Poll Is continuity important?

[MarkusTay]

The problem here is that the entire concept of 'franchises' is a recent invention - before they were just called 'IPs' (Intellectual Properties), and were only defined as such for legal reason. It wasn't something fans ever needed to be concerned about. Then fandoms began. they began a LONG time ago. I'm sure their were fandoms even in ancient itmes. But they were limited ins cope, because they were limited in reach. If your neighbor lived two days away and their were raiders between them and you, well... you didn't get together with your nerd buddies to talk about the latest adventures of the Argonauts. Fandoms become big when home computers took off, and they became organized, and we made Wikis.
The companies that owned the IPs realized the cash cows that they had and could milk for ever, and thus, the concept of 'franchises' were born.

Your data regarding Sherlock Holmes is irrelevant, because it predates the concept of 'franchise', and thus, no-one even thought about the relationship between one show (or novel) and the next. They were all 'stand alone'. On the plus side, that means one bad movie couldn't kill a franchise, because there was no franchise. In fact, the number of inconsistencies by early scify authors in their series of novels is huge - they changed stuff from book to book, even if it was all so supposed to be the same setting. But no one cared, because each piece was considered a separate thing. It was almost like the concept of a multiverse, before there were multiverses. The internet, fandoms, and franchises - all recent concepts promoted by the big companies - is what made us into 'rabid fanbois', because they wanted it that way. And the downside of having heavily invested fandoms is that when you make them angry, they turn on you, like Bruce Banner after he's gotten sour milk in his morning coffee.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is why I treat continuity very informally. The production teams will never please fans looking for continuity problems.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not even sure there is any continuity between the Sherlock Holmes movies. It's just another person playing another Sherlock Holmes with some variation on his established traits and relationships. He solves a mystery.

Just to be clear, I was talking about one specific cycle of Holmes movies, the Basil Rathbone series from the thirties and forties, not different versions with different actors playing Holmes. But, yes, the Rathbone movies were all standalone mysteries. They were not serialized in the way modern movies are.

(Aside from Moriarity showing up once in a while, usually played by a different actor!)

 

[NCC-73515]

Check out that TOS to TMP refit. Every single control on every single station is completely changed, from more fantasy-style blinking lights and unlabelled candy buttons to labelled graphics and buttons laid out entirely differently.

It's in no way plausable as an in-universe upgrade beyond the most superficial levels.

- bridge modules (see every other TOS movie, also see PIC S3)
- "Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise"
- "Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise"

 

[F. King Daniel]

- bridge modules (see every other TOS movie, also see PIC S3)
- "Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise"
- "Admiral, we have just spent eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise"

None of which makes it a plausible in universe evolution of the OS/interfaces/whatever.

 

[The Wormhole]

None of which makes it a plausible in universe evolution of the OS/interfaces/whatever.

As you know, TMP was the pre-Kurtzman era, and therefore any and all errors there are explainable. Anything since Kurtzman fondled the franchise with his grubby paws in the most hedonistic way possible is WRONG and an ABOMINATION. We the faithful are left with little recourse other than to beg Gene have mercy on our souls.

This is the way.

 

[MarkusTay]

The problem with franchises now is that most of them have matured. That means kids who grew up with them - and have ideas about "how they would have did things" - have now grownup, and some of those people actually got jobs working on those franchises, and decided to remake the setting into their own personal head-canon (fan-fic), by rewriting large swaths of the past. So what we got is a bunch of narcissists that have decided THEIR version of events was the right version all along, and the other Eight Million people on the planet are just big dummy heads.

As for the current conversation: I actually don't mind changes/updates to sets and ships, because I can retroactively reset things in my head, saying 'it was always that way', because I understand the technology involved with special effects and makeup are constantly advancing. We all know the original Enterprise could have looked so much cooler if done today, so why force it to be 'less cool' just because we had crappy tech in the 60's? On the other hand, you can blame it on fashion trends - the Federation went through a 'retro' period?

