The continuity lesson of Beast Wars

[onslaught86]

I've recently been thinking about how many people get up in arms so easily about continuity, and how this has always been a huge issue with Transformers, given the many different and conflicting continuities. Beast Wars is now accepted and appreciated by the vocal majority of the fandom, and while this is certainly a good thing, it brings up an interesting point. Beast Wars was concerned about its own continuity, and not that which came before. Drawing from a generic G1 origin mix of the comics and cartoons and establishing Transformers as a more respectable scifi setting and property has resulted in the Generic G1 we know and love today. Y'know, the one where all the G1 characters have sparks and the like, despite that being purely retcon.

Beast Wars was a self-contained continuity that disregarded other continuities by taking only what it needed from them to tell a good story. As fans, we understand the necessity behind this. Had they followed G1 to the letter, they'd have been conflicted, and it would've hurt the story. So why, now, do we still get so up in arms about self-contained stories not reflecting prior continuity to the letter when they are, unto themselves, good stories? Why has the focus shifted from telling a good story to making sure that story fits into the other stories? Consider this in relation to ArmEnerTron, Dreamwave, IDW, Animated, and the movie's fiction. There is also a difference between scientific inaccuracies and plotholes, and minutae of continuity. Especially so now it's Beast Wars that's crying for a reboot..

Do we stick to continuities simply because we're fond of the stories that came before, and want to piece together our favourites, no matter how hard it may be to get them to fit? Because we want things to be simple and easy to follow, chronologically? Because we like displaying all our toys on one shelf? Or because, in these fictional worlds, it's easier to tie all the elements together into a cohesive whole than it is in real life, where we can never read every story to iron out the conflicts?

[Onslaught Six]

Monosyllabic grunt of general agreement.

[andersonh1]

Do we stick to continuities simply because we're fond of the stories that came before, and want to piece together our favourites, no matter how hard it may be to get them to fit? Because we want things to be simple and easy to follow, chronologically? Because we like displaying all our toys on one shelf? Or because, in these fictional worlds, it's easier to tie all the elements together into a cohesive whole than it is in real life, where we can never read every story to iron out the conflicts?

"Continuity" simply means that one event or story flows into the next in a consistent fashion. Logical consistency is what supports believability in any piece of fiction. If event X happens at one point, and then event Y happens in a later story and it completely ignores/contradicts event X, it calls into question the fictional context of the series and undermines the willing suspension of disbelief. That's why simply telling a good story is not enough, even if it should be the primary concern.

That's why I'm such a stickler for continuity, because for a fictional universe to maintain believability, it must be consistent. That may be difficult to maintain when there are multiple writers/editors, but it's imperative to do so. A fictional universe that contradicts itself on multiple occasions or in major ways becomes a universe which falls apart. This is not to say that viewers or readers can't make allowances for minor inconsistancies, and look for ways to iron them out. We do, and so do the professionals, hence the term "retcon". Of course, retcons can be abused too, as they often are in comic books. But I digress.

Transformers is a little different. It reboots every so often, because it's toy-based and the fiction follows the toys. As long as each reboot is internally self-consistent, as well as can be expected, then I have no problem with multiple continuities. I don't see a need to make RID tie into G1, or AEC tie into Animated.

[onslaught86]

What qualifies as logically consistent is pretty loosely defined in a story about time-travelling alien robots who turn into animals. The level of plausibility is defined entirely by the story itself and its internal consistency. While it may be okay for there to be lots of distracting and amusing animation errors in G1, as well as contradictory story elements, people forgive this for the sake of nostalgia and a realistic expectation of the way toy-based cartoons were made in the 80s. I suppose there's more to be expected now we have a bigger budget for fiction and a wider fanbase, but I fear that Dom's predictions may be coming to pass, and we may have become a largely insular fanbase.

As much as Beast Wars expanded the concept of Transformers when it sorely needed it, the Movie has brough it back to basics. I fear it'll expand too much, too soon, and sacrifice what little integrity that presentation has. We have Animated as a shining example of a continuity that's internally consistent, although it doesn't offer adult stories in the way non-cartoon media has been of late. There are problems both when a continuity cannot be enjoyed thanks to stories not sticking to its framework, and when a story cannot be enjoyed for its trying too hard to fit in with other stories. Amusingly, the BW continuity established by IDW suffers from both of these.

[andersonh1]

What qualifies as logically consistent is pretty loosely defined in a story about time-travelling alien robots who turn into animals. The level of plausibility is defined entirely by the story itself and its internal consistency.

