What Are The Real Plot Holes In The Movie?

[M'Sharak]

Here's a great exchange in the script that wasn't used in the movie:
Kirk:
How is it that I found you in this cave in the middle of an ice planet? It's insane that we should ever even meet this way.
Spock:
Perhaps it's the timestream's way of trying to mend itself. It is fate and destiny trying to bring all of us together.
-source: Star trek magazine #19

That is awful.

Here, I'll fix it:

"Perhaps it's the the writers way of trying to mend the plot. It is Orci and Kurtzman trying to bring all of us together."



I suppose the timestream is why Pike's in a wheelchair, too, and the timestream is going to stage a horrible bacon-frying accident that will cover him with third-degree burns.

We all UNDERSTAND that friend, we know how movies are made and all that (they have producers and directors too, and a lot of the fake stuff is "special effects") we get it, smarty. It's playful spectulation we're engaged in, do you understrand that? It's fun to do... please stop shitting on my Sundae.

What I'm not sure I understand is how a clearly not-very-serious suggestion for altering an unused bit of dialogue constitutes shitting on your sundae (or anyone else's, for that matter.) Your response doesn't seem at all to fit the post you're quoting.

 

[Chrisisall]

how did Vulcan send a distress signal if the drill jammed all communications? And if they were able to send out a signal, why not mention 'oh yeah, and there's a huge warship in orbit'? Why were there no defenses on Vulcan or Earth? All it took to disable the drill were hand phasers. Are we really supposed to believe that there aren't aircraft or armed shuttles that could blast the thing, or even weapons that could be fired from the ground?

Or how is it so hard to find a lifeless space body in our own galaxy?
Yet STII is still pretty highly regarded, no?

constitutes shitting on your sundae

I took that to be a funny as well.

 

[FlapJoy]

I don't suppose you'd be so inclined as to elaborate on your one-word response?

OK... No, that does not rule out the alternate reality/parallel timeline.

Happy?

Annndd for what reason?

If the timeline is truly a parallel or 'alternate' reality, divergent and separate from the Prime universe, then why would it be trying to 'fix itself'?

By definition, no matter what, it IS a parallel timeline and/or alternate reality... it can't be negated 'cause it already IS. But destiny is different. As seen in many variations of the time travel theme in many stories Trek or otherwise, often it's found that you can't always change destiny no matter how many times you try. That's what the time stream would be mending: as a result of Nero's actions this heroic crew is scattered about the Trek universe, and the timestream (...or whatever it is really...) is bringing them all back together as it should be... nothing really easy to explain, but the universe might be a better place when the Enterprise crew that we grew up with is brought together, giving them importance to us... to US, the fans of these characters. So that we can enjoy their adventures for a very long time.

 

[FlapJoy]

What I'm not sure I understand is how a clearly not-very-serious suggestion for altering an unused bit of dialogue constitutes shitting on your sundae (or anyone else's, for that matter.) Your response doesn't seem at all to fit the post you're quoting.

I found the remark to be insulting... you might think different, I respect that. But, I have the right to respond, just as you have. Thanks!!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

how did Vulcan send a distress signal if the drill jammed all communications? And if they were able to send out a signal, why not mention 'oh yeah, and there's a huge warship in orbit'? Why were there no defenses on Vulcan or Earth? All it took to disable the drill were hand phasers. Are we really supposed to believe that there aren't aircraft or armed shuttles that could blast the thing, or even weapons that could be fired from the ground?

Or how is it so hard to find a lifeless space body in our own galaxy?
Yet STII is still pretty highly regarded, no?

Not to mention Reliant missing the fact that an entire planet is missing from the system and the fact that Ceti Aplha VI blew up for no apparent reason. I don't give me that not properly charted crap if the Enterprise didn't notice an unstable planet next to the one where their droping khan and his buddies off at then Kirk is either a total bastard or a complete twit.

 

[Anticitizen]

By definition, no matter what, it IS a parallel timeline and/or alternate reality... it can't be negated 'cause it already IS. But destiny is different. As seen in many variations of the time travel theme in many stories Trek or otherwise, often it's found that you can't always change destiny no matter how many times you try. That's what the time stream would be mending: as a result of Nero's actions this heroic crew is scattered about the Trek universe, and the timestream (...or whatever it is really...) is bringing them all back together as it should be... nothing really easy to explain, but the universe might be a better place when the Enterprise crew that we grew up with is brought together, giving them importance to us... to US, the fans of these characters. So that we can enjoy their adventures for a very long time.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. In the 'grading and discussion' thread, we've been arguing over whether the NuTrek timeline is the same timeline as the original series, only altered, or if it's a branch off into a parallel timeline, in which case the Prime Universe exists intact and in an 'alternate reality' to the NuTrek universe - sort of like the Mirror Universe, I guess, but different.