And updating the look of the show is very different from rewriting the history (lore/continuity) within the show, which is only okay if its done really well.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

After participating in this thread and hearing various points I have come to this conclusion for myself: I care about continuity in 4 different categories. The first is characters; I would like Captain Kirk to remain relatively consistent across a series, and any changes to make sense within in the context of the character. The second is story continuity. I would like stories to maintain a semblance of consistency between themselves, especially with regards to the world. The third is world building, how the technology works, different terminology and limits, are all aspects I would like to remain consistent. And finally is visual continuity. This is the one that I value the least because the rules of Star Trek being a production and updates will happen, sometimes for no explicable reason.

The funny thing to me is is that as I figure these all out is that Trek is not consistent with any of them. And yet only recently has changes gone from "Oh, that's just the movies" to "oh, that's a whole new continuity." And I just don't feel that is the case with Trek. It's always had struggles with continuity.

 

[blssdwlf]

Forget the time-travel option. I suggested another perfectly mundane "explanation" in terms of, "oh, this is Sherlock Holmes, Jr." that Universal Studios could have resorted to had they felt it necessary. Plain old heredity certainly exists in the mainstream universe of detective stories, so that option was available.

But my point is the audiences didn't demand or expect any sort of explanation, not even a non-SF one, nor did the filmmakers feel obliged to prove any internal explanation -- beyond wartime patriotism. "Even Sherlock Holmes is joining the fight against the Axis. Buy War Bonds!"

And yet the series continued merrily on its way for another 12 movies without anybody worrying about this grievous violation of continuity. Or demanding an "explanation."

So why are modern audiences so much more obsessed with "canon"? To the extent that it sometimes seems to be getting in the way of them, well, actually enjoying this stuff.

Still not seeing your point though. Why would these audiences watching Sherlock Holmes care about an explanation when there is no time-travel or alt universe plot device involved? Simply changing the story setting in Holmes isn't the same as using a device to go back in time to interact with it or jumping to an alternate reality.

Also, not seeing modern audiences being "so much more obsessed with canon". As casual viewers some are probably more aware nowadays of time-travel and alternate universes based on the franchise they are exposed to but does that really translate into being so much more obsessed with canon? Doubtful. Granted, fans can be obsessed but that is a given. IMHO.

 

[shapeshifter]

After participating in this thread and hearing various points I have come to this conclusion for myself: I care about continuity in 4 different categories. The first is characters; I would like Captain Kirk to remain relatively consistent across a series, and any changes to make sense within in the context of the character. The second is story continuity. I would like stories to maintain a semblance of consistency between themselves, especially with regards to the world. The third is world building, how the technology works, different terminology and limits, are all aspects I would like to remain consistent. And finally is visual continuity. This is the one that I value the least because the rules of Star Trek being a production and updates will happen, sometimes for no explicable reason.

The funny thing to me is is that as I figure these all out is that Trek is not consistent with any of them. And yet only recently has changes gone from "Oh, that's just the movies" to "oh, that's a whole new continuity." And I just don't feel that is the case with Trek. It's always had struggles with continuity.

Welcome to the head of the class.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

My point was that previous generations were not as hung up on "canon" and continuity, to the extent that a popular movie series could literally jump ahead fifty years in time, while keeping the same cast at the same age, and movie audiences just took it in stride. There was no attempt to "explain" that these were the grand-children of the original Holmes and Watson and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson (who just happened to look and act exactly like their forebears) or any other contrivance. And, as far as I know, nobody stormed out of SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR in protest. Or fired off angry screeds to their local newspapers.

I will say that, as a Holmes fan, although I greatly enjoy & own both of the two 20th Century Fox Rathbone/Bruce Holmes films set in the Victorian era, I have long stayed away from the 12 Universal films that followed which updated Holmes to the then-present day. Holmes and Watson just belong in the Victorian era to me (although it's the Edwardian era in the later years of the Canon, of course).

But now I think I should just break down and watch them already, as I'm only depriving myself of some very well-regarded films for a rather arbitrary reason. Heck, if I can enjoy the BBC's Sherlock and the offbeat Holmes pastiches The Seven Per-Cent Solution and The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, with all the breaks they make from the Canon, is Holmes and Watson fighting Nazis in the 1940s really that much more of a stretch?

