Visual continuity/Same future, different eyes

[Crazy Eddie]

^ First of all, you continue to complain about the definition of continuity and asking rhetorical questions that don't really have an answer, which invites the question of whether or not you are actually contributing to the discussion or just airing your grievances here. If the latter, you must understand that even throwaway lines like the reference in "First Contact" -- and it IS a throwaway line, since it doesn't have any real causal effect on story progression -- is going to be an extremely different issue with the VISUAL continuity between shows; even if Enterprise was entirely consistent with TNG in all the historical details, it could have been VISUALLY distinct if phasers fired bolts instead of beams, if photon torpedoes had smoky exhaust trails, if deflector shields were represented as holographic plates that glowed brightly whenever they were activated, etc. VISUAL continuity is more art and style than story progression; for that matter, even cross- series continuity has more to do with background setting and fictional history.

Secondly, "they reused my footage from my movie for a totally different movie I had nothing to do with" is not the same thing as "They ignored a throwaway line I tossed into the script because I had a vague notion of something sometime sort of happening." Taking the B-17 pilot's "hell of a way to fly into a war" scene and re-looping it into a totally different movie with no context and no background and no real explanation seems to cheapen the latter and adds nothing to the former; a director would be annoyed that he did all that work setting up that scene and ending it with a kickass effect just so some other guy a year later can use it like throwaway stock footage.

[throwback]

Comment retracted.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I define continuity as the stories taking place in the same ficticious universe, and ideally all the dots would join up perfectly at the end. BUT, Trek wasn't planned out from the beginning as some epic saga. It's been made up as they went along by generations of writers and producers, and they all had their own slightly different ideas about how the Trek universe should work, should look, and should feel. As a result, minor mistakes have crept in, and some subtle rewrites have taken place.

Viewers are supposed to/expected to suspend their disbelief when watching. We make-believe the guy in the blue makeup and antennae is an alien (who happens to look and sound suspiciously like a couple of other aliens on the other Trek shows), and we kind of ignore (or possibly forget - I wouldn't know a tenth of the nitpicks I do if it weren't for the internet!) that the old Enterprise zoomed from the rim of the galaxy to Earth and the centre without any trouble when Voyager is taking a lifetime to make a similar journey.

Everyone's mileage varies on how much change they're willing to accept, I guess.



Remember also that Babylon 5, which WAS planned out from the beginning and ran a measly five years compared to Trek's 45 and with the same guy running things the whole time, has some continuity errors too. Nobody's perfect

[Carcazoid]

I think the thread title answers the question all by itself. "Same future, different eyes" describes not only the way it's seen by the people who write, direct, and produce the shows, but also the way viewers perceive them.

Some may be bothered by the tiniest piece of irrelevant minutiae that doesn't match from series to series (or episode to episode), and that's ... ok. But it doesn't bother me a bit that Enterprise had phase pistols but the TOS pilots had hand lasers. At the absolute worst, it's interesting trivia. Keyword: trivia. It's just not that big a deal.

Having become a fan in the early 70s when there was zero new Trek being filmed, I consider us lucky to have had the sequel series and eleven films that came later. History could have played out much differently.

But I do understand that some people just need to complain.

[kirk55555]

When it comes to the Tech of the reboot, my only problems are pretty much personal opinion on the visuals (the Enterprise itself looks horrible, or the bridge is stupid, for example) and some problems with the logic of the stuff, like

why is there a giant window on the bridge? Doesn't that make it easier for all the bridge crew to get pulled out into space?

Why are there so many pipes in main engineering? Is it steam powered? (I know why it is like that from a real world standpoint, but I'd like to hear a good in universe explination)

What is the purpose of the lens flare generators? (this question is phrased sarcastically, I know there wasn't supposed to be lens flare generators on the ship, I would just like to know what idiot thought constant lens flares was good).

(I'm not actually asking those questions expecting to get answers here, they're just examples of some of my problems from a tech/visual standpoint)

But, as much as I like the tech of ST, I could have ignored it. With the reboot, its the story/writing/acting that gets my undying hate. I don't hate the movie because the Enterprise is different, I hate it because it sucks (same with the reboot ship itself, if it looked good, I'd acknowledge that it looked good). The tech annoyances are just that, annoyances. I've never had a problem with stuff like that, or minor continuity mistakes/fixes in the shows (although I'm a big fan of continuity in general).

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I'm still waiting for an in-universe explanation for what all the pipes and tanks were for in the original series engine room... or even a definitive answer as to whether the engine room we kept seeing was at the rear of the saucer or in the engineering hull!

[The Mirrorball Man]

kirk55555 wrote:

---

why is there a giant window on the bridge?

So that they can see what's in front of them?

Doesn't that make it easier for all the bridge crew to get pulled out into space?

No, they've got forcefields.

Why are there so many pipes in main engineering?

Matter/antimatter.

Is it steam powered?

Nuclear power plants have many pipes as well, but they're not steam powered, are they?

I don't hate the movie because the Enterprise is different, I hate it because it sucks

Surely by now we've moved beyond the simplistic "it sucks!"/"it's awesome!" axis, haven't we?

[Mytran]

KingDaniel, your link appears to be broken

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

That's odd, it works for me. But here it is embedded:

[blssdwlf]

Or when and how Kirk died. Was it on the Enterprise-B with Scotty onboard or was it after Scotty departed for the Norpin Colony?

King Daniel wrote:

---

I'm still waiting for an in-universe explanation for what all the pipes and tanks were for in the original series engine room... or even a definitive answer as to whether the engine room we kept seeing was at the rear of the saucer or in the engineering hull!

[Dale Sams]

My only problem with how continuity is treated...is if a lazy writer whines about how his hands are tied and just spits out some POS that completly ignores everything that came before.

See: John Byrne's Doom Patrol.

Now...the look of Abram's Trek? I ain't got a problem with it. DC's constant rebooting, and not even being sure THEMSELVES (right before the last reset) of the details of their flagship character's origin? BIG problem.*

*I refer to John Byrne's perfectly fine redo of Supes after COIE. (See I don't hate all Byrne's stuff) out of the blue not being good enough and being shoehorned aside for Waid's Birthright.

[Mytran]

Thanks KingDaniel - not sure what was going on with my browsers (I tried more than one). An interesting comparison, to be sure!

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Sorry to bump what is a fairly old thread now, but I came across THIS VIDEO earlier today (via THIS thread in TOS) and think it's an great example of what I said in the OP. It's the same episode, the same Enterprise bridge - but seen through modern eyes.

[The Mirrorball Man]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Sorry to bump what is a fairly old thread now, but I came across THIS VIDEO earlier today (via THIS thread in TOS) and think it's an great example of what I said in the OP. It's the same episode, the same Enterprise bridge - but seen through modern eyes.

It's a modern recreation of an old design, which is not the same thing as a brand new design which tries to capture the essence of the old one, if you see what I mean.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

It's a modern recreation of an old design, which is not the same thing as a brand new design which tries to capture the essence of the old one, if you see what I mean.

I'd say they're part of the same spectrum. But I imagine everyone's got different ideas about at what point the changes get too far from the original.