The cut line seems to indicate that the intention was that is the same timeline/universe, and what happened before has been 'overwritten'. Otherwise, why would it be trying to 'mend itself'?

It's not canon, because it was cut, but it is an insight into the intention.

What I'm not sure I understand is how a clearly not-very-serious suggestion for altering an unused bit of dialogue constitutes shitting on your sundae (or anyone else's, for that matter.) Your response doesn't seem at all to fit the post you're quoting.

I found the remark to be insulting... you might think different, I respect that. But, I have the right to respond, just as you have. Thanks!!

You found a criticism of a scripted plot element that wasn't filmed in a movie to be insulting to you? So which one are you, Orci or Kurtzman?

 

[Chrisisall]

LOL.

 

[Kpnuts]

I don't suppose you'd be so inclined as to elaborate on your one-word response?

OK... No, that does not rule out the alternate reality/parallel timeline.

Happy?

Annndd for what reason?

If the timeline is truly a parallel or 'alternate' reality, divergent and separate from the Prime universe, then why would it be trying to 'fix itself'?

It's not trying to fix itself, it's trying to get those two together for the good of the universe, given all the pair of them will accomplish in the future (presumably)

 

[SalvorHardin]

Ah, threads on this always go well. Let me get my popcorn and wait for 3DMaster and trevanian to arrive.

 

[FlapJoy]

By definition, no matter what, it IS a parallel timeline and/or alternate reality... it can't be negated 'cause it already IS. But destiny is different. As seen in many variations of the time travel theme in many stories Trek or otherwise, often it's found that you can't always change destiny no matter how many times you try. That's what the time stream would be mending: as a result of Nero's actions this heroic crew is scattered about the Trek universe, and the timestream (...or whatever it is really...) is bringing them all back together as it should be... nothing really easy to explain, but the universe might be a better place when the Enterprise crew that we grew up with is brought together, giving them importance to us... to US, the fans of these characters. So that we can enjoy their adventures for a very long time.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. In the 'grading and discussion' thread, we've been arguing over whether the NuTrek timeline is the same timeline as the original series, only altered, or if it's a branch off into a parallel timeline, in which case the Prime Universe exists intact and in an 'alternate reality' to the NuTrek universe - sort of like the Mirror Universe, I guess, but different.

The cut line seems to indicate that the intention was that is the same timeline/universe, and what happened before has been 'overwritten'. Otherwise, why would it be trying to 'mend itself'?

It's not canon, because it was cut, but it is an insight into the intention.

What I'm not sure I understand is how a clearly not-very-serious suggestion for altering an unused bit of dialogue constitutes shitting on your sundae (or anyone else's, for that matter.) Your response doesn't seem at all to fit the post you're quoting.

I found the remark to be insulting... you might think different, I respect that. But, I have the right to respond, just as you have. Thanks!!

You found a criticism of a scripted plot element that wasn't filmed in a movie to be insulting to you? So which one are you, Orci or Kurtzman?

I'm speaking of destiny, as I explained already. I made no direct comment on the deleted line of dialogue itself, that line was introduced by another in response to my comment about destiny.

I felt YOUR comment was a bashing of all thoughtful discussion about, and within, the context of the film itself and the universe it depicts. It was an insult to my intellegence, and I didn't think it a fair comment to make considering the conversation. If I'm alone in that opinion, so be it... but there you have it. Plus, I feel the two men you speak of did a fine job... I enjoyed the film. Did you?

 

[Aike]

The ear thing isn't a plothole, it's a continuity goof.

You've ignored your own definition that you quoted Aike.

"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline."

Yes, it is a continuity goof/error and may not be a true plot hole the way Wiki defines the word since it isn´t essential to the outcome of the story. But there are other definitions as well. For instance:

1.Missing information or a break in the continuity of a storyline.

2.An unexplained event or inplausible situation in a storyline.
1. "I never understood why Wallace give the ring back at the end of the movie. That was a serious plot hole."

