I just put on the TNG episode where she first appeared and the Guinan in Picard doesn’t look the same! It’s proof the writers don’t care. <sarcasm>
Spoilers Can we itemize PIC S2 canonical mistakes.
- Thread starter joe40001
- Start date
I just put on the TNG episode where she first appeared and the Guinan in Picard doesn’t look the same! It’s proof the writers don’t care. <sarcasm>
Same!
It's a good thing we have Star Trek: Picard to help us come to terms with our own mortality.
The premise of this thread is strange, there’s so many things to be critical about, but the continuity errors? There might be some, but nothing crazy. The biggest one I’ve seen is the Times Arrow thing and you can just chalk that up to some kind of temporal paradox (none of the time travel stuff ever really made sense to me anyways).
Welcome to Star Trek/Star Wars/James Bond/Doctor Who/Transformers etc. etc. etc.
What if they knew, but thought it would serve the story they're telling now better if certain minor things were ignored?
Think of Scotty seeing Kirk die in Generations, but "later" in his life thinking Kirk had come to rescue him in "Relics". The Generations writer was 100% aware of the episode but chose to ignore it because he'd rather feature James Doohan one last time.
Or rather the Berman production had to work with what was available since the actors they really wanted to exploit, Nimoy & Kelley, refused to do it. If they got really desperate they'd ask Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett to play the parts; whatever Doohan and Koenig got were weightless roles in ST: VII.
How about me, who watched The Man Trap on September 8th, 1966?
My uncle always talks about being three weeks younger than Star Trek. Not entirely accurate, but close enough, he was born September 28, 1966.
Such things would fall under the "didn't care" part of what I said.
Isn't this a part of the evolving nature of storytelling? If a component makes the story more moving, emotionally resonant, or works better for the author then wouldn't they discard aspects that are superfluous?
IMO: Continuity is not superfluous. It is the foundation of the story mattering at all.
To some of the people here, I've got to say I'm frustrated and disappointed with the antagonism presented. Like I said from the beginning I wanted to discuss canonical criticisms of Picard. And if you were not interested in that you needn't engage. Even so, I'm ok with respectful disagreement, but to treat me like some ignorant jackass rather than a person who disagreed with your perspective, I feel was very unnecessary and rude.
I posted this topic on TrekBBS because it was my experience that people here were so in touch with canon that they can find details and canonical issues that even I missed. And because it was my experience that everybody here was the type of people able to disagree without being mocking or demeaning. I am disappointed (by a few of you) that such was not my experience this time.
It surprises me that apparently everybody in this subforum finds Picard free of canonical mistakes. I can only infer that the people who take issue with the show generally just don't hang around here.
So thank you to those who tried to engage respectfully. To those who were rude, I'd encourage you look in a mirror and ask yourself if it was warranted.
I posted this topic on TrekBBS because it was my experience that people here were so in touch with canon that they can find details and canonical issues that even I missed. And because it was my experience that everybody here was the type of people able to disagree without being mocking or demeaning. I am disappointed (by a few of you) that such was not my experience this time.
It surprises me that apparently everybody in this subforum finds Picard free of canonical mistakes. I can only infer that the people who take issue with the show generally just don't hang around here.
So thank you to those who tried to engage respectfully. To those who were rude, I'd encourage you look in a mirror and ask yourself if it was warranted.
With due respect, that has not been Star Trek's strength. So, to my mind, creating a list of canonical issue belongs in the "Nitpicker's Guide" rather than held out as proof a show's deficiencies. Continuity is like frosting to me. A nice flourish but hardly the full cake. Characters, emotional resonance, digging in to their mindset, that is my cake.
Picard is not full of canonical mistakes. It is all canon.
Wanting to smudge a detail to make a new story doesn't mean they didn't care.
Every series and movie is full of continuity bending when it was needed for the story at hand.
You would probably dislike Arthur Conan Doyle and Arthur C. Clarke's stories, they were very Laissez-faire when it came to continuity between their stories. Either forgetting details or retconning things in newer stories so they could do something new.
That's not true at all, it's just most of us don't focus on them because they're not that big of a deal.
Most can be explained way, like we have been doing since 1966.
Last edited:
I would respectfully ask you to post quotes from people that prove they were being rude to you. Because I read through this thread and couldn't find any. Disagreeing with your nitpick list is not being rude. Telling you that we have no interest in helping you make a rant video is not being rude. Perhaps it is you who should be doing the mirror-gazing.
Except that it's not.
Exactly so. "Watch me monetize my objections to a TV show or movie" is at least a nuisance of our age and sometimes seems a minor plague on the culture. To hell with all that.
I'm frustrated and disappointed that "fans" keep doing this kind of thing. We all live with our little irritants, no?
Which Trek do you hold up as your gold standard of continuity? TOS was all over the place on everything, TNG had a Federation space station conducting genetic engineering experiments openly before DS9 decided that stuff had been banned since 1996...
Similar threads
