RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,230
Posts: 5,438,286
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 632
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 8 2013, 10:52 PM   #61
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
TMP has a HUGE plot hole. A near-god-like living machine, which can digitize entire worlds and star systems and created a near-perfect android duplicate of Illia, never thought to wipe the muck off it's name plate?
That is not a plot hole, as the nameplate muck does not challenge story credibility. Yours is just a complaint.
It completey destroys story credibility. What does it call itself? It's name is VOYAGER, it reads V___GER and just compacts what's left into a name? It clearly understands the English language, knows there is a gap, is smart enough to understand why that part of it's nameplate is obscured in a way that could be easily remedied, yet fudges it's name for the sole purpose of a big reveal at the end of the movie. No other reason, no in-universe justification.
Wrath of Khan's entire "two dimensional thinking" thing made zero sense, especially if Khan is the genius he's repeatedly said to be.
Being a genius does not make one a master of space battle strategy. Kirk had decades of experience kicking butt in all manner of methods. That allowed to him to see options where Khan only saw wound+hunt=death.
Khan was aware of how to fly a starship since "Space Seed", we saw him flying the Reliant solo at the end of the movie. It's in no way plausible that anyone without learning difficulties would mistake space for some Space Invaders-like 2D realm.

Add to that the intelligence-insulting "code" used earlier in the movie - "hours will seem like days"
When was the last time Starfleet was in the area--or paid attention to every natural event? From "Space Seed," we get the impression the system is remote, hence the reason Kirk used it as the location to deposit Khan and his followers.
If Ceti Alpha VI isn't there anymore, how did the Reliant ever mistake Ceti Alpha V for it? Did they somehow mis-count planets when they entered the system and set a course? It makes no sense.
Magical? We have no idea how a terraforming technology will operate in the late 23rd century, so the Genesis device falls under the description of projection, if anything.
If you want to believe the Genesis Device is plausible science fiction, let alone plausible within the framework of Star Trek's technology, go right ahead.
According to..? No one ever said ST was mysticism or religion free, and since Vulcan is an alien culture, you have no position on which to claim there's anything out of the norm for the ST concept.

Not a plot hole in the least.
So why does Sarek want Spock's body brought to Vulcan when he meets with Kirk in his appartment, before Spock's torpedo tube is located intact on the Genesis surface? The real-world reason is that the Grissom scene was originally to open the movie, but was moved further back, giving the impression Sarek somehow knew Spock would be reborn there.
All organic material--the planet, and anything "born" on it was aging rapidly--like the planet.

Again, not a plot hole.
Yet they just happened to pick up Spock and leave when he was the correct age? Thats a big part of the movie hinging on a big happy coincidence.

And how exactly did Genesis turn a corpse into a young child?
Also, Excelsior spluttering to a halt totally ignoring the laws of physics.
You're kidding--right? This is Star Trek, not NOVA. This is the same ST where never-gonna-happen transporters, warp drive, space stations the size of a small town exist. It is sci-fi, not a physics instruction manual.

Again, no plot hole.
No, but an example of Trek veering into cartoon land.
Bored now. But there are more. Lots more. And people like to pretend JJ Abrams' Treks invented plot holes. LOL!

(and I love the old movies too!)
You say you love the old movies, but you capped off your argument with a protective post about the assbrained nuTrek films, which are to classic ST what the Star Wars prequels were to the original trilogy: a CG final exam with no heart, or much sense.
That's warm, cozy nostalgia talking.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by F. King Daniel; June 9 2013 at 12:40 AM.
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 11:47 PM   #62
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Wrath of Khan's entire "two dimensional thinking" thing made zero sense, especially if Khan is the genius he's repeatedly said to be.
Being a genius does not make one a master of space battle strategy.
It does imply one has the common sense to know space has an up and down. Six-year-olds know that. And, as I posted up-thread: "space" is defined by "three-dimensions."

