Poll Is continuity important?

[BillJ]

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.

Which is why I treat it as a multiverse. Everything counts, and not as much contradiction.

 

[fireproof78]

I was too young to notice the difference back in the late 70s. When I started watching as a teenager I assumed these were different looking and tougher Klingons. It wasn't like they were called the same names of Klingons we had seen in TOS like Kor, Kang and Koloth so it didn't bother me. By the time Kor and the other Klingons appeared with the newer look there was an explanation for it

What was it?

Because wasn't ENT after DS9?

 

[Henoch]

What was it?

Because wasn't ENT after DS9?

Two explanations were given in season 5 of DS9, Trials and Tribble-ations:

WAITRESS: What'll it be, boys? And don't ask for raktajino. If I have to say we don't carry that one more time
ODO: Who ordered raktajino?
WAITRESS: The Klingons.
ODO: Klingons?
WAITRESS: Over there, and over there.
BASHIR: Those are Klingons?
WAITRESS: All right. You boys have had enough.
ODO: Mister Worf?
WORF: They are Klingons, and it is a long story.
O'BRIEN: What happened? Some kind genetic engineering?
BASHIR: A viral mutation?
WORF: We do not discuss it with outsiders.

ENT later ran with the viral mutation for their episode on the subject.

 

[fireproof78]

Two explanations were given in season 5 of DS9, Trials and Tribble-ations:

At the risk of sounding extremely nitpicky but those are not explanations, but hypotheses. Neither were confirmed at the time of the episode which basically means we had no explanation. I recall the episode well-it's when I fell in love with DS9.

But, as an explanation goes, that doesn't past muster.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It is important for the sake of immersion, up to the point it interferes with telling a good story.

 

[blssdwlf]

What was it?

Because wasn't ENT after DS9?

In my case I had watched these episodes out of order on TV. I had seen "Trials and Tribblations" before "Blood Oath" and the "We don't discuss it with outsiders" comment from Worf worked for me. I eventually watched them all in order on Netflix and saw the ENT episode that explained it and it really didn't need explaining as I thought the mystery was better

 

[fireproof78]

In my case I had watched these episodes out of order on TV. I had seen "Trials and Tribblations" before "Blood Oath" and the "We don't discuss it with outsiders" comment from Worf worked for me. I eventually watched them all in order on Netflix and saw the ENT episode that explained it and it really didn't need explaining as I thought the mystery was better

Fascinating.

 

[Kilana2]

Continuity errors can easily explained away with:

- Q Intervention
- Alternate Timelines
- Time Travel issues
- Genetic Engineering
- Sex Change
- 10 names for a character and parents and friends chose randomly different ones each time they meet
- Changeling impersonation

I must say that everything.....

 

[Kor]

In my case I had watched these episodes out of order on TV. I had seen "Trials and Tribblations" before "Blood Oath" and the "We don't discuss it with outsiders" comment from Worf worked for me. I eventually watched them all in order on Netflix and saw the ENT episode that explained it and it really didn't need explaining as I thought the mystery was better

Fascinating.

Yes, the way that we experienced a particular media franchise, including what installments/episodes/movies we saw first, can definitely influence our overall views of said franchise. This is probably why I generally enjoy the Hobbit movies more than the LOTR trilogy. Don't judge me.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

This is probably why I generally enjoy the Hobbit movies more than the LOTR trilogy. Don't judge me.

The first one is hands down amazing.

The third one just needs a tighter edit and a combat advisor.

 

[Ketrick]

Just because he's black he has to be a hero to Sisko?

Oof.

No. My point is that changing his ethnicity could have had some meaning. Him being a hero of Sisko's within the context of the episodes I mentioned would have done that. Of course, there are many other ways to give the change meaning and poignancy in DS9 or another series from that Era. I mean, he could have been a hero of Riker, Picard, or Janeway, but it's far easier to come up with ways to make the change of ethnicity actually matter and be truly meaningful with Sisko which is my reason for suggesting him not that there aren't tons of other ways to go about doing it. I was just throwing out one possibility.

 

[The Emissary]

Those are just small/"minor things" mis-categorized as large/"much bigger" things.

I don't agree it is on a par with a wardrobe error in a single scene or a dead Jem'Hadar still breathing in the background. That's why I wouldn't put it there as "minor".

I don't know that many people are actually against continuity.

It's simply a question of how much it matters to you.

Fair point. I should have worded that better. I mean those that don't care about it being maintained in the strictest sense.

No. They lack time to go through and find all these details. They are not paid enough read all the minutia and lack the time to make it all fit together.

