"You already smote them with the flu last season, Almighty, and the symptoms, severity and rate of contagion are clearly different this season. This epidemic violates established canon".
"Shut up, Michael. The fans are too dumb to notice".
Continuity
- Thread starter PrimeDirective
- Start date
"You already smote them with the flu last season, Almighty, and the symptoms, severity and rate of contagion are clearly different this season. This epidemic violates established canon".
"Shut up, Michael. The fans are too dumb to notice".
I'm a little confused by this. What do you mean the episodes didn't affect the primary timeline? We saw plenty of events in one episode build off another, and even Generations built off the episodes, with the Duras twins and the El Aurians.
As for continuity, I do like it where it's appropriate. I love the fact that alot of the novels and some of the comics are consistent with each other, in fact I probably would not be as into them if it weren't for that fact. But, I'm also willing to admit that sometimes continuity isn't appropriate. Was I annoyed at first when I realized that Trek Online and Countdown contradicted some of the books...sure, but then some people on here pointed out that what works and is appropriate for one medium might not be appropriate for another and I realized they were right. Video games aren't about philosophical discussion and deep character building, they're about blowing shit up, so sometimes in order to able to blow more shit up you might need to split off from what the books established.
I haven't read it yet, but from what I've heard about Provenance of Shadows it contradicts the books that have come out before and after it, and at the same time it is considered by many one of the best Trek books ever. Which I think can prove that sometimes you need to do something contradictory to tell a better story. When it comes to this kind of stuff, I am happier if the author finds a way to tell the story in continuity with the main series, but I do realize that sometimes that is not possible, and as long as it is not marked as being part of one the series that is in continuity I can deal with it. For example say a new DS9 book came out with the DS9R logo, and referred to some of the events of the series, but also said that
Sisko never came back
Now I'm just curious, how do you feel about the Myriad Universes series?
One way to think about it is that the canonical, onscreen Star Trek is history and the prose and comics tie-ins are historical fiction. The canon is what did happen in the Trek universe; the books and comics and the like are things that might have happened. Looked at that way, it doesn't necessarily undermine the "reality" of the Trek universe if different books or comics or whatever are inconsistent with each other. (Of course, in the many cases where the onscreen canon contradicts itself, you're on your own. But then, history is often inconsistently reported.)
Better a loose continuity than a loose canon.
I haven't read any of the mirror universe literature, but they don't bother me at all. The reason that I'm not bothered by them is because they explicitly say that they take part in an alternate timeline, so they don't affect the people I care about that live in the primary timeline. The things that bother me are the ones that don't do the same, making it seem like they actually took part in the primary timeline. It confuses me as to what to believe atually happened, so I can keep the overarching story straight. I don't like being confused, lol.
None of it "actually" happened. It only exists in the imagination of the audience. You're only confused because you assume you need someone else to tell you the answers. If you apply your own creativity and choice, actively decide which stories to accept or exclude, then you get to decide for yourself what the ST universe in your imagination is like. If you approach it that way, then the different continuities aren't a source of confusion, but a set of options.
I think what it really comes down to is this: The reason that there are books, comics, series, and movies that condratic each other, is so fans can have a pick of of stories, and choose the ones that they consider to be part of their Star Trek universe.
No, that's not the reason for the contradictions. It's just a way of responding to them creatively.
I have to admit, I've always wondered about something: is there any possible correlation between the "canon" policy in regards to tie-ins and the fact (or at least the assumption) that the target audience is only a tiny minority of the fans, or that it should be?
I mean, when I read expansion stuff from a series like Star Wars, I like the fact that there's a lot of effort being made to treat these stories as being just as valid as the movies, even though the movies are recognized as the standard for SW canon. That doesn't mean I like every little bit of fluff that's added in, but I feel like I can get a lot of pieces of the overall picture even if I haven't read a lot of the novels or comics, and that's precisely because I feel like that effort is there. With Trek, I've sometimes felt like the PTB are indifferent at best, and at worst wouldn't mind excluding stuff or ignoring a potentially good link just because they can.
* shrugs * I don't know. I think there's a fair argument that we, as fans, take all of the canon stuff far more seriously than the PTB do. There's no denying that.
But I also know that for a lot of fans who would defend the idea that, for better or worse, stuff like novels is "non-canon" or "fluff" or what have you, that idea didn't spring from nowhere. It sprung from that fact that the PTB (specifically Gene) said it was the case in terms of what should be regarded and what shouldn't be. I guess sometimes I feel like there's a lot of potential that's being ignored, and I think it hurts the franchise.
I don't understand your response.
I hope I haven't caused too much chaos with my "continuity" issue. All I wanted to do, was express my dislike of what I saw as a disregard for good and consistent storytelling of a cherished phenomenon.
