Continuity Errors

[Timo]

Indeed, a route like this would seem to allow for the drop of three or four decks at reaching the shuttlebay area (red), then a short climb to the desired level (blue) and a flight out (yellow).



We'd just have to assume that the main shaft that serves the secondary hull runs along the top of that hull, in order to allow effortless passage despite the many pieces of bulky machinery and the many large cavities there. A shaft running along the bottom would also serve that purpose, but in this case Starfleet simply chose otherwise.

It wouldn't be difficult to believe that there is no shaft running all the way to the shuttlecraft shelves, either. Kirk's first ship didn't have such a lift, nor did the E-D appear to have one. Our heroes always walked at least one set length to reach that destination - except in ST5:TFF.

We've seen people beamed up while falling and sometimes they're re-oriented and sometimes not.

We've also seen that people move while "in the transporter beam". In fact, we see that people always move a little while in the beam - that's in the very nature of the visual trick, because the actors in location B cannot assume the exact same pose they held in location A. So we can just as well accept that the transporter is a device that allows the users to alter their bodily stance, their grip of equipment, and so forth, during transit.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[darkshadow0001]

Continuity errors? There are no continuity errors in Star Trek! Wherever did you get that idea?

I concur. No continuity errors in this film... we are now getting franchise cross-overs... (R2-D2, anyone? )

 

[F. King Daniel]

Another I've remembered: During the Kobayshi Maru scene, we get a close-up of McCoy's panel while the system is freaking out - but the close-up is actually a recycled close-up shot of the helm/nav station on the Enterprise. There is no panel like that on the Kelvin/simulator bridge.

(TMP and TWoK did similar - they both had close-ups of displays and buttons being pushed on panels found nowhere on the bridge)

 

[YARN]

Indeed, a route like this would seem to allow for the drop of three or four decks at reaching the shuttlebay area (red), then a short climb to the desired level (blue) and a flight out (yellow).



We'd just have to assume that the main shaft that serves the secondary hull runs along the top of that hull, in order to allow effortless passage despite the many pieces of bulky machinery and the many large cavities there. A shaft running along the bottom would also serve that purpose, but in this case Starfleet simply chose otherwise.

It wouldn't be difficult to believe that there is no shaft running all the way to the shuttlecraft shelves, either. Kirk's first ship didn't have such a lift, nor did the E-D appear to have one. Our heroes always walked at least one set length to reach that destination - except in ST5:TFF.


Timo Saloniemi

Ha!

Sure, if you want to draw rat mazes for the turbo lift to follow and if we extrapolate beyond the text to make assumptions about how Starfleet elected to lay out the decks, then yes.

I agree that it's not impossible, but....

... you have to add details not seen on screen to even make it plausible. And we're not talking about whether or not we're are told how warp drive works here or anything like that. We all know how elevators work.

It is, on it's face, inconsistent that we would see the elevator going down through several decks when the secondary hull is located above the bridge. It's something that (if you are paying attention) throws you out of the movie for a second - and for me that is as good a definition of a continuity flaw as any.

If, on the other hand, airtight proof of contradiction or impossibility is what is required (which is what you appear to allege in your post), then it is hard to think of what would count as a continuity flaw in a film. There is, after all, always a clever Timo who might extrapolate beyond the text to insert explanatory details. Was a uniform insignia missing in one scene? Well, we'll just suppose that McCoy removed it for a second and then put it back on. Maybe the velcro was loose that morning and it fell off and then he put it back on. Perhaps starfleet badges cause minor skin irritation - he removed it for a second and then replaced it. Or perhaps the emblems are holographic? In that case they might only be viewable from certain angles.

Again, I think that if we worked hard enough, we could come up with a good enough explanation to at least come up with a "possible" explanation for most oddities in terms of continuity. But at the point that we have to engage in such imaginative apologetics, shouldn't we suspect that the fault lies with the film?

