What is THE Worst continuity error in Trek history..?!

[Nerys Myk]

Even still, it's like bumping into your next door neighbor and then nobody in your town not seeing them for 200 years.

More like bumping into a stranger from out of town and not seeing them for 200 years, but hearing stories for years about someone who later turns out to be that stranger.

 

[starmike]

Except they're not from out of town. During Enterprise, they weren't going very far. The Vulcans even knew of The Expanse. Tellurites, Andorrans, all ahead of us. Even Sussman admitted the mistake:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Acquisition_(episode)

• This episode was highly criticized by fans for allegedly abusing established continuity. In an interview with the magazine Star Trek: Communicator, series writer Mike Sussman admitted that "Acquisition" may have stepped over the line.

 

[Prax]

Even still, it's like bumping into your next door neighbor and then nobody in your town not seeing them for 200 years.

Except they're not from out of town. During Enterprise, they weren't going very far. The Vulcans even knew of The Expanse. Tellurites, Andorrans, all ahead of us. Even Sussman admitted the mistake:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Acquisition_(episode)

• This episode was highly criticized by fans for allegedly abusing established continuity. In an interview with the magazine Star Trek: Communicator, series writer Mike Sussman admitted that "Acquisition" may have stepped over the line.

Well that raises an interesting point. With Ferenginar so close to earth(as established by ds9) , how is it that the Federation never encountered them in 200 years of exploring. Surely Ferengi space had been charted by the TNG era. Enterprise doesn't attempt to establish where Ferenginar is, or who they are. It is simply an act of piracy on the high seas by an unknown race. Probably similar to Picard's encounter with them when he still commanded the Stargazer. There were probably many of these incidents over those 200 years.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except they're not from out of town. During Enterprise, they weren't going very far. The Vulcans even knew of The Expanse. Tellurites, Andorrans, all ahead of us. Even Sussman admitted the mistake:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Acquisition_(episode)

• This episode was highly criticized by fans for allegedly abusing established continuity. In an interview with the magazine Star Trek: Communicator, series writer Mike Sussman admitted that "Acquisition" may have stepped over the line.

Not sure what the Expanse, the Tellarites or the Andorians have to do with Enterprise meeting a lone Ferengi ship. Trek is full of one off encounters.

Well that raises an interesting point. With Ferenginar so close to earth(as established by ds9) , how is it that the Federation never encountered them in 200 years of exploring. Surely Ferengi space had been charted by the TNG era.

They could be all over the Federation causing trouble. "The Last Outpost" establishes that they have a quite the reputation and there ships and methods were well known to the Federation. It also established that they were secretive. They weren't unknown, just mysterious.

Enterprise doesn't attempt to establish where Ferenginar is, or who they are. It is simply an act of piracy on the high seas by an unknown race. Probably similar to Picard's encounter with them when he still commanded the Stargazer. There were probably many of these incidents over those 200 years.

Exactly.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Federation was clearly aware of the Ferengi back in Farpoint, though there was a lot of misinformation going around about them, like they eat people.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Federation was clearly aware of the Ferengi back in Farpoint, though there was a lot of misinformation going around about them, like they eat people.

When at Quark's, try the Soylent Green.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

More like bumping into a stranger from out of town and not seeing them for 200 years, but hearing stories for years about someone who later turns out to be that stranger.

And sometimes coincidences just happen. A few years after I moved to New Jersey, I met a woman who'd dated a kid I'd gone to grade school with 15 years before in Washington D.C.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yes, in New Ground Alexander gives his birth-stardate, 43205 which corresponds to TNG's third season. In fact, it is the very same stardate for the episode Booby Trap

Ohh Stardate Continuity

I know this is a thread for the worst continuity error, but I want to bring up good continuity for a second.

In the DS9 Tech Manual there is a LCARS map showing the 4 quadrants, Delta Quadrant shows the approximate path of Voyager, plus a 'Current Location' as of a Stardate, that Stardate matches the Stardate given in the Voyager episode "Message in a Bottle". So the first time Starfleet hears of Voyager since they were lost.

This same map is also the main menu for the video game STV: Elite Force, and also shows up on a PADD used in Insurrection.

 

[Becca]

I love Trek a lot, and generally, I'm not that bothered by continuity errors as some fans. I found nothing that bothered me in Trek XI for instance.

The ONE thing that truly bugs me in Trek history is the appearance of the cloacking device... As much as I love ENT, WHY (and I mean WHY?!) did they use cloacked ships as soon as the FIRST episode..?! It is made SOOOO clear in Balance Of Terror that cloacking devices were new at that time..! And I know the Suliban had been given cloacking technology by Future Guy, but the alien race in Unexpected had cloacking technology, so did the Romulans in Minefield.... I think it the biggest f*ck up in Trek history, and the only thing I can't rationalize in any way.........

