Re: My Greivences of Nutrek. What makes me a hater... You must watch very few movies, then. The vast bulk of films ever made require viewers to "turn off their brains" in some fashion, even those that sometimes require viewers to engage parts of their brains they don't use as often as they might like (stories with complicated plots, images and situations fraught with multiple layers of symbolism and so on). Movie logic trumps real life logic in the overwhelming majority (conservatively, I'd estimate 95%) of all feature films ever made, anywhere, since their inception. You don't have to like it (I know many people who don't like movies precisely because "movie logic" doesn't match "real life logic", but they simply don't watch many movies). My favourite film director is Alfred Hitchcock. I have seen and own about 80% of his considerable output (the rest is divided into titles I've not been able to get yet and a few that are lost). Even his least effective efforts are better, to me, than about 80% of the films I've seen. But I do not hold his films as examples that lack in implausible situations. Nevertheless, they are quite enjoyable and his best films are considered masterpieces of filmmaking. I'm not suggesting Abrams is on par with Hitchcock (some may feel he is--that's neither here nor there). Nor am I suggesting that his Trek films are immune from criticism (no film is). However, "implausible circumstances", for any film (let alone a Trek film), is rarely an effective criticism if the baseline is "real world logic". Movies are rarely meant to be "as real as real life" and even among those that are meant to be so, the success rate is rather low.