not the tight continuity some fans obsess over, at least.
 

shawnhcorey

Explorer
Both seasons of Discovery and Picard had serious tonal problems and seemed to be uncertain what story they were telling or what the point of the show was. It really felt like shows designed by committee with lots of conflicting ideas loosely held together.
Most movies are designed by committee thru a process called story boarding. But I agree: the stories could use more work.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
Both seasons of Discovery and Picard had serious tonal problems and seemed to be uncertain what story they were telling or what the point of the show was. It really felt like shows designed by committee with lots of conflicting ideas loosely held together.
I just feel the need to chime in here with the love for ST: Discovery and ST: Picard. While both shows were controversial with fans, I wouldn't characterize them as having tonal problems or story-by-committee problems. The tone isn't a problem, it's deliberate and some folks love it, some don't. I loved both shows. And both shows, IMO, actually had very tight storytelling, the controversial part was the season-long story arcs vs. the more traditional serialized adventure-of-the-week format, which ST: Strange New Worlds seems to be hinting it will use.

Continuity is a tricky thing, because it tends to be something known by the biggest of fans. Learning and memorizing details of the show is how the engage in the franchise. And when you start ignoring continuity you're telling these fans that what they cared about didn't matter.
And while the show should be accessible to non-fans and not require a continuity degree from Stanford, if you're not making the show with the fans in mind, who are you making the show for?

No other show has the canon of Star Trek. Six series now and over a dozen movies. The fact it's only had one reboot, which was also off to the side, is rather impressive. There's nothing else like it in television. So ignoring it's continuity and treating the series like a reboot feels like it's doing a disservice to the series.
I'll push back on the two shows having continuity issues, they really didn't. They made design choices that changed the look and feel of certain classic elements, but these changes were not out of continuity . . . at least not any more or less so than anything else in Star Trek's long history. We got a new look for Klingons (not the first time, obviously) which looked dramatically different in Discovery's first season, but less so when the Klingons grew their hair out in Season 2. The Enterprise got a redesign, but one that was a close homage to the original, both inside and out. We got holographic communications across the galaxy, which was explained as being phased out as a lot of folks (in universe) were uncomfortable with it. And more, of course.

I respect folks who aren't fans of new-Trek, who are unhappy with the tonal changes and redesigned elements. But I think the idea that the new shows disrespect what came before and ignore continuity and what-makes-Trek, Trek are ridiculous.
 


Ryujin

Adventurer
Both seasons of Discovery and Picard had serious tonal problems and seemed to be uncertain what story they were telling or what the point of the show was. It really felt like shows designed by committee with lots of conflicting ideas loosely held together.

While I doubt all the producers are involved in the day-to-day (and it's common for one or two to just be in the background) the more there people involved the more likely you're going to get conflicting ideas.


Continuity is a tricky thing, because it tends to be something known by the biggest of fans. Learning and memorizing details of the show is how the engage in the franchise. And when you start ignoring continuity you're telling these fans that what they cared about didn't matter.
And while the show should be accessible to non-fans and not require a continuity degree from Stanford, if you're not making the show with the fans in mind, who are you making the show for?

No other show has the canon of Star Trek. Six series now and over a dozen movies. The fact it's only had one reboot, which was also off to the side, is rather impressive. There's nothing else like it in television. So ignoring it's continuity and treating the series like a reboot feels like it's doing a disservice to the series.

To me, doing a Star Trek show is like doing a show set in World War 2. There's a lot of facts and history. And you can fudge a few dates and have some small anachronisms and so long as most things feel right people will forgive details. You can easily make up battles. Have secret Nazi programs and factions. Have Hitler send troops to the Middle East to dig up Jewish artifacts. Show a particular model of tanks in battle a year or two early. Heck, you could have a Korean War fighter plane show up despite being built five years after the war ended and it would look close enough.
But when you go too far it breaks the immersion. If all of a sudden you have a Vietnam era fighter jet show up, people know it feels out of place.
And if you're not willing to do any research or fact check, then maybe you shouldn't take a job writing historical fiction.
It occurs to me that no one needs to have a degree in anything, when there are fan sites out there like Memory Alpha. Want to make a show based on something from a past event, or based on a historic premise? Do a quick and easy search.
 







Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
That's my experience. Here. Reddit. Pretty any place I have discussed Trek. Star Wars. Any media really.

"I like something... therefore it has NO problems and I will fight to my dying breath how awesome it is from anything that so much as besmirches its honour!!"

Because it's not enough just to like it while someone else hates it. The person who hates it has to be proven wrong. As if their dislike will somehow be contagious.
And vice versa.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
But I've never seen fans of the show do the reverse and agree with a detractor that something was a problem. (That, say, there was issues with the story and massive plot holes.)
Never? Honestly? You’re reading very selectively then. There aren’t just two types of people — stans and hatewatchers.

I also didn't initiate. (I purposly avoided replying to anyone who didn't reply to me because I didn't want to start shit.)
Language. Remember where you are

someone popped in to white knight the series with a "nuh-uh, you're wrong for why you don't like the show". And so I retaliated...
This characterisation and mindset is a problem. People can disagree with you without being “white knights” and you having to prove to them they’re wrong to like things they like. I mean, you put that in quote marks, but that’s not a quote of anybody in this thread.

If you feel you need to “retaliate” to something, maybe step back and ask yourself why you feel you need to do that.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Of course.
But casual fans aren't going to reply. Or respond to people replying to them. Or even really engage in a message board discussion of the show to begin with
So they're not really "seen".
While I’m a mega fan of TOS movies 2-4, I’m a casual fan of other Trek. I haven’t watched Voyager, and think DS9 is just OK. Saw maybe half of Enterprise? I’m no Trek stan, but I generally comment on stuff I like. But stuff I don’t like... I don’t watch it, and therefore can’t really comment on it. Thus hatewatchers. That’s what I don’t get.

So yeah, people who aren’t stans or hatewatchers exist. They like stuff, and talk about the stuff they like. Criticism is fine, but relentless negativity just makes it not fun to talk about.

Because I have an compulsion to reply back when people reply to me and get mild anxiety spikes when I don't as it feels like I'm leaving something undone. It slowly nags at me like a spreading itch I just can't scratch.
And I then repeatedly mentally continue the conversation for the next several hours until I finally break down and reply or managed to finally find something to get the conversation out of my head.
I get that.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Liking it is fine.
But...
In my experiences, fans of the show tend to just make excuses for the quality and problems.
This is extremely insulting.

That's kind of enough to make me stop listening to your critique. Anyone who disagrees with you gets put in a box, and dismissed wholesale? That's some prime rhetorical nonsense, right there.

So, thanks for letting me know to not discuss matters of taste with you.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Because I have an compulsion to reply back when people reply to me and get mild anxiety spikes when I don't as it feels like I'm leaving something undone. It slowly nags at me like a spreading itch I just can't scratch.
And I then repeatedly mentally continue the conversation for the next several hours until I finally break down and reply or managed to finally find something to get the conversation out of my head.
That sounds like a you problem to me, but you put it on them to make it a them problem because they're the ones who triggered you and they're the ones you condescend to.
 

NOW LIVE! 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top