Is that true?
I thought it was me. Bastards!
I started paying attention to everything they said so I wouldn't miss anything, my kids weren't allowed to talk to me, the dinner burnt...
Continuity in star trek?
- Thread starter adellone92
- Start date
Is that true?
I thought it was me. Bastards!
I started paying attention to everything they said so I wouldn't miss anything, my kids weren't allowed to talk to me, the dinner burnt...
I guess that's one way for the writer of part two to get out of the jam created in part one. I'm not sure I'd call that creative though.
I guess that's one way for the writer of part two to get out of the jam created in part one. I'm not sure I'd call that creative though.
That's sort of like the old Republic serials where Chapter 7 ends and you see the guy in the car go over a cliff, but during the Chapter 8 recap, he jumps out just in time.
There are shades on continuity in TOS. For example: the Corbomite bluff being reprised, the Organian treaty gets wheeled out a few times in Klingon episodes, a particularly cool one where Captain Pike from the original pilot gets namechecked in "Mirror, Mirror". It isn't heavy with the continuity, but it does have continuity. 
It was usually minor setup stuff. Don't ask me to quote chapter and verse now, but I recall it being discussed in the episode review threads back in the day. One example I do remember is in that in the Season 2 episode with a fellow named Gardner (whom we'd never met before) in command of the Pegasus, they'd set up Adama having given him command by throwing a line of dialogue in the previouslies.
DS9; Dominion War.
Sorry not doubting you. Just amazed that they did that sort of thing. It drove me mad at the time.
I think TOS has the best science fiction of all the shows.
But the poor feeling of continuity is hard to ignore. It makes the show looks like it has short term memory syndrome.
Like Kirk having relationships all over the place and they're never mentioned again after. It gives the show a slight cartoonish feel to it.
I'm not saying it doesn't have a sense of continuity, but the strict 60's 'adventure of the week' style, makes it feel like it does.
But the poor feeling of continuity is hard to ignore. It makes the show looks like it has short term memory syndrome.
Like Kirk having relationships all over the place and they're never mentioned again after. It gives the show a slight cartoonish feel to it.
I'm not saying it doesn't have a sense of continuity, but the strict 60's 'adventure of the week' style, makes it feel like it does.
Same here.
That was just Kirk being Kirk.
I knew a lot of guys like that, as I used to be like that in my younger days. Well into my late 30s.
Which relationships are you referring to? The past lovers, such as Ruth, Janet Wallace, and Carol Marcus? Because why would they be mentioned regularly?
Or are you referring to the numerous women Kirk reputedly seduces in TOS? Because all those incidents were duty-related and absolutely not "relationships". As I recall, he didn't do more than kiss most of the them, with Deela of "Wink of an Eye" apparently the one who Kirk was the most intimate with, in the line of duty, of course.
Kirk did take advantage of that one Roman slave girl though.
There's a special place in hell reserved for that.
There's a special place in hell reserved for that.
Without reading the rest of the comments yet... Yes, it sounds like the OP is looking for story arcs and season arcs. These concepts weren't around in the 1960s during TOS. In fact, I can't remember such story telling methods prior to X-Files and Babylon-5. Well, that is, outside of Soap Operas.
I prefer the approach taken by TNG and Stargate SG-1. Mostly episodic but with a little serialization in the background to push the bigger storylines, along with reoccurring characters.
The TOS approach is too episodic for me.
The LOST approach is great during the first watch, but it is very hard to rewatch since it is so serialized. I feel the same way about DS9.
The TOS approach is too episodic for me.
The LOST approach is great during the first watch, but it is very hard to rewatch since it is so serialized. I feel the same way about DS9.
I don't think anything approaching serialization in nightly programming existed, until '70s-era mini-series like Rich Man, Poor Man and Roots started showing up. But those were usually limited to telling their stories over about a month's worth of airdates, and were promoted as big events.
I was never a big fan of serialized shows, because you had to watch them every week in order to keep up. You could miss one episode, and be completely in the dark about what's happening over the next few weeks. This is the problem I had with DS9 and ENT. I've not seen any of the shows that became popular in recent years, like Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, or Game of Thrones, as I can't pick up regular television since digital broadcasting became the standard. The only way I would ever see these shows is if I decide to pick up the series collections.
I was never a big fan of serialized shows, because you had to watch them every week in order to keep up. You could miss one episode, and be completely in the dark about what's happening over the next few weeks. This is the problem I had with DS9 and ENT. I've not seen any of the shows that became popular in recent years, like Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, or Game of Thrones, as I can't pick up regular television since digital broadcasting became the standard. The only way I would ever see these shows is if I decide to pick up the series collections.
I'll make an exception for Game of Thrones since the production and acting in that series is so DAMN good that it is always a pleasure to rewatch. Each season being only ten episodes long and the many beautiful women in it also helps.
Of those I mentioned above, Game of Thrones is the only one I would be halfway interested in seeing. I'm not a big fan of fantasy films or fantasy literature though, because I gravitated to science fiction instead. But I became a fan of Peter Dinklage after seeing The Station Agent.
Just think of each Game of Thrones season as a ten hour movie. It's definitely a great show with very talented cast of actors led by Peter Dinklage.
I'm probably going to wander up to the used video store in the next half hour, and I think they do have some GoT episodes there. I may have to decide whether I can afford a season of it, or build up my Star Trek collection instead. Just shuffled my month's worth of money around, so we'll see.
EDIT: Well, I had to pass. I didn't see any season 1 GoT sets, and the used sets they did have were over $50, which is more than I want to pay for used. Then I remembered I was wanting to save for TOS complete in time for Christmas or my birthday in January. They had a 1st season TOS remastered for $25, but I had to resist. Though I almost weakened when I saw some four-episode sets from Gerry Anderson's Supercar for $8 each.
I might wind up ordering a TOS Phaser that I saw on Amazon instead.
EDIT: Well, I had to pass. I didn't see any season 1 GoT sets, and the used sets they did have were over $50, which is more than I want to pay for used. Then I remembered I was wanting to save for TOS complete in time for Christmas or my birthday in January. They had a 1st season TOS remastered for $25, but I had to resist. Though I almost weakened when I saw some four-episode sets from Gerry Anderson's Supercar for $8 each.
I might wind up ordering a TOS Phaser that I saw on Amazon instead.
Last edited:
Similar threads
