Braga simply did not watch the show

[AJBryant]

I just let stuff like this slide... It's not possible for every writer to go back and watch every episode before they start the script.

They don't have to. There should be a big notebook full of all the established information (Bios on the characters, etc.) that can be checked. You don't write a story about the sister of someone after it's been established he's an only child. Look at the bible, read the chara's bio.

There's no excuse for not keeping track of that stuff.

 

[Anwar]

And yet if you look closely enough, you'll find that every show in existence that lasted 3 years or longer had those same flaws one way or another.

 

[Broccoli]

And yet if you look closely enough, you'll find that every show in existence that lasted 3 years or longer had those same flaws one way or another.

All of which were Braga's fault. Especially on shows he had nothing to do with.

 

[Anwar]

Yes, and everything good about all those shows was due to Ira Behr and Ron Moore. Especially the ones they had nothing to do with.

 

[brcarthey]

I just let stuff like this slide... It's not possible for every writer to go back and watch every episode before they start the script.

They don't have to. There should be a big notebook full of all the established information (Bios on the characters, etc.) that can be checked. You don't write a story about the sister of someone after it's been established he's an only child. Look at the bible, read the chara's bio.

There's no excuse for not keeping track of that stuff.

i was told (and/or read) you can blame GR himself (someone correct me if i'm wrong) for each series not paying closer attention to continuity. the TNG production staff used to have a guy (i forget his name) whose sole job it was to keep a "continuity bible" and by the 3rd season of TNG the writers complained that it was too tough to keep up with the continuity, so this guy was fired.

i'm fuzzy on the details, but the gist of the story i believe is correct.

 

[Broccoli]

Yes, and everything good about all those shows was due to Ira Behr and Ron Moore. Especially the ones they had nothing to do with.

I kid you not, one time, a poster actually seriously argued that all "the good stuff" in GEN and FC was what Moore wrote and all "the bad stuff" in the movie was due to Braga.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Not only did Braga not watch the show, he has STILL, as of this date, not watched the show!
And further, he has not yet read this thread!
The audacity of the man sickens me.

 

[RandyS]

^

 

[Therin of Andor]

i was told (and/or read) you can blame GR himself (someone correct me if i'm wrong) for each series not paying closer attention to continuity. the TNG production staff used to have a guy (i forget his name) whose sole job it was to keep a "continuity bible"

Why blame Gene Roddenberry? GR himself employed Richard Arnold - a longtime Trek fan and volunteer Paramount Studios tour guide - as official "Star Trek Archivist" and put him on Paramount's payroll between ST IV and the start of TNG. He did the job on ST V and ST VI too.

and by the 3rd season of TNG the writers complained that it was too tough to keep up with the continuity, so this guy was fired.[/qwuote]

Not quite. The day after GR died, his assistant, Susan Sackett, and the Archivist, Richard Arnold, were locked out of their offices. The "Star Trek Office" was closed. Richard was kept on for a little while because he was the only one able to identify many items in the archives, but he eventually went freelance and still helps various conventions and licensees. Guy Vardaman took over some of his duties at Paramount.

RA wasn't fired because the show's writers complained about continuity. RA did, however, ruffle the feathers of many of the writers of Star Trek tie-ins (novels and comics) during the years he used to vet their manuscripts on behalf of GR.

 

[brcarthey]

^thanks for clearing that up therin. i knew it was something like that, but was fuzzy on the details. i knew gene hired an "archivist," but thought he fired him too.

however, i still seem to recall that RA upset some of the show's writers regarding continuity. if that's not the case, i won't argue it because it's been so long since i don't remember how i even came by the info.

 

[Withers]

Alright, I'd like to add something to this.

Dukat, Weyoun, The Female Changling, Damar, Ziyal, Admiral Ross, General Martok, Chancellor Gowron, Garak, Vic Fontaine, Kai Winn, Rom, Leeta, and Luthor Slone, (forgive any misspellings please) are all supplementary characters from DS9 I can think of just off the top of my head. All of these characters had either back stories or were in some way central to the lives of core crew members if not both of those things.

I won't sit here and say there weren't continuity errors in DS9 or things that just didn't make sense (we all know that isn't true.) But even with the massive supporting cast, plus the seven senior staff members, Quark, Jake and all the guest stars, on a show that touched three quadrants as opposed to one they managed to make far fewer mistakes than they did on Voyager.


Voyager should have had no problem not tripping on itself and that simply wasn't the case. It's one of the things about the series I find kinda inexcusable.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Uh-huh, and what exactly were these big trips VOY made that are so unforgivable? You'll find that they are far and few in between.

 

[Withers]

You're seriously asking me what was wrong with Star Trek Voyager? You don't want to narrow that question down a little? Like, 'what was wrong with season one?' Or 'what was wrong with what they did with the villains?' or 'what was wrong with their constant use of deus ex machina?' Or 'what was wrong with the acting, character development, story progression, or thematic tones of the show?' You seriously just want to ask, straight up, 'what was wrong with Star Trek Voyager?'

I'm more than happy to go there with ya buddy but I honestly think that's gonna take it's own thread... Though you're the Rear Admiral and I'm just an Ensign so I guess you'd get to decide on that one.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

No, I'm asking what were the continuity gaffes, not the silly hating the show got for not being "Mad Max" in space.

 

[TheGodBen]

I'm more than happy to go there with ya buddy but I honestly think that's gonna take it's own thread... Though you're the Rear Admiral and I'm just an Ensign so I guess you'd get to decide on that one.

-Withers-​

Luckily I already did the thread, and I've already had the arguments with Anwar, so I've saved you from having to do them too.

(Seriously, don't get into an argument with him, it's not worth it.)

 

[Withers]

I didn't say "continuity gaffes" (though you and I both know they're there because they're there in every Star Trek franchise). What I said was, by comparison with how few characters Voyager had to keep up with and its relatively limited scope, it shouldn't have had any trouble keeping things like oh, The Borg, straight. "Seven of Nine. You're the first drone to regain its individuality" Not even close your highness. Not even close. You just glossed over Jean Luc Picard. He's the freaking Captain of the Flag ship. Glossed right over him. Voyager was had too many moments like that. If DS9, with its infinitely grander scoped and more heavily populated story (both in universe and out of it in terms of actors and story lines) could keep from making huge mistakes like that I'd think Voyager could have done the same. It did not.

I'll take Mad Max in Space over Muppet's in Space every day of the week.


-Withers-

Edit
That always happens to me on forums. "Don't argue with that guy!" Awww... I just hit post... Haha.
​

 

[Anwar]

Picard was not the same as Seven. Picard was assimilated as a "mouthpiece" for the Borg, he was never a drone. Seven was, and she was assimilated WAY longer than him. You're reading too much into the line and missing the basic concept of what they were saying.

Seriously, if that's all you have for "unforgivable gaffes" VOY is doing pretty well.

 

[Withers]

I can't be on a forum dedicated to Star Trek, discussing continuity errors and be accused of "reading too much" into anything that is related. That's like serving a double chocolate cake and being upset at someone for saying they can really taste the chocolate.

I'll give. Picard wasn't exactly a drone and he was assimilated for a significantly shorter period of time than Seven of Nine. That's fine. What about Hugh? He was a pretty significant drone who had been with the collective a while. Certainly no one could say he was a "mouth piece." What's the excuse there?

Seriously, if you're going to quote me, you have to quote me. I never used the term "unforgivable gaffes." I said the idea that Voyager couldn't keep itself in line with itself was one of the things about the series I found "kinda unforgivable." There's purposefully equivocation there. Now, c'mon, if we're gonna do this thing let's do it right.

"If you havin' hull problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a breach ain't one."

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Hugh was not assimilated, he was one of the baby Borgs who was separated from the Collective and became an individual for the first time in his life. Seven was someone who was assimilated and regained the individuality that was taken from her. Still not the same thing.

Yes, they met up with several other Borgs who were former individuals who later regained their individuality as well, but at the time Seven was the only former assimilate to have regained her individuality.

 

[Withers]

Seven of Nine, at the sight of the Drone that would grow up to be known as One, said "The Borg assimilate. They do not reproduce in this fashion." That implies (for the sake of this absurd discussion) that, considering her vast knowledge of the collective, that there aren't such things as "Borg babies." They assimilate infants and put them in maturation chambers... but they don't procreate in the sense that two Borg drones mate and produce a child that is a Borg in the way you are suggesting.

At some point, based on Seven of Nine's statement about One, Hugh must have been assimilated.

Furthermore (I so rarely get to use that word) the Queen's quote was that Seven was the first drone (not assimilate) to have regained its individuality. At the very least, if not evidence of continuity disregard, it is at least indicative of the bad writing that in my opinion plagued the show.

Occams Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Were the writers of the show so horrible they couldn't convey the special circumstances that separate Seven of Nine from Hugh and Picard or did they overlook some major events in the STU and disregard them?

-Withers-​