TransporterMalfunction 1 Posted February 20, 2004 There is a certain section among Star Trek fans that considers continuity as the most important issue in the creation of a Trek television series. What are your opinions, does continuity make a show or does it constrict creativity? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted February 20, 2004 It makes a show, it doesn't restrict continuity. To me, continuity is how many decks the ship has, someone's uniform color, following up an old episodes, that sort of thing. :blink: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingonmike 0 Posted February 20, 2004 I think continuity is important especially in Star Trek. There has been a whole history created about the Star Trek universe and to disregard that history is just not right. Now I hear people complan that Enterprise has messed up the continuity of Star Trek but I personally have yet to see it. Enterprise has done a fine job in keeping the continuity intact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
v_seven 0 Posted February 20, 2004 I agree there should be continuity for it all to come together and sort of make sense...but I really think I enjoy the show and I'm so entertained that I can forgive some things and not over analyze and ruin it. :blink: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trinneergirl 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Continuity is fine, in it's place, but the very people who will ignore it in other incarnations will deride Enterprise for any so-called breach. TOS - Kirk worked for two different organisantions. No-one cares TNG - What happened after all the most senior staff of Starfleet became attacked by the mind-tribolite things in Consipiracy? Nothing, but no-one derides it. DS9 - Altered EVERYTHING we knew about Trill from TNG from the brow ridges, to the symbiot/dictator relationship, to the 'can't transport'. All sort of fluff from, different planets/same name to North Trill ridges, South Trill spots. But no-one suggested that DS9 should be 'de-canonised' because of it. Voy - Came back from the Delta quadrant with knowledge of a super shell of armoury in Endgame. Oddly, no-one at Starfleet bothered to add this knowledge to it's ships by Nemesis. The amount of spitting tacks is far less than the Romulan cloaked mine in Dead Stop. IMO Enterprise stands out because of it's premise and it's great characters, played by wonderful actors. The fanboy minutae doesn't bother me at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chocho_11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 I think continuity is important to some extent, but it's not unforgivably blasphemous to overlook one little thing. A lot of people scream about the Klingon ridges in Enterprise; I think there would be a much higher number of complaints if they looked as much like Humans in Enterprise as they did in TOS... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewey 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TransporterMalfunction 1 Posted February 21, 2004 I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun) in this case. Does that mean that you dislike everything related to Trek (all the films as well) since TOS. As continuity was certainly destroyed when the Klingons were updated with ridges on their foreheads. More generally regarding the topic: In my opinion continuity means very little and if not careful can constrict creativity. Yes I do like to see something that links all the series together and I believe that all the shows have this, but I am not concerned when something small is over-looked as I would rather watch a good sci-fi episode than a poor one that is driven by continuity. If we were all that concerned with the issue of continuity then all the Trek fans would have tried to start WW3 in the late 1990's to make sure the Trek timeline was not impaired! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewey 0 Posted February 21, 2004 I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun) in this case. Does that mean that you dislike everything related to Trek (all the films as well) since TOS. As continuity was certainly destroyed when the Klingons were updated with ridges on their foreheads. More generally regarding the topic: In my opinion continuity means very little and if not careful can constrict creativity. Yes I do like to see something that links all the series together and I believe that all the shows have this, but I am not concerned when something small is over-looked as I would rather watch a good sci-fi episode than a poor one that is driven by continuity. If we were all that concerned with the issue of continuity then all the Trek fans would have tried to start WW3 in the late 1990's to make sure the Trek timeline was not impaired! The Klingon ridge thng is forgivable given that it was a makeup change. The same is true of the Andorian update and the difference between TNG trill and DS9 trill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingonmike 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ace 0 Posted February 21, 2004 I don't nitpick much, so continuity isn't a big deal for me. If it's absolutely a glaring mistake, it irks me a little, but only for a few seconds. To me, the plot and characters are much more important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewey 0 Posted March 1, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Ship name Ship design Klingons before 2218 Temporal Cold war The BORG The Ferengi The Romulans The Vulcans The Suliban Captain Archer Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted March 1, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Ship name Ship design Klingons before 2218 Temporal Cold war The BORG The Ferengi The Romulans The Vulcans The Suliban Captain Archer Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise Explain how these stray from the timeline. Give specific examples, and also explain why when these things were done in other Trek series they weren't jumped on. Remember the USS Bozeman? How about the Enterprise C? Those episodes changed the timelines significantly but are accepted into the Trek universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewey 0 Posted March 1, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Ship name Ship design Klingons before 2218 Temporal Cold war The BORG The Ferengi The Romulans The Vulcans The Suliban Captain Archer Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise Explain how these stray from the timeline. Give specific examples, and also explain why when these things were done in other Trek series they weren't jumped on. Remember the USS Bozeman? How about the Enterprise C? Those episodes changed the timelines significantly but are accepted into the Trek universe. Simple, everything the Enterprise would have been logged and documented for future generations to study. This would make every character from TOS onwards, completely and utterley ignorant and lacking in intelligence, especially the captain of