And I wasn't talking about you. 
Who sabotaged the warp drive?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Honestly, to me, the question of who sabotaged the warp drive simply doesn't matter. The point is that it has been sabotaged. Did we need a subplot in which Our Heroes attempt to determine exactly what happened?
I get into these sorts of arguments over (IMO) minutiae over on Wikipedia all the damn time, where people want to insert details into plot summaries that simply aren't relevant to the overall plot, while we try to keep the summaries under 700 words.
I get into these sorts of arguments over (IMO) minutiae over on Wikipedia all the damn time, where people want to insert details into plot summaries that simply aren't relevant to the overall plot, while we try to keep the summaries under 700 words.
Poor writing should always be pointed out whenever it's spotted. Even if you, personally, think it's a minor thing (which I agree with in this case), it doesn't excuse the fact that it was all but completely ignored by the characters within the story. For all they knew at the time, the saboteur could have still been onboard and was working on finding some other means of crippling the ship. Yet they spent no effort or time trying to find such a person, or even monitor systems/put guards in place to watch over key locations.
That's basically the equivalence of metagaming on the writer's part; where they're using their knowledge of what happened, no the character's. THEY knew there was no saboteur onboard, so there was no need for the characters to waste time dealing with one.
And no matter how you slice it, that's just really bad writing that certainly shouldn't be encouraged. Doubly so when they're earning so much money for that quality of writing.
That's basically the equivalence of metagaming on the writer's part; where they're using their knowledge of what happened, no the character's. THEY knew there was no saboteur onboard, so there was no need for the characters to waste time dealing with one.
And no matter how you slice it, that's just really bad writing that certainly shouldn't be encouraged. Doubly so when they're earning so much money for that quality of writing.
Do we really need to know what all thousand crew members are doing at all times? The ship was crippled, that was important. It wasn't important to run down all the things they were doing because of it. These folks are professionals, and I work under the assumption important orders were given.
No. I get it, you think it's minor and unimportant. I don't agree. That should have been a very major and a very real concern for the crew. It was a major story point. It should have been addressed.
The only reason it wasn't is because the writers knew there wasn't any concern because they had already decided that there wasn't one. The characters, however, had no idea. You can rationalize it away however you want, but in the end it ws a gross oversight by the writers and the director. There's no defending it.
A
Amaris
Guest
Sure there is, people can defend it until the cows come home, you've simply decided that there's just no defense you'll accept. This means it's all on you to be dissatisfied, without anyone here having to defend it to your satisfaction.
Yes, damn it. I demand to know the names, backstories and sexual orientations of everyone of the Enterprise's thousand crew members. It is shocking and appalling that the movies haven't covered any of this. Abrams is a criminal hack for allowing Orci and Lindelof to write scripts with this glaring oversight, and Kurtzman isn't even worth mentioning.
Just another example of why this misfire corner of the franchise needs to be ditched and we need to return to the purity of the Prime Universe. At least in the Prime Universe meaningless characters who contributed nothing to the story had names like Harry Kim or Travis Mayweather.
No, there isn't.
The best attempt at a defense is "it didn't matter and I don't care" or, without any evidence whatsoever, "it was all done off-screen." Those aren't defenses, they're rationalizations and dismissals. Because there is no actual defense for it.
That said, even the Undiscovered Country managed to do something along the lines of what they should have done in this movie, and it was one of the more interesting scenes in the movie to boot. It didn't even really take all that long, but really drove home both how serious the situation was and how screwed they were, too. Good writers could have really used such a scene to add to the story. But no, it's just completely ignored because, you know, why would the crew be worried about a saboteur onboard right after they've been sabotaged? Surely they'd only try once, right?
That's okay, I personally like it when a person's only response to something they can't actually argue is a feeble attempt to mock them. For some reason they think it's pithy and a clever way of flaming someone. Even though it lacks any substance whatsoever, and doesn't even do the job it set out to do in the first place.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes there is. For example, your opinion holds no sway over my own opinion, which is that the movie needs no such defense. See, your justifications mean nothing to me, because they are rooted in your opinion. Nothing you say will turn your opinion into fact, no matter what star you wish upon, or how much you rail against the writers of the film. Nothing you say matters beyond it being your personal opinion, and no one here must deign or defer to it at all. So regardless of what you say, no, I do not think the movie needs such a defense, and since my opinion is the one that counts for me, that is enough.
It doesn't matter to me. I enjoyed the film. Your opinion is yours, not mine, and I am not required to share it in any way. One page or 100 pages of your insistent posts will not change my mind, nor anyone else's if they feel there is no need for justification. You will find it a much more enjoyable experience here if you accept that right off.
Who did it, isn't something that needed addressing. It's a minor point compared to what else is going on.
A
Amaris
Guest
Indeed. At that particular moment, they had far bigger fish to fry. Hell, it didn't even occur to me to care even on first viewing. I made the natural assumption that whomever did it was undercover and could have been just about anyone, and that most likely it had occurred in spacedock. I was more concerned with their being stranded in Klingon space with no way to get the hell out of there.