We fans have all the time in the world: writers don't.

They clearly have time to go through these details and are paid enough to "read all the minutia" in some cases. I'm sure they took the time to do some research of "Unification I and II" to do "Unification III". Same for research on "The Menagerie I and II"/"The Cage" to do "Through the Valley of the Shadows"/"If Memory Serves". To say they don't have time when there are clear displays they do when they want to feels like an excuse to hand wave continuity problems.

It makes no sense to want to do an episode following up on/featuring Pike, Spock, the Klingons, the Reliant, the Genesis Device, the Whale Probe, The Occupation, the Krenim, Sanctuary Districts, Joseph Sisko, Ketracel White, or Q or whatever else - and then say "It is unreasonable to expect me to understand these topics in its entirety. I just want them to be there in my episode."

At that point, you might as well make original characters, ships, aliens, world, etc. if you want to feature these ideas but don't want to/have the time to research it. It also has the added benefit of avoiding the "small universe" syndrome. It's nostalgia-bating to bring up these characters/events/ships/aliens/etc. but don't want to understand what they are or their place in this mythos.

With due respect to fans who value continuity, the Klingon thing is still a burr in my saddle. The Klingons were explained: 25 years later. How did fans tolerate the discontinuity between TOS, to TMP and up to ENT's "Divergence." Was TOS in a different continuity then for 25 years? And what about the variations of Klingons we saw, especially in TUC and on TNG?

1. The change from the TOS Klingons to the TMP Klingons was not explained until twenty-five years after the fact, so Trek survived for a quarter of a century without any sort of onscreen explanation for that makeup change.
   
   So was that too big a change -- before Enterprise finally got around to "explaining" it in 2004?
   
   (Says the guy who, admittedly, raised an eyebrow when Mark Lenard's bumpy-headed Klingon Commander first appeared onscreen way back in '79.)

I think it's a combination of two things on why the discontinuity on Klingons from TOS to TNG was tolerated. I am just assuming this as I was a kid during the TNG era, so I didn't really catch on to what the discourse was about the topic (if there even was a massive one). By the time I joined internet forums revolving around Star Trek - almost no one talked about it.

1. The internet wasn't as prevalent to spread online fan outrage and the means to vent/complain were usually at conventions or sending letters. I'm assuming some fans disliked/questioned it/confused by it but by the time the internet forums gave an avenue to express outrage - the average Trekkie just got used to their new look and didn't care as much (if they ever did).
2. I personally think DS9/ENT acknowledging it made it an issue. I'm assuming most were probably content to "pretend" that the TOS Klingons "always looked" like the TNG-era Klingons. But then DS9/ENT acknowledged/outright explained there actually is a physical difference between the two. Which suddenly marked that physical changes of the Klingons is not a "pretend"/give us a pass issue but rather an actual thing in the story. So another change in DISCO was jarring (for some).

I wonder if the backlash would have been as pronounced if DS9/ENT never acknowledged it and we just continued the "tradition" of just pretending they always looked that way with DISCO.

What I notice is not that we focus on the discontinuities as much, but the threshold for tolerating them is significantly less. Like, it disrupts the ability to engage with the story less. While TMP was controversial but at least accepted.

To me, at least, the argument is for apathy towards the current production staff while past writers get a pass.

That's a discontinuity that frustrates me more.

Yes, I think that's true.

I think part of it is that there is a "market" for outrage with famous franchises/fanbases and changes that occur between the original content and new content. So they literally farm for issues - even ones that aren't that big (even on a tier level of continuity).

I also think that the more new Trek content we get - the more chances for discontinuity with original lore. So, as you put it, the threshold (of some fans) for tolerating it will continue to diminish. Because it will appear more noticeable with every new season of every new show (or films) we get.

I also think that it isn't completely that past writers are getting a pass, as much as enough time has gone by that everything there is to say about it has been said / people have created their own head canons to justify obvious discrepancies. I'm a huge Niner fan, but even I still notice the Trill discrepancy. But if I wrote a topic on today, what is there to say? Versus DISCO/SNW/PIC which are all newer shows and give us new content.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't agree it is on a par with a wardrobe error in a single scene or a dead Jem'Hadar still breathing in the background. That's why I wouldn't put it there as "minor".

Whoa, there. You also had "recasting" in your category of small/"minor things." I can agree that making a decision to use different makeup isn't the same as a "wardrobe error" while at the same time believing it's on the same level as "recasting."

1. One type of continuity issue is minor things - recasting, wardrobe error, deck layout error, dates being wrong, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

To say they don't have time when there are clear displays they do when they want to feels like an excuse to hand wave continuity problems.

