Darn that inconvenient history | Report this post to moderator
By: perrybw (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:26:50 on Jun 15, 2008

Another word for continuity is history. If you're telling a story in our "real world" and want to establish a character with a backstory in Italy circa 44A.D., you have to reference that darn Roman Empire. If you're telling a story in 1944 France you have to reference that pesky World War II. Part of good writing is using events and the backdrop of history as a rich source from which to give your story and characters depth and resonance. Having Sisko at Wolf 359 in the first episode of DS9 gave that moment more emotional impact than if it had taken place at some unknown space battle the audience was unfamiliar with.

Yes, writing in a Blank Slate universe may allow a writer complete and total freedom, but it also means they start at an emotional blank slate with their audience. STAR TREK's complex universe offers writers lots of fuel for good drama.

Now, it is true that some Trek fans make a much larger issue of this than is necessary and take Trek creators to task for errors in irrelevant minutae. But its time that BOTH sides of this equation stopped grousing. Just write good stories and enjoy them.

Reply

Quote

Moore's Continuity Problems | Report this post to moderator
By: The One (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:35:14 on Jun 15, 2008

Kind of funny he's griping about it... he helped create the whole problem. Establishing 3 series in teh same time period will do that. I don't see how they did such a good job with continuity anyway. If they had quit trying to incorporate established races and events, then they could have had a lot more freedom.

What I had a problem with continuity wise isn't stuff like the original Enterprise being built in space or not.... but the broad strokes that got missed. First Contact is a prime example. They chose to go back and deal with that period of Trek history, so it's their own fault if they found continuity to be constrictive in that case. While I'm no continuity absolutist, they made no effort to make Zefram Cochrane seem like the same guy that was in the Metamorphsis episode, and I'm not talking about his apperance per se. He's an important part of Trek history and they turned him into a bumbling drunk rock and roll freak. Not that I would have had a problem with that, but he sure came across as more of a stuffed shirt in TOS, and the two characters could not have seemed more different. I just wish they would have made some sort of effort to tie the two different takes on that character together, but they didn't.

Moore and the other writers shouldn't talk about how tough continuity was.. they set it aside whenever they wanted.

Reply

Quote

RE: Moore and Continuity | Report this post to moderator
By: Merlinus Ambrosius (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:39:45 on Jun 13, 2008

Quote:
You could either change the race of the character

Thats how we ended up with the "Klingons with a bad hair day" on Voyager....I mean...the Kazon.

Thats not creativity.

Quote:
or take the more adventurous path and tell a story of how this character was an exception to the rule.

Except thats not interesting television. Spending 20 minutes trying to explain why so and so isn't like such and such is boring.


Yes, continuity facilitates creativity. Having a rich backdrop to work with makes for a rich and textured universe. However, Star Trek right now doesn't have a rich backdrop. It has a series of predefined races who always have to behave in a certain way, to the point of cliche (Klingons are always pissed off, Romulans are always sneaky, Vulcans are always arrogant douchebags, Ferengi are greedy) and it has a string of details that have been littered amongst 5 television series and 10 movies that we as fans seem to want to demand slavish attention to.

Star Trek needs a blank slate, just to wipe out the preconceived ideas of how everything has to be. Deep Space 9 did that a bit, with its reboot of the Ferengi and the Trill. TNG rebooted the Klingons. Its happened before, just never on a big scale because there wasn't as much continuity as there is now.

--------



Scientists discover the world that exists;

engineers create the world that never was.

-Theodore von Kármán

Reply

Quote

I agree with Moore. | Report this post to moderator
By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:40:52 on Jun 13, 2008

While I've been a fan for nearly two decades, and have watched most of the episodes of each series several times over, imagine what it's like for potential NEW fans (you know, the thing they kind of need to draw in if the franchise is going to last another 40 years) when they look at it and realize that there's almost 800 hours worth of television episodes, ten movies, countless novels, comic books, etc. to go through. While it may not be totally necessary to watch or read everything, that's got to be daunting as hell if you just want to sit back and check out this cool space show.
In my own experiences, there are people I talk to at the place where I work who are not about to give TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/Trek 1-10 a chance, but based on what I've told them about what I've read regarding the new movie, are considering giving that a chance when it comes out.
Sure, us long-time fans may be a bit miffed about the slate being wiped clean (to what degree will vary between each of us, of course). If it bothers you that much, it's not like your VHS tapes, DVDs, HD DVDs, downloads of the shows and movies will suddenly stop working.

