How much does canon violation annoy you?

[antiquityscion]

Being boxed in by canon was a huge problem for ENT, and the franchise in general by that point. It pretty much left rebooting as the only option, imo. I do very much appreciate consistency and continuity, but there's also a limit to how far you can take it before it gets in the way of entertainment.

Yeah, I can see that. Canon is great if it is back story, not "front" story. I think that is what helped TNG compared to hurting ENT. In TNG, Everything in TOS and movies to that point are considered history. They can pay homage to it, but they are far enough removed in the future that they are not constrained by TOS too much, story wise. ENT was completely boxed in, and when you have tons of fans who either read Trek-EU for years, or just simply had an idea in their had how things should have played out (like Idid, to a point; i wanted more Romulans, less to no Xindi ), it becomes a problem.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It only annoys me when I suspect it happens through carelessness or laziness on the writers' part, or when it makes the story worse. Canon violations that improve the story are fine by me.

 

[Finn]

Kazon space took up half of the DQ?

an exaggeration....but it seemed to span a pretty long distance.

Actually, they appeared to occupy a region between 1000 and 1500 light years (The Enterprise D travelled much further than that under normal warp travel), and for much of season two, the only Kazon we saw was Cullah and his crew, who was following Voyager because Seska wanted to have Voyager for herself.

So, no.

 

[The Wormhole]

VOY: Kazon space taking up half the delta quadrant​

No it doesn't. Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant would have taken 70 years, and they got through the Kazon's territory in two. Two is not half of seventy, not even close.

a picture on Picard's desk of a bald Tom Hardy as Picard, age 20 something, in a starfleet recruit uniform, when Picard clearly had hair in Tapestry.

What is wrong with bald Cadet Picard? He had his head shaved when the picture was taken and grew it back in Tapestry. That's not too much of a stretch to believe. Nemesis does have its flaws, and at times doesn't fit with established Trek continuity, but Cadet Picard being bald should be a non-issue.​

 

[BlobVanDam]

...but I'd rather them be a bit more free with canon than try to convince me that a cheap colourful wooden set was a ship from ~100 years into the future...

You know, I find this fucking insulting. The funny thing is, that bridge is every bit as "realistic" looking as anything that came after it. You do know that Star Trek was one of the more expensive series produced in its time?

I tip my hat to Enterprise for having the balls to show respect to those who made it possible way back in the 1960's. Enterprise season four felt like it was finally embracing it roots, instead of running from them like so much of Modern Trek did.

I felt that "embracing it's roots" in this instance just damaged the illusion of futuristic progression and realism. It may have been expensive in it's day, but it did not hold up to 2005 standards, and thus looked cheap.
What would have been ballsy would have been to make a new set for the Defiant, or modernize it slightly, rather than playing it super safe and pleasing the purists. They did their best with lighting, and definitely made the bridge set look it's best, but I wasn't buying the yellow pipes in the walls and red boxes. It was fun for nostalgia value, but was not a convincing story.

And how on Earth is that insulting? Unless you built or designed the set back in the 60's, there is nothing insulting about my statement.

 

[Freman]

What is wrong with bald Cadet Picard? He had his head shaved when the picture was taken and grew it back in Tapestry. That's not too much of a stretch to believe. Nemesis does have its flaws, and at times doesn't fit with established Trek continuity, but Cadet Picard being bald should be a non-issue.

^^ This. This is something I have said before. I've never understood the "bald cadet" thing, either.​

 

[Alex1939]

^

The problem with the bald young Picard, it is an insult to the audience. It's saying "the audience isn't smart enough to figure this out unless we make the young Picard in the photo bald."


Are canon violations the same as continuity violations? If not what exactly is the difference?

It annoys me and takes me out of the story when I catch something in an episode that totally contradicts something previously established. I don't lose sleep over it. But it does take away from the story.

 

[Finn]

^

The problem with the bald young Picard, it is an insult to the audience. It's saying "the audience isn't smart enough to figure this out unless we make the young Picard in the photo bald."

Actually, many people wouldn't have realized that. It may have been obvious to you, but there are those who wouldn't be able to connect the dots that way. I'm not talking about dumb people. I'm talking about educated people who might be already confused by the film (just because it was a trek movie regardless of the plot).


Some of them were the ones who posted on sites about movie goofs/mistakes about how Vulcan was destroyed in Star Trek 11 while it showed up in TNG.

 

[BillJ]

^

The problem with the bald young Picard, it is an insult to the audience. It's saying "the audience isn't smart enough to figure this out unless we make the young Picard in the photo bald."

Actually, many people wouldn't have realized that. It may have been obvious to you, but there are those who wouldn't be able to connect the dots that way. I'm not talking about dumb people. I'm talking about educated people who might be already confused by the film (just because it was a trek movie regardless of the plot).


