What continuity errors are there on Voyager?

I think you might have misunderstand my point.

If the line of dialouge re: number of torpedeo's wasn't in the episode. Then you don't have a problem. Because without that line the ship could have been carrying 300 torpedeos for all we know as an audiance.

By including that line the writers obviously wanted to draw attention to the fact that they had limited torpedeo's with no way to replace them. (I'm sure someone will be able to the quote the line exactly). Now writing 101 would say you don't mention something like that if you later on plan ignoring it when it becomes inconveniant to the story. Unless you explain at some point about how you where able to overcome the issue. Not to do so treats your audiance as idiots.

It doesn't matter which media you use to tell your story.

As for Moore's comment, It's been a while since I read it but the impression I got was your audiance is not a bunch of idiots so don't treat them as such. You can't expect them to believe that the ship would look like it had just left Utopia at the start of each new story. Beliveability is paramount. Lets say you take your car to a part of the world where spare parts are not readily availble for it, and a part breaks how do you replace it? Lets say you manage to find a part that fits/works would it look like it orignally belonged on your car colour/material etc...

 

Looks like this is it: http://www.lcarscom.net/rdm1000118.htm

There's no mention of Year of Hell though. I'm pretty sure it was the other producers, not Moore, who wanted YoH to be a full season. But nobody ever said they wanted it to be the entire series.

These are Moore's relevant comments about taking damage and such:

I don't see anything in there about "the ship becoming hopelessly crippled and the crew's hope being destroyed".

And here are his thoughts on the reset button:

Anwar says Moore doesn't understand why the reset button exists. If you read the bolded section, I think it's quite clear that he understands very well. He just doesn't agree that it needs to, and I'd say he makes a decent argument for that opinion.


Looks like Anwar is just making stuff up again.

 

an interview from 2008...

part one.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-on-breaking-out-of-the-box/

part two.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/21/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-fighting-the-trek-cliches/

part three

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/24/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-talks-movies-past-and-future/

It's not really as negative as people make out, if you take it all in the correct context.

12 seconds and google people.

 

I'm sorry but then the audience is pretty stupid if they can't figure out that a ship that can land on a planets surface can be repaired without a starbase or that after B'Elanna is promoted to Chief Engineer that one of her featured eps. is about how she understands the in and outs of the engineering behind a torpedo.(Dreadnaut) They covered their asses again when they showed the ship repaired in "Nightingale" because they knew the audience still kept asking.
I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes along the way but I also think that after watching 7 years of TNG, that they didn't need to hold our hands to explain details we should already know. I'm not saying the show has no flaws, because it's got a few but some of these issues really don't need to be verbally explained IMO. Isn't it believed Trekkies are smart enough to work for NASA?
The real errors are the Borg Baby, why the would Tuvok & Janeway still encourage Kes to develope her powers knowing she'd use them as an excuse to come back and kill try to kill them or why the hell there's no Millennium Gate if Trek is tired directly into our universe.
Not even fanwank can explain those away.

 

I don't know why anyone even comes in here and argues with the two posters who simply can't acknowledge any of Voyager's errors whatsoever. Its like throwing water into a bottomless well, its completely futile. You can provide the most convincing arguments in the universe regarding all of Voyager's continuity errors and flaws, and you STILL won't get anywhere with them as they come up with the tired, lame old comebacks like "Voyager didn't treat you like you were stupid, so it didn't tell you stuff".

I would stop trying to convince them and just be assured that the majority of reasonable people with fully functioning brains agree with you.

 

Its impossible to argue with Anwar. He will endlessly resort to hyperbole and exaggeration no matter how many times you tell him how transparently stupid that is as an attempt to win an argument. And it basically renders it nearly impossible to have a decent debate at all. You're never going to convince Anwar, his opinions are firmly held in stasis and aren't going anywhere. Same goes for another couple of posters on this board. Its a waste of breath

 

Anwar thinks Daleks should have feet.

Everything else is rainbows.

 

If Moore didn't mean that, he shouldn't have used as an example an episode where the end product of VOY is the ship being hopelessly crippled and the crew's hope utterly dashed.

Moya in Farscape always looked the same (externally) every episode despite taking damage that should leave external scarring. No one complained there.

No, I think they should always be hovering a bit off the ground and not roll on the floor at all.

 

And this is the same show that's afraid continuity will confuse everyone...

For starters, he did not. Provide evidence that he did, or stop mentioning it.

For the 147th time, nobody cares.

 

Is that an official statement by those running the show?

 

In essence, yes it is. I'm actually somewhat shocked that you're questioning this. Are you denying that they wanted to avoid continuity between episodes so people can watch them out of order without getting confused? Is that not the decision you have been defending in countless of your posts?

And let's not forget:

That's quite an opposite sentiment to "Voyager doesn't need to explain anything because its viewers are all NASA geniuses".

 

He says the show should've been like YoH, and I've explained to you what the end result of YoH was.

I don't care about your narrow-mindedness, Farscape is a similar enough plot that folks should complain about them doing the same thing VOY gets critiqued for. But no one does.

 

No. See, there's the problem. He doesn't say that. He never mentioned YoH whatsoever in the interview where you claimed that he did.

Provide evidence that he did say it. Or stop mentioning it.

What folks? What evidence do you have that we have even watched Farscape? I know I haven't. What evidence do you have that no one critiques Farscape?

It's simple, Anwar. Unless someone mentions their opinion of Farscape, you have no basis whatsoever for attacking that opinion, which may or may not exist in any form.

I could just as easily use the Anwarian Farscape Tactic to attack your own opinion. Like so: Anwar likes Voyager, but he doesn't like Farscape. Anwar is so inconsistent! You see the problem there? I made up the idea that you don't like Farscape, even though you never said so. It's easy to make points like this when you consider it fair game to blatantly declare what other people believe regardless of whether they gave any indication that they do, even if they've clearly stated the exact opposite opinion.

Provide evidence of our statements regarding Farscape. Or stop mentioning it.

 

Handbags at dawn in here isn't it?

 

I know, it's just so crazy.....

 

That just sounds so defeatist!

 

Join me and together we shall bring sanity back to the proceedings!

 

Nah, I'm not big on sanity I'm afraid.

Let the anarchy continue!

 

But don't you want to be in charge of the anarchy? Deep down?