What is THE Worst continuity error in Trek history..?!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
- Status
In Voyager's season 3 episode "Scorpion" they could not lock on to the combadge/s and so they used a skeletal lock to effect a transport.
In "Once Upon A Time", two seasons later, the crew was unable to transport Samantha Wildman, Ensign Paris and Commander Tuvok without first using phaser drills. Why didn't they simply lock on to the skeletons, widen the field a little and beam them out/up the same way they did back then?
In "Once Upon A Time", two seasons later, the crew was unable to transport Samantha Wildman, Ensign Paris and Commander Tuvok without first using phaser drills. Why didn't they simply lock on to the skeletons, widen the field a little and beam them out/up the same way they did back then?
I honestly think the most notorious "continuity error" in the whole franchise is :
"But yoooooouuuu....I never forget a faaaacce....Missster.......CHEKOV?????? Isn't it?"
And since we have given virtually blanket forgiveness for that massive mis-step, I think everything else can probably slide.
"But yoooooouuuu....I never forget a faaaacce....Missster.......CHEKOV?????? Isn't it?"
And since we have given virtually blanket forgiveness for that massive mis-step, I think everything else can probably slide.
I never saw that as a problem. I just figured Khan and Chekov took a piss next to each other in the never seen Enterprise Men's Room during "Space Seed".
I never saw that as a problem. I just figured Khan and Chekov took a piss next to each other in the never seen Enterprise Men's Room during "Space Seed".
Precisely! If we can create reasonable "back story" to explain this continuity error, we can easily do that for other places as well.
I actually think the explanation that Chekov was a member of the crew all the time is a perfectly reasonable explanation. He may have been the 3rd shift Auxiliary Control guy for all we know...and just never saw him because DeSalle and other random guys were rotating 1st shift navigator. When they realized that Chekov was capable of being a navigator AND backup science officer, he probably got the nod.
I shouldn't have said "other random guys..." Bailey, Stiles, and Riley are hardly random I suppose.
Interesting how the "guest of the week" for the ship-board shows was typically the navigator until Chekov joined the crew.
I liked the guest of the week that we got a lot of times in various bridge positions. Made the Enterprise feel like a ship with a large crew.
Agreed, though I'm not sure I like "Undine" as a name. But, at least they have a name...sort of.
I think SF Debris is very reflective, but he will take the opportunity to make ridiculous jokes and poke fun at things and episodes, even if he finds them enjoyable. I mean, his tag line IS "Serious Analysis. Silly Behavior."
I don't think he should be taken as seriously as many do. But, I also find him highly entertaining, and he is willing to do more research on episodes as part of his show and have learned a lot as part of it. I also laugh a lot, which is the reason I listen.
"B-6"
"Hit!"
The name "Undine" is only used in ST Online. The rest of the litverse still calls them Species 8472.
Yeah, that's why I said "sort of." Obvious, their name is not canon. We "non-fluidic space" aliens are not allowed to know their name or even speak it.
Just on the B4 thing maybe they didn't go with B9 for copyright reasons, after all that is the proper designation for the Robot in Lost In Space. He's specifically a model B9 environmental control robot.
He's the number one guy anyone points to when they say the entire show was a catastrophe.
I did, and still do.
They accepted it, though.
Nowadays, both are more accepted.
Seeing that's what the show itself did...
Sure. Doesn't make him the spokesperson, or the authority on the subject. Just means that he is prolific in his work, and is easy to refer to. I see CinemaSins often referred to as well, but that doesn't make it the authority on filmmaking.
I still see hostility towards TMP, TWOK and ENT, and especially Abrams Trek.
Depends on who you ask.
LOL-no, not even close. Abrams Trek still gets derided, and Abrams mocked.
Um, no. The show never called out itself on its own hypocrisy. The TNG crew were happy looking down on the 20th century humanity, though it was toned down far more after the early seasons.
Thinking on this... Probably one of the most notorious, in that it's never been explained to my knowledge, is McCoy's reference in "The Conscience of the King" to Vulcan being conquered.
About the only thing I can suggest is that McCoy was drinking in that scene.
I think a possibility for Khan knowing who Chekov was is that Khan had reviewed the files of the ship's compliment as part of his plan to take over the ship. To see who was expendable and who wasn't.
Isn't the "official" story that Chekov made khan wait for the toilet and, when he came out, Khan went in to discover the good Ensign had used all the toilet paper?
To the point that the Fandom takes his word as Gospel.
It's mainly passed for those other ones, but Abrams gets it mainly because they see too much "modern" stuff in his approach. And TOSers have always disliked modernity.
Mainly by those who just dislike Modern Film in general.
Just like people today are happy to look down on their own ancestors, without anyone realizing that maybe in the future people will do the same to them.
Maybe that should tell you that Voyager's issues exist for many, many Star Trek fans. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be a fan of the show.
Then perhaps you should be arguing against the Fandom and telling them not to take his word as Gospel...whomever that is.
I know a number of "TOSers" who would disagree. Please stop painting with such a broad brush about these groups. It is not a unified whole.
Um, also incorrect. One of the most ardent detractors of the film I know of is a friend who works in the film industry and works on modern film projects.
So, I shouldn't be offended because it's been done by others? That makes it ok?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