Again, that's something the writer's knew, just like you now know. But the characters didn't. They had no way to know that they didn't have a saboteur onboard and that the sabotage took place back on Earth or whenever else it did. They had no idea that they were no longer in danger. The whole point is that only the writer's knew that, so they dismissed it. But it's something the characters should not have dismissed. It was a completely stupid, boneheaded move on their part. Just like it was a bad call on the writer's part to have the characters ignore it. It was sloppy, plain and simple.
Is it so wrong that someone believes it to have been a bad call on the writer's part? Why must it be forgiven? Does it make you less of a fan for turning a blind eye to something that was obviously and inarguably bad writing?
Oh, okay, I think I understand you now. "It's not my opinion, so your opinion has no meaning." 'k. In that case, I feel exactly the same way about yours.
Oh, right. You can't enjoy something and criticize portions of it. I forgot.
Anyway, you've made your mindset clear. Feel free to keep ranting on about how you hate other people with different opinions. I won't be able to hear it.
A
Amaris
Guest
Eh, I tried.
Anyway, I generally feel that there's nothing wrong with letting people assume certain things happened. In a film where the action has started to really heat up, taking time to divert to a secondary plotline (e.g., finding out who sabotaged the ship) just wastes momentum. I mean, we're finding out rapidly that Admiral Marcus has no problems breaking the rules or covering his bases, so when the warp drive failed, and it was found not to be an accident, there's no need to find out whodunnit, we know Admiral Marcus had it done, and that's all we need to know, really. The nameless, faceless extra who pulled the switch/input the shutdown sequence either at spacedock or en route won't make any difference to the story, because we'll find out Marcus is the bad guy anyway, and we already have our hands filled with the Khan/Harrison's storyline which is already well underway.
Anyway, I generally feel that there's nothing wrong with letting people assume certain things happened. In a film where the action has started to really heat up, taking time to divert to a secondary plotline (e.g., finding out who sabotaged the ship) just wastes momentum. I mean, we're finding out rapidly that Admiral Marcus has no problems breaking the rules or covering his bases, so when the warp drive failed, and it was found not to be an accident, there's no need to find out whodunnit, we know Admiral Marcus had it done, and that's all we need to know, really. The nameless, faceless extra who pulled the switch/input the shutdown sequence either at spacedock or en route won't make any difference to the story, because we'll find out Marcus is the bad guy anyway, and we already have our hands filled with the Khan/Harrison's storyline which is already well underway.
Perhaps the characters didn't waste any time on the matter because they themselves established that the sabotage occurred prior to their leaving Spacedock based on the nature of the sabotage.
I'm also content to assume that an attempt to locate the saboteur was going on, for instance, while the others were solving the torpedo mystery. Since we can all assume Our Heroes would be a bit crazy if they -weren't- trying to locate the saboteur, and I don't think any of us think Our Heroes are that particular type of crazy (certainly Spock would have said something, yes?), it's safe to assume that they -were- trying to locate the saboteur and we just didn't see it.
I dunno, during the Trek rewatch I've been doing for a couple of friends one of them occasionally pipes up with, "Why don't they do this???" and 1/3 of the time they try that half a second-later, 1/3 of the time his own question is easily waved away with an assumption that Our Heroes know what they're doing, and the remaining 1/3 I'm willing to admit it's a bizarre oversight (the security guard apparently listening to his iPod while Data's in the brig during Descent).
I'm also content to assume that an attempt to locate the saboteur was going on, for instance, while the others were solving the torpedo mystery. Since we can all assume Our Heroes would be a bit crazy if they -weren't- trying to locate the saboteur, and I don't think any of us think Our Heroes are that particular type of crazy (certainly Spock would have said something, yes?), it's safe to assume that they -were- trying to locate the saboteur and we just didn't see it.
I dunno, during the Trek rewatch I've been doing for a couple of friends one of them occasionally pipes up with, "Why don't they do this???" and 1/3 of the time they try that half a second-later, 1/3 of the time his own question is easily waved away with an assumption that Our Heroes know what they're doing, and the remaining 1/3 I'm willing to admit it's a bizarre oversight (the security guard apparently listening to his iPod while Data's in the brig during Descent).
A
Amaris
Guest
Exactly. There was no need to devote screen time to something that could have easily been assumed to be taking place while we're with our heroes.
You're trying a little too hard here, methinks. No one has said anything at about hating "other people with different opinions," and the only thing I'm seeing which comes anywhere near being a rant is the post from which I'm currently quoting.Anyway, you've made your mindset clear. Feel free to keep ranting on about how you hate other people with different opinions. I won't be able to hear it.
You're less than satisfied with some aspects of the writing - and that's fine. Others may feel differently about those aspects - which is also fine. Those differences of opinion may be discussed, but no one should feel in any way obligated to defend anything just because they like it and someone else doesn't.
Everyone doesn't have to like the same things. It's okay, and that you disagree with another poster is no reason to get personal. You just disagree about a movie - no big deal, right?
Even Ricky the latrine attendant?
Especially him. A proper latrine is vital to morale.
Similar threads