Source: Urban Dictionary

Anyway, it is one of the most illogical events in the movie.
Much more so than, say, the example above about the brig. That could never be a plot hole since we don´t whether there is a brig on the Enterprise in this universe or not. That there is one is just an assumption based on previous incarnations of Trek.

So the truth is this:
The biggest ship anyone could run thru the plot holes of the movie is not Narada -- it´s the Kelvin Salt Shaker. It is pretty much the same size as a Romulan ear.

 

[M'Sharak]

By definition, no matter what, it IS a parallel timeline and/or alternate reality... it can't be negated 'cause it already IS. But destiny is different. As seen in many variations of the time travel theme in many stories Trek or otherwise, often it's found that you can't always change destiny no matter how many times you try. That's what the time stream would be mending: as a result of Nero's actions this heroic crew is scattered about the Trek universe, and the timestream (...or whatever it is really...) is bringing them all back together as it should be... nothing really easy to explain, but the universe might be a better place when the Enterprise crew that we grew up with is brought together, giving them importance to us... to US, the fans of these characters. So that we can enjoy their adventures for a very long time.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. In the 'grading and discussion' thread, we've been arguing over whether the NuTrek timeline is the same timeline as the original series, only altered, or if it's a branch off into a parallel timeline, in which case the Prime Universe exists intact and in an 'alternate reality' to the NuTrek universe - sort of like the Mirror Universe, I guess, but different.

The cut line seems to indicate that the intention was that is the same timeline/universe, and what happened before has been 'overwritten'. Otherwise, why would it be trying to 'mend itself'?

It's not canon, because it was cut, but it is an insight into the intention.

I found the remark to be insulting... you might think different, I respect that. But, I have the right to respond, just as you have. Thanks!!

You found a criticism of a scripted plot element that wasn't filmed in a movie to be insulting to you? So which one are you, Orci or Kurtzman?

I'm speaking of destiny, as I explained already. I made no direct comment on the deleted line of dialogue itself, that line was introduced by another in response to my comment about destiny.

I felt YOUR comment was a bashing of all thoughtful discussion about, and within, the context of the film itself and the universe it depicts. It was an insult to my intellegence, and I didn't think it a fair comment to make considering the conversation. If I'm alone in that opinion, so be it... but there you have it. Plus, I feel the two men you speak of did a fine job... I enjoyed the film. Did you?

I'm afraid I really don't see an insult in it, either -- to your intelligence or to anyone else's. Anticitizen had a different opinion than Chrisisall about a particular scrap of dialogue (which the writers decided anyway that the movie was better without) and expressed that opinion in somewhat wry fashion. I just don't see the "bashing of all thoughtful discussion" to which you refer, and it seems clear that Anticitizen meant no insult by his remarks; he just didn't think much of the line. No big deal, right?

 

[Anticitizen]

I'm speaking of destiny, as I explained already.

If you believe 'destiny' will alter all possible timelines so that they are similar, that's fine, go right ahead. I don't subscribe to it because of the implications it has for free will, but hey, whatever.

I felt YOUR comment was a bashing of all thoughtful discussion about, and within, the context of the film itself and the universe it depicts. It was an insult to my intellegence, and I didn't think it a fair comment to make considering the conversation. If I'm alone in that opinion, so be it... but there you have it. Plus, I feel the two men you speak of did a fine job...

Which comment? If you're not talking about the cut lines, then you must be referring to my only earlier posts in the thread:

Your first example (Nero's ear) was a visual continuity error, not a plot hole.

The thinner atmosphere of Vulcan was first mentioned in 'Amok Time', way back in TOS. It's reasonable to conjecture that upper atmosphere would be thinner. That's just bad science, though - I wouldn't call it a 'plot hole', otherwise we'd have to toss out half of Trek. It should be categorized under a different subset of 'movie mistakes'. Mistakes like that don't necessarily subtract from a film unless they're very glaring mistakes.

What STXI suffers from are not plot holes, per se, but plot contrivances and coincidences that really strain credulity. It's not a plot hole that Spock uncharacteristically marooned Kirk on an ice planet a few hundred yards where Spock Prime was hanging out with wooden (!) torches - a few kilometers from Scotty, no less - but it is fairly ridiculous and makes the Star Trek universe look about as large and populated as the North Mariana Islands. Only smaller.

