quote:Originally posted by TSN: Dan: Erm... No-one's debating that. The question is how we can make up for it.
We “make up for it” by doing the only thing we can do; by doing what you and Omega are doing; by kicking into “explanation mode.”
My point is that I do not have a lot of confidence that B&B and their current ensemble of cohorts will do a top-quality, top-notch job when it comes to maintaining continuity. I get the impression that they will merely “settle” for a “close enough, ” second-rate attitude. I like for my Trek to fit neatly into place, and when it does not, I get aggravated (and always have). Perhaps they should get Richard Arnold back on the staff!
quote:Originally posted by Raw Cadet: One pretty strong candidate for a violation is all that we can come up with thus far, even though the producers have 500+ hours of material to be "continuous" with, and you say they are falling down on the job?
Sure I do! “One pretty strong candidate for a violation” after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends? And considering that this a violation with Trek that B&B has recently produced…
As I said, I am losing what little confidence I had that B&B will stay on their toes when it comes to continuity. If you can live with that, fine; more power to you. But as a nitpicky perfectionist, I cannot. If ain’t consistent with past Trek, then it ain’t Trek…
-------------------- “My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he's doing, he does not understand science fiction.” -- Andrew Probert
quote:My point is that I do not have a lot of confidence that B&B and their current ensemble of cohorts will do a top-quality, top-notch job when it comes to maintaining continuity.
Unlike ___________?
quote: I get the impression that they will merely “settle” for a “close enough, ” second-rate attitude. I like for my Trek to fit neatly into place, and when it does not, I get aggravated (and always have).
Then I imagine you would have had an aneurism by 1988.
quote:Perhaps they should get Richard Arnold back on the staff!
Richard Arnold fought off the evil demons of continuity-errors when? Right, I forgot how he defended "James R. Kirk" and "Space Central." And it was a masterstroke when he kept Spock a Vulcanian.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Every series has had continuity problems. Every series has had issues with staying consistent unto itself and to the rest of the canonical Trek universe (with what comprises "Trek canon" changing with every series). Enterprise will not be exempt from this problem just as The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and all of the movies have not been.
We are getting ready to see the fifth episode of Enterprise. And out of everything that could have been possibly bumbled in the previous four episodes, all we got is the date of Mars colonization that is wrong. And even in this case, there is surely a way to rationalize this so that it isn't a continuity error. It won't be the last snafu in Enterprise, but it's hardly the first in the Star Trek phenomenom.
Rationalization, whether one thinks so or not, is a part of being a Trek fan. Way back in 1979, fans had to rationalize the difference in the appearance of the Klingons. Way back in the 1960s, fans had to rationalize whether or not Starfleet really didn't allow women to be ship captains. The fans having to rationalize something is not necessarily proof of bad direction or writing. Sometimes, it's a way of getting a more complete picture of the Trek universe; it's a way of adding a bit of ourselves into the Trek universe; it's a way of filling in the gaps in the Trek universe.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Maybe Archer meant that the Utopia Planitia orbital docks/space habitats had been built and inhabited, and then the planetary surface had been colonized, with supplies and food coming from the stations up above. After all, they did need somewhere to build all of those ships.
-------------------- Fry- How will we get out of this? George Takei's head- Maybe we can use some kind of auto-destruct code like one-A, two-B, three-C... (Bender's head blows up) Bender- Now everybody knows! -Futurama's obligatory Star Trek episode
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Still, that's a mighty fine line we're toeing here. At this point in Earth's history, I could still see this sort of operation (establishing a presence on Mars) to be more military than civilian in nature. If the military sets up an outpost and a few civilians come and go over the years to survey the planet and plan for the eventual arrival of settlers and corporations, then I guess that wouldn't technically be considered a colonizing effort. Still, it's a mighty fine line (yet feasible for the constraints of continuity). ::shrug::
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Sure I do! “One pretty strong candidate for a violation” after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends? And considering that this a violation with Trek that B&B has recently produced… "
If the "strong candidate" refers to the point raised in this thread, then you have a different definition of "strong" than me. If it's one from another thread, then, er, you are a monkey.
I should point out that out of the 500-odd hours of Trek produced, 400 was under Berman, so it's still hardly fair.
Tom: Don't forget Kirk's oh-so-consistent career record, which even Okuda had to jump through big hoops to explain in the chronology. Spock also had anti-Tuvok syndrome (in that he changed ranks while keeping the same rank insignia).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Tom: Don't forget Kirk's oh-so-consistent career record, which even Okuda had to jump through big hoops to explain in the chronology. Spock also had anti-Tuvok syndrome (in that he changed ranks while keeping the same rank insignia).
The original series is in the interesting position of being hailed by many people as "what Star Trek should be" while simultaneously being by far the worst example of good continuity.
