Just kinda the nature of long-running series. How long have Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys been in high school?
Although I admit I was a little startled the other day to see Blondie and Dagwood using laptops and modern phones.
How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Just kinda the nature of long-running series. How long have Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys been in high school?
Although I admit I was a little startled the other day to see Blondie and Dagwood using laptops and modern phones.
I hate shifting timelines. It works in some super non-serious comedy thing where past events are pretty much never referenced, but not in any sort of even remotely serious storytelling. Either have the characters age, or just accept that the stuff happens in the past. Batman for example would work much better in permanent noirish world of 30s to 50s.Just kinda the nature of long-running series. How long have Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys been in high school?
Although I admit I was a little startled the other day to see Blondie and Dagwood using laptops and modern phones.
And shifting starship sizes are not much better...
Aside from Rey, I don't recognize anyone you have pictures of there.
Had it "shown what it can do" though? After TNG, each of the successive series kept getting lower and lower ratings, until finally Enterprise got cancelled. And even TNG failed with its movies. TOS is pretty much the one certainty when it comes to Star Trek, though it appears TNG's television success was enough to make a sequel TV series about Picard a viable option.
And don't forget The Simpsons, the world around them updates to the modern day, but all the characters are still the same age they were nearly thirty years ago.Just kinda the nature of long-running series. How long have Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys been in high school?
Although I admit I was a little startled the other day to see Blondie and Dagwood using laptops and modern phones.
Last edited by a moderator:
They're from Netflix shows which I personally would view as being iconic, YMMV but I don't imagine we'd struggle to hard to find people here who would recognise them.
My point is that the high risk creativity is still there, it's just not necessarily happening in Hollywood. There's a reason so many major stars are increasingly willing to do TV work which challenges them on an artistic level.
I don't think too many kids in the young teen bracket wouldn't instantly know these guys:
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2016/12/30/trollhunters-1280-1483119259938_1280w.jpg
http://www.dreamworkstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Do06fv4XUAAbkMx.jpg?15516
https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/dragon3.jpg?w=1000
(admittedly the last is based on a 2003 book)
Last edited by a moderator:
You must hate James Bond movies.
I really don't see them as one continuity. Each new actor is basically a reboot.
You haven't been watching them very closely, then.
*Shrug*
It cannot be the same guy, so it isn't. Connery and Moore films could be in continuity with each other. Lazenby we ignore for obvious reasons, though otherwise that film could be in Connery/Moore continuity. Dalton films are a reboot, it is younger, a bit less experienced Bond. Brosnan doesn't feel like any sort of a Bond so I ignore him. Craig films are an explicit reboot.
They were intended to be the same guy until Craig. It doesn’t hold together all that well (far less so than Trek) but, except for Never Say Never, Again, the continuity is intended to be unified. I’ve long looked at it like comics—sliding time scale and different artist representation (it’s how I deal with recasting and/or set design changes in any franchise that doesn’t explicitly declare itself by its producers as a reboot—does wonders for my blood pressure
).
They may have intended it like that, but it doesn't work for me. It is easier for me to think them as reboots. Like to someone it is easier to think Discovery as a reboot. If basic statistics like roughly how old someone is, when events happened or how big a starship is are literally unknowable (as opposed to merely unknown) then we really don't have world building. I can't base a continuity on that.They were intended to be the same guy until Craig. It doesn’t hold together all that well (far less so than Trek) but, except for Never Say Never, Again, the continuity is intended to be unified. I’ve long looked at it like comics—sliding time scale and different artist representation (it’s how I deal with recasting and/or set design changes in any franchise that doesn’t explicitly declare itself by its producers as a reboot—does wonders for my blood pressure
Ah well. Different strokes and all that. They’re all just stories to me. I only care about “world building” within an iteration, not across them.
World building is not the most important thing for me, but it is something I greatly enjoy. Carefully crafted fictional settings that are so consistent and detailed that they feel real are beautiful things. And such realness gives the setting a life of its own; it can help creating stories. Similarly like well crafted characters with developed personalities can lead to emergent stories. One of my all time favourite settings is the Middle-Earth, the 'realness' of it is really captivating. Whilst Trek with its numerous creators obviously couldn't match that level of coherence, it was always surprisingly consistent and had similar verisimilitude.
I confess I gave up on Tolkien halfway through the Fellowship of the Ring. I liked my fantasy pulpier: Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Elric of Melnibone, Jirel of Joiry, etc. Always preferred sword-and-sorcery to high fantasy.
I remain surprised that these two have not made it into the visual media: they seem ready-made for the current trend of gritty anti-heroes.
FWIW, I like Tolkien and Leiber, Moorcock, et al.
I love world building. It is my favorite part of exploring worlds, including Middle Earth, Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere, Star Wars and Star Trek. I have several tech manuals, maps and detailed lists of
different tech for many worlds.
However, as much as I love it, Star Trek is a different animal than the rest so I don't expect the same level of consistency as I would Middle Earth or fantasy works. Star Trek isn't just its own world but developed based upon current human understanding of technology. So, I expect technological evolution.
To me, it's a feature not a bug.
YMMV and all that.
I can appreciate that: so many authors I would also love to thank for my literary "upbringing."
He was sitting alone in a corner, looking rather old and frail, and I honestly didn't know if he would appreciate the company or if he just wanted to be left alone. Still wish I had walked over and said something, if only to let him know know how much I had enjoyed his work over the years.
Not just Fahrd and the Mouser, but also Conjure Wife, Gather, Darkness, "A Pail of Air," etc.
Last edited:
@Greg Cox Now you have me waxing a bit nostalgic, for some of those books I haven't read in years. Not F&GM, I have real and Kindle versions of those works, but others like Howard and Moocock The other Leiber works, Skeeve's myth-adventures. Ursula K. Le Guin. Pern and Darkover. Delany's weird stuff. And et cetera and et cetera.
Most read either as a teen or on one of the three Westpac deployments (on of the few perks of being homeported in Oakland Ca was hitting up the many bookstores around UC-Berkeley that existed at the time.)
Most read either as a teen or on one of the three Westpac deployments (on of the few perks of being homeported in Oakland Ca was hitting up the many bookstores around UC-Berkeley that existed at the time.)
Similar threads
