Why such poor continuity?

[Wowbagger]

On the topic of T'Pol, am I delusional or wasn't there a major rumor going around about... seven years ago now, when it was announced that there was going to be a "subcommander" on the bridge, that said subcommander would be Romulan or half-Romulan?

In fact, as I recall, that rumor sparked some of the very first "Enterprise Is A Continuity Bastard Child" threads. Of course, the title was still undecided, so it was actually a "Series V Will Be A Continuity Bastard Child" thread, but still...

 

[Nerys Myk]

commodore64 said:
I'm a "fan" and I think it has poor continuity. I think I'm less likely to look at Boston Legal, for example, for painstaking canon and continuity. Enterprise is more of a serial as are most space operas (like old Flash Gordon, etc.).

Huh???? Almost all TV shows are serials. These days more so than ever. The first seasons of ENT had a less serial feel since the episodes were mostly stand alones with various continuing subplots. (Not unlike TOS) Flash Gordon told one story broken up in to chapters and each chapter ended on a cliffhanger that led into the next chapter till the conclusion. ENT, even at its most serial (the Xindi arc) didn't do that. Though I am at a loss as to why a Space opera's continuity should be judged by a different standard than a lawyer show. Or why a serial's continuity deserves more scrutiny than any other format. Also a Space opera can come in a variety of formats. It can be a stand slone story, a serial or a collection of stand alone stories featuring the same cast. And the old serials used various generes: Westerns, SF,crime, action and fantasy.

If your gonna lay out the "poor continuity" claim demonstrate how it was worse than other TV shows or even other trek shows.

 

[pookha]

Nerys Myk said:
I'm finding the definition of "poor continuity" to be rather weak. All TV show have flubs, mistakes and errors. From what I can tell ENTs is no worse than any other show. I'm seeing complaints about bad choices, repetitive plots and derivative plots, but not a whole lot about poor continuity.

see i am getting the same thing.
and frankly it is no worse then the other trek shows which at times had their issues.

the whole thing about when henry archer died reminded of deep space nine and how in the early seasons the implication was that benjamin's father was dead and wham later on there he was alive.

 

[Anna Yolei]

commodore64 said:
Berman and Braga may not have had a lot of continuity, but neither did Coto. In fact most of the mistakes above are from the 4th season (otherwise known as: Forget the First Three Seasons, this is like TOS-lite Season or FFTS-TOSLite season).

True.

But a lot of Coto's energy was apparent, and much of the season was fun--or at the very least not at the level of "Harbinger." Which is why I think more people are forgiving of his continuity errors than they are of Bermaga's.

But to be honest, how many people outside of a message board are hung up on canon from other Trek series? Some things are bigger than others, like the Borg's appearance, but most complaints from Trek viewers IRL were about poor writing and lack of interesting stories/characters. Give a good story and keep people entertained, and they probably won't nitpick the fine details.

 

[Hoshi's sis]

Anna Yolei said:

commodore64 said:
Berman and Braga may not have had a lot of continuity, but neither did Coto. In fact most of the mistakes above are from the 4th season (otherwise known as: Forget the First Three Seasons, this is like TOS-lite Season or FFTS-TOSLite season).

But to be honest, how many people outside of a message board are hung up on canon from other Trek series? Some things are bigger than others, like the Borg's appearance, but most complaints from Trek viewers IRL were about poor writing and lack of interesting stories/characters. Give a good story and keep people entertained, and they probably won't nitpick the fine details.

Precisely, which is why a lot more people were entertained by Season 4, than the drivel we were presented with in Season 2. Coto brought the fans what they wanted to see.

I've watched Star Trek since Next Gen and Enterprise didn't suffer from poor continuity any more than any of the other series. I agree tghere may have been recycled and derivative plots, or storylines that some people may not have wanted, but certainly not a whole lot about poor continuity.

 

[commodore64]

Nev, I don't know how much "other" continuity there is. I think with comedy shows, people care a lot less. I think, unfortunately for sci-fi, Star Trek in particular -- people care.

But a lot of Coto's energy was apparent, and much of the season was fun--or at the very least not at the level of "Harbinger."

