Answer (1 of 14): The term “continuity error” gets thrown around a lot in reference to Trek, oftentimes erroneously.
Some of the most famous “continuity errors” can be explained with a little imagination and common sense.
WHY DOES KHAN KNOW CHEKHOV IF CHEKHOV WASN’T INTRODUCED TO STAR TREK UNTI...
What? It was explained that the church and the people in it were yanked from certain destruction in WWIII to Terralysium by the red angel. It is spelled out in the season arc.
You don’t like Disco, fine. But your lack of attention to the story is not the show’s fault.
The red angel, who is supposed to be either Burnham or her mother, and neither of them had a reason to go back in time to save a random church, and teleport it to a random planet. Also absolutely no mention of how they would achieve such a thing.
Gabrielle basically used the church as an experiment in altering history.
It feels a bit pulled out of nowhere though. If it was the plan from the start, it’s not very good writing.
Lmao it’s Star Trek, of course the writing isn’t good. You guys claim to love all the shit writing in other Trek shows, so why do so many of you shit on Discovery for ir in particular, I wonder?
There’s a lot of shit writing in all the star treks (less so in lower decks maybe) but discovery is consistently, deeply badly written, and in ways that often have a pretty bad underlying meaning.
And also, people complain on Discovery for different reasons. Nazis find it too woke because they don’t pretend that lgbt people don’t exist, I find it fakely woke but actually discriminating against minorities while pretending to defend them.
In a way, Discovery is a shittily written, enlightened-centrist version of star trek, so I think it’s good that people shit on it. Now people should obviously shit on a lot of other star treks like Enterprise and Picard, but I’m certainly not going to stop shitting on discovery in the meanwhile.