What is THE Worst continuity error in Trek history..?!
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
- Status
Chekov wore a purple turtleneck in TWOK, which is also what colour Uhura wore, perhaps setting the precedent for communications being related to science which Enterprise later went with by having Hoshi wear blue. Although Memory Alpha claims navigators also wore purple, which doesn't make a lot of sense considering helmsman don't. Of course, the trouble is as the TOS movies went on, the less effort went into trying to make those uniforms and their colours consistent.
And it's a vary pale color. They aren't really all that vibrant at all.
This. The mere existence of the Enterprise NX-01 yet not appearing on any of the memory walls TMP or TNG. The explanation that the NX-01 wasn't a Federation Starfleet ship doesn't matter. The shuttle Enterprise and the Ringship weren't Federation Starfleet either, and neither was the aircraft carrier Enterprise, yet they are all on the memory walls.
The NX-01 was a very historic ship and would have been included on those walls. It accomplished more for the entire Earth and even the Federation than the orbiter. The NX-01's first captain went on to be a historic Federation figure.
Why should the writers be hamstrung by a set decoration that's on screen for only a few minutes? Both memory walls leave out various Enterprises.
Not this shit again. 
Why would TMP or TNG be expected to mention the NX-01 at all, given that 1) the rec room wall sequences only mention some Enterprises, not ALL of them (for instance, both the TMP and TNG sequences only mention one aircraft carrier each, when we know there were two), and 2) Star Trek: Enterprise had not even been thought of by the writers at that point.
So how, logically, can TMP or TNG be expected to reference a ship from a TV series that had yet to exist?
Why would TMP or TNG be expected to mention the NX-01 at all, given that 1) the rec room wall sequences only mention some Enterprises, not ALL of them (for instance, both the TMP and TNG sequences only mention one aircraft carrier each, when we know there were two), and 2) Star Trek: Enterprise had not even been thought of by the writers at that point.
So how, logically, can TMP or TNG be expected to reference a ship from a TV series that had yet to exist?
I think there are some decently sized continuity errors from ENT BUT no worse than those in any other series, and nothing that isn't really unexcusable. Every continuity error can be explained away, whether from elaborate fanon theories to the simple "Everytime you see something like that, it's because of time travellers causing a butterfly effect" explanation.
It's nearly impossible to keep continuity 100% straight in on series (a lot of 2 hour movies even fail at it) let alone a franchise as expansive as Trek and writers shouldn't be hamstrung by minor contradictions in the pursuit of the bigger picture.
If it comes down to a great story and strict continuity, the great story should always win out.
*Note: I am in no way calling Ent a great story, I thought it was pretty horrid for the most part, but that's merely my subjective opinion.
It's nearly impossible to keep continuity 100% straight in on series (a lot of 2 hour movies even fail at it) let alone a franchise as expansive as Trek and writers shouldn't be hamstrung by minor contradictions in the pursuit of the bigger picture.
If it comes down to a great story and strict continuity, the great story should always win out.
*Note: I am in no way calling Ent a great story, I thought it was pretty horrid for the most part, but that's merely my subjective opinion.
Not this shit again.
Why would TMP or TNG be expected to mention the NX-01 at all, given that 1) the rec room wall sequences only mention some Enterprises, not ALL of them (for instance, both the TMP and TNG sequences only mention one aircraft carrier each, when we know there were two), and 2) Star Trek: Enterprise had not even been thought of by the writers at that point.
So how, logically, can TMP or TNG be expected to reference a ship from a TV series that had yet to exist?
This is what I dislike about some fandoms. Yes I'm looking at you Star Trek since this is a Trek forum. Some fans just can't let go of something and some topics never die off.
While not much worse than between the other series', ENT definitely had big continuity issues. It was often as though TPTB couldn't decide what they wanted the show to be. We got cloaking devices in early seasons from Xyrillians, Suliban and Romulans which explictly contradicts "Balance of Terror", we got interference from the future outright stating that key ENT events are unfolding in an altered timeline which was all followed up by a season of direct prequels intended to show that the timeline is one and the same as TOS and a finale episode set between scenes of a TNG episode.
You can either say it's an alternate reality akin to the Kelvin timeline and that all those prequels were just prequels to AU analogues of those TOS events, or say it's Prime and just cough loudly and constantly over the contradictions that creates.
Personally, I'm past trying to make sense of it. And I spent years trying.
You can either say it's an alternate reality akin to the Kelvin timeline and that all those prequels were just prequels to AU analogues of those TOS events, or say it's Prime and just cough loudly and constantly over the contradictions that creates.
Personally, I'm past trying to make sense of it. And I spent years trying.