For instance, we know now, from "Q2" (VGR), that the five-year mission ended in 2270... but in the show itself the era ranged wildly from the 2160s ("Tomorrow Is Yesterday") to the 2700s ("The Squire of Gothos") with most sticking around the 2200 mark... not only did the show contradict itself continually, later Star Trek didn't even pick one of the contradictory dates when it tied things down! Then you've got the first season begin 15 years before Star Trek II as well as 20+ years before Star Trek V, two movies set at most a year apart. Star Trek IV is set in the "late twenty-third century" according to Kirk, while Star Trek II confirms that it's only been 200 years since the late twentieth century. And of course, the Enterprise is only twenty years old in Star Trek III, when it is a minimum of 28 years old based on Star Trek II and "The Menagerie."
I'm not saying anything everyone doesn't know already, but we should be careful of revisionism. Star Trek hasn't always enjoyed the incredible consistency that largely exists under the Berman administration. Enterprise is the paragon of continuity compared to any Star Trek produced in the first twenty-five years or so.
posted
The question Bernd and others have addressed is not the continuity of details, but rather the larger continuity of production design and show concept. It's about Enterprise being more of a logical forward extension of "First Contact" than a backward extension of TOS. Right now, it's 90% "First Contact" and 10% TOS.
Compare that to the continuity Lucas maintained between TPM and the other movies. I was stunned when I saw that he even kept the same font in the opening crawl. Not to mention the gadzillions of props and alien costumes they preserved in perfect condition in Lucasfilm Archives, just to have them appear somewhere in the background. None of the changes they made in CGI techniques or vessels seriously affects the perception that this movie is a part of the other three.
However, I don't expect "Enterprise" to be that continuous with TOS because TOS is not Braga's vision. People are just trying to make it fit, whereas it would be better off as a show unto itself, or the logical past of Voyager.
"'One pretty strong candidate for a violation' after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends?"
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: The question Bernd and others have addressed is not the continuity of details, but rather the larger continuity of production design and show concept. It's about Enterprise being more of a logical forward extension of "First Contact" than a backward extension of TOS. Right now, it's 90% "First Contact" and 10% TOS.
The problem with this is that it is entirely subjective. Enterprise fits with the original series just fine canonically; it only doesn't fit based on what people want to have been one hundred years prior. That's why it is important to distinguish between "continuity violations" and "choices I don't like." Enterprise has few, if any, of the former, but it is chock full of the latter.
To use your Star Wars analogy, I submit that Enterprise and The Phantom Menace are very analogous... they both present previously unseen chapters of their respective sagas. The events portrayed are wildly different from non-canonical depictions thereof. They both have special effects vastly superior to the original. They both introduce elements that True Fans--sarcasm implied--find to be distasteful (can we say "Jar-Jar Binks?"), as well as elements previously unheard of (midi-chlorians, anyone?). They are both allegedly aimed at a younger audience. The only difference is that Enterprise is actually watchable.
"'One pretty strong candidate for a violation' after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends?"
About thirty.
And if they're all as minor as the date Mars was colonized, that's not too shabby.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
posted
Personally, TPM is way more watchable than Broken Bow, and give me Natalie Portman any day over both women (Hey, I'm the practical guy, she's the same age as me...
Unpersonally...(as best as I can):
The similarities to TPM exist but not in degree. To put it bluntly, if "Enterprise" reused TOS sets or looked even remotely like "Trials and Tribble-ations" (to further the Star Wars analogy by comparing TPM to Special Editions, rather than the originals), I think a lot of the complainers would be satisfied.
When did analog dials replace computer displays? When did so much color enter into set design? When did the uniforms revert to such a simple design used in TOS? If you examined all the sets and people closely, the conclusion would be reached that a huge sixties-regression took place between 2151 and 2255. I mean, put an Enterprise tricorder side by side with a TOS tricorder? Wouldn't a lot of Enterprise crew be raising their eyebrows at what they see? They'd say that these folks are out to reproduce the 1960s vision of the future, rather than live their own.
If TOS looks like the 1960s vision of the future, then ENT should probably look like the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s, unless the regression was a sudden change of style. A change that completely disappeared in the 2.5 years between TOS and TMP, when more changed than in the entire fourteen years of the TNG-era. No sets were recreated from the TOS days. All the color was lost.
Is it because the special effects of TOS were below-the-norm for even its time, because of the studio where they had to be done and the low budget that didn't allow so many effects in such a short time? Maybe.
However, did a higher budget stop George Lucas from preserving Star Wars props and reusing them? No, because he wanted to continue his series. Roddenberry on the other hand wanted a new series with TMP and TNG, and this is what now came in focus with "Enterprise" also.
quote: If TOS looks like the 1960s vision of the future, then ENT should probably look like the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s, unless the regression was a sudden change of style.
Of course, that would have the small side effect of actually producing negative viewership.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic