3 comments on “The Wounded

  1. I’d agree that the dark wings of The TNG Era start to spread here.

    If I can match your rhetorical question with another in kind: how deep can a character get if you start from zero in every episode? Is consistent characterization a different kind of thing from playing off prior events and developed backstory, and how does continuity of plot/metaplot affect a series differently from continuity (or even arcing) of characters?

    I keep going back and forth on whether I prefer TNG’s compact episodicity or DS9’s more intricate plots.

    • We paint characters with a broad brush. We can start from that and even reintroduce their nuances as the episode needs. Worf is a big guy and a Klingon. He’s serious and sometimes aggressive. That’s him, broadly. That he’s a dad and that he’s from Minsk and that he had a girlfriend that died and a wife that died and a brother who’s a massive douche can all be brought up as an episode needs.

      That broad stroke you introduce a character with can change over time as the character changes.

      I’d say, if we went “metaplot” v “continuity,” that continuity requires you to stop and explain irrelevant bullshit while metaplot is ongoing, but self-contained. The Romulan threat in TNG is a perfect example of metaplot. They bring up past engagements as necessary to explain this one, but there’s no references to them beyond what’s necessary to make this work.

      As far as TNG v DS9, I think they both executed on what they were trying to do, which is all you can ask of a series.

      • Alright, so basically minutiae that’s cherry-picked to help the episode go vs. minutiae that’s just indulgent backfill. That’s a fair complaint. Probably correlates with technobabble getting worse, too.

Comments are closed.