Poll Is continuity important?

[fireproof78]

In the moment details matter to the story. At least the story you tried to quote from ("Point of View")

And when I'm watching that story in the moment I'm paying attention to those stories details not the story I watched a week ago. Or a series I watched a decade ago.

The moment is what matters.

 

[blssdwlf]

And when I'm watching that story in the moment I'm paying attention to those stories details not the story I watched a week ago. Or a series I watched a decade ago.

The moment is what matters.

What if the details of the episode a week ago mattered to the story you watched now?

Or what if you knew that everything that was done in the story you just watched will be completely undone in the next story?

Or are these all just tears in the rain moments for you? Because if they are then yeah, it doesn't matter what you're watching then as long as you find some entertainment value in it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What if the details of the episode a week ago mattered to the story you watched now?

So, are you saying that April's skin color mattered to "The Counter-Clock Incident"? Is there anything in the dialog of that episode that would have had to have been changed, if he had been painted with brown skin?

By the way, on the subject of rank, commodore is equivalent to rear admiral, lower half (NATO OF-6). I'm not sure what April's rank is now, but I thought I would point out what the equivalent rank is for commodore. A commodore is a flag officer, also known as an admiral.

 

[Greg Cox]

It really isn't about being a purist for me. Black Robert April? Bring it on, I hear the man playing him is an excellent actor. Black Robert April coexisting in the same universe as white Robert April, supposedly being the same character? My brain simply can't make that one work.

It only doesn't work if you insist that there has to be an "in-universe" explanation for any such discrepancies. If you allow for the possibility of occasionally acknowledging that, well, yeah, you're watching a theatrical production and not reality, then it all makes sense.

Sometimes, "Oh, they recast the part" is the only real explanation you need.

A classic example: In FRANKENSTEIN (1931), Elizabeth is a blonde played by Mae Clarke. In the direct sequel, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), which picks up moments after the previous movie left off, Elizabeth is now a brunette played by Valerie Hobson.

Does this mean that BRIDE is not really set in the same continuity as the previous film? That we're dealing with a completely new timeline? Or do we need some torturous explanation for why Dr. Frankenstein's fiancee somehow found time to dye her hair while the Monster was on a rampage? Can our (abby normal) brains not make this work?

Or maybe you just shrug, suspend your disbelief, and accept that it's the same character in the same timeline, which is clearly the film's intent. Because that's how movies and TV and theater have always worked.

The phrase, "suspension of disbelief," exists for reason. It's fiction after all.

 

[blssdwlf]

So, are you saying that April's skin color mattered to "The Counter-Clock Incident"? Is there anything in the dialog of that episode that would have had to have been changed, if he had been painted with brown skin?

It depends on the continuity. Using fireproof78's Stargate SG1 example, they were hopping between universes and while trying to find their way back their own universe (the "one of consequence") they run across a version where the character was of a different rank than their universe's character. They and the audience knew it wasn't their universe.

Play it the same way here in Star Trek. We have never seen a live action April so I have no issues with his skin color for SNW or even TOS. But, if we were an animated-Kirk and Co in TAS trying to get back to the their version of TAS, then the appearance would matter as that would be the only way to know that they were returning to right universe. IMHO.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It depends on the continuity. Using fireproof78's Stargate SG1 example, they were hopping between universes and while trying to find their way back their own universe (the "one of consequence") they run across a version where the character was of a different rank than their universe's character. They and the audience knew it wasn't their universe.

Play it the same way here in Star Trek. We have never seen a live action April so I have no issues with his skin color for SNW or even TOS. But, if we were an animated-Kirk and Co in TAS trying to get back to the their version of TAS, then the appearance would matter as that would be the only way to know that they were returning to right universe. IMHO.

So, then, in your opinion, is TSFS set in a different universe from TWOK?

 

[fireproof78]

What if the details of the episode a week ago mattered to the story you watched now?

I'll probably get a recap.

what if you knew that everything that was done in the story you just watched will be completely undone in the next story?

So, TOS. I'm good, man.

Or are these all just tears in the rain moments for you? Because if they are then yeah, it doesn't matter what you're watching then as long as you find some entertainment value in it.

More tears in the rain but it would depend greatly on how the story is constructed within that series. Within a franchise I'm less concerned.

And now we've taken a tongue in cheek Teal'c joke and spun it in to something overlong.

 

[1001001]

And now we've taken a tongue in cheek Teal'c joke and spun it in to something overlong.

 

[blssdwlf]

So, then, in your opinion, is TSFS set in a different universe from TWOK?

Yes

I'll probably get a recap.

Based on your answer down below then I believe it wouldn't matter if the recap had some significant changes to how it happened in the earlier episode as long as the current episode you're watching works for you, right?