Ironic, since he wrote Harbinger. I thought much of it (Bound, for example, was very much -- "Pay no attention to logic, please."

Which is why I think more people are forgiving of his continuity errors than they are of Bermaga's.

I'm not sure who these people are. I think "fun" is "okay," but I guess I watch stuff because I like the characters and like the stories. I think Coto, ultimately failed in some of the same ways "Bermaga" did. None of them really hit the nail on the head, which I suppose is why we're not still watching.

But to be honest, how many people outside of a message board are hung up on canon from other Trek series? Some things are bigger than others, like the Borg's appearance, but most complaints from Trek viewers IRL were about poor writing and lack of interesting stories/characters. Give a good story and keep people entertained, and they probably won't nitpick the fine details.

When it comes to epics -- Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Star Trek, etc. -- they gotta deal with it in my opinion. And maybe that's why we love them and nitpick on them.

Here's the other thing -- when you create a world, you gotta keep with it. If you don't -- the world degrades. I think, perhaps, Star Trek needs more eyes on their world to ensure people don't leave it because it's so implausible.

And here's the other thing. My dad was a big TOS fan. He kinda stopped watching. I made him watch ENT, and he pointed out at least a half-dozen inconsistencies ... and this is from a guy who hadn't watched in 15+ years.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No offense to your Dad, but was he talking real inconsistency or half remembered fanon? You know The classic fanon: Spock was the first Vulcan in Star Fleet. Vulcans don't lie ect.

 

[MrPointy]

Enterprise's continuity to Trek as a whole wasn't worse than any other Trek series. It's just that since it's a prequel series and it was maligned for being Voyager 2.0, it came under much more scrutiny.

 

[Nebusj]

MrPointy said:
Enterprise's continuity to Trek as a whole wasn't worse than any other Trek series. It's just that since it's a prequel series and it was maligned for being Voyager 2.0, it came under much more scrutiny.

And, more to the point, the stories weren't so fascinating that we absolutely had to keep them regardless of whether they made seamless sense with, say, what was believed to be known about first contact with the Klingons. Gripes like this don't stick against (say) The Wrath of Khan or First Contact because people love the stories in a way that they don't for that one where Odo's hanging around a holo-crew.

 

[Anna Yolei]

I think "fun" is "okay," but I guess I watch stuff because I like the characters and like the stories.

By fun, I wasn't referring so much to silly stuff (which I doubt no one minds watching every once in a while), as much as I meant enjoyable. While I did felt ENT lost a lot of it's voice trying to jam in reference after reference to TOS whether one was needed or not, I did look forward to each new episode more than I did before. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm probably not alone.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Enterprise has some inconsistencies with Balance of Terror for sure. Apart from that it probably wasn't much worse than VOY. ENT's problems lie elsewhere.
As for consistency within their own continuity I always felt it was a bit worse than TNG.

 

[commodore64]

Nerys Myk said:
No offense to your Dad, but was he talking real inconsistency or half remembered fanon? You know The classic fanon: Spock was the first Vulcan in Star Fleet. Vulcans don't lie ect.

Both, but he was able to pick off inconsistencies quickly even within ENT.

 

[Nerys Myk]

commodore64 said:

Nerys Myk said:
No offense to your Dad, but was he talking real inconsistency or half remembered fanon? You know The classic fanon: Spock was the first Vulcan in Star Fleet. Vulcans don't lie ect.

Both, but he was able to pick off inconsistencies quickly even within ENT.

Such as? And are they as bad or worse than other shows?

 

[Captain X]

Exactly. I'm sure you could dig around YouTube and find a few videos someone's put together that have a crap-load of inconsistancies from the different series and movies.

 

[commodore64]

Firefly, Farscape and even Dresden Files didn't have the same continuity errors. That was Enterprise's main competition. Again, comedy -- no one cares.

And I'm sure other tire manufacturing companies aren't saying, "Well, Firestone had some issues. I guess we're okay to have a few as well."

Bad is bad.

My father watched The Communicator and I think Azati Prime and said, "Couldn't they just use the cell ship?" I was like, "Wow. I'd forgotten about it."