--------

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."- Blazing Saddles

Reply

Quote

Slavish | Report this post to moderator
By: gerbil (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:17:29 on Jun 13, 2008 | (1)

Continuity only becomes a burden on the writers when you add a fan base that demands a complete, slavish adherence to it. Star Trek fans are worse then any other group in this regard. I've seen people argue that good, though-provoking episodes are stripped of any merit because of continuity violations -- real or imagined.

It's not creatively bankrupt to argue that an over-the-top continuity system hampers writing. Especially when the Star Trek fan base is totally unwilling or unable to ignore, forgive, or explain away small errors. There are no slips of the tongue or mis-remembering to zealous Trek fans. Only violations of canon that must be explicitly explained as such in the episode.

I like continuity and back story. But there's a point where it becomes overbearing. And, really, for Star Trek, that point is now.

Reply

Quote

Hilarious | Report this post to moderator
By: IamKirok!!! (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:00:01 on Jun 13, 2008

It's funny. I read the interview, and just imagined what I'd read in the responses. And guess what? What I read was even more annoying than what I imagined!

If I was a professional writer I'd be disgusted that I had to actually reference an encyclopedia about something that doesn't exist just to do my job and please fans! Where's the creativity in that? Respect for the backstory, sure. But to be a slave to it? Continuity overriding creativity equals fan fiction.

I know. Why don't we just feed all the Trek canon and all the encyclopedias into Big Blue and it can spit out some crap that will please all of you.

Reply

Quote

Monkey See, Monkey Do | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:50:42 on Jun 13, 2008 | (2)

Quote from Ronald D. Moore:
"The lack of creativity is profound..."


Bingo.

As soon as lazy sci-fi scribes can't just pull an otherworld chapter out of their arse, they moan about the inconvenience of continuity. Funny, how non-sci-fi fiction writers don't proselytize and nag about being stifled by Earth's long and detailed history, i.e. the "backstory" of human civilization.

This simply isn't a problem for competent storytellers, who recognize continuity as a frame of reality that's essential for a meeting of minds between author and audience.

Moore is talking about riding the coattails of established brand names. For example: Instead of starting a new series with its own brand, RDM et al took the name and concept of Glen Larson's Battlestar Galactica. Had Moore's series been a total botch, his so-called "clean slate" would not have prevented a dishonor to the entire BSG family -- just as ENT is like a stinky backwash into the mouth of Star Trek.

Moore's mindset hardly differs from the "genius" behind all the crappy remakes of pop-cult faves.


--------

World's Fastest Supercomputer Runs Linux

Twice as fast as the previous record-setter, the Roadrunner uses a hybrid design that combines 6,948 dual-core AMD Opteron chips with 12,960 Cell processor engines... running Linux.


A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux ++ Live CD

Reply

Quote

Moore and Continuity | Report this post to moderator
By: AlexR (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:53:39 on Jun 12, 2008

I appreciate a whole lot of what Ron Moore does, but I completely disagree with him about continuity. The trick for a writer is to include just enough facts in the story for an audience to "get" what's going on, and then get on with the storytelling. e.g., as in "The Wrath of Khan".

Sure, there's some research involved in playing in a big and well-established universe. If one is not up to the task, my response is: go play somewhere else.

But there's a tendency among some people to believe that continuity means just stuffing in references to other things because one can, whether or not they're germane to the story being told. In that instance, I agree with Mr. Moore. Such things are lost on new viewers, and might even irritate them, since they might feel there's a joke they're not getting.

The answer, though, is not to abandon continuity. It's to use it intelligently.

Mr. Moore's also incorrect to try to frame the issue as continuity-vs.-fun. IMHO, trashing continuity is *not* fun. Creating a whole different world and slapping some familiar names on it is *not* fun. (See above comment about doing something entirely different if unable or unwilling to follow the rules of an established universe.) I think it's far more fun to find new stories to tell in a big, established world, and to keep growing that world through the addition of such new stories.

Best,
Alex

Reply

Quote