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...
  • ValueSubtracted@startrek.websiteMEnglish
    5·
    22 hours ago

    Gabrielle basically used the church as an experiment in altering history.

    Time’s motion depends on the observer, on the action. The people I was able to move from Earth to Terralysium, as they call my planet, are thriving. Their survival means that time is fluid. The future can be changed. Maybe the past, as well.

    • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      20 hours ago

      It feels a bit pulled out of nowhere though. If it was the plan from the start, it’s not very good writing.

      • ᓚᘏᗢ@piefed.socialEnglish
        12·
        15 hours ago

        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?

        • Solumbran@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          15 hours ago

          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.