What is THE Worst continuity error in Trek history..?!

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Evidently. But they never actually TOLD us that or explained how the Klingon lifecycle actually works.

So now instead of just SHOWING us, they have to TELL us...as opposed to the case of Chekov/Khan, where instead of just TELLING us, they have to SHOW us?

This has, of course, lead to speculation that both Worf wasn't much older than 8 or 9 Earth years old when he joined Starfleet

Well, there was in fact a cut scene from "Resurrection" (DS9) in which Worf stated he was already an ensign on active duty aboard U.S.S. Hawk at the age of 17. If Starfleet Academy training takes at least four years, then Worf would have been no older than 13 when he joined. Sure, it's not explicitly canon since the scene was cut, but it's a bit more than just pure speculation.

 

[BillJ]

It's possible that Chekov brought him a cup of coffee or some skittles off camera, but TWOK's "I never thought I'd see your face again" implies ALOT more familiarity than that.

Or it implies that Khan REALLY likes skittles. YMMV.

Maybe Chekov pissed in his Cheerios.

 

[BillJ]

Well, there was in fact a cut scene from "Resurrection" (DS9) in which Worf stated he was already an ensign on active duty aboard U.S.S. Hawk at the age of 17. If Starfleet Academy training takes at least four years, then Worf would have been no older than 13 when he joined. Sure, it's not explicitly canon since the scene was cut, but it's a bit more than pure speculation.

But it may have been cut because it didn't make any sense?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

But it may have been cut because it didn't make any sense?

Why doesn't it make sense, given what we saw of Alexander's development? I once thought it might have been because TNG had said or showed that Worf joined the Academy in 2357 as is stated in the Okudas' Chronology, but it turns out this was their own conjecture and was never in an episode. (Of course, as stipulated, neither was the DS9 scene ultimately.)

 

[eyeresist]

KIRK: Captain's log: How am I recording this log in the middle of an emergency situation, and why am I recording my musings about people motivations instead of doing something about it? This makes my head hurt. Spock, give me a neck rub. *sound of Kirk falling to ground unconscious*

 

[The Wormhole]

Evidently. But they never actually TOLD us that or explained how the Klingon lifecycle actually works.

Does it actually need to be stated? You can't just see the evidence on screen and work it out for yourself?

 

[TwoJakes]

The Enterprise Incident. You know, the episode where the Romulans have invented a cloaking device....

No, at least not a new invention. I believe in a earlier script, what they stole was a advanced prototype, hence Spock's comment that the Romulans themselves would be unable to track a ship with it.

 

[Solariabsg25]

No, at least not a new invention. I believe in a earlier script, what they stole was a advanced prototype, hence Spock's comment that the Romulans themselves would be unable to track a ship with it.

Of course this is the 1960's. pre-VCR, where people would watch an episode and then probably never get to see it again. Balance of Terror was probably just a dim memory to audiences watching The Enterprise Incident, so minor script changes would easily be made with an air of 'like they'll remember'.

Even in the world of VCRs, Red Dwarf's Dave Lister had his appendix removed TWICE!

 

[eyeresist]

Anyone remember recording TV shows on audio tape? A unique way to experience a show, which younger people will never know.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So now instead of just SHOWING us, they have to TELL us...as opposed to the case of Chekov/Khan, where instead of just TELLING us, they have to SHOW us?

It's a continuity error either way. You can supply a retcon to EXPLAIN a continuity error (or you can hang a lampshade on it like Koenig did) but errors are still errors, explained or not.

Well, there was in fact a cut scene from "Resurrection" (DS9) in which Worf stated he was already an ensign on active duty aboard U.S.S. Hawk at the age of 17. If Starfleet Academy training takes at least four years, then Worf would have been no older than 13 when he joined. Sure, it's not explicitly canon since the scene was cut, but it's a bit more than just pure speculation.

Well even that's assuming that the Hawk was Worf's first assignment. He came aboard the Enterprise as a Lieutenant, so for all we know that could have been his last assignment just before his promotion to Tactical on the Enterprise.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does it actually need to be stated? You can't just see the evidence on screen and work it out for yourself?

Clearly we can, and all of us definitely did. But again, the fact that you can EXPLAIN an error doesn't change the fact that it IS an error.

A similar example is the constantly-changing appearance and apparent age of Tora Ziyal. This is basically because they kept changing the actress who played her part for various reasons; it's not really an "error" since they did it on purpose with the assumption that we're not SUPPOSED to notice the sudden changes (not unlike Worf's forehead or the sudden change in appearance of the Trill between TNG and DS9) so no in-universe explanation is or will ever be forthcoming. It would be a sort of different matter, OTOH, if Gul Dukat suddenly started telling people that Ziyal was his only child, especially after the big emotional spiel he gave in "The Defiant." We could potentially explain it by saying that Dukat's family was killed by the Klingons and we just never heard about it, but the OOU reason would likely be "Writers forgot that scene."

 

[Anwar]

You have a point about Dukhat...why did he care so much about his illegitimate daughter and never ONCE did he try to reconnect with his other children?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ After Ziyal's existence became known, Dukat's wife left him and took all their other children with her. So Ziyal was all he had left.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Well even that's assuming that the Hawk was Worf's first assignment.

Hence the phrasing "no older than 13," conditional upon Academy training generally taking at least four years. It also assumes he wasn't merely an acting "ensign" as Wesley Crusher was before he went to the Academy.

He came aboard the Enterprise as a Lieutenant, so for all we know that could have been his last assignment just before his promotion to Tactical on the Enterprise.

Worf was born circa 2340 as per "Sins Of The Father" (TNG) and "The Bonding" (TNG) so even if he'd had no other assignments between the Hawk and Enterprise, he was definitely not still in his teens in 2364 if that's your suggestion here.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Anyone remember recording TV shows on audio tape? A unique way to experience a show, which younger people will never know.

And they'll be thankful for it. You need to see the visuals in a TV show, audio alone won't cut it, unlike the radio serials where they compensated by being more descriptive. Example: Superman saying "Up...Up...and Away!" To let the audience know he was flying off.

 

[Anwar]

^ After Ziyal's existence became known, Dukat's wife left him and took all their other children with her. So Ziyal was all he had left.

I'm talking about after he became the Warlord of Cardassia.

 

[The Wormhole]

Clearly we can, and all of us definitely did. But again, the fact that you can EXPLAIN an error doesn't change the fact that it IS an error.

Is it an error though? The writers of TNG were clearly aware how old Alexander is supposed to be, they even acknowledge it in New Ground when he give a stardate from season 3 as his birthdate, making him two years old in that episode. The fact they intentionally cast a ten years old child to play him means it was their intent all along that Klingons age quicker. Just because it's not spoonfed to the audience doesn't mean the writers or producers made a mistake, they're just not providing what should be pretty obvious information. What next, if the new series doesn't make a direct reference to oxygen in the first season are you going to say that no where in the new series is it canon that the characters are breathing oxygen because it was never said so on screen?

I'm talking about after he became the Warlord of Cardassia.

Maybe he punished them for shunning him?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Is it an error though?

Yes.

The writers of TNG were clearly aware how old Alexander is supposed to be...

Ronald D. Moore was aware of it, but Ronald D. Moor didn't directly write the Alexander stories in TNG.

Just because it's not spoonfed to the audience doesn't mean the writers or producers made a mistake, they're just not providing what should be pretty obvious information.

Which, IF that was something they actually thought through as a plot point, would be relevant.

But Alexander didn't go through Soap Opera Rapid Aging because of (or in order to establish the fact) that Klingons age faster. It happened because filming an episode with a one-year-old Klingon toddler would be dramatically unsatisfying since Alexander would be WAY too young to really understand what just happened to his mother and wouldn't be able to bond with Worf in that context.

