Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[Jester David]

...

 

[Dire Bare]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dire Bare]

Most movies are designed by committee thru a process called story boarding. But I agree: the stories could use more work.

Storyboarding is not design-by-committee, just simply a storytelling tool for cinema regardless of how many hands are involved.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[shawnhcorey]

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.

Hollywood has yet to discover the internet.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Hollywood has yet to discover the internet.

Well, they did - once - but then they promptly forgot about it:

Spoiler

 

[Jester David]

...