Plot hole city: Part II!

And nobody asked for your permission.

 

I know that Paramount is not at all concerned with what you could allow.

 

And he would know.

 

The Fans:This happens with fandom when ever what is popular is criticized such as this gentleman or lady responding to the Plot Hole occurences post on one blog for the film...

Thank you very much for your thorough criticism of the movie. I had problems with the mediocre plot line and the rehashing of cheap themes. For my opinions, I have been vilified by the insipid masses who know nothing of good complex stories with overlapping plot threads that are coherent and form a larger story - none of which this movie had.

This movie was moderately entertaining at best. It was certainly not a Star Trek movie. It was an action movie.~scorchedearth

Star Trek 09' also made the Top 40 Baffling Movie Plot Holes

28#

The Plot Hole: During the opening scene's timey-wimey shenanigans, rogue Romulan Nero (Eric Bana) arrives twenty-five years before his target, Spock.
Apparently, even though he wants to take revenge for Spock's role in his own planet's demise, Nero is quite happy to sit twiddling his thumbs for a quarter of a century. Did the crew not get a say in all of this?
Reasonable Explanation: Either Nero really holds a grudge, or - as explained in a deleted scene - he was captured by Klingons and locked up for the duration, before managing to escape more or less precisely the right time to pick up his vendetta with ol' pointy ears.
[LEFT]
Read more: 40 Baffling Movie Plot Holes: Star Trek (2009) | TotalFilm.com
[/LEFT]

 

Not a plot hole, just a question

So, the lightning storm in space observed near the neutral zone immediately prior to the destruction of Vulcan, and reported to the crew by Chekov, that would be the arrival of Spock Prime's Jellyfish ship?

 

Well I didn't mean to call your explanations stupid. What I meant was that, if explanations aren't subject to the limitations of the established continuity, then there's no limit to how asinine they can get.

For instance, say you wanted to explain away Superman reversing time, by claiming that long ago, some aliens put a time-stabilizing device at the center of the Earth, and that it's powered/controlled by the Earths spin. Thus, by reversing the spin of the earth, you cause time to reverse. That would be an incredibly stupid explanation, because something that arbitrary can't just be assumed by someone watching the movie. But if explanations don't have to be plausible, then anything goes. See my point?

 

Re: Not a plot hole, just a question

It's interesting to note that the movie didn't say that it was near Vulcan only that there was a lighning storm in space. THEN (seemingly separate) 47 Klingon Ships were destroyed in the Neutral Zone)

Ownership of the Neutral Zone was not definitively established in dialague but all indications are that the Neutral Zone is Klingon since the Kobyashi Maru scenario featured Klingons and the Neutral Zone and the latter reference to the Neutral Zone involved 47 Klingon ships.

The movie doesn't do well with explaining how the lightining storm in space and the 47 ships destruction were associated or where they were.... They were just clips of information thrown into were chaotic scenes and doesn't appear to be trying to make any sense. Trek Fans assumed due to Trek-ology that the Neutral Zone must be the Romulan Neutral Zone since it's closer..

However it's worthy to point out that the distance of the Romulan Neutral Zone has never been established.
The movie establishes it's own Trek-ology and doesn't follow or align with what has come before. The movie should be judged on it's own background information not standard Trek.

 

I'm sorry, what was the point of any of this? The syntax, capitalization and punctuation alone make the first part unnecessarily confusing.

I gather that someone somewhere else on the Internet agrees that they didn't like elements of the plot, is that it?

 

It's a movie. Some will like it. Others won't. BFD.

 

This movie was created so it wouldn't be bound by the limitations of established continuity. How asinine you think the explanations anyone gives to resolve any plot hole or previous continuity problems is your subjective response.

If no one here has offered you any plausible explanations then the problem lies with you not the explanations because of their subjective nature.

For example, if I am satisfied with a plausible explanation and you're not...whose problem is it? It is your responsibility to come up with plausible explanations. It is alright to ask for help with that process but if you keep rejecting the explanations given that is your problem.

In Transactional Analysis there is a psychological game people play where one person asks for help and a group of people will chime in to help and each piece of advice given is rejected because the person really isn't looking for help they have other motives.

The plausibility of any explanation is going to be subjective. What may satisfy another person may not satisfy you.

My question to you is do you feel there are not any plausible explanations for the plot holes you see in this movie and you just want to rant about it?

Or

Do you really want answers? If you do, and you don't like the answers you have relieved thus far, then come up with your own.

If you don't think there are plausible answers then what are your motives here?

 

Bingo!

By the very definition of the word plausible is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Link to article being quoted: http://www.cracked.com/article/18345_5-gaping-plot-holes-hollywood-knows-you-wont-notice/


He's kinda funny....
Because it seems the more you like the film the more you believe in it thus suspending you disbelief in the logic fails.

 

Not a plothole. You simply disagree with everyone else's opinion about it. That does not a plothole make.

 

Spock and Kirk meeting like they did may be a bit implausible...but then again life is full of coincidences...in reality this is a contrivance not a plot hole.

 

Exactly!

 

Just like the more you dislike the movie, the more likely you are to complain, nitpick and disregard anyone's reasons for liking it.

 

At least your posts are getting shorter, but even if you were to proof read and correct stuff like "you/your," sentences like the one above don't express a coherent idea.

 

I know, right? Nothing hurts your argument about how to write than a lack of ability to spell and construct a cohesive sentence.