I've got to give it you though. The maze idea is imaginative and if you are simply arguing in terms of bare possibility, then I agree with your point entirely.

If you don't agree with me that it is a continuity flaw, OK.

But surely, you must agree that it was curious to see the turbo lifting descending through all those decks?

Cheers,

YARN

 

[F. King Daniel]

The area Robau exits the lift into is so huge, I wonder if it's the centre of a hollow saucer and not the engineering hull. That way, the lift going down isn't an error - the top of that shaft could be the bridge deck. It would require an unseen second lift ride up, or maybe he climbed a lot more stairs than we saw.

Just a thought.

 

[Set Harth]

^Except there are other shots where the saucer is clearly much bigger. The pic on page 3 of the "Art of" book shows the Mayflower's saucer is double the diameter of the Enterprise's.

Whatever the exact sizes are, it's obvious they change between scenes.

Yes, there's a big difference between this:http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_3409.jpg

and this:http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_3418.jpg

 

[kkozoriz1]

The Enterprise hadn't yet turned on it "Size-O-Matic" drive yet.

 

[Timo]

Yes, there's a big difference between this:http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star...rTrek_3409.jpg
and this:http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star...rTrek_3418.jpg

Not just a size difference - those are completely different saucers!

The first, large one is cut in half and has a dent to five o'clock and a hole to seven o'clock. The pennants read "LOWER" and "162" or something like that. Might be the reputed Mayflower, which apparently reached Vulcan before the ships sent from Earth did, as this name was not listed among the Earth-launched ships.

The second, Enterprise-sized one has more than half remaining, has a dent to seven o'clock and no hole (not even at five o'clock, in case you're wondering if the thing might be flipping around the vertical axis, which it doesn't seem to be doing anyway). When the angle changes, we can see that the "NCC" part of the pennant is intact. This cannot be the same piece of wreckage any more.

This might show the hero ship approaching the first piece of wreckage. It's the shot immediately preceding the first encounter, at any rate:

http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_3405.jpg

The damage on that half-saucer doesn't match, though. So we already have to accept that several seconds are left unshown to us, that the heroes successfully navigate past several pieces of wreckage seemingly on their path.

When the camera switches to a position behind the Enterprise, it appears that the heroes clear their first, half-saucer obstacle without effort or comment - and certainly it wouldn't be smart for Pike to command Sulu to go under it when starboard would be so much easier. Apparently, when the camera cuts away to the bridge, some time (albeit mere seconds) is lost and our heroes come face to face with another saucer of smaller dimensions and lesser damage - and that's what Pike decides is best avoided by going under.

Not every "continuity error" is. Sometimes we just don't pay enough attention...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JJAdams]

I beg to differ. It looks to me like they are the same saucer. The size just changed. It appears to be another "mirrored" shot that KingDaniel mentioned earlier. In every shot, there is a large saucer that is cut in half with a chunk missing from the curved side. However, the only things that change are the size of the saucer and where the chunk is. Either the saucer is rotating, or it is a mirrored shot error. Either way, it's the same saucer in each shot and it changes sizes.

 

[Timo]

It's most definitely not the same CGI construct. The first saucer seen from behind the ship has the number part of the registry remaining, while the second has the NCC part - different textures altogether. And the holes and serrated edges don't match.

Plus, we get a perfectly nicely working timing for the sequence: the ship passes three saucers roughly in the time suggested by its speed in the side view...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JJAdams]

They look the same to me. Even the "V" shaped chunk cutout looks the same on all three. The textures and colors look the same to me as well. I'll have to watch the scene over again to check the sequence. I haven't seen the movie in several months.

 

[F. King Daniel]

At the very start of the film, we get a shot of the USS Kelvin flying close to a star, toward the "lightning storm in space" they've been sent to investigate. Captain Robau steps onto the bridge and is told "We're still out of visual range".

We just saw the Kelvin and the lightning storm in the same shot!

