In this thread, Thea Logica asked a question about the “rules” associated with souls, falling in love and such on Buffy. Even though Thea had already acknowledged it, I went ahead and described why I thought that a soul in this show was a plot device and why.
I just sorta realized: I appear to be one of those people who, if the logic and continuity are not distractingly “off”, I ignore them and focus on the characters and whatever metaphor the show’s logic depicts (e.g., Angel losing his soul = betrayal of Buffy’s first love; from classic Trek - the M5 = machines controlling Man and Man’s need to control his destiny).
How about you - logic and continuity critical to you? Do you noodle on it and work stuff out about your favorite shows? Or do you only notice it/care if it gets in the way? Does it vary from show to show?
Doesn’t really bother me with shows that are usually character-intensive. It always bothered me with the X-Files, because it seemed they never learned from mistakes and Skully never really “got it” until the end. Well, that and I never liked any of the episodes about the alien conspiracy in general.
Buffy is entirely character-driven, and so silly plot points are rather ephemeral to the whole thing. We just want to see the characters and how they react.
StarTrek … I have to admit that I never even considered it. Almost every episode in completely self-contained anyway.
And … uh, I don’t really watch a whole lot of TV besides those and cartoons.
I’m a big fan of “Doctor Who”. That show didn’t give a flip about continuity - Atlantis is destroyed three different ways - and it never bothered me.
What bothers me is when a show makes claims about continuity and then doesn’t follow up on it. ‘The X-Files’ drove me crazy because it supposedly was all worked out and yet was constantly contradicting itself, letting issues drop, and generally throwing continuity to the winds. I lost my patience with it long before most people did, because the attention seemed to be focused on the conspiracy arc, which was so ridiculously muddled and obviously made up as they went along. I was told by fans that if I was just patient, eventually it would all be explained, because Chris Carter had it all worked out. He didn’t, and I didn’t wait to find that out.
Buffy doesn’t do TOO bad with this, but there are some issues that drive me crazy. The show has never made up it’s mind about what a demon is, and has never explained the role of the slayer adequately (Faith was obviously killing vampires before she was “activated” as a Slayer - what’s the difference? None of this has ever been explained well.)
What drives people like me crazy is not so much that the shows contradict themslves or have little holes in it, what bugs me most is the fans - which is why I don’t read Buffy threads anymore. (In addition to the fact that I seem to be the only person on earth who’s sick to death of Jar-Jar Spike.) A fan will happily say that the strength of the show is in its careful plotting, but when holes in that plot are pointed out, that’s “nitpicking” and “can’t you just enjoy the show?” Then, a week later, they’re back with how rock-solid the whole thing is.
I agree that strict continuity can be too much of a straightjacket - witness DC comics’ idiotic attempt at reigning it all in, usually with disastrous results. But if you’re going ot have it, at least make an attempt to address these things (Chris Carter, from what I heard, used to happily brag that his show didn’t have a continuity bible, as if that fact wasn’t plainly obvious). If you’re not, don’t worry abou tit. It didn’t hurt Doctor Who for 25 years.
Personally I need shows like Star Trek to stick to the rules. It bugs me when they contradict other episodes. For a show to be interesting over time it has to stick to the rules in the universe in which it takes place.
The importance of detail continuity is dependent upon the nature of the presentation. In something like Star Trek it’s at least important that the major details be kept the same, just like any other TV series. In something like X-Files, which was clearly being presented as an episodic series of one larger story, it’s REALLY important - which is why the show got so terrible. (They never did have anything planned out, but claimed they did.)
It’s important in SF, for instance, that Worf’s character be essentially consistent within the confines of character dynamism. He should act like a Klingon in a human environment. He should be smart and brave and easily angered, but I understand if he gets better at controlling himself over time. That’s important; if he starts acting like Richard Simmons, the dynamics of the situation are lost. It’s important the basic ground rules stay the same. It’s not important, IMHO, if the transverse warp nodule gruntator is inversely interfaced with the widget drive in Episode 25 but was interfaced with the kromitz-valve in Episode 22. (Unless it becomes egregious as an inconsistent plot device, as with the holodeck.)
In movies, it’s less important. Movies should be stand-alone packages, even in a series.
But I would agree that Star Trek/Buffy/Whatever fans hugely overemphasize this stuff. The hallmark of good fiction is STORY - not plot, characters, or dialogue. A good story makes it all worthwhile. In SF, that story specifically has to be something along the lines of “What if people were put in that situation? What if things were different in this way?”
The show has to be internally consistent, but it also can’t violate simple rules without a reason. I gave up watching ST in the later incarnations because of multiple bouts of silliness (“we’re a space-going species that can’t make water” being my all-time favourite stupidity).
You have to expect bouts of lack-of-continuity, especially when a TV show stretches over several years and has many writers.
Waddya mean by ‘activated’? Buffy was killing vamps before she met her Watcher too. But both her and Faith had their ‘slayer-powers’ before getting hooked up with their personal trainers.
