Continuity Errors

[Patrickivan]

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.

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

Yes it would... But really, you post here too, so what does that make you?

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.

A well thought out response. Continuity has to be contained within this particular universe. Otherwise nothing would make sense.

Hell, the opening sequence with the Kelvin clearly shows (on my large LG HD LCD TV!!!) a person in a small window, and an access hatch, that would make the Kelvin a lot smaller then the huge ship it's been made out to be. Yet another continuity error there. There's nothing wrong with bringing it up, and it doesn't turn into an issue until some asshole starts picking on someone for, let's say, "whinning" about it.

That said, Trek "fans" like to bring up this stuff for various reasons. Some simply to piss off others. Some people respond with asshole remarks and get away with them (you know who you are). But really, negative connotations aside, we're all fanboys to some extent and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only those who decided that it should be negative that made it so.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Erm, not to nitpick or anything (), but look at any picture of the Kelvin. Those windows are absolutely tiny on the hull.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

<snip>

A well thought out response. Continuity has to be contained within this particular universe. Otherwise nothing would make sense.

Hell, the opening sequence with the Kelvin clearly shows (on my large LG HD LCD TV!!!) a person in a small window, and an access hatch, that would make the Kelvin a lot smaller then the huge ship it's been made out to be. Yet another continuity error there. There's nothing wrong with bringing it up, and it doesn't turn into an issue until some asshole starts picking on someone for, let's say, "whinning" about it.

That said, Trek "fans" like to bring up this stuff for various reasons. Some simply to piss off others. Some people respond with asshole remarks and get away with them (you know who you are). But really, negative connotations aside, we're all fanboys to some extent and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only those who decided that it should be negative that made it so.

As you say, there's nothing wrong with bringing up such a detail as you mention for civil and reasoned discussion in open forum. I'd just as soon do without anyone picking on anyone else, though, and I can do without whining, as well.

The "some asshole" and "asshole remarks and get away with them (you know who you are)" portions of your post are a little more problematic. If you see what you think is "some asshole" making "asshole remarks" and "getting away with them," I would strongly urge you to make use of the Notify Moderator button (

) because calling-out of other posters in-thread is something else I can do without. If you're looking to start a brawl, take it to TNZ, take it to PM or take it off of TrekBBS altogether, because it's out of place here.