So, TOS. I'm good, man.

Considering that there was only two episodes that depended on each other ("The Menagerie") I don't see TOS having episodes that undo previous episodes. I was thinking more like Aliens and Aliens 3 where everything done in Aliens was undone in 3. But if that is how you see TOS it makes sense on our differences in opinion.

More tears in the rain but it would depend greatly on how the story is constructed within that series. Within a franchise I'm less concerned.

Cool.

And now we've taken a tongue in cheek Teal'c joke and spun it in to something overlong.

1001001 beat me to it But the quote was very applicable as the episode required the team to be focused on details of their universe being right to get back home so thanks for that! I think O'Neill's last line from "Moebius" would've been a great quote for your case.

 

[TRON JA307020]

That's a good question. I think the people coming up with lists of canon violations are definitely past the point where they've made up their mind, though who knows what the straw that broke the camel's back was.

Personally I'd say I definitely enjoy Discovery less because of things like its Klingons, like I enjoy Babylon 5 less because of its ropey CGI and wobbling sets, but it's an annoyance, not a barrier. Like someone lightly kicking my chair while I'm watching.

But if they ever do something like reboot TOS without it being an alternate universe then I'm just plain out. The contradiction in continuity would be important enough to be a total deal breaker for me.

I think it headed thst way. With the intro of the new Kirk they are probably planning on starting the Kirk 5 year mission. At that point it will cease to be the prime universe.

 

[MAGolding]

And that would be accurate. He nourished Kirk's lust for revenge because Kirk was entirely disposable at that point.


Yup, that's been my biggest thing with no having a problem of the "Cadet to Captain" discussion. Saavik was a lieutenant as a cadet, and a lieutenant as a command officer. Kirk was a lieutenant when he went aboard the Enterprise, he was field commissioned by Captain Pike in to the role of first officer, making him eligible to move up the chain of command legally. As a lieutenant he served with distinction by pursuing a hostile force and preventing the destruction of Earth, while saving his commanding officer.

Unusual? Yes. Strains believability? Somewhat. Ties in to the next story nicely though so I'll let it pass.

I say that Savik could not have been a cadet and a lieutenant at the same time. She might have been serving on a ship full of officer cadets and enlisted trainees, but so were Captain Spock and Amdiral Kirk. I say that savik stopped beings a cadet when she granduated from Starfleet Academy and was commissioned an ensign. She migh thave been a member of some post graduate command school at Starfleet Academy but that should have been after a few years serving somewhere as an ensign and a lieutenant.

It is in accurate to write that Kirk was "commissioned by Captain PIke in to the role of first officer".

What does the computer say about Kirk in "Court Martial":

COMPUTER: James T. Kirk, serial number SC937-0176CEC. Service rank, Captain. Position, Starship command. Current assignment, USS Enterprise. Commendations, Palm Leaf Of Axanar Peace Mission, Grankite Order of Tactics, Class of Excellence, Prantares Ribbon of Commendation, Classes first and second

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/15.htm

Officers are commisioned in their service ranks, so kIrk was commissioned a captain in rank. But he was appointed as the commander of the starship Enterprise. And in Star Trek (2009) if Kirk was a lieutenant he had been commissioned a lieutenant, and he would remain an lieutenant in rank until he was promoted, died, resigned, or was drummed out of the service by a court martial. But Captain Pike appointed Kirk to the position of first officer and if present aboard the Enterprise could have removed Kirk from that position at will.

YOu should use teh correct teminology.

.

 

[dupersuper]

Good stories are of course paramount, but at a certain point if you're ignoring continuity it's going to take me out of said story and make me wonder why you're telling this story in this established universe rather than a new one if you can't/don't want to make it fit.

 

[Ketrick]

Anyone who complains about the casting of a black Captain April should have the stones to admit that it's not continuity they're complaining about.

With respect, that's a very unfair statement. It is completely legitimate to have an issue with changing Robert April's ethnicity. My issue is that Star Trek: TAS established him to be Caucasian and TAS has become established as canon. If they were going to change his ethnicity, it should have been done back in the '90s in DS9 when TAS's canonical status was less established. The change could have been poignant and had real meaning. In an episode like "Far Beyond the Stars" or "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang", it could have been mentioned that Robert April was black and a personal hero of Captain Sisko.

For me, the only way to right now reconcile the difference is the Wally West route of there being two related Robert Aprils, one who's older and white and another who is a bit younger and black, who both commanded the Enterprise. The older Robert April probably only commanded the Enterprise from the shakedown mission until just before the first five year mission when his younger relative took over. I know this is a long shot that probably will soon be proven to be wrong.