I almost think you're contradicting yourself here. Yes, the parameters of 'reality' are pretty broad given the "time-travelling alien robots" who are the main characters. But once Beast Wars set up those parameters, it was obliged to follow them if the illusion of "reality" was to be maintained. For example you can't have a derelict Axalon in one episode that's incapable of flight, and in another episode have it hovering over the countryside taking shots at the Predacons. Once the ground rules for how the characters behave and what they can and can't do are established, they can't be broken without a good reason. Cheetor can't be the reckless hothead that he was in season one, and suddenly become a scientific genius for an episode, or a great military tactician for an episode.

In any series with continuing characters and situations, internal consistency cannot just be applied to the individual stories. It has to be applied to the series as a whole, and if that consistency is going to be set aside, there should be a good reason spelled out within the narrative itself for the change. The characters should react along with the audience, not pretend that nothing has happened.

While it may be okay for there to be lots of distracting and amusing animation errors in G1, as well as contradictory story elements, people forgive this for the sake of nostalgia and a realistic expectation of the way toy-based cartoons were made in the 80s.

Agreed. I also think viewers approach a show based on how it presents itself and treat it accordingly. G1 was a kids cartoon, and gets treated with more leniency. Beast Wars was a kids show that tried to up the quality of the writing and animation, and it's held in far higher regard than some of the other series.

I suppose there's more to be expected now we have a bigger budget for fiction and a wider fanbase, but I fear that Dom's predictions may be coming to pass, and we may have become a largely insular fanbase.

I don't know about that. I think that as long as the toyline is popular and as long as new kids are drawn into it, that the fanbase will continue to thrive. Maybe the older fans are pretty set in their ways and insular about 'the way it has to be', but I don't think Transformers fandom is static enough for what you're worried about to become a real problem.

There are problems both when a continuity cannot be enjoyed thanks to stories not sticking to its framework, and when a story cannot be enjoyed for its trying too hard to fit in with other stories.

That's true. Either can be a problem.

[andersonh1]

One further Beast Wars thought. I've always thought that the way they approached G1 was pretty smart. It gave them the best of both worlds, where they could use elements from both the cartoon and the comic, and neither was used as straightjacket for the broader Beast Wars narrative. The story elements they chose greatly enhanced the show. Contradictions, such as Primal saying that the Nemesis shot down the Ark can be passed off as corrupted history. This worked mainly because three centuries and a massive societal change lay between the events of G1 and the events of Beast Wars.

[Onslaught Six]

One further Beast Wars thought. I've always thought that the way they approached G1 was pretty smart. It gave them the best of both worlds, where they could use elements from both the cartoon and the comic, and neither was used as straightjacket for the broader Beast Wars narrative. The story elements they chose greatly enhanced the show. Contradictions, such as Primal saying that the Nemesis shot down the Ark can be passed off as corrupted history. This worked mainly because three centuries and a massive societal change lay between the events of G1 and the events of Beast Wars.

That's 86's 'entire point,' though, see. BW was internally consistant with itself, but it disregarded the serieses before it in favour of a melding Generic G1.

[andersonh1]

One further Beast Wars thought. I've always thought that the way they approached G1 was pretty smart. It gave them the best of both worlds, where they could use elements from both the cartoon and the comic, and neither was used as straightjacket for the broader Beast Wars narrative. The story elements they chose greatly enhanced the show. Contradictions, such as Primal saying that the Nemesis shot down the Ark can be passed off as corrupted history. This worked mainly because three centuries and a massive societal change lay between the events of G1 and the events of Beast Wars.

That's 86's 'entire point,' though, see. BW was internally consistant with itself, but it disregarded the serieses before it in favour of a melding Generic G1.

Well, no, that's his starting point, and then he moved off into other TF continuities and fiction. I agree with him that the approach was effective and well-used in Beast Wars, but that doesn't mean it would always work. Can you see the AEC trilogy as a vague background for Animated, for example? Or would the movie continuity easily tie into any other Transformers fiction?

Beast Wars had enough time between it and G1 (especially in the pre-internet/DVD days) that art was able to imitate life and the characters in Beast Wars had knowledge and memories of the G1 days that were clouded with the passage of time. And honestly, the mention of Primus aside, Beast Wars could be tied pretty explicitly into the cartoon universe with the events of Starscream's Ghost mentioned, and the sight of the Nemesis headed off into the hills where it would presumably crash in South America to be found in "Microbots". Primus was never mentioned in the G1 cartoon, but he could be retconned in along with sparks.

[Onslaught Six]

Actually his point is wandering closer to AHM in relation to the rest of the IDWverse. <.<

[andersonh1]

Actually his point is wandering closer to AHM in relation to the rest of the IDWverse. <.<

I thought it might have been. But I thought I'd take it at face value.