Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
My general rule is "close enough." If it's supposed to be the same, then the broad strokes will work for me. Treating continuity as make or break idea is something that doesn't work for me.
Small breaks in continuity don't take away from realism. In fact that's how history is studied.
Hell, real life doesn't have the level of continuity some people want....
Very true. Scientific examination of human memory has had it compared to a game of telephone, as a memory is different/altered each time it’s accessed.
Taking the inherent discontinuity of human memory into account, as well as, as @fireproof78 mentioned, the way history itself is viewed, the idea of trying to make anything with a “perfect” continuity feels like an exhausting, and mostly impossible task.
I see. You have set a standard for me.
As a consumer, do you ever complain about the level of effort put into a product? Being that you have only been employee of the month twice (and not every month), do you feel you have been unjustified in ever voicing a negative review as a consumer?
"Unearned smugness."
Can you provide the correct criteria for when a consumer can complain about the quality of, or level of effort put into, a product (either in its entirety or an aspect of that product)? If so, can you list out what that criteria might be? Or, is it never appropriate to form these types of criticisms?
Last edited:
How many times have you had to look for your keys?
You KNOW exactly where they are because you left them there. And yet...still we hunt.
Or, even simpler, how many times have you said something and found out you were wrong later? Or made a statement that was "approximate" as if it were specific ("I've know him 15 years" when it's really been 11 or 17)?
Have you ever stated an opinion as fact? What would an alien observer think?
I understand keeping the broad strokes in line so the story is recognizable, but once we start talking about turbolift handles and console lights and shit like that, my eyes just glaze over...
Not really interested in explaining to you, but I will say this: I see a vast difference between not liking something (which is obviously your right) and insulting the effort of the people who made it. People do not become writers and producers on multi-million dollar TV projects by being "lazy", even if you don't care for the product.
That's the difference.
You cannot explain it because there is no such criteria.
Your post is hyperbolic. I never labeled a person as being "lazy." I also never described the entirety of a particular product as a lazy effort. I described ignoring canon as a lazy effort.
There is no difference other than the fact that you do not share the opinion.
Some 21, 22 years on the nets and this may be the wisest thing I ever read.
Note to Future Reboot Committee: Keep a clean canon continuity by adding every Trek fact you create into an easily searchable program for fact checking.
A distinction without a difference.
Big difference. Big misrepresentation.
Star Trek already has some paint on the canvas.
If you find it too difficult to be creative within the confines of established canon, so you choose to ignore it, you are certainly making your job easier. You are correct in saying it could be something other than laziness though. It could just be a lack of care.
Last edited:
So when you post this:
In response to a post about the recasting of Robert April and SNW, who exactly are you talking about? Some fickle Hollywood force? A random act of nature? No, you're talking about people. People like the writers and producers of the show you were referring to when you quoted the OP. They are the "creatives" you expect to stay on your canvas. They are the ones deciding how/if/how much to align with established canon.
There's nothing misrepresented here. You're talking about people making new Star Trek as being lazy, no matter how you try to parse the language and move the goalposts...If that was not your intention, I accept that. But, that is what you said.
And lastly, to be clear, you're free to criticize whatever you want. Others are free to comment on that.
In response to a post about the recasting of Robert April and SNW, who exactly are you talking about? Some fickle Hollywood force? A random act of nature? No, you're talking about people. People like the writers and producers of the show you were referring to when you quoted the OP. They are the "creatives" you expect to stay on your canvas. They are the ones deciding how/if/how much to align with established canon.
There's nothing misrepresented here. You're talking about people making new Star Trek as being lazy, no matter how you try to parse the language and move the goalposts...If that was not your intention, I accept that. But, that is what you said.
And lastly, to be clear, you're free to criticize whatever you want. Others are free to comment on that.
I never described a single person of being wholly "lazy," which would have implied that they never want to do any work. I referred to one aspect of their creative responsibilities. Have you ever put in a low level of effort on a particular task or project? Does that make you a generally lazy person? Suggesting that I name-called and described the whole of a person who I do not know as "lazy," as opposed to just work on the one aspect I clearly referenced, was definitely a misrepresentation.
No doubt. That is why I responded to your post.
Last edited:
Okay then. Folks can read both our posts and decide for themselves.
Another supposition.
The amount of disparaging assumptions around production team is quite incredible.
Provide another potential reason.
You were attracted to Star Trek by something it doesn't have?
I'll bite. First, with 55 years of episodes and hundreds of hours of programming to sift through, you could sift through Trek 24/7 and miss things. At some point, a writer just has to tell a story.
In addition, things that one person finds to be an insurmountable continuity error, another person may find easily explainable. Ex. For 7 of 9 to be captured by the Borg, it had to take place years before Q forced Picard's encounter with the Borg. You could say that this is an "error" by the writers. You could also assume that 7s parents were the Trek equivalent of UFO hunters and roll with it.
Finally, sometimes there are stories or characters that are just fun to write about or watch. As a writer, I don't believe it's lazy to say "Am I throwing out this good story because of a throwaway line in another series most people aren't going to remember anyway, or should I just tell the story?!?" Both the Borg and the Ferengi show up in Enterprise though Picard doesn't "discover" them for about another 100 years. So we pretend that the NX-01 doesn't have internal cameras or nobody connected the old cyborgs who fled earth to the new Borg threat Q just provided for us.
Even TOS contradicts itself in many episodes, but we don't claim Gene Roddenberry or Gene Coon were "lazy." This seems only directed at modern writers, who also have MUCH more history to sift through when making a story.