Some of them were the ones who posted on sites about movie goofs/mistakes about how Vulcan was destroyed in Star Trek 11 while it showed up in TNG.

Why would the audience have trouble making a connection to an older balding man having hair when he was younger?

They already explained earlier that Shinzon and Picard came from the same DNA.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Since I can't think of a single thing off the top of my head, I'd have to say it doesn't bother me very much at all.

Big things can bother me, because that's just lazy writing in general, but again, I can't think of a thing off the top of my head.

 

[Finn]

Why would the audience have trouble making a connection to an older balding man having hair when he was younger?

Because people are people.

Look up the question section for many movies and tv shows on moviemistakes.com. A lot of those questions addressed issues that were pretty...as obvious as Picard holding that picture on Nemesis.

One cannot assume the people asking such questions are uneducated hicks. Some people just don't get some scenes. I used to watch Voyager with a guy. Every time there was a scene on a planet, he kept asking me if Voyager got back to Earth. He was an educated man who was familiar with trek (enough to know what a Ferengi was).

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I'm more annoyed by debates over canon violation than canon violations itself.

 

[JiNX-01]

Depends on how flagrant the violation is and how easy it is to smooth over. The only two across the entire franchise that really bother me are the use of cloaking devices in Enterprise (Unexpected, Minefield). If you're working on a TV series you should have a handle on the major story points that are already in place.

I do tend to take issues with the shows that can't seem to be consistent within themselves (looking at you Voyager). Though I do tend to give TOS a pass due to the differences in production and audience expectations in the 1960's.

Yup on both counts, especially on the lack of consistency within individual series.

As for continuity/canon from one series to the next, I can understand a writer forgetting something small. For example, In "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Kirk's grave marker has his middle initial as "R". Yet his middle name turns out to be Tiberius.

However, when an entire episode of Star Trek is devoted to Kirk and Co. discovering to their surprise that the Romulans have built a cloaking device in the 23rd century, I don't expect to see a cloak on a Romulan ship in the 22nd century.

23rd century: Clunky: Consistent with TOS.

22nd century: Sleek: Too reminiscient of 24th century, IMO.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I do tend to take issues with the shows that can't seem to be consistent within themselves (looking at you Voyager).

I tend to agree with this. I like the "slightly different universe" theory...makes me go "whatever" whenever there is an inconsistency from one show to the next. Within one show, things should be more or less consistent, otherwise it's just lazy writing.

 

[BillJ]

23rd century: Clunky: Consistent with TOS.

22nd century: Sleek: Too reminiscient of 24th century, IMO.

Differences in visual appearances don't really bother me. One was a trail blazer doing this type of show for the first time in a very rudimentary environment, the other came forty years later and had many more toys at their disposal.

All I ask is that it respect what came before.

 

[Gary7]

Cohesiveness and continuity feel good. And when done well, it makes the experience more pleasurable. Star Trek has tried to do this, succeeding in some respects and failing miserably in others. But mistakes can be forgiven and achievements celebrated.

I enjoy speculating about the details of what is told in a given Star Trek episode, debating about what is intended if ambiguous, what is simply a shortcoming, or what is just an outright error that can be overlooked or not. What annoys the hell out of me are people who seem obsessed to counter every argument with some kind of plausible explanation for what most people see as a mistake. Especially when you get the sense that some people live for the debate itself, not the actual content being discussed. I've seen a few people who will very, very seldom admit a Star Trek episode has a shortcoming/mistake, and would rather try to find some way to explain it to fit as intended (just not talked about or shown in the episode).

 

[JarodRussell]

Depends on the gravity of the violation, doesn't it?

Forgetting that Picard had hair in his Academy days vs. forgetting that Kirk had a son named David Marcus?

 

[Finn]

Who forgot David??

 

[lurok]

However, when an entire episode of Star Trek is devoted to Kirk and Co. discovering to their surprise that the Romulans have built a cloaking device in the 23rd century, I don't expect to see a cloak on a Romulan ship in the 22nd century.

Maybe they forgot or didn't report it (ditto the Borg in ENT).

Generally couldn't give a toss, but the baldie cadet Picard does irrationally bug me

 

[BillJ]

However, when an entire episode of Star Trek is devoted to Kirk and Co. discovering to their surprise that the Romulans have built a cloaking device in the 23rd century, I don't expect to see a cloak on a Romulan ship in the 22nd century.

Maybe they forgot or didn't report it (ditto the Borg in ENT).

I would seriously doubt it. They are getting the first glimpse of an enemy in a potential war. I'm sure everyone on the bridge had to write reports on exactly what they saw.

I chalk the Borg up to being buried by Starfleet Intelligence.