This (nine-years-later) reply is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because
1)I don't really mind the scientific, well, 'discontinuity', as their ignoring the illogic has allowed fornskne very, very moce episodes and I'm quite willing to overlook the scientific absurdity of it
2) Although I can't think of an example atm, I really think this particular 'discontinuity' pervades a lot of SF, and is easily, happily ignored by both writers and viewers/readers. It— well, I'll let Major Stacey Monroe (from another "Star-[4-letter-word]" TV show) say it maybe more eloquently than I might:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If writers had been REALLY concerned about this scientific snafu, we'd have missed out on such 'stellar" episodes as TOS 'Wink of an Eye", TNG'S "The Next Phase", probably more. I can't remember if DS9's "One Small Ship" included this flaw or actually addressed it, but in any case fine storytelling to me supersedes perfect scientific accuracy (or inaccuracy) of one point.

I love Trek a lot, and generally, I'm not that bothered by continuity errors as some fans. I found nothing that bothered me in Trek XI for instance.

The ONE thing that truly bugs me in Trek history is the appearance of the cloacking device... As much as I love ENT, WHY (and I mean WHY?!) did they use cloacked ships as soon as the FIRST episode..?! It is made SOOOO clear in Balance Of Terror that cloacking devices were new at that time..! And I know the Suliban had been given cloacking technology by Future Guy, but the alien race in Unexpected had cloacking technology, so did the Romulans in Minefield.... I think it the biggest f*ck up in Trek history, and the only thing I can't rationalize in any way.........

I love Trek a lot, and generally, I'm not that bothered by continuity errors as some fans. I found nothing that bothered me in Trek XI for instance.

The ONE thing that truly bugs me in Trek history is the appearance of the cloacking device... As much as I love ENT, WHY (and I mean WHY?!) did they use cloacked ships as soon as the FIRST episode..?! It is made SOOOO clear in Balance Of Terror that cloacking devices were new at that time..! And I know the Suliban had been given cloacking technology by Future Guy, but the alien race in Unexpected had cloacking technology, so did the Romulans in Minefield.... I think it the biggest f*ck up in Trek history, and the only thing I can't rationalize in any way.........

I love Trek a lot, and generally, I'm not that bothered by continuity errors as some fans. I found nothing that bothered me in Trek XI for instance. The ONE thing that truly bugs me in Trek history is the appearance of the cloacking device... As much as I love ENT, WHY (and I mean WHY?!) did they use cloacked ships as soon as the FIRST episode..?! It is made SOOOO clear in Balance Of Terror that cloacking devices were new at that time..! And I know the Suliban had been given cloacking technology by Future Guy, but the alien race in Unexpected had cloacking technology, so did the Romulans in Minefield.... I think it the biggest f*ck up in Trek history, and the only thing I can't rationalize in any way.........

This (nine-years-later) reply is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because 1)I don't really mind the scientific, well, 'discontinuity', as their ignoring the illogic has allowed fornskne very, very moce episodes and I'm quite willing to overlook the scientific absurdity of it 2) Although I can't think of an example atm, I really think this particular 'discontinuity' pervades a lot of SF, and is easily, happily ignored by both writers and viewers/readers. It— well, I'll let Major Stacey Monroe (from another "Star-[4-letter-word]" TV show) say it maybe more eloquently than I might:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If writers had been REALLY concerned about this scientific snafu, we'd have missed out on such 'stellar" episodes as TOS 'Wink of an Eye", TNG'S "The Next Phase", probably more. I can't remember if DS9's "One Small Ship" included this flaw or actually addressed it, but in any case fine storytelling to me supersedes perfect scientific accuracy (or inaccuracy) of one point.

 

[1001001]

This (nine-years-later) reply is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because
1)I don't really mind the scientific, well, 'discontinuity', as their ignoring the illogic has allowed fornskne very, very moce episodes and I'm quite willing to overlook the scientific absurdity of it
2) Although I can't think of an example atm, I really think this particular 'discontinuity' pervades a lot of SF, and is easily, happily ignored by both writers and viewers/readers. It— well, I'll let Major Stacey Monroe (from another "Star-[4-letter-word]" TV show) say it maybe more eloquently than I might:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If writers had been REALLY concerned about this scientific snafu, we'd have missed out on such 'stellar" episodes as TOS 'Wink of an Eye", TNG'S "The Next Phase", probably more. I can't remember if DS9's "One Small Ship" included this flaw or actually addressed it, but in any case fine storytelling to me supersedes perfect scientific accuracy (or inaccuracy) of one point.


This (nine-years-later) reply is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because 1)I don't really mind the scientific, well, 'discontinuity', as their ignoring the illogic has allowed fornskne very, very moce episodes and I'm quite willing to overlook the scientific absurdity of it 2) Although I can't think of an example atm, I really think this particular 'discontinuity' pervades a lot of SF, and is easily, happily ignored by both writers and viewers/readers. It— well, I'll let Major Stacey Monroe (from another "Star-[4-letter-word]" TV show) say it maybe more eloquently than I might:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If writers had been REALLY concerned about this scientific snafu, we'd have missed out on such 'stellar" episodes as TOS 'Wink of an Eye", TNG'S "The Next Phase", probably more. I can't remember if DS9's "One Small Ship" included this flaw or actually addressed it, but in any case fine storytelling to me supersedes perfect scientific accuracy (or inaccuracy) of one point.

Hello,

First, welcome to the board.

Second, please take some time to review the posting rules, located here.

This thread has been dead for nearly 3 years. Let's let it rest in peace, shall we?