But the cannon is that there is only one slayer at a time. There are presumably slayers-in-training, like Kendra, nut they don’t have all the powers of a slayer. Supposedly. And Buffy didn’t start killing vamps until she met her first Watcher, who died (in the movie). The series picks up after that, when she moves to Sunnydale to escape her past (and her mom moving away from a divorce) and her new Watcher is there. Faith had a Watcher who was killed as well, I believe. Kendra had a Watcher - she was given to him as a small child.
As long as the major elements are consistent, I can live with minor contradictions among the details.
Barbarian has a good point about the Kazon from ST:Voyager. This was a species that could construct starships and colonize planets, but couldn’t make water? Gimme a break. Unfortunately, that level of (il)logic pretty much characterized the entire run of Voyager. Another glaring example is how the Federation guys and the Maquis guys worked together flawlessly, without ever having any trouble. This would be like a squad of US Army commandos and an Al-Qaida terrorist cell banding together without any internal friction. By the time they got back to the Alpha Quadrant, the fact that a large part of Voyager’s crew consisted of wanted criminals had been totally forgotten by everyone, including Starfleet.
The later Star Trek series suffered more from lazy, deus-ex-machina infested writing than anything else. Just once, I’d have loved to hear Geordi LaForge say, “Sorry, Captain, but there’s no enegy field or sub-atomic particle known that can do that.”
From my point of view, the logic/continuity must be reasonably consistent. I agree with RickJay that many fans make far too much noise about insignificant details. To use Trek example, I don’t particularly care whether the deck number for Sickbay, barely readable on the outside of the turbolift doors, matches from one episode to the next. That’s just plain obsessive, in my opinion.
I know Tolkein doesn’t exactly fit the parameters of the OP, but I think it provides another instructive example. Some hardcore fans were incensed that the four hobbits in the movie didn’t find their swords in the barrow, or whatever. That, to me, is a plot detail; it’s insignificant to the story. The story is about ordinary people who find themselves thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and how they reach into themselves to become heroes. It’s about the power of myth, the sweep of history, and the role of individuals in that grand scheme. Whether the hobbits got their swords from a crypt or pulled them out of Butterbur’s magical ass is irrelevant.
Therefore, on, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as long as the characters remain true to themselves, and the scenario is treated consistently in its broad strokes, I can forgive the little details. I don’t care if Buffy’s college dorm room is on the second floor for half the season, and then on the third floor for the rest. However, if suddenly the vampires are walking around in the daylight with no explanation, that would be supremely annoying.
Of course, since Buffy has a supernatural foundation, there’s some leeway for experimentation. Remember how everybody flipped out when Dawn unexpectedly appeared?
(NB: I’m not a Buffy or Trek fan, so I can’t address the specific examples in the OP)
I think I’m in a third camp on this one – with the first camp being the “I can’t watch this show/read this book/see this movie because the lack of continuity drives me insane,” and and the second camp being the “oh, why can’t you just enjoy it?” people.
For me, nitpicking the continuity/internal logic is what’s enjoyable about following my stuff, like X-Files or Star Wars. I could make a career out of hashing through the many contradictions in the Star Wars EU (if that could be a career, which I doubt, to my grave disappointment) and debating the merits of various theories that, while completely whacked out in other regards, bring together the different explanations of who exactly came up with the stolen plans to the Death Star. I hate it when people say “oh, why can’t you just enjoy it?” because that is the part I enjoy the most. Otherwise, what would I talk about?
Also (although now I’m going off on a tangent that is probably rather Star Wars specific), I don’t like when people enter such discussions only to point out that the MOVIE (or whatever is the original canon text) says a certain thing so that is the correct thing. Well, OBVIOUSLY. I didn’t read a flippin’ old growth forest worth of Star Wars books because I didn’t care much for the movie … obviously I understand what the movie says. But since there’s no point, really, to discussing a fact presented by the movie (ok, yes, I got it. Bothans died to bring these plans to the Rebels), I still think it’s interesting to discuss the inconsistencies in the EU. Because there’s 24 hours in a day, and I have a lot of time left over to ponder over the Death Star plans.
I was a maniac over Twin Peaks (in a good way) because there was such a vast assortment of logic holes that could either be deliberate, and thus clues, or random problems with the internal logic.
Myself, I don’t have too much of a problem with continuity flaws (unless they’re really egregious) until a show goes into syndication and I’ve seen the episodes a coupla times. Usually, I’m so into the I don’t notice these things the first time through.BtVS has some minor continuity issues, but that’s to be expected in a series that is going into its seventh season. I really don’t expect the writers to be sitting there with a bank of VCRs going over every episode with a fine-tooth comb making sure a throw-away joke in an S7 episode doesn’t contradict a minor plot point in S2.