BTW, the first Holmes film that updated him to the 1940s, 1942's Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, did present a bit of a handwave to the time shift with this text introduction at the beginning:

Sherlock Holmes, the immortal character of fiction created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is ageless, invincible, and unchanging.

In solving significant problems of the present day he remains--as ever--the supreme master of deductive reasoning.

And about 15 minutes in, Holmes reaches for his traditional deerstalker when leaving Baker Street, only to pick up a fedora instead at Watson's urging. And that was all the explanation they provided, AFAIK.

Still not seeing your point though. Why would these audiences watching Sherlock Holmes care about an explanation when there is no time-travel or alt universe plot device involved? Simply changing the story setting in Holmes isn't the same as using a device to go back in time to interact with it or jumping to an alternate reality.

There was so much of a difference between 1880s London and 1940s London that it might as well have had a science fiction explanation, though. Going from horse-drawn hansom cabs and telegrams to automobiles and the telephone and making a Sherlock Holmes movie with a villain who announces their plans via radio broadcasts is a pretty HUGE change in the setting. Even though Doyle kept writing Sherlock Holmes stories all the way up to 1926, he never had them take place any closer to the present day than 1914.

IIRC, most of the Holmes films prior to Rathbone (such as those starring Clive Brook and Arthur Wontner) took place in the then-present day of the 1920s and '30s. I believe that was largely for budgetary reasons, though. Period films are expensive!

 

[blssdwlf]

There was so much of a difference between 1880s London and 1940s London that it might as well have had a science fiction explanation, though. Going from horse-drawn hansom cabs and telegrams to automobiles and the telephone and making a Sherlock Holmes movie with a villain who announces their plans via radio broadcasts is a pretty HUGE change in the setting. Even though Doyle kept writing Sherlock Holmes stories all the way up to 1926, he never had them take place any closer to the present day than 1914.

IIRC, most of the Holmes films prior to Rathbone (such as those starring Clive Brook and Arthur Wontner) took place in the then-present day of the 1920s and '30s. I believe that was largely for budgetary reasons, though. Period films are expensive!

Changing settings isn't the same as having a Holmes story pull out a time-travel or alternate universe device to make it happen, IMHO. Without that, again, why would anyone bring it up in that context?

I do find it interesting though that you identify Holmes films by the actor Rathbone, Brook and Wontner much like we think of Nimoy, Quinto and Peck for Star Trek films to tell which series they belong to.

 

[fireproof78]

Without that, again, why would anyone bring it up in that context?

Because of when they expect Holmes to happen.

 

[blssdwlf]

Because of when they expect Holmes to happen.

Considering Holmes spanned radio, film and TV how did audience back then figure out "when" Holmes is supposed to happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_who_have_played_Sherlock_Holmes

And did any of the stories ever have any time-travel or alternate universe devices to make the audience aware of the need for continuity?

 

[fireproof78]

Considering Holmes spanned radio, film and TV how did audience back then figure out "when" Holmes is supposed to happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_who_have_played_Sherlock_Holmes

And did any of the stories ever have any time-travel or alternate universe devices to make the audience aware of the need for continuity?

You would have to ask them. I never liked Holmes.

 

[blssdwlf]

Because of when they expect Holmes to happen.
...
You would have to ask them. I never liked Holmes.

Okay. I thought you would've had the answer since you answered one already for them.

 

[fireproof78]

Okay. I thought you would've had the answer since you answered one already for them.

Sometimes I think I do.

I'm usually wrong.

 

[blssdwlf]

Sometimes I think I do.

I'm usually wrong.

It's all good. You're not usually wrong (which is why I asked for more info) and this is an interesting discussion. Who would've thought we'd veer into Sherlock Holmes?

 

[fireproof78]

It's all good. You're not usually wrong and this is an interesting discussion. Who would've thought we'd veer into Sherlock Holmes?

Spock.

 

[blssdwlf]

Spock.

LOL, yeah he name checks an "ancestor". That's a fun continuity discussion coming up