I mean, we don't know. The time for productions is impacted by many things. I'm not trying to hand wave anything but acknowledge that there are limits to their time, something fans don't have.

I wonder if the backlash would have been as pronounced if DS9/ENT never acknowledged it and we just continued the "tradition" of just pretending they always looked that way with DISCO.

It probably wouldn't have, as evidence by the rather blasé acceptance of TMP to TSFS to TUC to TNG that has been expressed, at least around here when I have commented that Disco is identical to TMP. In fact, DS9's comments and ENT's explanation fully allow for the change.

Compare that to Romulans, Trill, Katarians, among other races.

I also think that the more new Trek content we get - the more chances for discontinuity with original lore. So, as you put it, the threshold (of some fans) for tolerating it will continue to diminish. Because it will appear more noticeable with every new season of every new show (or films) we get.

I guess I already had that with going from TOS, TOS films to TNG and DS9. All the little bits became such that the trivia no longer mattered to me if I could remain engaged with the characters and the story.

 

[The Emissary]

Whoa, there. You also had "recasting" in your category of small/"minor things." I can agree that making a decision to use different makeup isn't the same as a "wardrobe error" while at the same time believing it's on the same level as "recasting."

Sure.

I just don't agree that the Klingons having a different look in DISCO is on a par with any of those things, including recasting. This really is an issue (for some) because ENT/DS9 made it a point to highlight that the Klingons do actually look the way the TNG Klingons look. It didn't ask us to ignore the TOS look but to actually say they did look that way too. So now a new, third look is higher on the tier/scale (to me) than recasting an actor. Changing the look of Klingons so radically, of all the species in Trek, comes with some baggage (at least in the continuity department).

I guess I was looking at "minor" as things that are noticed by nitpicking/keen observers as not congruent with past events but really does not impact anything ala my "Tuvok and wrong rank pips in one scene" examples.

I mean, we don't know. The time for productions is impacted by many things. I'm not trying to hand wave anything but acknowledge that there are limits to their time, something fans don't have.

Yes, for sure.

It probably wouldn't have, as evidence by the rather blasé acceptance of TMP to TSFS to TUC to TNG that has been expressed, at least around here when I have commented that Disco is identical to TMP. In fact, DS9's comments and ENT's explanation fully allow for the change.

Compare that to Romulans, Trill, Katarians, among other races.

Right. I'm not a fan of the DISCO Klingon-look for a number of reasons but I definitely wouldn't cry foul of continuity if it was simply an "upgrade" in their looks. Same for the Andorians that got another revamp in DISCO from the original revamp in ENT. I didn't really care because nothing in ENT (or any other Trek) made it a point to say they look a specific way and they still look recognizably as Andorians.

I guess I already had that with going from TOS, TOS films to TNG and DS9. All the little bits became such that the trivia no longer mattered to me if I could remain engaged with the characters and the story.

For sure. I honestly think it boils down the person and what they are willing to accept/overlook/understand and if they can remain engaged without internal consistency. It's fair that you focus more on the characters and the story.

I guess I am just not a fan of separating the two. I love Star Trek's sprawling, interconnected (well...mostly interconnected :P) universe. I don't watch Star Trek to view it as The Twilight Zone episodes with singular stories and no past events. That's probably why I like DS9 the best of all Star Trek because it had a nice balance between episodic but also had arcs that spread across episodes/seasons.

I feel like ... a lack of internal consistency is like creating a magic system with no restraints. "If it serves the story - do what you want!" My issue with that is it sounds like it will manifest as a convoluted mess which leads me to not focus on good characterization or a wonderful plot but rather on "Wait ... they were always able to use that magic power? So ... why didn't they do that before?" To me it detracts from what probably was an overall decent plot or good acting, etc.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Continuity breaches throw the audience out of the story. That is an undeniable characteristic of fiction. The greater the continuity breach, the further one is thrown out of the story. That said, one could envision far more serious continuity breaches than the color of Robert April's skin, and I'm far more concerned with other established characteristics of April. And of course, eliminating April entirely would be the worst continuity breach of all.

A Black Robert April is a bit of a surprise, but for me, accent and mannerisms are far more important.
Being rather enamored of Diane Carey's vision of the April era, I would object to any April who wasn't partial to sweaters, or who didn't have a noticeable British accent (Coventry, was it? My memory isn't that good), or a command style that was at once both avuncular and professorial. And likewise, I'd readily accept any April who did match the accent and personality Diane Carey described. Regardless of his ancestry (and as San Francisco's Museum of the African Diaspora points out, we all have African ancestry, even lily-white honkies like me) or the color of his skin.