That's part of the reason. But there's a more fundamental reason than that. The tie-ins aren't canon because they aren't created by the same people who make the show. The concept is theirs; anyone licensed to do adaptations of it is simply borrowing it. Now, maybe that line is vaguer in a case like ST, which has had so many producers and showrunners, than in a case like Babylon 5 or Buffy/Angel where there's a single clear "owner" of the creation. But the principle is the same.
Valid in what sense? Yes, the various tie-ins are all obligated to acknowledge and conform to one another (albeit glossing over the contradictions that exist), and the onscreen material does borrow a lot of ideas and characters from them, but it also ignores and contradicts them without hesitation. Just last month, The Clone Wars did a 3-episode Mandalore arc that, I gather, invalidated a whole multi-book series of popular Star Wars novels by an author named Karen Traviss.
So "just as valid?" Not at all. The tie-ins are a source of ideas for the canon, but are not binding upon it.
It's their show. It's their creation and their right to make whatever choices they want. We're just borrowing their toys. So they're free to use, ignore, or contradict anything we come up with. If you go to your friend's house and they let you play with the big toy-railroad diorama in their basement, that doesn't mean they're sharing ownership of the trains with you. It doesn't mean you have a right to tell them how to rearrange the tracks or the miniature houses, or that you can make such changes without their permission, no matter how cool your ideas are. If they like a suggestion you make and choose to incorporate it, that would be a gratifying bonus, but that doesn't make it something you should expect as an entitlement, and it doesn't make it wrong if they choose to do something different instead. Because you have no entitlement to something that belongs to somebody else.
That was his right as long as he was running the show, though he made a much bigger deal out of it than most producers would. After he passed on, his successors weren't as concerned about defining canon in such proscriptive terms, so that attitude pretty much became obsolete. Except in the minds of fans who don't realize that it's no longer binding.
I realize my phrasing is probably a bit awkward, and hopefully that isn't the result of my brain being tired.
But when I read descriptions of non-canon materials being like the equivalent of "extra toppings" or "historical fiction" vs. the episodes and movies, the genuine "history," that's what makes me feel like the PTB are indifferent at best towards the subject matter. Unlike Star Wars, where authors are required to maintain a degree of continuity with each other as well as the movies, Star Trek only requires the latter. They don't really care whether two stories wind up contradicting each other in many respects, because neither story has the potential to count on the same level as an episode or movie regardless of how consistent it is with those elements.In short, I'm asking whether the "canon" policy, by excluding tie-in materials, allows for those materials to be less consistent with each other and, to a lesser extent, with the canonical materials than they would be otherwise. I hope that makes a bit more sense.
Christopher, I think you've brought up some good points though. My brain's half asleep, so I might reply tomorrow, but I think you know some of what I'm getting at.
I think the people who have the rights to anything Star Trek should put pressure on anyone who wants to write a story or make a movie, so that the degree of consistency among novels and between movies is at the highest possible degree. I think that Trekkies everywhere should be ashamed that Star Wars does a better job at staying true to the idea established by the creator(creators in Star Trek's case), than their phenomenon does
I'm really ashamed.
I'm really ashamed.
I think it's also worth pointing out that things like Star Wars, are very much the exception to the rule when it comes "canon", pretty much all of the other franchises treat the tie-ins like Trek does. In fact, there is actually alot more continuity in Trek now, than there is in most of the other franchises. In most of them the stories are pretty much just standalones, like the old Trek books. So really, I think we should all just be happy with the continuity that we are getting now.
You want to tell one good story, not multiple kind-of-good ones. Star Wars has told, for many decades, a good and very entertaining overarching story without having to change anything major; why can't Star Trek do the same?
See now I think this is where our attitudes differ, you think of this all as one big story, where I think of this as a bunch of stories all taking place in one multi/universe. I'm also pretty much happy just to get good stories, which just happen to be consistant sometimes. When the stories aren't I just tell myself it happened in a parellel universe (thank you Parallels).
"No major changes"? Say what? Have we been watching the same Star Wars franchise?
I seem to recall at least four different versions of the original Star Wars film alone. To me, going back and tampering with the original material to change the storyline is far more "major" than whether or not some of the spin-off novels line up. I'm still wondering if Greedo shot first, or Han. Not to mention Lucas has actually CHANGED THE TITLE of the first film since its initial release. Major changes, dude. Major.
I think Star Wars fans have bought the Lucasfilm hype that SAYS everything exists in a consistent universe, even though it clearly doesn't.
Oh, and speaking of novels lining up: Did Splinter of the Mind's Eye happen, or not?
Frankly, I desperately hope The Courtship of Princess Leia never happened, because it makes Leia act like a dimwitted bimbo.
According to The New Essential Star Wars Chronology, it did.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Essential-Chronology-Star-Wars/dp/0345449010
I do the same when it comes to inconsistencies in the overarching story; I'm just not very good at dealing with those inconsistencies, lol.
Similar threads