Also, three-dimensions are not something unique to space combat. Both the maritime and aerial warfare of the 1990s persisted in a three-dimensional environment.

But humans have always accounted for three-dimensions in combat going back to early human hunters seeking the high-ground over their prey. And Rudimentary Chinese topography started as a strategic military tool.

Whether you're climbing ladders and jumping down holes in a FPS, a longbowman entrenched above the Dover Cliffs waiting for Norman invaders, dropping depth charges on Sean Connery's head, pulling Immelmen turns in an F-18, or hunting Starfleet battle cruisers in purple nebulae, three-dimensions are a part of warfare. Unless you're playing Atari Combat on the 2600, there is no such thing as "two-dimensional thinking."

It was a throw-away line inserted to create the contrivance that gave Kirk the upper hand. *coughdeusexmachinacough* It completely defies logic.

It's a plot hole.

When was the last time Starfleet was in the area--or paid attention to every natural event? From "Space Seed," we get the impression the system is remote, hence the reason Kirk used it as the location to deposit Khan and his followers.
It wasn't so much a plot hole as it was just plain-old silly and stupid.

For the sake of argument, let's assume CA5 was ~1AU from it's sun--a little closer since it was tropical. Maybe CA6 was a little further away--say Marsish--so 1.5 AU. CA6 explodes pushing CA5 closer to the sun and thus making the planet too hot to sustain life. Aside from positioning it far away from where CA6 should be, wouldn't that also automatically omit it from the list of Genesis candidates?

In celestial terms, the time between "Space Seed" and TWOK is a micro second. So even if the only information of the system is from the Enterprise's original visit, the data should be accurate.

Mental masturbation aside, the sequence of events went something like this:

--Kirk puts Khan on planet. It's safe to assume the Enterprise crew recorded and cataloged the system since it's, you know, their job. Thus Starfleet has an accurate record of all the planets in the system.

--One of the planets magically explodes (Because they're so prone to doing so.) drastically altering the solar orbit of at least one of the adjacent planets.

--Despite prior evidence, it is later confirmed Chekov did interact with Khan when he was aboard the Enterprise, and if Greg Cox is to be believed (Dubious, I know.), Chekov played a vital role in Khan's relocation. Yet, in the interim between events, Chekov seems to conveniently forget all about what would be, for most people, a significant life event.

--Anyhoo, Reliant comes to town and some how ends up on the wrong planet. The only ways this could happen are:

Reliant fails to make new charts of the system because the crew didn't know how or they couldn't be bothered.

Reliant does make new charts but fails to compare them to Enterprise's because the crew couldn't work the computer archive or they couldn't be bothered.

Reliant does make new charts, does compare them to Enterprise's, goes strait for the one in furthest orbit (assuming there were only ever six), and fails to realize it's neither where it should be, nor in a suitable orbit to sustain life because either the crew can't read scale or they couldn't be bothered.

Reliant does make new charts, does compare them to Enterprise's, does realize there's malfeasance, but decides to investigate anyway to be thorough but the crew can't count to six because either they all failed grammar school or they couldn't be bothered.

All in all this, at best, makes Terrell look lazy and inept and, at worse, a complete tool.

This whole mess of contrivances, is not really a plot hole, no. But it is really poor writing. And should have probably been looked at.

For one thing, slightly altering the narrative to show that Chekov was fully aware of the situation, but the crew decides to check it out anyway--fully armed landing party in hand--and ultimately over powered by Khan & CO, adds a badly needed element to the story.


Magical? We have no idea how a terraforming technology will operate in the late 23rd century, so the Genesis device falls under the description of projection, if anything.
It was specifically stated on screen that Genesis turns something into something else. In the end, it created something out of nothing. This contradiction is the definition of plot hole.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 12:32 AM   #63
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Ok now, with all the bitching and moaning about plot hole this and plot hole that, will one of you people stop bitching and PLEASE write a perfect script with a perfect story with no plot holes and sell it and get it made into a movie with the perfect cast and perfect sets and perfect effects and a perfect score and perfect everything else so we don't have to endure this crap any more?

