Just ignoring something you don't like isn't any of those thing, especially if you're just a fan ad all your doing is ignoring.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
This is what someone said to my idea of personal continuity.
"You don't get a "personal continuity" in Star Trek. All you get is the stuff you like and the stuff you don't. Calling it a "personal continuity" is just hubris , entitlement and a false sense of proprietary."
Yet, as you pointed out earlier, you refuse to watch episodes out of a sense of personal continuity. Which is...whatever. No one cares.
But then you make claims like 'I believe this and this is the case' as there's 'a lack of evidence connecting the series'.
Even though evidence is only 'lacking' because you're personally retconning entire episodes and connections out.
How exactly does that 'make sense?' It's creating inconsistencies.
Because as pointed out right there in the quote, 'personal continuity' is a non-existent thing. Saying you can't have a heffalump, isn't the same as telling you 'don't go get a heffalump.'
Last edited:
Sure, but when change, retcon, reboot and reimagination are open possibilities, writers and showrunners can and sometimes actually do exactly that. You need the job title and writ to do so to make it effective on screen. That part is true. But not having that title or writ doesn't preclude you doing it anyway personally.
It's a problem with the term. You can Ignore or hate all you want but calling that a "personal continuity" is just ridiculous.
I agree. Star Trek can retcon things like travel across the galaxy. In TOS it's nothing to go from one end of the galaxy to another. In TNG and later shows it can take almost 100 years to just cross a quadrant. In TOS you can go faster than warp 10 but in other shows you can't.
But if a fan retcons things or ignores things like why Klingons had smooth heads, then you get criticized for doing so.
There lies the problem. You don't have "retcon powers".
It's kind of ironic then people have problem with the term when years ago it was this very place that taught me the concept and supported one another in doing it.
Where did they all go?
Why? Because they dont have the job title to make it effective on screen? So what.
But I'm only doing a retcon for myself. I'm not implying that others have to agree with my retcons. That's why it's called a personal continuity.
Retcon, continuity and such are terms that apply to the work professionals do. Fan's co-opting the terms for their own little rationalizations seems wrong. Like calling pulling out a splinter "surgery".
Thank you. Now I understand how you see things. How would you rephrase the term?
No, they don't. They are activities. Even an unpublished retcon is a retcon. It has nothing to do with a profession. To make it effective onscreen, you do need the job title. But you don't need it to engage in the activity of reimagination. An imagination is the main requirement there! ;-)
Bad analogy to surgery. Pulling out a splinter wouldn't be "surgery" even if a surgeon did it. To imagine a different version of events is an activity anyone can engage in.
It has everything to do with the profession. It's part of the writer's job. If you're doing it for yourself it's not a retcon.
Although I personally believe in the broad concept of "Personal Canon"/Fanon, there IS a point when said concept becomes a 'crutch' that can't be justified, particularly if/when it runs entirely contrary to both factual evidence AND logic.
Stuff I don't like.
Personal Canon or Fanon.
Sure, but you dont have to be a professional writer to imagine a different version of events. It is just as much a retcon. It is an unpublished/ unaired retcon, but how does that make it not a retcon?
"Stuff I dont like" applies to pro writers too. It is probably why they wanted to retcon or reimagine in the first place.
[Inigo Montoya voice]You keep using that word.* I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya voice]
* Retcon
Similar threads
