No it doesn't.The existence of this thread would suggest yes.
It suggests that art is open to interpretation as always. Even with 09 there was debates over timelines.
Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
It suggests that art is open to interpretation as always. Even with 09 there was debates over timelines.
It's more belief than art interpretation, IMHO. We're just different audiences being told that it's all the same universe/timeline resulting in different levels of interest or apathy in whether to believe it given the obvious discontinuities that are observed.
Since you brought up the 09 timeline debates I would imagine they came about because their was a mismatch between the prime timeline (whatever that is) with the pre-Kelvin timeline. The timeline debate wouldn't even be there if the whole Kelvin story including Old Spock were just said to be from their own Kelvin universe. New story, new stuff, no baggage. IMHO.
Hahaha...you would think but no. The timeline debate and inappropriate technology changes were debated several times across a couple of boards I was on.
As fit discontinuities I deal on with it like I deal with TMP.
Here's a simple solution to the different Chateau Picards continuity disparity.
The Picard family owns "Multiple Chateaus" and when Picard was a kid, he bounced around between multiple homes with his parents.
When JLP grew up, his Brother took over one of the Chateaus while the other one was not in use and was just under family management.
The Picard family owns "Multiple Chateaus" and when Picard was a kid, he bounced around between multiple homes with his parents.
When JLP grew up, his Brother took over one of the Chateaus while the other one was not in use and was just under family management.
But isn't that the driver of these debates? If the creator/showrunner just said upfront this is Star Trek but rebooted or re-imagined or it's an alternate universe wouldn't that take alot of steam out of the debates of inappropriate technology and other discontinuities?
I don't think it would, at least not if the 09 debates taught me anything it's that it doesn't much matter what is said by the production team. Fans will argue to the last nitpick.
The Kelvin timeline was explained as an alternate reality in the movie - that's all you need to know to realize it didn't "erase" the prime timeline, as many people thought back then, and it explains all the differences, and makes it more dramatic as well, because anyone can die and any planet can be destroyed without contradicting previous stories from prime. There was quite some outrage over the differences, and it seemed like those people simply didn't pay attention during that brief scene on the bridge.
But I guess there are people who would've preferred to not get that explanation so that the mystery remains a mystery
Or, as the Great Homer Simpson said:
Yeah: img. I love that Homer catch phrase...
Visual continuity after 50 years of technological improvements is on the lower end of importance.
If Discovery/SNW were officially an alternate timeline I’d be less interested in them.
Michael never being mentioned can be explained by the topic just not coming up when the camera was on Spock. They frankly didn’t need the “UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE” thing. There are a million other reasons they could have lost spore drive tech. Limited resource, spore creatures cutting off access to protect themselves, moral impact on the network, etc.
If Discovery/SNW were officially an alternate timeline I’d be less interested in them.
Michael never being mentioned can be explained by the topic just not coming up when the camera was on Spock. They frankly didn’t need the “UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE” thing. There are a million other reasons they could have lost spore drive tech. Limited resource, spore creatures cutting off access to protect themselves, moral impact on the network, etc.
You may be missing the point of my example. I wasn't talking about something like Pfeiffer vs. Kravitz, where you had rebooted versions of Catwoman in different continuities, separated by decades. I was talking about Julie Newmar and Lee Meriwether and Eartha Kitt all playing the same Catwoman in the same BATMAN series, in the same continuity opposite the same Batman (Adam West). And there was never any "in-universe" explanation for why Catwoman now looked completely different (including her turning into a black woman when Kitt played her), nor did the show try to explain to that this was a different Catwoman or that she had come from an alternate universe or whatever. As far as Batman and Robin and Commissioner Gordon were concerned, it was the same Catwoman and we, the audience, just went along with it.
Ditto the three (four?) Mister Freezes and the two Riddlers on the same BATMAN tv series, the various Darren Stevens, Marilyn Munsters, the youngest Partridge Family kid, the multiple Felix Leiters and Blofelds in the original Bond movies, the second Jane in the classic Johnny Weissmuller TARZAN movies, Mae Clarke turning into Valerie Hobson in the Karloff FRANKENSTEIN movies, Evelyn Ankers turning into Ilona Massey in FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, etc. I could go on and on.
By contrast, when the recent BATWOMAN tv show recast Kate Kane, they felt obliged to provide a whole convoluted storyline, involving amnesia and plastic surgery, to explain why the new actress didn't look and sound exactly like Ruby Rose. Even to extent of inventing a throat injury to explain why her voice was slightly different!
As opposed to, you know, just expecting the audience to understand that it's a different actress because we know we're watching a TV show?
The question is: was this overkill on the showrunners' part, or were they correct in assuming that modern audiences wouldn't accept just recasting the character without any sort of on-stage "explanation," the way we used back in the day?
I think it's a little bit that modern audiences wouldn't be keen on unexplained recasting, and a little bit that Batwoman's audience wouldn't be as keen. Changing actors without explanation suited Batman 1966's campy tone, while coming up with a convoluted explanation was a perfect fit for the kind of stories Batwoman likes to tell anyway.
No, I understood your example about characters being recasted.
You had asked, "At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, have modern audiences gotten more literal-minded about this stuff?" And I replied, "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."
The average audience I do not believe care because they are casual viewers. You don't get explanations for why James Bond looks different everytime he is recast but then again most stories don't really depend on the preceding movie with the exception of maybe Daniel Craig's 007. But the audience is more aware of the multiverse concept and probably enjoy seeing their favorite version of the character appear again at the same time with other characters. So today we have modern examples of superheroes played by different actors separated by decades appearing at the same time in the same series (not recast sequentially like in your example). The Arrowverse leverages the multiverse concept alot from the comics. The DCEU looks to be just starting that while the MCU is way ahead with multiverse content. And we also have all three Spidermen in the No Way Home movie. That builds a bunch more awareness than say a few decades ago where it would've been unheard of the recasted actors all appearing at the same time in the same series or movie.
As to your new question - it depends on the situation. In Batwoman's case, that might've been the best move because of the prevalence of digital media, ability to binge shows and the constant behind-the-scenes reporting that an explanation was needed. OTOH, they could've jumped it to another Earth-XYZ and swapped out the actress too. For other shows it could make more sense for showrunners to leverage the multiverse option if they have the actors available and a story to tell. This gives the franchise owners the ability to make money on not only current shows but also past shows as well with additional marketing and story options that weren't present before. Well at least for sci-fi/sci-fantasy/multiverse shows but who knows, it might even work for a Monster-verse or comedy series. All IMHO
Last edited:
How'd that work out for it?
Probably not as good as Darkman, Remo Williams and Michael Knight
. IMHO. Actually haven't had time to watch Batwoman so I'm curious too
Last edited:
I think it is overkill because I do not believe the purpose behind what the showrunners' are doing is actually served by creating the overwrought explanation. Casual viewers will probably shrug and move on, while more hardcore fans will probably not be satisfied no matter what the explanation that is given.
this is where i stand on the whole thing as well, i just dont get why anyone cares, hell ill be honest, before strange new worlds, I wasnt even aware robert april existed, I never watched the animated series and cant even recall if tos ever mentioned him.
TOS never mentioned him. And he only appeared on a single episode of TAS.
Are people really still debating the April thing?
He got cast with an actor who doesn't look like a drawing from the (barely) animated show from the 70s. It's not the end of the world, nor does it need any explanation.
He got cast with an actor who doesn't look like a drawing from the (barely) animated show from the 70s. It's not the end of the world, nor does it need any explanation.
And if you need an explanation, I already came up with one that won't violate existing canon.
Is continuity important?