Let me know when it's coming out and I'll be first in line.

Thanks.

marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 12:42 AM   #64
I Am Groot
I Am Groot
 
I Am Groot's Avatar
 
Location: I Am Groot
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Ok now, with all the bitching and moaning about plot hole this and plot hole that, will one of you people stop bitching and PLEASE write a perfect script with a perfect story with no plot holes and sell it and get it made into a movie with the perfect cast and perfect sets and perfect effects and a perfect score and perfect everything else so we don't have to endure this crap any more?
I know, it's crazy. With all this carrying on, you'd think the premise of the thread had to do with pointing out plot holes in the movies or something.
__________________
We are Groot and Locutus of Bored.
I Am Groot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 12:50 AM   #65
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Ok now, with all the bitching and moaning about plot hole this and plot hole that, will one of you people stop bitching and PLEASE write a perfect script with a perfect story with no plot holes and sell it and get it made into a movie with the perfect cast and perfect sets and perfect effects and a perfect score and perfect everything else so we don't have to endure this crap any more?
I know, it's crazy. With all this carrying on, you'd think the premise of the thread had to do with pointing out plot holes in the movies or something.
Well, heaven forbid someone should question the premise of a thread on an internet forum.

The universe might implode or some damn thing.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 01:52 AM   #66
solariabsg25
Captain
 
solariabsg25's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, UK
View solariabsg25's Twitter Profile
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Two plot-holes from Generations that I disagree with.

The first is "Why didn't Soran just fly a ship into the Nexus?"

He stated that diverting the ribbon was the only way. It could be that, although they were lucky before their rescue on the Enterprise B, in most cases attempting to enter the Nexus in a ship results in the ship being destroyed before the crew are pulled into it. Soran wanted to enter the Nexus, not risk getting killed.

Secondly, "Why didn't Picard go back to earlier and stop Soran in Ten Forward?" The simple answer is, he didn't think of it. When he was talking to Guinan's shadow, all he was thinking of was stopping the missile launch. It's not a plot hole if the character screws up.

Now, the Enterprise D getting her ass handed to her by an obsolete Bird of Prey that should have been space-dust with a single phaser barrage and full spread of photons, that I can't stand. That can be explained, but we'd have needed a few extra lines of dialogue about "rotating shields" and "why are the Bird of Prey's shields still holding?" for it to make sense.

The sequence as filmed just makes the D, which has stood toe-to-toe with Borg cubes, Cardassian Galors, and Romulan Warbirds, look a bit of a wuss!!
__________________
"A perfect organism, unclouded by remorse, or human illusions of morality." - Ash, Alien
solariabsg25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 04:08 AM   #67
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It completey destroys story credibility. What does it call itself? It's name is VOYAGER, it reads V___GER and just compacts what's left into a name? It clearly understands the English language, knows there is a gap, is smart enough to understand why that part of it's nameplate is obscured in a way that could be easily remedied, yet fudges it's name for the sole purpose of a big reveal at the end of the movie. No other reason, no in-universe justification.
Others already explained--quite clearly--why it read the plate at face value. English is not a simple language, so if you're suggesting it should assume "voyager" was obscured by the dirt, based on understanding the language, then you've arrived at a false conclusion. English is littered with nicknames, abbreviated names or descriptions, etc., in addition to formal language. Consider this example, if it read a car plate bearing "T___bird," is it going to somehow figure out that beyond the dirt, it really spells "thunderbird?"

Khan was aware of how to fly a starship since "Space Seed", we saw him flying the Reliant solo at the end of the movie. It's in no way plausible that anyone without learning difficulties would mistake space for some Space Invaders-like 2D realm.
Being aware of how to fly a ship is not in any way the same as developing skills/insight from long years of experience, otherwise, a cadet should be promoted to captain, since browsing tech manuals (like Khan) is enough to be as proficient as a Starfleet admiral.