Basically: Alexnader's rapid aging had nothing to do with his being a Klingon and everything to do with Duras killing K'Ehleyr. The fact that he would need to be at least four years old for the story to work the way it does is all the explanation we need for why that error went (deliberately) uncorrected.

What next, if the new series doesn't make a direct reference to oxygen in the first season are you going to say that no where in the new series is it canon that the characters are breathing oxygen because it was never said so on screen?

That depends. If one character mentions that the engine room has decompressed and thirty seconds later we see a couple of people walking around IN the engine room without space suits or breathing gear, I'm going to expect that somewhere between those two scenes it is established that the engine room now has oxygen.

But sometimes they screw up, and the two scenes run back to back, and that particular plot point either doesn't get filmed or doesn't make it into the actual episode, or the space suit props they planned to use for that scene turn out to be cumbersome and horrible and they reshoot the scene without the space suits but then forget to change the earlier line about the room being decompressed. When that happens, we call it a "continuity error" and then we, the fans, make up a bunch of satisfying and well-reasoned rationalizations after the fact in order to maintain our suspension of disbelief, just like you're doing now.

What continues to puzzle me is why you keep chiming in to claim that continuity errors AREN'T continuity errors just because you can come up with an explanation for them. This is like me saying "There was a spelling error in this morning's news paper" and you saying "How's that an error? Everybody knows what that word is supposed to be. Maybe they spelled it wrong on purpose just to be funny?"

 

[The Wormhole]

Ronald D. Moore was aware of it, but Ronald D. Moor didn't directly write the Alexander stories in TNG.

But he did write Reunion, the episode you claim made this "error."

What continues to puzzle me is why you keep chiming in to claim that continuity errors AREN'T continuity errors just because you can come up with an explanation for them. This is like saying "There was a spelling error in this morning's news paper" and you saying "How's that an error? Everybody knows what that word is supposed to be."

You haven't satisfactorily explained how Alexander's rapid aging is an error. He was the first Klingon child seen in all Star Trek. In fact, prior to his introduction, nowhere is it ever stated how Klingons age, or how fast their children grow. Showing Alexander looking like he's four or five when he is in fact only a year old doesn't contradict any earlier information, and is therefore not an error. IMO, you are making the error in assuming all alien races must mature and age and grow at the same rate humans do.

That depends. If one character mentions that the engine room has decompressed and thirty seconds later we see a couple of people walking around IN the engine room without space suits or breathing gear, I'm going to expect that somewhere between those two scenes it is established that the engine room now has oxygen.

So you're wiling to do that much, but entertaining the idea that an alien species grows at a different rate is crossing the line?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But he did write Reunion, the episode you claim made this "error."

He (co)wrote the teleplay, not the story it was derived from.

You haven't satisfactorily explained how Alexander's rapid aging is an error. He was the first Klingon child seen in all Star Trek. In fact, prior to his introduction, nowhere is it ever stated how Klingons age, or how fast their children grow...

And Alexander's back story wasn't intended to establish that either (and even DS9 stories written directly by RDM never actually bothered to do that). It wasn't relevant so it was -- and still is -- ignored. The element was introduced for dramatic reasons, not characterization reasons.

Another example: Geordi LaForge being named Chief Engineer at the start of Season 2. The previous season, he was a helmsman in the command track and not actually an engineer of ANY kind, so his suddenly being assigned that position comes pretty much out of nowhere. Yes, we can definitely explain that by assuming something happened off-stage... but then, that's been true of continuity errors since at least Shakespear's time.

So you're wiling to do that much, but entertaining the idea that an alien species grows at a different rate is crossing the line?

What "line" are you talking about? It's a continuity error. There are ways to RECONCILE it if you think about it hard enough ("A wizard did it!" / "Hey, Klingons age faster, okay?") but it's still an error.