Your most pointless TV/movie/book nitpicks

[MarkB]

Not sure what you mean here? The misidentification of Ceti Alpha V as Ceti Alpha VI is a plot point in the film.

The usual numbering convention for planets is to start from the closest to the sun and work outward, so if planet 6 in a system disappeared, that shouldn't lead to planet 5 being mis-identified on a subsequent visit.

Possibly Starfleet number them a different way, or possibly Ceti Alpha VI's explosion pushed Ceti Alpha V out beyond the orbit of what was formerly Ceti Alpha VII.

Honestly, though, there's no easy way to justify it - this was clearly a surveyed system, and a Starfleet crew specifically looking for planets meeting a particular specification has no excuse for not noticing that the planets in the system no longer match up to what they have on record.

 

[Rabulias]

The usual numbering convention for planets is to start from the closest to the sun and work outward, so if planet 6 in a system disappeared, that shouldn't lead to planet 5 being mis-identified on a subsequent visit.

Possibly Starfleet number them a different way, or possibly Ceti Alpha VI's explosion pushed Ceti Alpha V out beyond the orbit of what was formerly Ceti Alpha VII.

Honestly, though, there's no easy way to justify it - this was clearly a surveyed system, and a Starfleet crew specifically looking for planets meeting a particular specification has no excuse for not noticing that the planets in the system no longer match up to what they have on record.

I do agree that if Reliant scanned the system they would have noticed a planet missing, but Khan says the orbit shifted, so it could be that Ceti Alpha V was where Ceti Alpha VI was expected to be, so they never scanned. There is plenty of "plot convenience playhouse" to nitpick here but I don't see a goof.

 

[Riley]

my nit pick with that movie is that ricardo montalban's chest doesn't get it's own billing.

My biggest nitpick about that movie would be that Ricardo’s obvious chest piece looks quite obvious.

But… in a film commentary, the director insists that is Montalban’s unaltered chest.

 

[MGibster]

Honestly, though, there's no easy way to justify it - this was clearly a surveyed system, and a Starfleet crew specifically looking for planets meeting a particular specification has no excuse for not noticing that the planets in the system no longer match up to what they have on record.

I'm not so sure how well it was really surveyed if the Reliant had to come check it out to see if it was suitable for Genesis. It could be that nobody has swung by since Enterprise dropped Khan and crew off. It's possible Reliant noticed there was one less planet than expected and just figured the records were spotty.

 

[Ryujin]

My biggest nitpick about that movie would be that Ricardo’s obvious chest piece looks quite obvious.

But… in a film commentary, the director insists that is Montalban’s unaltered chest.

The Picture That Settles The Khan Chest Debate – ManlyMovie

manlymovie.net

 

[trappedslider]

My biggest nitpick about that movie would be that Ricardo’s obvious chest piece looks quite obvious.

But… in a film commentary, the director insists that is Montalban’s unaltered chest.

It REALLY is his chest

'Star Trek: Wrath of Khan' director: Quit asking if Ricardo Montalban's chest is fake

'Wrath of Khan' director Nicholas Meyer is tired of being asked if his star's fantastic chest was real or 'Fantasy Island' fake. Here's the answer.

www.usatoday.com

The Picture That Settles The Khan Chest Debate – ManlyMovie

manlymovie.net

 

[J.Quondam]

My biggest nitpick about that movie would be that Ricardo’s obvious chest piece looks quite obvious.

But… in a film commentary, the director insists that is Montalban’s unaltered chest.

Well, whether his chest was real or not, I'm sure we can all agree it was crafted of rich Corinthian leather.

Spoiler

 

[trappedslider]

Well, whether his chest was real or not, I'm sure we can all agree it was crafted of rich Corinthian leather.

Spoiler

no, that the rest of his clothes

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not so sure how well it was really surveyed if the Reliant had to come check it out to see if it was suitable for Genesis. It could be that nobody has swung by since Enterprise dropped Khan and crew off. It's possible Reliant noticed there was one less planet than expected and just figured the records were spotty.

They wouldn't expect detect a planet if it was behind the star when they entered the system, so might not immediately think something was off when it didn't show up on scanners.

 

[Gammadoodler]

They wouldn't expect detect a planet if it was behind the star when they entered the system, so might not immediately think something was off when it didn't show up on scanners.

2-dimensional thinking?