Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
To what degree though? MASH isn't. Multiple sitcoms I enjoy are not.
The one that I found the most consistent was the online series Red vs. Blue.
That's a very good and well-written essay, but I'm not sure I entirely agree that sentimentality requires seamless continuity. The world is full of beloved properties, from Sherlock Holmes to Doctor Who or Godzilla or whatever, that may have spotty continuity but still command tremendous amounts of sentimentality nonetheless. Nostalgia is often more about emotions than facts and figures.
Perhaps we do apply a sliding scale debenting on the genre of the show are we more forgiving of cotiniuity lapses in comedy say vs drama?
I also suspect some of it is down to how entertained we are as viewers the more entertained we the more perhaps we over look continuity errors and the less entertained we are the more we start to pic apart it.
Perhaps. I think it also comes down to a different attitude in the era of streaming. Watching things back to back you pick up on things a whole lot more.
Oh, absolutely. And the same thing applies to plot holes. If an episode is entertaining, and we're caught up in the story, we tend to overlook plot holes. But if an episode fails to engage, we're more likely to notice and/or be annoyed by any plot holes.
Which can lead to a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Did we dislike an episode because it had plot holes (or continuity glitches) or did we notice those because we disliked the episode?
TMP had moved on with compact wrist communicators, WoK brought in flip-lid communicators more bulky and awkward than those in TOS (I believe painted and modified military radios?), TMP had sonic showers that dressed you when you were done. TMP showed an automated future, WoK had people manually loading photon torpedoes like it's the 19th century. TMP had the crew in light pyjama-like clothing, I'm guessing they lowered the ship's temperature to accommodate those heavy jackets? TMP also had the lights on, WoK had mood lighting.
I remember George Takei once saying he and "other actors" from the TOS cast (he didn't specify which ones) would only come back for TWOK if they were promised more comfortable uniforms than the TMP ones.
I think how seriously the audience takes the continuity is informed by the tone the show sets, and the tone the people behind the show give towards continuity.
For example, the writers and producers of Better Call Saul are meticulous in making sure the details of the show fit with Breaking Bad. So if they were to just throw in a change to Walter White’s backstory that conflicted with something the audience already saw, it would stick out like a sore thumb. But if you’re watching a show like The Simpsons or South Park, where they’ve set up that what constitutes continuity is very loosely defined, there’s gonna be more leeway.
If there’s any argument for strict continuity with Trek, I’d argue it’s this: If you wanna do shows where you go back to old characters and settings and change some things around, or make additions that may or may not fit well with what’s come before, why set it in the same continuity to begin with? If you don’t want to be burdened by having to adhere to continuity, why tell fans it’s in the prime universe and claim it to be in the same continuity? Just make your own version of Star Trek and have it be its own thing that may or may not take the same twists and turns, but which you can establish it to be whatever you want it to be.
For example, the writers and producers of Better Call Saul are meticulous in making sure the details of the show fit with Breaking Bad. So if they were to just throw in a change to Walter White’s backstory that conflicted with something the audience already saw, it would stick out like a sore thumb. But if you’re watching a show like The Simpsons or South Park, where they’ve set up that what constitutes continuity is very loosely defined, there’s gonna be more leeway.
If there’s any argument for strict continuity with Trek, I’d argue it’s this: If you wanna do shows where you go back to old characters and settings and change some things around, or make additions that may or may not fit well with what’s come before, why set it in the same continuity to begin with? If you don’t want to be burdened by having to adhere to continuity, why tell fans it’s in the prime universe and claim it to be in the same continuity? Just make your own version of Star Trek and have it be its own thing that may or may not take the same twists and turns, but which you can establish it to be whatever you want it to be.
Its the glue that holds the universe together, in terms of world-building. It needs consistancy, especially in something that is self-referential.
All of the new shows should have been in a rebooted/alternate universe..... the inevitable "Crisis" style crossover with the 60s and 90s aesthetics would have been the hypest, most long awaited crossover ever, and everyone would have stopped complaining about aesthetic and backstory alterations.
All of the new shows should have been in a rebooted/alternate universe..... the inevitable "Crisis" style crossover with the 60s and 90s aesthetics would have been the hypest, most long awaited crossover ever, and everyone would have stopped complaining about aesthetic and backstory alterations.
But, it depends on how strictly you are applying this continuity. Fans are applying strict rules that the franchise itself never did. The franchise focused on characters, themes and stories, to the point that a lot of stories are repetitive on the same theme, e.g. TMP compared to the Changeling. Setting it in the same setting allows more exploration of those characters and themes while having small familiar touchstones to draw audiences in. It isn't about the bridge as much, save for in broad strokes. It isn't about alien make up, since aliens change designs multiple designs across different shows.
