• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll Is continuity important?

How important is continuity in Trek?


  • Total voters
    113
It'll be interesting to see who the next James Bond is. My favorite is still Pierce Brosnan.
I think the Bond films are finally set up for a proper unambiguous reboot this time. Up to this point I've been keen on them sticking with someone who looks at least vaguely like Sean Connery, especially while Desmond Llewelyn was in the films, but now I'm happy for them to cast anyone.
 
Continuity is also defined as “uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change,” and built in to that definition, allows for non-essential change.

It just becomes a matter of what individuals consider to be essential or not.
 
That all said...visual continuity doesnt matter as much to me but I expect them to get the general tech correct.
Yeah, it does bug me that they've got replicators, ready rooms, and holo-communications in the Pre-TOS era. And hearing "away team" in that timeframe is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
 
It'll be interesting to see who the next James Bond is. My favorite is still Pierce Brosnan.



I don't really have a favorite James Bond because I like all of them up to Pierce Brosnan but I have a fondness for Roger Moore because he's the one I grew up with. "Live And Let Die was the first bond movie I saw in the theater when I was 13.

I had already seen the Connery/Lazenby movies on TV and I think they're generally better but it somehow means something more to me to go to the movie theater to see a brand new Bond movie.

Robert
 
That's interesting your mentioning theme songs because I'm a huge Beatle fan and the title song for the first Bond movie I saw in the theater was written and performed by...

And what's ironic is that James Bond made fun of the Beatles in Goldfinger.

Robert
 
Last edited:
What was the official Enterprise size as stated in continuity?
I'm going by visual. Look at how big the hallways are, spocks quarters etc. The ship interior is visibly larger and the exterior now has a large row of windows below the bridge etc. Its a beautiful interpretation of the 1701, I will admit. Way better than kelvinprise..
 
I'm going by visual. Look at how big the hallways are, spocks quarters etc. The ship interior is visibly larger and the exterior now has a large row of windows below the bridge etc. Its a beautiful interpretation of the 1701, I will admit. Way better than kelvinprise..
Shrugs.

Looks like a ship to me.

Prefer the Kelvin interiors personally.
 
Yeah, it does bug me that they've got replicators, ready rooms, and holo-communications in the Pre-TOS era. And hearing "away team" in that timeframe is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
To be fair they used Landing Party AND Away Team in ST: Enterprise. Which I wasnt crazy about. The replicators were more like dispensers in Ent.

In Discovery they should have had a more dumbed down version of replicators as well. Maybe with a sliding door like TOS. The holo communications were way out of place and they tried to fix it my with a line from Pike about ripping them out of the Enterprise.
 
It'll be interesting to see who the next James Bond is. My favorite is still Pierce Brosnan.
I am too, and I not championing for a colored Bond, but I hope Idris Elba is cast as OO7 just to see the faces from Bond fans. My favorite is Sean Connery.
 
In both the longest running science fiction shows, Star Trek and Doctor Who, there is an increasing need to just sort of squint and hand wave things away. I'm never going to watch TOS and believe I'm seeing something real, but likewise I don't believe that when watching Strange New Worlds either. At the same time though, I don't treat TOS as a laugh along. It's usually played so straight and so I watch it straight. Same with Strange New Worlds or any Star Trek in-between. But old shows look like old shows. It's not their fault they are old, but they are.

The older a show gets, then the harder it becomes to visually reconcile, either because a lack of time/budget means sets look like, well, sets or a lack of technology in play means special effects can look, well, special. But we wear different hats in a way when we watch different series I think. We have our TOS hats and when we wear them, we enjoy TOS. But we can then put a SNW hat on and enjoy it as being part of the same thing and if the writing and performances are good enough then (for me at least) continuity in aesthetics sort of slides into the background.

I still say that as cool as the episodes in question are, Relics, Trials and Tribulations and the Mirror Universe episodes set up a fan idea that the TOS sets look fine in a modern show. They don't however, IMO. They look good as a bit of kitsch novelty in an episode every now and then, but Trek from TMP onwards has maintained a kind of aesthetic that really doesn't roll with TOS.

But then I just wear the right hat and it's all fine. It's all the same thing in spirit and somehow fans believing it all fits together, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it all kind of does fit together.
 
You can't wing continuity, so no it's not a "guideline" or "not set it stone", unless you want to toss it out in favour of a new continuity.

As per a dictionary:

con·ti·nu·i·ty
The unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.
Sure you can. It happens all the time in prose, comics, film, TV and just about any form of fiction. it is and always has been mutable. Any long running property will change over time.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top