AND whose character was the wife of a man named Commander Riker.
Quantum Leap questions
- Thread starter Captain Kathryn
- Start date
AND whose character was the wife of a man named Commander Riker.
I understand that establishing solid rules is a problem with fantasy, but it's just as apparent in most fantasy shows, where the details aren't scrutinized and there are holes in the logic. I'm sure we'd all like it if it were more consistent, but we might be asking for too much given the format. It's pretty common for a show to change details early on in the series, which is what your example seemed like. Are there any more examples of inconsistency?
Or it could simply of been Al having been told by Gushie or Tina that Ziggy was having a problem but not really understanding what he was being told.
Oh in relation to the Leap For Lisa, it was Commander Ryker not Riker.
Eh, doesn't matter. They're still pronounced the same.
Probably matters for copyright reasons though.
I don't and didn't give a shit.
No, because the show consistently treated the "string theory" nonsense and the "neurons and mesons" idiocy and the "quantum leap" misuse as if they were correct. They just took sciencey terms they were vaguely aware of and assigned them to their own concepts without any consideration for what the terms meant in real life. I think I would've been happier if they'd just invented new technobabble like Trek did. Nobody can say Trek used "verteron" or "tetryon" incorrectly, because there is no such thing.
Actually, in the initial development process of TNG, the first officer's name was spelled Ryker. I'm not sure why they changed it to Riker, but usually such changes are made to avoid being too close to the name of a real person if that's the only person with that name or if they're in the same line of work. Maybe there was an actual military officer named Commander William Ryker somewhere. But if the QL character's first name wasn't William, there wouldn't have been a problem with using that spelling.
Err. The list begins and ends with the worst sci-fi episode in modern history - the Voyager Episode Threshold which not only is riddled with outright absurd real and made up concepts but not only breaks contunity of Trek lore itself - it shatters it.
No Qunatum Leap or for that matter any other epsiode in recent memory of sci-fantasy even comes close to Threshold
I did not intend such a blanket generalization. My point was only what I said it was and nothing more: that if QL had used made-up terms for its made-up concepts, then it wouldn't have been so annoying listening to real scientific terminology being so grossly abused.
Charles Rocket's character was named Dirk Riker, but IIRC his first name was rarely spoken in the episode. He was usually referred to as "Commander Riker" (due to his rank). And the spelling of the last name was the same for both Dirk and Will Riker.
I wouldn't expect it to be a deliberate jab at Trek (as anyone who's seen this episode can attest, the character of Dirk Riker is clearly all four wheels off the road) because Don Bellisario doesn't seem like the type who would take potshots like that.
And since last names alone can't be copyrighted, I'm not seeing why they would have had to change the spelling of the QL character.
As for technobabble: I'll put forth a big fat "Meh" on that. Most QL fans did not care which terms they used - we just recognized that it was an awesome show and very fun to watch. I don't see where it's much worth the trouble to endlessly pick it apart like some uptight college professor or something like that.
I mean, if shows like Doctor Who can get away with not caring about continuity, then I say give QL a pass on the odd use of technobabble.
We were actually talking about this at work the other day. If it is indeed Sam's mind and body that leaps (it's been a while since I've seen this), and he sees himself in the mirror, when he leaps into a woman, how does that work? Especially if said woman is getting ready to get banged? I mean, would Sam look down and see his "unit?" Or would he see the lady parts? And if he sees his Sam "unit", how does that work when said boyfriend/husband gets busy?
The explaination was that the peron's aura surrounded Sam so to himself and anyone else he looked the person he'd replaced. Think even Al saw Sam as the person who'd lept into.
At the same time the person in the waiting room appeared to Al and anyone else at the project as Sam.
I think that even if there had been an acknowledged homage/parody/dig involved that was technically legally actionable, there might not have been anything done about it: people and companies weren't quite so IP lawsuit happy back then. It was still the Atomic Age - the Information Age hadn't really begun yet. (Git off mah LAWN!
)
When Sam looks in the mirror, he sees the person he leaped into, so I assume if he actually looks at himself w/o mirror, that's also what he'll see.