Also, he noticed the usual detractors (art direction, etc.), but saw Minefield and said, "The Romulan ships don't look the same and ... in one of the old generation episodes [Balance of Terror] they made a big deal about not seeing a Romulan."

Maybe you'll find "fanon" references here, though I think you're dead wrong for it. The bigger point is -- here's a guy who watched few episodes and noticed some big, glaring holes. And so did the actors on the show, like Jolene Blalock.

 

[Captain X]

Firefly and Dresden Files never even made it out of their first seasons and Farscape didn't fair much better. They also weren't run by the same people who ran Star Trek, and as I pointed out, you can find plenty of YouTubes that point out the many continuity errors that have take place in all the series and movies. Enteterprise was hardly going to be immune to that, but Voyager still holds the record for having an error take place in the same episode, where a Borg infant was completely gone and forgotten about by the end of it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The same continuity errors? Well no of course not. They would have different ones. I've only watched Firefly (and only one time for the whole series) but I'm sure if I looked I could find a few errors. Heck I just did a search for "Firefly continuity errors" and got a few hits. Bad means that the errors were egregious and over whelming. hardly the case with "Enterprise" Sorry but "its SF so continuity has to mean more" is a weak argument. To use your Firestone argument, its ok that if our other tires suck as long as the ones on cars are ok. All TV shows rely on continuity, maybe you dont care if Frasier's Dad was said to be dead on "Cheers" but shown to be alive on "Frasier", but that does make it any less of a continuity error.

Why do you and your Dad assume the Cell Ship was still aboard the Enterprise in Season three? it a valuable piece of equipment using unknown technology. Starfeet probably has it in a lab somewhere being examined by experts.

Why would ships look the same 100 years prior? And they said they never saw a Romulan, not a Romulan ship. One of the reasons they know the ship is a Romulan vessel is because members of the Stiles family saw one. The continuity error in "Minefield" is the Romulans using a cloak.

If your going to push this point then make list. Link to Jolene's comments. And try to understand what "continuity" really means. It doesn't mean "I'd do things different"

 

[commodore64]

The same continuity errors? Well no of course not. They would have different ones. I've only watched Firefly (and only one time for the whole series) but I'm sure if I looked I could find a few errors. Heck I just did a search for "Firefly continuity errors" and got a few hits. Bad means that the errors were egregious and over whelming. hardly the case with "Enterprise" Sorry but "its SF so continuity has to mean more" is a weak argument. To use your Firestone argument, its ok that if our other tires suck as long as the ones on cars are ok. All TV shows rely on continuity, maybe you dont care if Frasier's Dad was said to be dead on "Cheers" but shown to be alive on "Frasier", but that does make it any less of a continuity error.

Actually, it's not okay if tires suck. And the government says so. Mostly because the ones not on our cars are getting ready to be placed on another set of cars. It's also why Firestone changed brands and other tire companies, at the time, boasted about safety.

I didn't find any evidence in your argument. Perhaps I overlooked it?

Why do you and your Dad assume the Cell Ship was still aboard the Enterprise in Season three? it a valuable piece of equipment using unknown technology. Starfeet probably has it in a lab somewhere being examined by experts.

Well, in his case he has a point b/c they never showed it. When he asked the question in Azati Prime, I had to admit we (the audience) had never seen what happened.

Off-screen moments don't count as canon. And for major events, it makes sense for someone to explain stuff. It's why Bakula indicated for Communicator that someone should use the cell ship that was hanging around since season 1. I guess he cares about continuity, and bully for him!

Why would ships look the same 100 years prior? And they said they never saw a Romulan, not a Romulan ship. One of the reasons they know the ship is a Romulan vessel is because members of the Stiles family saw one. The continuity error in "Minefield" is the Romulans using a cloak.

The question may be more -- why do they look in TNG? Styles come and go, but it's ridiculous to think they are exactly the same. For example the 80s are back (who knows why!), but nothing looks *exactly* like it did back in the 80s. It's more logical to think they would look like something close to TOS, or at least closer.