teh Federation flagship with the same name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted March 1, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Ship name How do we know that the NX-01 being named "Enterprise" isn't a slight alterration due to the movie First Contact? It's entirely possible that Cochrane asked Henry Archer to name the first warp five ship "Enterprise" after a ship from the future that saved Earth from cyborgs. Ship design What's wrong with the ship design? It looks fine to me. Oh wait, are you one of those people who call it Akiraprise? Klingons before 2218 What episode was this stated in? Temporal Cold war How does this violate continuity? How do you know this isn't what leads to the Romulan war and founding of the UFP? The BORG As I said, the movie First Contact "alterred" the timeline. This episode is part of that alterration. Just so you understand, I said that the movie "alterred" the timeline, it didn't crew a whole new timeline, it just made subtle changes. The Ferengi 4 big-earred aliens that Archer let go as long as they promised to never show their faces again. How does this violate continuity? The Romulans It was never said when first contact was made with the Romulans. The Vulcans :huh: :huh: The Suliban How does this violate continuity? Captain Archer :huh: :lol: :huh: Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise You haven't even seen the episode. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted March 1, 2004 Part of being entertained for me, is to be able to believe in the premise of whatever is being shown. For me, if a premise is unbelievable then it's a waste of time watching. Part of believing in the premise which is to become a show which is part of a near 40 year old franchise, I have to believe that the show really is part of the same universe that the other shows are set in. this means that continuity is paramount (no pun ) in this case. Even in a fictitious work, there are rules and for a spin-off the primary rule is inter-series continuity. I believe Enterprise has simply either broken too many of them, or simply ignored following them in the first place. This simple decision by B&B undermine the believability of the premise, no matter what is done with it. What has Enterprise done that is off continuity? Give some examples please. I personally have seen very little continuity issues. Ship name Ship design Klingons before 2218 Temporal Cold war The BORG The Ferengi The Romulans The Vulcans The Suliban Captain Archer Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise Explain how these stray from the timeline. Give specific examples, and also explain why when these things were done in other Trek series they weren't jumped on. Remember the USS Bozeman? How about the Enterprise C? Those episodes changed the timelines significantly but are accepted into the Trek universe. Simple, everything the Enterprise would have been logged and documented for future generations to study. This would make every character from TOS onwards, completely and utterley ignorant and lacking in intelligence, especially the captain of teh Federation flagship with the same name. So explain to my that just because the NX-01 isn't mentioned that means it didn't happen. Remember, the NX-01 isn't part of the Federation because that doesn't exist yet. In effect, the NX-01 is a part of a different "country" then the Starfleet of the Federation. If Enterprise was to go by your standard of only doing things that were mentioned in previous Star Treks then a series wouldn't be possible. I still challenge you to show me a story or instance where something happens in Enterprise that directly conflicts with any of the previous 4 Series. Ship name The NCC-1701 was the first Federation Starship USS Enterprise. The NX-01 isn't a Federation Starship, isn't named USS Enterprise and is an Experimental ship. No conflict here. Ship design I don't see a conflict here either, it has a saucer section and nacelles and follows human design's for starships. No Conflict here. Klingons before 2218 The date of First Contact with the Klingon Empire is conjecture. I believe it was in TOS's "Day Of The Dove" episode (Set in 2268) that describes First Contact as have taken place "Centuries ago". This would indicate that Humans had contacted the Klingons well before 2218 because the difference between 2268 and 2218 is only a half century. No conflict here. Temporal Cold war Show me where any Star Trek series says that a Temporal Cold war did not take place. No conflict here. The BORG Star Trek First: Contact established the FACT of the Borg moving through time to Earth's past in an attempt to Assimilate humanity before they achieve Warp technology. Picard and the Enterprise E destroyed a Borg Sphere which then crash landed on Earth. The Drones on that Sphere lay dormant until discovered many years later and revived. No where in the episode do they establish themselves as "Borg". No conflict here, in fact this episode only strengthens the TNG timeline change that sent the Borg back in time. The Ferengi THe Ferengi are never identified in this episode as "Ferengi". They are simply a race of aliens that try to acquire profit in any way they can. No conflict here. The Romulans How is this a problem? Humans and Romulans go to war in 2156, in order for a war to break out there has to be some prior contact. In season 2 episode "Minefield", set in 2152 we don't see the Romulans only their ship. We hear their voices but don't see their faces. Again, this strengthens the TOS timeline. No conflict here. The Vulcans The Vulcans? First Contact with the Vulcans took place in Star Trek First Contact about 100 years before Enterprise. I don't know where you come up with a conflict on this one. No conflict here. The Suliban How in the world does this conflict? This is a new Race. Just because a race isn't mentioned in other series doesn't make it a conflict. It just means that the stories we've seen have never mentioned them. No conflict here. Captain Archer Again, you are grasping at straws. How is Archer a conflict? In fact Voyager supports the existence of an Archer family in the Trek universe. You have to remember, There is no Federation so there is no Federation history being recorded. The fact that Archer isn't mentioned is not a conflict, it just means that there was never cause to mention him. Also remember that the NX-01 is NOT the USS Enterprise it is the NX-01 Enterprise. No conflict here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted March 1, 2004 Click for Spoiler: The upcoming episode with a future enterprise You haven't even seen the episode. [/color] LOL CJLP we were posting the same things... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stelfan 0 Posted March 1, 2004 I am pretty tired of people saying that ENT destroys continuity so I will just say: Show me proof that it has then we can discuss it.. (Don't mention the Borg because that has already been explained) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