Logic flaws, however, will drive me buggy. Hence the thread that this one is spun off of. The irony is, I’m a believing Catholic, (with all the weirdness that entails), and I really get into SF&F, with the suspension of disbelief that being able to enjoy movies/TV shows/novels/etc. requires. So, I’m spend an hour a week believing that there is an insane vampire living in the basement of Sunnydale High School, and I’m not going to get real upset if in an episode in one season it is stated that most demons don’t really think much of vampires because they are basically a demon/human hybrid, and in another episode, it is stated that most of the demons that walk the earth are demon/human hybrids (Anya’s exposition in “Graduation Day” Part One). It’s a minor point, so oh, well. But this whole sex/happiness/Angel’s curse thing does bug me. Not enough that it gets in the way of my enjoying the show, but enough that I start threads about it. Speakingj of which, guess which episode I’m watching on FX right now. (My computer has a TV tuner card, so I can watch and post at the same time. Buffy and Angel sre sitting on the bed sucking face even as I type. Oops, ok, Angel just woke up, and there goes the soul…)
Hey - when did this thread move? Not that I really mind - I came looking for it in IMHO, so I guess this is where it belongs…
Delphica - how is your third category - I love to hash out the details - different from the first - the details have to work for me to enjoy it? Is your third category about “hey I like hashing out the details, but finding flaws won’t put me off the show”?
Thea - O She Who Inspired This Thread - I never even thought to separate logic and continuity, but your distinction makes sense. But don’t you have a “fudge factor” built in, too, where, if you basically like the show, you will allow an explanation, even a paper-thin one, to work for you? As for Angel’s curse and souls - I am willing to let my explanations morph as needed as the plot plays out - emotions are unfathomable, so who am I to understand that stuff?
RickJay - wow, I never knew that the X-Files didn’t have things worked out, but claimed they did. I wasn’t a viewer - but it seems like that would really suck. At least with BtVS, I kind of know they are focused on the emotions and characters, so I don’t have huge expectations for the underlying conspiracy. Having said that, they do have seasonal arcs, and if those go well (e.g., Season Two with Angel or Season 3 with the Mayor) those can be very satisfying…
Okay - I am officially confused - I now see that this thread had been in IMHO (which is why I looked for it there) but has been moved to Cafe Society…ah…okay, clarity is returned.
Ah, cannons to the left of me, cannons to the right of me, and people who don’t know that a cannon may shoot, but a canon is a rule
The film is not, strictly speaking, related to the show. But we may find out otherwise this season.
In the TV Buffyverse, as far as we know, Buffy was killing vamps on her own before she ever met Giles, who I’m pretty sure was identified early on as her first Watcher. And when the Powers that be select a slayer, it may or may not have anythingto do with the watcher’s council. (Those sneaky off-screen bastards )
Barbarian, Giles wasn’t Buffy’s first watcher. In the episode Becoming, part one, Buffy is called by a different watched, who (I believe) is credited as Merrick.
Anyway, as far as the continuity, world-thing…it’s sort of a dick measuring contest among the people who watch the show. You know, seeing who’s more into it, who knows the most, who notices the most, etc. At least, that’s how I view it. Major continuity errors, though–such as Willow saying she was brought up in a Christian household, or Buffy/Dawn saying that their dad had died (instead of being off in Spain with a secretary), or Angel wearing a cross…that’d be glaring enough to be a problem. Otherwise, though…it’s just a fan-chick thing.
But that wasn’t an inconsistency at all. That was just a sign that Giles and the Council of Wankers don’t know everything about everything. That coupled with the insane test earlier that season is pretty strong reasons to not trust anything the CoW has to say…
Some things really bother me. (See Electro-girl not killing Angel last Sunday. Tasers knock him on his ass, but she doesn’t even make him blink? Please.) But for the most part there is a clear and logical progression that makes perfect sense. (unless it has to do with souls or chips. Did anybody else notice last night that Spike was clutching the wrong side of his head? Either JM is getting lazy or the chip isn’t working…)
Actually on Angel the electricity thing is so annoying because it directly contradicts something that happened only a few episodes ago which was important to the plot then, and was important to the plot now. Then: Connor could not have taken Angel in a fight without the Taser (he had tried and failed before). Now: Electricity Girl could have been too powerful for Angel in a straight up fight. Someone simply dropped the ball on this point. And his heart restarting? Oy.
On the Spike grabbing his head I am not sure which side he grabbed is that important as their were several explanations- he was in a fight & holding the kid down, or the pain was enough that the whole head hurt ect. . .
And don’t get me started on the whole “no breath” thing. . .
But normally Angel and Buffy are pretty good at that stuff, often planting the seed for things well in advance of them being used again.
Roger that. I hate it when one week Voyager gets half the ship blown to smithereens, and next week it is good as new. DS9 had great internal consistancy (with a few exceptions) and that in part made it a better series.
It’s just that Spike always clutches the other side of his head, even in season 3 when he’s just drunk and hungover! They could have set up the shot so that he was holding the kid down with his other arm. But on the other hand, Spike is a southpaw, so I guess it makes sense he was hitting the kid with his left hand…but still.