If your going to push this point then make list. Link to Jolene's comments. And try to understand what "continuity" really means. It doesn't mean "I'd do things different"

Her continuity was more -- why isn't T'Pol a "Vulcan." Can't argue with her there. Here's one, I'll look to find others: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw11498.html

 

[Nerys Myk]

commodore64 said:

The same continuity errors? Well no of course not. They would have different ones. I've only watched Firefly (and only one time for the whole series) but I'm sure if I looked I could find a few errors. Heck I just did a search for "Firefly continuity errors" and got a few hits. Bad means that the errors were egregious and over whelming. hardly the case with "Enterprise" Sorry but "its SF so continuity has to mean more" is a weak argument. To use your Firestone argument, its ok that if our other tires suck as long as the ones on cars are ok. All TV shows rely on continuity, maybe you dont care if Frasier's Dad was said to be dead on "Cheers" but shown to be alive on "Frasier", but that does make it any less of a continuity error.

Actually, it's not okay if tires suck. And the government says so. Mostly because the ones not on our cars are getting ready to be placed on another set of cars. It's also why Firestone changed brands and other tire companies, at the time, boasted about safety.

its an analogy I'm not saying anything about tires and safety. I'm talking about having a different standard for different TV shows using the analogy having different standards for different tires. Geez did I have to paint a picture?

commodore64 said:
I didn't find any evidence in your argument. Perhaps I overlooked it?

Evidence of what? That Firefly had continuity goofs???

commodore64 said:

Why do you and your Dad assume the Cell Ship was still aboard the Enterprise in Season three? it a valuable piece of equipment using unknown technology. Starfeet probably has it in a lab somewhere being examined by experts.

Well, in his case he has a point b/c they never showed it. When he asked the question in Azati Prime, I had to admit we (the audience) had never seen what happened.

Why waste valuable screen time on something so unimportant? They didn't use it, ergo it wasn't there to be used. Simple. And more elegant than:

Trip-"DANG! I wish we didn't leave the Cell Ship on Earth. Golly, we sure could use it now Cap'n!!!!"

commodore64 said:Off-screen moments don't count as canon. And for major events, it makes sense for someone to explain stuff. It's why Bakula indicated for Communicator that someone should use the cell ship that was hanging around since season 1. I guess he cares about continuity, and bully for him!

Too bad he forgot to bring it up the next time. I guess maybe he didn't care as much. Makes sense in Seasons One and Two since they haven't returned to Earth yet. Season 3 they did and got a refit. The Cell Ships status is not a major event. Pretty minor in the greater scheme of things.

commodore64 said:said:[/i]

Why would ships look the same 100 years prior? And they said they never saw a Romulan, not a Romulan ship. One of the reasons they know the ship is a Romulan vessel is because members of the Stiles family saw one. The continuity error in "Minefield" is the Romulans using a cloak.

The question may be more -- why do they look in TNG? Styles come and go, but it's ridiculous to think they are exactly the same. For example the 80s are back (who knows why!), but nothing looks *exactly* like it did back in the 80s. It's more logical to think they would look like something close to TOS, or at least closer.

I thought their ships were a nice nod to TOS. The same basic design: single hull with wings and nacelles, but with a more "alien" touch. Plus the green hue.

The 80s are back!!? Dear god NO!!!!! I had my fill of big hair and shoulder pads the first time around.

That wasn't your Dad's complaint though. Unless you plan to backtrack.

commodore64 said:

If your going to push this point then make list. Link to Jolene's comments. And try to understand what "continuity" really means. It doesn't mean "I'd do things different"

Her continuity was more -- why isn't T'Pol a "Vulcan." Can't argue with her there. Here's one, I'll look to find others: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw11498.html

Sounds like more of chacterization issue than continuity.

 

[Anna Yolei]

commodore64 said:
Also, he noticed the usual detractors (art direction, etc.), but saw Minefield and said, "The Romulan ships don't look the same and ... in one of the old generation episodes [Balance of Terror] they made a big deal about not seeing a Romulan."

In the TOS episode you're referring to, wasn't in made clear that people knew what Romulans were (or had heard of them) before that time? Given the Vulcan and Romulan shared history, it didn't strike me as surprising that T'Pol would know of the Romulans and point out that it might be a Romulan ship out there.

I wouldn't know one Romulan ship from another, so I'll take your dad's word on it.