• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can explain ANY continuity error with enough handwavium. The reason I cite this as "the worst" is because it isn't derived from a single mention or a single discrete incident; it's very obvious that ALL of the occasions in which Chekov would have an opportunity to actually make impression enough to be remembered, he's nowhere to be seen. Not at the dinner, not at the trial, not at Kirk's "execution". It's possible that Chekov brought him a cup of coffee or some skittles off camera, but TWOK's "I never thought I'd see your face again" implies ALOT more familiarity than that.
Call it a handwave, I call it a retcon.
 
So why does Garak get off scot-free, but Gary does not? Just because Garak was eventually cured?
I think that's it exactly. If the condition is permanent, it's the new normal and he has to be held responsible, since it could happen again. If it's cured the danger of a reoccurrence is removed and there is no need for outside intervention to prevent him from doing it again.
Mitchell was killed, so he didn't "get off scot-free" and there was "no need for outside intervention" because "the danger of a reoccurrence" was removed.

At some point, Kirk had to report on what happened to Lt. Kelso. Whether or not Mitchell "asked" for what happened to him, he killed a fellow officer.
Ah, somehow it hadn't quite clicked that the point at issue here was Kelso's death. We didn't hear what Kirk said about it onscreen, but it could ultimately be described as a result of the same accident that killed Mitchell and Dehner. And actually, Kirk probably didn't really leave out the details of what happened all around—it would be important to note the effects of the Barrier after all—but took the position that Mitchell wasn't acting as himself when he killed Kelso, and gave him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he like Dehner came around to himself again in the moment before he died.
 
Last edited:
What I'm wondering is, was Gary really killed? With all of Gary's powers, how could that happen?

I suppose that with all of his mental power, his physical body was still as vulnerable as it ever was; so if his concentration was ever thrown off, it might be possible to kill him. Still kind of hard to believe, though.
 
What I'm wondering is, was Gary really killed? With all of Gary's powers, how could that happen?

I suppose that with all of his mental power, his physical body was still as vulnerable as it ever was; so if his concentration was ever thrown off, it might be possible to kill him. Still kind of hard to believe, though.
Dehner had used her own powers to weaken him so he was vulnerable. His eyes briefly went back to normal and she told Kirk he didn't have much time to act.
 
Call it a handwave, I call it a retcon.
It's only a retcon if they actually insert Chekov into those events directly. Like, if Khan remembers Chekov chasing him into engineering and beating him with a pipe, or if they re-shoot Space Seed and put Chekov in it.

Remembering something that didn't happen or couldn't possibly HAVE happened isn't a retcon, but a continuity error.
 
It's only a retcon if they actually insert Chekov into those events directly. Like, if Khan remembers Chekov chasing him into engineering and beating him with a pipe, or if they re-shoot Space Seed and put Chekov in it.

Remembering something that didn't happen or couldn't possibly HAVE happened isn't a retcon, but a continuity error.
The retcon is assuming chekov was there all along, just off-camera.
Walter Koenig has famously repeated a joke that explained how Khan had met Pavel Chekov.

"Apparently, Chekov was in Engineering and was in the bathroom so long that Khan could barely hold himself together. When Chekov finally came out, Khan screamed at him to never get in his way again and said he would always remember his face."
 
The retcon is assuming chekov was there all along, just off-camera.
Yeah... the key word there is "assume." That's a handwave to EXPLAIN the error.

Like in the X-men films, when we just assume that Alex Summers' parents were ridiculously young when he was born, which would explain why they are still middle aged and raising his 16 year old brother in the mid 1980s (and Alex, who was a young adult in 1963, is technically old enough to be his father). That, plus Moira not remembering that she met Charles Xavier BEFORE they left the CIA facility to go to his school, is a continuity error that can be handwaved with fridge logic.

A retcon in this example would be Mystique being an old friend and former roommate of Professor X. It's not like they ever said or did anything that would explicitly rule it out, but slipping it into the prequel films (and then adding the "you age really slowly!" lines from beast) changes her entire backstory.

I use these examples because the X-men films were written by monkeys and SUCK at continuity.

Walter Koenig has famously repeated a joke that explained how Khan had met Pavel Chekov.

"Apparently, Chekov was in Engineering and was in the bathroom so long that Khan could barely hold himself together. When Chekov finally came out, Khan screamed at him to never get in his way again and said he would always remember his face."
Right. That's a handwave to explain a continuity error. When they actually FILM it, it's a retcon.
 
Yeah... the key word there is "assume." That's a handwave to EXPLAIN the error.

Like in the X-men films, when we just assume that Alex Summers' parents were ridiculously young when he was born, which would explain why they are still middle aged and raising his 16 year old brother in the mid 1980s (and Alex, who was a young adult in 1963, is technically old enough to be his father). That, plus Moira not remembering that she met Charles Xavier BEFORE they left the CIA facility to go to his school, is a continuity error that can be handwaved with fridge logic.