Add to that the intelligence-insulting "code" used earlier in the movie - "hours will seem like days"
It was a gamble. It worked.


If you want to believe the Genesis Device is plausible science fiction, let alone plausible within the framework of Star Trek's technology, go right ahead.
If you accept all of the other never-going-to-happen Trek tech mentioned earlier (including time travel as used in ST), then the Genesis device is as plausible in a late 23rd century sci-fi world.

So why does Sarek want Spock's body brought to Vulcan when he meets with Kirk in his appartment, before Spock's torpedo tube is located intact on the Genesis surface? The real-world reason is that the Grissom scene was originally to open the movie, but was moved further back, giving the impression Sarek somehow knew Spock would be reborn there.
You need to back to your "magical" line, as you still have not explained how that cannot--or should not exist in ST.


And how exactly did Genesis turn a corpse into a young child?
The best answer is through Spock's cells. Before you utter a "but," we do not know the course/time of cell death in a Vulcan, which cells remain or how (or if) Spock's body was prepared before being torpedoed to Genesis, etc. Without that information, you have to accept that the time of Spock's death to his arrival on Genesis was relatively short, so he did not have much time to decompose.


No, but an example of Trek veering into cartoon land.
The sound effect does not erase the point of the scene: Scotty disabled the Excelsior. If someone was distracted by the sound effect, then they were not really paying attention to the very simple meaning of the scene.

That's warm, cozy nostalgia talking.
No, it is clarity and great taste in film that allows me to tell the difference.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 08:43 AM   #68
NightJim
Commander
 
NightJim's Avatar
 
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
View NightJim's Twitter Profile
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Belz... wrote: View Post
NightJim wrote: View Post
Enterprise's self destruct acts like explosives are ringing the ship, which is a rather terrible design decision. Surely it'd just be warp core exploding. But the engine's are completely intact. It's the saucer section that explodes.
It's my impression that it's explosive, not a warp core breach like the one mentioned in TMP's director's edition. So yeah, it would kinda look like that.
Fair enough, having never watched the Director's edition of TMP I was unaware that they had that. I stand by my opinion of the design. Stocking a ship up with explosives seems a bit stupid when you've got a perfectly good warp core you can overload seems reckless. What if they got hit during a battle?
NightJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 09:37 AM   #69
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

The pre-rigged explosives do sound like favorable option. I mean if you think about it, using the core as the main detonation device, as suggested in TMP, is kind of a security hole.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:02 AM   #70
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It completey destroys story credibility.
Aw, come on. It's such a minor nitpick.

What does it call itself?
Nothing. Only other characters call it anything in the movie.

Khan was aware of how to fly a starship since "Space Seed", we saw him flying the Reliant solo at the end of the movie. It's in no way plausible that anyone without learning difficulties would mistake space for some Space Invaders-like 2D realm.
Yes it is. Intelligence is not a substitute for experience. He was trying to maneuver the ship, but although he knew about space being 3D, he didn't exploit it. I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I buy it completely.

Add to that the intelligence-insulting "code" used earlier in the movie - "hours will seem like days"
No disagreement here.

If Ceti Alpha VI isn't there anymore, how did the Reliant ever mistake Ceti Alpha V for it? Did they somehow mis-count planets when they entered the system and set a course? It makes no sense.
That makes little sense, anyway. But someone has already explained how that might happen.

If you want to believe the Genesis Device is plausible science fiction, let alone plausible within the framework of Star Trek's technology, go right ahead.
If you want to believe Warp Drive is plausible science fiction, go right ahead. Ditto for replicators, transporters, shields, artificial gravity, inertial dampening, trilithium torpedoes, wormholes, doomsday machines, bodily transmutation, telepathy, hundreds of humanoid races, "pure energy", time travel, red matter, mind transfer, sound in space, impossible space physics, the Nexus, etc. And don't get me started on Star Wars (The Force), Babylon 5 (souls), Riddick, Warhammer 40k, Dune, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Doctor Who, Alien, and other sci-fi franchises. Really, the Genesis project is a bit much, but don't try to pretend it's the worst offender.