As for what would happen if Sam leaped in as a woman and someone tried to rape him (which, IIRC, almost did happen once, I think it was the 80's Mom episode): They'd probably go "What did I just get poked with?"
Last edited:
It wouldn't be a matter of copyright (which applies to an entire work), but of trademark (which applies to a title, logo, or otherwise distinctive branding element).
Still, if the character's name was spelled the same way after all, then I guess there was no issue.
Think about something you know well and care about, then imagine a TV show using its terminology in a completely wrong and inept way. I see comments from fluent German speakers complaining about the inept German translations in Grimm. I see English people complaining about bad English accents in American shows, and Americans complaining about bad American accents in English shows. I'm sure that lawyers get sick of the dreadfully inaccurate courtroom procedure in most TV, and I'm sure that football fans would hate seeing the rules of football misrepresented. I don't doubt that you have your own triggers, things that are close to you and that you can't stand seeing portrayed badly. Everyone does.
Shows that mess up the things I know about and and am interested in are shows I don't watch more than once. Unless there is a compelling reason for me to ignore those things, like overall concept, appealing characters, storylines, and so on.
But mostly, I don't watch them.
But mostly, I don't watch them.
And yet most of them are probably smart enough to realize that dramatic license trumps accuracy.
If we were actually talking about a sport here, as opposed to a completely fictional universe where everything is made up from scratch, I'd pay more attention to that analogy.
I think it's safe to say that QL itself is Exhibit A that that's false. If we were trying to figure out how QL failed miserably, then such a prescription might be worth considering. To insinuate that QL succeeded despite its technobabble is to overlook the much more obvious possibility that having a wacky aspect helped it succeed. The show was serious enough at other times.
Just enjoy the show and don't sweat the science.
Right. I agree with Tosk.
As if the quirky handlink sound effects didn't telegraph the point enough, having completely nonsensical, as well as counterfactual, technobabble was, in my view, the show's way of announcing that science wasn't important to what was going on. No university degrees needed here and nothing to check, just sit back and enjoy!
You're still not getting my point. It's not about whether a fictional universe is plausible in real-world terms or whether it's serious. Even if it's pure fantasy, even if it's a zany comedy, it should still remain consistent with whatever ground rules it applies. Indeed, the more fanciful or bizarre the universe, the more important self-consistency is to give it a sense of reality, of being a world that holds together on its own terms rather than just a bunch of random stuff.
And yes, QL succeeded despite the conceptual flaws, but that doesn't mean the flaws didn't exist. It means that reality is not about simple black-and-white dualities. It's not as if the only options are complete perfection and utter failure. As with everything in life, there's plenty of middle ground. A show can be good in a lot of ways but still have imperfections. You can like most of the things a show does but still find something about it that frustrates you. It can do a lot of things well yet do one thing poorly. For instance, a show may be very well-written, well-acted, and well-produced, but have lousy music. Or a show may have five terrific lead actors and one mediocre lead actor.
And sometimes -- indeed, all too often -- a show may have terrific character writing and drama and emotion yet be lazy in its worldbuilding. I once read an editorial by Analog editor Stanley Schmidt saying that this was a widespread practice, a belief among many storytellers for prose and screen that as long as the characters and the emotions were plausible, it didn't matter if the world made any sense. And Stanley argued that it did matter, that the world itself is a character in its own right, whose rules affect and shape the characters' actions and experiences just as other characters do. A lot of drama comes from the constraints and challenges faced by the characters, and those can come from the environment or the rules and limitations of the world as much as they can come from other people. So a writer who cares about making characters and their problems and relationships believable and consistent would be well-served by making the world they interact with believable and consistent as well. (And I mean "believable" in the context of willing suspension of disbelief about a work of fiction, rather than belief that it could really exist. A complete fantasy world can be believable as long as it has a coherent internal logic.)
No, it's not impossible to tell satisfying stories in a world whose rules are sloppily conceived or inconsistent. But that doesn't mean you can't tell better stories in a world that is well thought out. Just because you can succeed without being perfect, that doesn't mean you can't do even better.
Similar threads