Given how generic/common a name like "Robert April" sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if StarFleet had more than one Flag Officer named "Robert April" who was a Flag Officer at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Black "Robert April" who was a Flag Officer along with a White "Robert April". The difference could be their middle initials.

We've seen how many Flag Officers reside in StarFleet, they have oodles of them.

"Robert April" sounds about as common as "Will Smith". Just talk with the "Will Smith" of 'Tested.com's' fame and all the other "Will Smith's" who share that name with the famous Hollywood "Will Smith". Having a common name is sometimes Good/Bad depending on the situation.

 

[Greg Cox]

By the time Kor and the other Klingons appeared with the newer look there was an explanation for it (for better or worse.)

Me, I grew up watching TOS in the sixties so I was momentarily startled when the new-look Klingons first appeared in TMP, but then I shrugged, chalked it up to a bigger makeup budget, and just went with it.

Same with the DISCO Klingons. Or Kirstie Alley turning into Robin Curtis, etc. That was just how movies and TV had always worked, dating back to the silent era at least.

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, have modern audiences gotten more literal-minded about this stuff? In my day, dagnabbit, we had two different Darrens on BEWITCHED, three different Catwomans (and Mister Freezes) on BATMAN, and three different Marilyn Munsters on THE MUNSTERS. And that's not even mentioning any number of older movie series where major characters were constantly being recast.

None of which "knocked us out of the story" or anything like that.

 

[blssdwlf]

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, have modern audiences gotten more literal-minded about this stuff? In my day, dagnabbit, we had two different Darrens on BEWITCHED, three different Catwomans (and Mister Freezes) on BATMAN, and three different Marilyn Munsters on THE MUNSTERS. And that's not even mentioning any number of older movie series where major characters were constantly being recast.

I don't think today's average audience cares but mostly because they are casual viewers that might watch it once and move onto another show or movie. But I do think they are more aware than before.

In your example, there were multiple actors that played the same superheroes and supervillians years ago but usually no two actors at the same time. You wouldn't see Michelle Pfieffer and Zoe Kravitz both play Catwoman at the same time. Smallville couldn't have a Batman because the Nolan movies were running and supposedly the studio didn't want any confusion of the character. But recently we have Grant Gustin, Ezra Miller and John Wesley Shipp all playing the Flash at the same time. Michael Keaton, Ben Affleck and Robert Pattison are Batman at the same time. And with the popular Spider-man No Way Home movie, audiences I think "get" that multiverse idea which is pretty cool.

So with the Kelvin-verse it was to me a sort of official opening of the idea of a Star Trek multiverse where different actors can inhabit versions played by other actors like Pine and Shatner's Kirk, Nimoy and Quinto's Spock. I mean, it would be pretty awesome to have all three living actors that play Kirk appear at the same time if it was a good story.

But it seems that for whatever reason the current runners of Discovery and SNW can't or won't just call their new shows a different universe of Star Trek as that would make so much sense just visually.

All IMHO.

 

[fireproof78]

Right. I'm not a fan of the DISCO Klingon-look for a number of reasons but I definitely wouldn't cry foul of continuity if it was simply an "upgrade" in their looks.

To me that's all it is. And ENT provides the perfect get out of free jail card.

I feel like ... a lack of internal consistency is like creating a magic system with no restraints. "If it serves the story - do what you want!" My issue with that is it sounds like it will manifest as a convoluted mess which leads me to not focus on good characterization or a wonderful plot but rather on "Wait ... they were always able to use that magic power? So ... why didn't they do that before?" To me it detracts from what probably was an overall decent plot or good acting, etc.

I mean...maybe. As @Greg Cox notes suspension of disbelief is an active participation, and recognizing that there are dramatic conceits as part of any production. I'm not calling for "Do what you want!" but things like the Klingons or Romulans or Trill or the Enterprise or knowledge about particular events are trivial compared to participating actively with characters in their emotional moments. I may know that Romulans and Vulcans look the same: doesn't change the emotion of the reveal in Balance of Terror.

But it seems that for whatever reason the current runners of Discovery and SNW can't or won't just call their new shows a different universe of Star Trek as that would make so much sense just visually

Do they need to?

 

[blssdwlf]

But it seems that for whatever reason the current runners of Discovery and SNW can't or won't just call their new shows a different universe of Star Trek as that would make so much sense just visually

Do they need to?

The existence of this thread would suggest yes.