Case against continuity

[doctorbadwolf]

no even those have continuity. this sounds like star trek. hey um I've got this great story that doesn't fit lets reboot everything so I can do what i want.

Why did ratings fall. Wait you mean our ratings were up because people liked the story not my coolness?

I can’t think of any Star Trek that has done what you describe.

Whenever I think of a "cool" scene that has next to nothing to do with the overall story it brings me back to how much I hate Tom #%^#%# Bombadil.

That isn’t even an accurate read of Tom Bombadil…

I've always thought that the Bond movies were kind of weird from a narrative point of view. I can't seem to find it again now that I'm looking for it (of course), but I once read a reasonably compelling argument that they're all falling action, essentially starting at the climax and running through to the denouement. I think the rebooted movies have somewhat more traditional narratives (especially Casino Royale), but the older ones can be a bit loosey-goosey (to use a technical term). Anyhow, this is all to say that what I feel is the weirdness of the narratives of the Bond movies does feel like D&D to me. Things are happening, but is what's happening plot or narrative? Maybe yes, maybe it's just one-damn-thing-after-another.

The Craig Bond films at least have a narrative that weaves through all his movies with the finale being a culmination of the whole endeavor. IMO, other Bonds pale in comparison.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, I love story, but canon is an abyss.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Like roleplaying flash fiction essentially, the activity itself as a series of improv skit prompts that you play out for the fun of each skit, possibly with the same characters. I'm reminded of the board game Fog of Love as well, if you lean into the encouragement to roleplay. Strictly speaking, it would have continuity, but in practice its a series of episodes from throughout the relationship and each scene is essentially a random incident.

Not at my games.

 

[MGibster]

That isn’t even an accurate read of Tom Bombadil…

Feel free to make an argument then. Because Bombadil pretty much has %#%# to do with the rest of the story. You could excise him from the book and not miss a thing. His presence was not missed in the movie adaptation.

And if I seen a little snippy it's because I am. You could have provided me with some reason that you didn't think my reading was accurate and I would have accepted that. Instead you chose to just crap on me and leave it at that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Feel free to make an argument then. Because Bombadil pretty much has %#%# to do with the rest of the story. You could excise him from the book and not miss a thing. His presence was not missed in the movie adaptation.

And if I seen a little snippy it's because I am. You could have provided me with some reason that you didn't think my reading was accurate and I would have accepted that. Instead you chose to just crap on me and leave it at that.

I missed it. Actually IMHO the whole nature of Bombadil and his reaction to the One Ring is fairly essential. Tolkien is telling us what the story is really about.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Feel free to make an argument then. Because Bombadil pretty much has %#%# to do with the rest of the story. You could excise him from the book and not miss a thing.

Having a fantastical meeting serves as a bridge between the shire and the rest of the book.

His presence was not missed in the movie adaptation.

It was missed tremendously. It’s one of two major complaints I have been seeing for 20 years, alongside the Scouring of The Shire. (Lack of singing and the like being a bit behind those, with characterization issues wet Gimli and the hobbits)

And if I seen a little snippy it's because I am. You could have provided me with some reason that you didn't think my reading was accurate and I would have accepted that. Instead you chose to just crap on me and leave it at that.

I mean you crapped on a thing I love and left it at that, so I’ve little sympathy.

Anyway, the idea that only things that directly move the plot are good additions to a story is bunk nonsense, which is the argument you seem to be making here.

I’ve now provided much more argument than you did when you crapped on a beloved character and story.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Feel free to make an argument then. Because Bombadil pretty much has %#%# to do with the rest of the story. You could excise him from the book and not miss a thing. His presence was not missed in the movie adaptation.

And if I seen a little snippy it's because I am. You could have provided me with some reason that you didn't think my reading was accurate and I would have accepted that. Instead you chose to just crap on me and leave it at that.

You're right.

Bombadil was intended to be a major figure in the story, but as it moved from outline to rough draft Tolkien decided to go a different direction and dropped him. He later noted he should have excised him entirely.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I missed it. Actually IMHO the whole nature of Bombadil and his reaction to the One Ring is fairly essential. Tolkien is telling us what the story is really about.

Yeah it’s…not the same story without that segment.

The unanswered question of Tom’s true nature is great writing, as well.

 

[loverdrive]

Like roleplaying flash fiction essentially, the activity itself as a series of improv skit prompts that you play out for the fun of each skit, possibly with the same characters. I'm reminded of the board game Fog of Love as well, if you lean into the encouragement to roleplay. Strictly speaking, it would have continuity, but in practice its a series of episodes from throughout the relationship and each scene is essentially a random incident.

Ooooh it sounds really really interesting

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah it’s…not the same story without that segment.

The unanswered question of Tom’s true nature is great writing, as well.

Well, he certainly didn't explain where in the canonical Middle Earth cosmology Tom sits, but Tom DOES explain himself, IMHO. He's unfettered free will. Good of his own nature, without attachment to any creed or desire to control anything but his own life and his little place in the world. This is why the Ring has no hold over him, he cannot be dominated or influenced because he's free, almost like a Bodhisattva. Elrond explains that, in the end, Sauron would crush him, physically, but not in spirit. And if you go all the way back to the Ainulindali, you see that the primary theme is will. Tom is the axis of the story, he literally embodies the concept of free will, the essence of self which the power of Morgoth, and thus Sauron his servant, opposes.

Sure, it can be excised from the PLOT, but Tolkien left it in for a reason, IMHO, even if he sometimes second guessed himself.