Not saying they can't update some of the effects - for example you wouldn't expect that 60's TOS Gorn to be taken seriously today. Also not saying they shouldn't do so. Only that from the side of the artist the case might look different than from the viewpoint of the fan that wants continuity, and that not all resulting 'updates' are necessarily for the better.
Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Not saying they can't update some of the effects - for example you wouldn't expect that 60's TOS Gorn to be taken seriously today. Also not saying they shouldn't do so. Only that from the side of the artist the case might look different than from the viewpoint of the fan that wants continuity, and that not all resulting 'updates' are necessarily for the better.
ETA quote I thought was present before;
I wish sometimes, someone would remember the line: Just because we can doesn't mean we should, or need, to change a thing. Consider it was done well enough and leave well enough alone.
Last edited:
The showrunners should allow the viewer to make their own decision on what is part of continuity than forcing it through their ill conceive serials. Star Trek is a great canvas to explore so many things and creating new realities and characters, there's no need to reinvent what was established and making it worse.
I'll never understand the point of view that the newest stuff reinvents the old stuff. It's not doing that. Art is not a static item that can only be viewed through one lens. The creators have their view, and the audience their own. How it all lines up is purely subjective. From my experience, Star Trek has not tried to line it up perfectly. It changes and updates based upon the technology of the day, including moving dates, and events around to suit the story. I guess that's poor continuity but I don't watch Trek for a history lesson.
That's not what Enterprise did. They reinterpreted it, retconned it, and enhanced it. There's no "fixing" there, it wasn't broken or in need of fixing to begin with.
The original design with antennae situated further back gave them somewhat of an insectoid look. With stubbier antennae further forward at the hairline, I thought it made them look more like snails.
Kor
This is where they were at before Enterprise. I'm the first to make the case for leaving things alone and not retconning episodes and movies when it's not necessary, but the Andorians still needed work. In my opinion.
The Star Trek universe being one semi-consistent thing is a huge part of the appeal for me. I can accept the 'they weren't able to realise it properly with the technology they had' logic to an extent (eg the Andorians), but the more they push it, the more it breaks the magic for me. I don't want a Star Trek without that magic. I don't want a Star Trek that loses my interest basically, that's my biggest concern. Because I know what I'm like, I drop things when they start pulling this, I stop caring.
Last edited:
You must have missed what Andorians looked like in TOS "Journey to Babel" and others.
This is where they were at before Enterprise. I'm the first to make the case for leaving things alone and not retconning episodes and movies when it's not necessary, but the Andorians still needed work. In my opinion.
Indeed.
Different strokes for different folks at this point. My Trek experience is more change, less emphasis on consistency. Not saying consistency can't happen but that's not my primary connection to the world. But, I am a much different in person in terms of experience with Trek and holding my interest. I've already have had the Trek loose my interest in the past, and I expect it to do it again.
Maybe that's too cynical of me but that's where I'm at.
The Late-'80s. Not just Big Hair, but also Big Antennae.
This is where they were at before Enterprise. I'm the first to make the case for leaving things alone and not retconning episodes and movies when it's not necessary, but the Andorians still needed work. In my opinion.
Not sure I get your meaning. But to follow your analogy, continuity is just one of the colors. How much and how little you apply is up to you as the artist.That's where creativity and inspiration come into play.
Continuity is like gravity. It might cause problems from time to time, but the ideal amount of it is all of it.
Yeah, my typos changed the meaning of some of my sentences. Sane should have been same
I agree, and I'm sure you agree that if you do have continuity beyond the basic skeletal structure of the thing, you should pay attention to what you're doing.
Depends on what you're doing and which data point you're using. Continuity shouldn't be a straight jacket.
I agree. It's a fine balance sometimes.
Right - some people think ridges were impossible to make in the 90s and 2000s, and we can only make Disco Ferengis now because materials have improved
Well take a close look at the 90s Ferengi NOSES or the detail on the Xindi reptilians, or any Klingon forehead of your choice from TNG-ENT and tell me again how detailed makeup with ridges was impossible until now