So why does Sarek want Spock's body brought to Vulcan when he meets with Kirk in his appartment, before Spock's torpedo tube is located intact on the Genesis surface?
Bad writing.

Yet they just happened to pick up Spock and leave when he was the correct age? Thats a big part of the movie hinging on a big happy coincidence.
Just like Kirk and company just happening to meet in the new movies. Just like tons of happy coincidences in all fiction. And TSFS' reveal of older Spock at the end, just before they transport off planet, is very fitting. Logic often gives way to what "feels" right in scripts.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:06 AM   #71
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

NightJim wrote: View Post
Stocking a ship up with explosives seems a bit stupid when you've got a perfectly good warp core you can overload seems reckless. What if they got hit during a battle?
Think about it: the warp core breach scenario is MUCH more destructive. It would damage or destroy anything within a wide radius. It could have destroyed V'Ger in TMP, so if they were going to steal the Birg of Prey, and survive on the planet below, it wasn't an option.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 01:33 PM   #72
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

Wasn't V'Ger damaged when the alien machine planet found it? It must have reconstructed the programming from what was left, and not knowing any better, taking every found detail literally.

If all the aliens saw was V___GER, and the probe couldn't tell them any different, why wouldn't they assume that was the probe's name?
Moreover, V'Ger seems to be totally unaware of the aliens' role in transforming him from a primitive computer to a living machine, even though there is a digital image of their alien homeworld. If V'Ger is aware of those aliens, he seeks humanity more the way, let's say, an adopted child seeks out his biological parents.

It certainly would have been possible to have the crew of the enterprise match the probe via visual identification only and to have V'Ger go by a wholly unknown name. It was more dramatic to have V'Ger seem in some way to be suffering from amnesia or brain-damage, and to only have a fragmented sense of self.

Certainly on subsequent viewings, the mystery of what V'Ger is loses its impact. The film rests more on the philosophical questions it asks, which are really not dependent on the 'reveal' at all.

The problem with something like "Into Darkness" is the 'reveal' becomes too much of the whole picture, so they have less rewatchability. JJ relies too much on mystery to tease the audience into a frenzy enough to flock to theaters.

Khan also had a dramatic reveal in Trek II, but the audience knew going into it who the bad guy was, and therefore the mystery of the bad-guy's identity was not the film's purpose. The suspense comes from the characters slowly figuring it out, and being vulnerable as long as they don't know the score (like the surprise attack).
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 02:25 PM   #73
ColeMercury
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

As far as plot holes go the worst has got to be Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. The plot makes no sense at all -- Kirk's motivations would only make sense if he knew Spock was alive on Genesis and there was a way to restore his katra, but he doesn't.
ColeMercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 02:44 PM   #74
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The Motion Picture, its a pretty straight-forward story.

The rest of them all have massive plot-holes. The only Trek film I actively dislike is Insurrection and it has nothing to do with plot-holes.
Oh come now. It had the greatest scene of Star Trek history....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyjCn1ML3k
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 03:05 PM   #75
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Which Star Trek movie has got the most plot holes? And the least?

mos6507 wrote: View Post
Moreover, V'Ger seems to be totally unaware of the aliens' role in transforming him from a primitive computer to a living machine, even though there is a digital image of their alien homeworld.
What makes you say that ? There's nothing in the movie that implies that V'Ger is unaware of them.

Certainly on subsequent viewings, the mystery of what V'Ger is loses its impact.
No, it doesn't "certainly". The only thing that makes me cringe every time is that they made up four more Voyager probes that never happened.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.