A retcon in this example would be Mystique being an old friend and former roommate of Professor X. It's not like they ever said or did anything that would explicitly rule it out, but slipping it into the prequel films (and then adding the "you age really slowly!" lines from beast) changes her entire backstory.

I use these examples because the X-men films were written by monkeys and SUCK at continuity.


Right. That's a handwave to explain a continuity error. When they actually FILM it, it's a retcon.
i only watched the original trilogy of X-Men, never saw the prequel series.

ret·con
/ˈretkän/
noun
noun: retcon; plural noun: retcons; noun: ret-con; plural noun: ret-cons
  1. 1.
    (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
    "we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"
verb
verb: retcon; 3rd person present: retcons; past tense: retconned; past participle: retconned; gerund or present participle: retconning; verb: ret-con; 3rd person present: ret-cons; past tense: ret-conned; past participle: ret-conned; gerund or present participle: ret-conning
  1. 1.
    revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.
    "I think fans get more upset when characters act blatantly out of established type, or when things get retconned"
Origin

1980s: abbreviation of retroactive continuity .
 
i only watched the original trilogy of X-Men, never saw the prequel series.
Makes little difference. Fanfiction and fridge logic are not retcons, just plausible explanations provided by others.

With few exceptions, Star Trek doesn't actually DO retcons, which is one of the reasons its continuity gets so screwed up at times. The very notable exception is having Zephram Cochrane launching his warp prototype from Montana and not, as Kirk implied, from Alpha Centauri.
 
On reflection, I realized a while ago that the thing that makes this a continuity error is simply the fact that they never bothered to explain it:

Worf has sex with K'Ehleyr in season two; she comes back in season 4 with Worf's son, who is now about 4 or 5 years old. NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER.

wtf, K'Ehleyr? Did you take a family time-travel adventure? Did you unfreeze Worf's sperm three years before you bumped into each other? Do Klingon babies hatch from eggs or something and come out already walking and talking? How does this even work?
 
Due to the harsh conditions on the Klingon homeworld, Klingons have evolved to develop several times quicker than humans during their first two or three years of life. This slows down significantly by the time they're ten or so, but is still faster than human development. A Klingon is full grown by fourteen or so, or is considered so. At least that's my theory.
 
^That doesn't explain Molly O'Brien....

Speaking of which, TMP introduced the concept of the chief of ship's security also being the tactical/weapons officer. Some separation of those duties might make more sense.

I massively agree with this. And OT, if I could Like your signature, I would.
 
It's only a retcon if they actually insert Chekov into those events directly. Like, if Khan remembers Chekov chasing him into engineering and beating him with a pipe, or if they re-shoot Space Seed and put Chekov in it.

Remembering something that didn't happen or couldn't possibly HAVE happened isn't a retcon, but a continuity error.
That's a handwave to explain a continuity error. When they actually FILM it, it's a retcon.
This is an odd exercise in self-imposed semantics. Who says a retcon has to be expressed visually rather than verbally? The dialogue in TWOK states that Khan has seen Chekov's face before. Despite never having been seen to occur on the old show, it is expressly treated as part of the factual background of the film's events. That's retroactive continuity, whether additional details are provided or not. It can also be seen as creating a continuity error, as many retcons can.
 
On reflection, I realized a while ago that the thing that makes this a continuity error is simply the fact that they never bothered to explain it:

Worf has sex with K'Ehleyr in season two; she comes back in season 4 with Worf's son, who is now about 4 or 5 years old. NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER.

wtf, K'Ehleyr? Did you take a family time-travel adventure? Did you unfreeze Worf's sperm three years before you bumped into each other? Do Klingon babies hatch from eggs or something and come out already walking and talking? How does this even work?
Klingons grow faster than humans. When Alexander returned to the Enterprise he gave the stardate he was born on, which conforms to TNG's third season. And later when he was on DS9 he appeared to be in his late teens despite being in fact 8 years old.
 
Dehner had used her own powers to weaken him so he was vulnerable. His eyes briefly went back to normal and she told Kirk he didn't have much time to act.

This has always bothered me. Whatever power imbued him did suffuse his body as well, as 1) a phaser rifle blast just cascades harmlessly off him, and 2) he can lift boulders far heavier than his human frame should allow, with ease, and that strength implies more toughness/tensile strength in both bone and muscle.

And his eyes were shining again when the gravestone fell on him (and he had just demonstrated how once his powers were returned Kirk was no match for him in a physical fight; he was lifting a Gorn-sized boulder and much more easily than the Gorn did).

It's not an inconsistency, but I always did feel GM died too easily.
 
Klingons grow faster than humans.

Evidently. But they never actually TOLD us that or explained how the Klingon lifecycle actually works. This has, of course, lead to speculation that both Worf wasn't much older than 8 or 9 Earth years old when he joined Starfleet, which would IMO would explain a great many things.
 
Maybe someone said it already but I'm tired so not wading through all 54 pages...

The Enterprise Incident. You know, the episode where the Romulans have invented a cloaking device....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top