I never had an issue making Enterprise fit with TOS, outside of the cloaking device issue.
But the Valiant reached the edge of the galaxy 200 years before TOS but in Enterprise one episode says they are 90 or 100 light years from earth and that is the farthest any Earth ship has ever been. That certainly makes it seem that Enterprise is in an alternate universe to TOS.
^ No, it makes it a minor continuity glitch, nothing more. It's certainly no more serious than any other such glitch that a Trek show has done within itself.
And the Valiant predates the united Earth government anyway, so it can hardly be described as an "Earth ship".
And the Valiant predates the united Earth government anyway, so it can hardly be described as an "Earth ship".
Science officer and first officer are two separate positions.
In "Court Martial":
"Shore Leave":
"Squire of Gothos":
"Squire of Gothos":
"Dagger of the Mind":
Clearly either "Science Officer" or "First Officer" is sufficient to identify Spock according to Starfleet regulations. It is possible that all first officers are also science officers. It is also possible that because Spock is such a genius he is the only officer in Starfleet able to hold both positions at the same time. Thus assuming that First Officer Chekov is capable of being both First Officer and Science Officer is assuming a bit.
Just thought of something else. Is anyone complaining about which Enterprises are shown on the rec room wall in TMP, or the briefing room wall in TNG, ALSO going to complain about the TNG wall showing the wrong model for the Enterprise-C? 
To wit: The TNG wall shows the original version of the Ambassador class design, which I like to call the "correct" or "real" version. Linky
Yet the Enterprise-C that we actually got, in "Yesterday's Enterprise", looks nothing like that.
If you don't throw down any butthurt about that little inconsistency, then IMHO you've got no right to complain about the TMP rec room scene either.
To wit: The TNG wall shows the original version of the Ambassador class design, which I like to call the "correct" or "real" version. Linky
Yet the Enterprise-C that we actually got, in "Yesterday's Enterprise", looks nothing like that.
If you don't throw down any butthurt about that little inconsistency, then IMHO you've got no right to complain about the TMP rec room scene either.
The Valiant was lost.
Where No Man... said:
They didn't seem to have any record of the Valiant exploring the outer edge of the galaxy.
I don't see any reason that the Valiant getting lost being somehow contradicted by Enterprise.
It did give us Empress Hoshi.
? Not sure where this is coming from. I never alleged that first officer and science officer had to be the same post. I was asking if Beach was credited as science officer because the only credit I see is bridge officer, no actual department listed. I don't disagree with anything you posted.
And Prime Hoshi.
Not this shit again.
Why would TMP or TNG be expected to mention the NX-01 at all, given that 1) the rec room wall sequences only mention some Enterprises, not ALL of them (for instance, both the TMP and TNG sequences only mention one aircraft carrier each, when we know there were two), and 2) Star Trek: Enterprise had not even been thought of by the writers at that point.
So how, logically, can TMP or TNG be expected to reference a ship from a TV series that had yet to exist?
No, out of universe TMP and TNG cannot be held responsible for a TV show that came out decades after the fact. On the other hand, naming the NX-01 something other than Enterprise solves the continuity error. It's not hard. In fact, naming it Valiant might have actually been a nice continuity tie-in.
We're Star Trek fans, though. We don't care about real-world practicality. In universe the NX-01 should have been included for it's historical importance. The Enterprises that were depicted in TMP were significant historic ships named Enterprise. As depicted in ENT, the NX-01 was just as historically significant as these other ships named Enterprise.
This highlights one of the real problems (I have) with retcons and prequels. They get painted into corners and are either "stifled by the creative restraints" or they ignore continuity.
From the Cage I got the impression that Number One was both First Officer and Helm Control.
From Where No Man I got the impression (and I think I was wrong) that Gary Mitchell was First Officer and Navigator.
It was clear from TOS that Spock was First Officer and Science Officer
My conclusion was that First Officer was not a distinct and separate position from any other bridge position. The First Officer would be one other position as well.
It wasn't until TMP that the First Officer became distinct and separate. With the death of Xon in the transporter accident, Decker had to double as First Officer and Science Officer.
Riker in TNG was the first character to exclusively be First Officer.
Last edited:
Remember what I just said - the wall scenes in TMP (and TNG) were never intended to show ALL ships named Enterprise.
Let's look at Decker's very specific choice of phrase. He said, and I quote, "All those vessels were called Enterprise." He did NOT say "Those were all the vessels called Enterprise."
Are you going to complain that these scenes did not, for example, show both of the aircraft carriers named Enterprise? No? Then you can't complain about this either. It's as simple as that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