 

[Landed]

These are actual good continuity errors, as opposed to "this isn't exactly like that other thing I saw in Trek once, wahhhh!"

Which would still be a continuity error.

 

[T'Girl]

At the end of the film, Spock's beamed up while sitting in the Jellyfish's cockpit, hunched over the controls - but he rematerializes on the Enterprise standing up.

In TWOK, Terrel and Chekov materialize in spacesuits, in a duststorm. Chekov materializes with one knee raised, his foot upon a rock.

Maybe Chekov has a little Captain Morgan in him?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

These are actual good continuity errors, as opposed to "this isn't exactly like that other thing I saw in Trek once, wahhhh!"

Which would still be a continuity error.

No, it wouldn't - obsessing about contradictions in canon is fanboy stuff, not film continuity.

 

[Jack Bauer]

These are actual good continuity errors, as opposed to "this isn't exactly like that other thing I saw in Trek once, wahhhh!"

Which would still be a continuity error.

No, it wouldn't - obsessing about contradictions in canon is fanboy stuff, not film continuity.

It's one of the most annoying of the fanboy traits. Way too much obsession with trivialities.

 

[YARN]

Which would still be a continuity error.

No, it wouldn't - obsessing about contradictions in canon is fanboy stuff, not film continuity.

It's one of the most annoying of the fanboy traits. Way too much obsession with trivialities.

Wouldn't most people view those who post on this website as being fanboys???

I agree that the issue of film continuity (internal coherence) should be kept seperate from the issue of canonical continuity (external coherence), but the thread only designates "continuity errors" as the topic of conversation without any particular specification. Moreover, I am well aware of the author's intent since I am the OP. I had no explicit limitation in mind.

We can certainly steer our conversation into the direction of film continuity alone, if that works best, but it seems unfair to say that continuity only refers to one level of the narrative.

Part of what makes the Trek universe interesting is that there is actually a universe of which we can speak! We have layers of connectivity between franchises to relish and simmer in which is somewhat rare. For example, would a fan of Tolkein blush at the idea of comparing details from The Hobbit to The Silmarillion? Part of what makes this sort of geekdom engaging is that we have a rich tapestery of stories in which we may luxuriate. Of course it doesn't all hold together as one big narrative, but part of the fun of this brand of geekery is doing boundary-work to find where the joints don't quite meet right.

On the other hand, it is very apparent that the Nu-Trek (winking assurances to hard core fans aside) is meant to be a clean break from the old Star Trek, so I don't know how productive it really is to explore this new film in terms of external canonical continuity. Again, it may be better to limit (at least for the most part) our dicussion to film continuity. Nevertheless, it still seems a bit unfair to seize the word "continuity" from those interested in canon. Live and let live.

 

[Landed]

These are actual good continuity errors, as opposed to "this isn't exactly like that other thing I saw in Trek once, wahhhh!"

Which would still be a continuity error.

No, it wouldn't - obsessing about contradictions in canon is fanboy stuff, not film continuity.

I will have to disagree with you here. Contradictions in canon are applicable to film continuity if said film is meant to be part of a greater whole. It's akin to watching a trilogy where the main character's race and gender change without explanation after being firmly established in the first film and affirmed in the second.

In other words, "obsessing" is a matter of opinion.

 

[Vurok]

Canon violations are continuity errors, they are more likely to occur in Trek than any other movie due to the universe it has created. One of the best things about Trek is that it has created its own universe that is as non-contradictory as possible.

I don't think that XI has rendered canon obselete, all of the facts of the Trekverse remain true in the nu-niverse - only subsequent history is non-canon in the nu-niverse. Statements about the physical facts of the universe, e.g. potential warp speeds or species history up to that point, would remain canon even if they were uttered by Picard or Janeway who for all we know, may never exist.

 

[Set Harth]

Maybe Chekov has a little Captain Morgan in him?

Sounds good.