The only difference is that now fans are convinced that visual continuity trumps all when it never has.
Comics do that and I hate it. So, no thanks. Give me Star Trek as a big sand box with phasers and starships not overcomplicated stupid Crisis style events. Those things are the reason I stopped reading comics.
"Never" is so absolute. Star Trek being a scifi show does deal with time-travel and alternate dimensions so sometimes visual continuity comes into play. Perhaps one day SNW or Discovery will do a flashback/time-travel episode and they'll have it look it did in their past
I find it hard to argue against one of my favorite episodes of DS9 so well played."Never" is so absolute. Star Trek being a scifi show does deal with time-travel and alternate dimensions so sometimes visual continuity comes into play. Perhaps one day SNW or Discovery will do a flashback/time-travel episode and they'll have it look it did in their past
But, personally, I am looking more towards the original intent, especially moving from TOS to TMP to TWOK to TNG. There was a very different feel in design language and one doesn't automatically connect to the other, beyond surface familiarity, Enterprise, phasers, Vulcans. Even the Klingons jumped in design so feeling like it was that important doesn't quite ring true. Perhaps not "never true" but certainly not early on in my Trek experience.
TNG was so connected to TMP and TWOK visually that it reused some of the sets and the Reliant model, even though it was decades later and arguably should've looked more different.
I've been rewatching TNG, Voyager and Enterprise recently and I can't think of a moment where something took me out of a story by not looking right. I mean I'm sure it must have happened a couple of times, but so rarely it's not worth mentioning.
I've been rewatching TNG, Voyager and Enterprise recently and I can't think of a moment where something took me out of a story by not looking right. I mean I'm sure it must have happened a couple of times, but so rarely it's not worth mentioning.
Which is a different experience than mine with growing up with TOS and then moving to TMP and then to TWOK. There are a lot of changes that stand out to me, especially in the uniforms, but also in the design language of the computers. The connective tissue is in broad strokes not in little details.
Which is why I treat continuity in broad strokes and not in tiny details.
I agree mostly but I think much of the friction is that the change isn't a progression from old to new (like in your example TOS -> TMP, TWOK -> TNG) but old replacing old but advertised as being the same. Just calling it a reboot or different timeline would go a long way in selling the change. IMHO.
I don't see it the same. Don't say "Oh, because it's further in to the future it's fine." That doesn't fly for me. I know that tech can change quickly but TMP's timeline doesn't line up at all. It's absurd.
I don't need it called a different timeline to figure out that it connects together in broad strokes. That it connects because of the people rather than the shape of their uniforms or whatnot. It's different, pure and simple, and has no reason to be so other than creative intent.
Seriously, 90% of these "problems" go away if you simply stop expecting every discrepancy to have an "in-universe" explanation and just acknowledge that you're experiencing a theatrical production, not reality, which, honestly, we all do to some degree every time we watch TV, read a book, attend a play, listen to a song, etc.
As I've noted before, fiction is strange. On the one hand, you're tricking your brain into believing in something that isn't real. ("No, don't go in the basement!"), but, at the same time, you're also appreciating it as a performance or work of art. ("Wow, Patrick Stewart is really knocking it out of the park in this scene, and I'm loving this new theme music.").
And, to my mind, these are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't "knock me out of the story" to also enjoy the craftsmanship on display or simply acknowledge, "Oh, cool new set design."
Total immersion in a fictional reality is an impossible goal, since we're always perceiving fiction with two sides of our brain at the same time. (Albeit to varying degrees.)
As I've noted before, fiction is strange. On the one hand, you're tricking your brain into believing in something that isn't real. ("No, don't go in the basement!"), but, at the same time, you're also appreciating it as a performance or work of art. ("Wow, Patrick Stewart is really knocking it out of the park in this scene, and I'm loving this new theme music.").
And, to my mind, these are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't "knock me out of the story" to also enjoy the craftsmanship on display or simply acknowledge, "Oh, cool new set design."
Total immersion in a fictional reality is an impossible goal, since we're always perceiving fiction with two sides of our brain at the same time. (Albeit to varying degrees.)
Last edited:
It's generally alot harder to argue, "the future isn't supposed to look like that!" when the future has yet to happen versus "it looks like this in the past just never mind the updated visual look and tech" when it's already shown.
There is a bit of dishonesty or gaslighting going on from the production when that happens for a show like Star Trek, IMHO.
I don't find it dishonest or gaslighting. As @Greg Cox notes this is an aspect of TV production that is inherent in being a part of that medium. Calling it "dishonest" and "gaslighting" implies malice that I don't believe is there.