 

[at Quark's]

Does the story really need it to be that "captain April" in the first place, or is it just fan service? If it's the latter, why not simply introduce him as a new figure and give him whatever ethnicity you please?

 

[BillJ]

A classic example: In FRANKENSTEIN (1931), Elizabeth is a blonde played by Mae Clarke. In the direct sequel, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), which picks up moments after the previous movie left off, Elizabeth is now a brunette played by Valerie Hobson.

Okay. You're talking about a change that happened four years after the original and well ahead of the advent of home video where we could watch things over and over at any time we pleased. Someone made a decision on April's ethnicity nearly fifty years ago, and we've been exposed over and over to the character via home video (I've probably seen the episode an easy half-dozen times) and in quite a few novels over the decades. It is kinda late in the game for this type of change to be made.

The phrase, "suspension of disbelief," exists for reason. It's fiction after all.

In any endeavor, you can only push that so far. Like I said in a later post, perhaps the April change wouldn't matter if it hadn't been piled on top of lots of other changes. Suspension of disbelief is definitely a mileage may vary type of thing.

...which is clearly the film's intent.

Intent and what actually makes it to screen are clearly two different things where the current PTB are concerned.

 

[at Quark's]

It is interesting though. Saavik got recast and I don't think there were too many protests from the public, even though they didn't try to make them resemble as closely as possible. Now suppose she had been recast by a 'black' actress ...would we have gotten more complaints about 'continuity', then ?

 

[Lord Garth]

Right back at you.

 

[Greg Cox]

Intent and what actually makes it to screen are clearly two different things where the current PTB are concerned.

But intent matters. What the story tells us matters. If the story tells us that this is the same April we saw before, then he's the same April we saw before, regardless if whether he's been "recast" as it were.

And the best part is, we don't have to reject the TAS story to accept the new SNW. Both stories are still "canon" and those are both the same April. Even if they look different because we're talking two different productions filmed generations apart. And that's where the willing suspension of disbelief comes in.

Theater is strange. It's all about tricking our brains into believing (and even caring deeply) about things that, at the very same time, we know aren't real. I mean, every time we watch TOS, we know, intellectually, that "Captain Kirk" is actually a Canadian actor named William Shatner, whom we've seen playing other roles in other productions, but we go along with the conceit that "Kirk" is a real person and we pretend we don't recognize William Shatner because that's how it works.

So, we can recognize that "Robert April" is a character we've seen before, even though last time he was portrayed by a drawing of a white guy and now, generations later, he's being played in live-action by a different actor of a different race -- because that's what the story is telling us.

 

[fireproof78]

Captain Pike appointed Kirk to the position of first officer and if present aboard the Enterprise could have removed Kirk from that position at will.

YOu should use teh correct teminology.

I stand corrected.

He was appointed to first officer and could only be relieved by Pike or higher authority.

I used the term commissioned since I don't know if Kirk was part of the field promotion/assignment the rest of the cadets participated in.

Good stories are of course paramount, but at a certain point if you're ignoring continuity it's going to take me out of said story and make me wonder why you're telling this story in this established universe rather than a new one if you can't/don't want to make it fit.

This is where my sandbox approach is how I get by. They wanted to be in that world because something about it appealed. For Tarantino it's Shatner. Does that make him disrespectful of the request of continuity because he has his preferences?

For the most part, Star Trek is not a broad thing that appeals to many, but many people are drawn because of specific elements. For some, as evidenced on this board and by this thread, it's the continuity. For me, it's the characters and their participation in this future world. Consistency is less of a concern of mine because the broader strokes, the sandbox, are still very much evident.

Does the story really need it to be that "captain April" in the first place, or is it just fan service? If it's the latter, why not simply introduce him as a new figure and give him whatever ethnicity you please?

Fan service and a part of the story they wanted to tell.

It is interesting though. Saavik got recast and I don't think there were too many protests from the public, even though they didn't try to make them resemble as closely as possible. Now suppose she had been recast by a 'black' actress ...would we have gotten more complaints about 'continuity', then ?

Probably, because continuity is more important than story, apparently.

 

[Greg Cox]

What if the details of the episode a week ago mattered to the story you watched now?

Or what if you knew that everything that was done in the story you just watched will be completely undone in the next story?

Or are these all just tears in the rain moments for you? Because if they are then yeah, it doesn't matter what you're watching then as long as you find some entertainment value in it.

As I said before, I think there's a sane, practical middle ground between abandoning continuity entirely, so that everything is completely undone the very next story, and treating every single detail from every single episode as sacred and immutable.

Our choices are not "anything goes!" vs. "100% consistency at all times."