Poll Is continuity important?

[JoaquinSlowly]

Yep there was a time when Reed Richards and Ben Grimm were WWII vets and Charles Xavier fought in Korea.

Absolutely. And Marvel maintains they’ve never fully rebooted, they’ve just retconned timelines and elements. Though Universal, and Multiversal transformations of reality have occurred, and just as Prodigy co-show runner and EP Aaron Waltke has invoked the Temporal War in Trek, they can tidily explain their retcons.

And regarding your examples, most recently under Mark Waid (2019’s History of the Marvel Universe) and Kurt Busiek (the current ongoing sequel to his & Alex Ross’s Marvels, The Marvels), it’s put their military service, or in Reed’s case, now having worked as a consultant rather than a service member, as associated with the fictional South Asian Siancong/Sin-cong War. This included not only the FF’s Ben & Reed, but former Iron Man, James “Rhodey” Rhodes/War Machine, and Frank Castle/The Punisher as well.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yep there was a time when Reed Richards and Ben Grimm were WWII vets and Charles Xavier fought in Korea.

I remember Spider-Man cracking jokes about Ricard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, Doctor Doom meeting with Henry Kissinger, and Gwen Stacy saucily suggesting that she and Peter go see I Am Curious (Yellow). "You can hide my eyes during the racy parts."

Sliding time scales are a thing . . . .

 

[JcarlA]

I have stated before on this forum my veiws on how important continuity is citing that without adherence to continuity, you don't get episodes like All Good Things.

 

[fireproof78]

I have stated before on this forum my veiws on how important continuity is citing that without adherence to continuity, you don't get episodes like All Good Things.

But how strict is that adherence? My view isn't a call to abandon it all but that the audience is capable of adapting to changes. I think All Good Things had a good enough story that even without strict adherence it would still be go. That's the point.

 

[JcarlA]

But how strict is that adherence? My view isn't a call to abandon it all but that the audience is capable of adapting to changes. I think All Good Things had a good enough story that even without strict adherence it would still be go. That's the point.

The episode would be nowhere near as good if the writers didn't care about what had been established with the back in time scenes and got the facts wrong. The established continuity is one of the things that makes that episode and others fun. For me adherence to continuity is also what makes a show/universe more believable and engrossing.

 

[fireproof78]

The episode would be nowhere near as good if the writers didn't care about what had been established with the back in time scenes and got the facts wrong. The established continuity is one of the things that makes that episode and others fun. For me adherence to continuity is also what makes a show/universe more believable and engrossing.

Ok.

But it's not a requisite for me.

 

[The Wormhole]

The episode would be nowhere near as good if the writers didn't care about what had been established with the back in time scenes and got the facts wrong.

But they did get things wrong in the flashback scenes in AGT. Worf's forehead was wrong. Data's rank was wrong. O'Brien was on the main bridge when he should have been on the battle bridge with Lt Torres at the helm on the main bridge. The LCARS displays didn't have that greenish tint they had in the first season.

In the case of Worf's forehead, Ron Moore confirms they actually did have serious discussions about using his first season forehead for the past scenes. In the end, they decided against it only for convenience sake.

 

[Mudd]

Consider, if your writing, say, a novel set in historical times. This is how I feel writing Trek should be done.

No. It's not history. It didn't happen and won't happen. It's a story.

 

[Trelane_Squire_of_Gothos]

Playing connect the dots and painting by the numbers is about as lazy at it gets.

Hard working people do their research. Creative people can still make art within the confines of their canvas.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Hard working people do their research. Creative people can still make art within the confines of their canvas.

If you think Trek should be created only on certain canvases that the pros aren't using, you're free to create all the fanfic you want on those canvases. Maybe your creative hard work will get noticed, and you'll get recruited to take your act pro. I believe it's happened before.

 

[Trelane_Squire_of_Gothos]

If you think Trek should be created only on certain canvases that the pros aren't using, you're free to create all the fanfic you want on those canvases. Maybe your creative hard work will get noticed, and you'll get recruited to take your act pro. I believe it's happened before.

Ha Ha! Not my gig. I am just a consumer with an opinion (like everyone else who posts here that isn't a writer for a Star Trek production).

 

[F. King Daniel]

I have stated before on this forum my veiws on how important continuity is citing that without adherence to continuity, you don't get episodes like All Good Things.

Wrong hairstyle for Tasha. Wrong forehead for Worf. Incorrect rank for O'Brien. Wrong captain's chair.

I think you made a case for it not mattering so long as the briad strokes are adhered to and the story is good.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The episode would be nowhere near as good if the writers didn't care about what had been established with the back in time scenes and got the facts wrong.

There are a ton of errors in AGT.

 

[NCC-73515]

AGT is a great example why using what's available is fine.
Had they designed a totally new forehead and a new Captan's chair for the parts set during Farpoint, that would've been an unnecessary break in continuity.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

AGT is a great example why using what's available is fine.
Had they designed a totally new forehead and a new Captan's chair for the parts set during Farpoint, that would've been an unnecessary break in continuity.

Plus a waste of time/money...

 

[The Wormhole]

Hard working people do their research.

And I assume where you work you're the Employee of the Month every month? Unless the answer is yes, where do you get off accusing anyone else of not being hard working?

And I know the answer isn't "Yes." As someone who actually has been Employee of the Month twice, I can tell you that shit is exhausting, and one who does work that hard knows better than to fling accusations around like "hard working people do things I like. Those who don't are lazy."

 

[1001001]

Hard working people do their research. Creative people can still make art within the confines of their canvas.

And Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit at their keyboards and criticize successful creatives with unearned smugness.

What a world!

 

[Vger23]

Wrong hairstyle for Tasha. Wrong forehead for Worf. Incorrect rank for O'Brien. Wrong captain's chair.

I think you made a case for it not mattering so long as the briad strokes are adhered to and the story is good.

Wrong con and ops position designs on the bridge as well.

Clearly "...All Good Things" should be a target of severe ridicule and disgust. The production team obviously didn't care about the fans. I've decided to just de-canonize the entire episode in my mind.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hard working people do their research. Creative people can still make art within the confines of their canvas.

A canvas is an empty void. How you fill it is where the creativity comes in. Continuity is just one of the colors in the box. So is "research". Art is knowing what to leave out and when,. Assuming that lack of "hard work" is why something was left out is lazy thinking.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

All Good Things is good an example of them doing the best they could to match an earlier story without being ridiculous about it. If I need to compare images side by side to spot inconsistencies then it's not going to bother me when I'm watching, and going back to older styles of alien makeup wouldn't make any sense when the differences are minimal and they're not supposed to look different in-universe.