Though a plot contrivance could be described as a sort of shallow plot hole. Not one that breaks your axle, but it sure roughens up the ride.
-----

Then there are things which could be considered 'shallow' plot holes because they aren't explained onscreen. For example, how did Vulcan send a distress signal if the drill jammed all communications? And if they were able to send out a signal, why not mention 'oh yeah, and there's a huge warship in orbit'? Why were there no defenses on Vulcan or Earth? All it took to disable the drill were hand phasers. Are we really supposed to believe that there aren't aircraft or armed shuttles that could blast the thing, or even weapons that could be fired from the ground?

Nero's motivations certainly qualify. 25 years of hatred for the man who tried to save his planet... okay, if he's a madman, I could maybe buy that. But I feel at some point one of his crew would get fed up with the obsession, realize the ramifications of destroying entire worlds, or be worried about mucking up his own timeline that he'd put a distruptor up to the back of Nero's head and pull the trigger.

There could be explanations for these things, but they didn't bother to give us any. They certainly are plot implausibilities, so I categorize them as 'shallow plot holes'.

Oh, and concerning the cut line about the timeline 'trying to mend itself' above - I guess that rules out the alternate reality/parallel timeline, doesn't it?​

I'm struggling to ascertain what about that - or anything else I've written - that you find 'insulting to your intelligence'.

As for 'bashing thoughtful discussion', uh, read the title of the thread again... if you feel bad that someone's criticizing a movie you like, maybe you should avoid threads titled 'what are the real plot holes in the movie'.

I enjoyed the film. Did you?

For the most part, yes. I raised a few eyebrows throughout the film, but it was fun. It was when I was at home afterward lying in bed that I starting thinking a little too much about the plot and it fell apart.

Kinda like 'Independence Day'. I was 90% sure it was the best damn science fiction action flick EVER when the credits started rolling. When I was getting in the car, I was 80% sure. When I made it to my driveway, I was 30% sure... you get the idea.

 

[Chrisisall]

(which the writers decided anyway that the movie was better without)

Er, actually, according to the interview:
Kurtzman- "...I wish we'd kept it."

 

[Anticitizen]

Someone suggested in another thread that a better way to have Kirk meet Spock would be to have Scotty piloting a maintenance/waste management ship in the Vulcan area, scout for survivors, find Spock Prime floating in a debris field spacesuit (where Nero left him to watch Vulcan die), and then have Kirk meet up with him - perhaps Scotty's about to head to Earth with the survivors he's picked up and Spock dumps him there for transit back. I really liked that idea - it doesn't make NuSpock out to be a crazy person who will dump a crewmember on a frozen planet, and it reduces the inane improbability of Kirk crash-landing next to Spock's cave. Tidy, neat, and doesn't require the mysterious hand of destiny to move the plot along.

And it achieves the same purpose.

 

[Chrisisall]

And it achieves the same purpose.

Very slick.

 

[JGordon]

Someone suggested in another thread that a better way to have Kirk meet Spock would be to have Scotty piloting a maintenance/waste management ship in the Vulcan area, scout for survivors, find Spock Prime floating in a debris field spacesuit (where Nero left him to watch Vulcan die), and then have Kirk meet up with him - perhaps Scotty's about to head to Earth with the survivors he's picked up and Spock dumps him there for transit back. I really liked that idea - it doesn't make NuSpock out to be a crazy person who will dump a crewmember on a frozen planet, and it reduces the inane improbability of Kirk crash-landing next to Spock's cave. Tidy, neat, and doesn't require the mysterious hand of destiny to move the plot along.

And it achieves the same purpose.

That would have been an excellent way to tie up everything. And then you would also solve the whole "where exactly is the planet on which Spock was marooned?"

Kind of wish the writers had thought of that.

 

[M'Sharak]

(which the writers decided anyway that the movie was better without)

Er, actually, according to the interview:
Kurtzman- "...I wish we'd kept it."

My mistake; I haven't read the magazine in question and was going by what I remembered from an earlier interview (pre-general release):

Geek: Even though things are different in this timeline, like Kirk coming aboard the Enterprise first as a cadet, by the end of the movie every one of the original bridge crew end up where they are supposed to be. Is there some kind of notion that it is their destiny to be on that bridge, regardless of what timeline you are on?

Kurtzman: Yes. In fact there was one version of the script where Kirk points out that it is incredibly odd that they all sort of turned as they would have. Nimoy Spock tells Kirk ‘I knew this character as this person and that character as that person’ and Kirk says ‘wow, those characters are exactly the same ones that I know’ and Spock says something like ‘Fascinating, that must be the timestream’s way of trying to mend itself.’

Orci: It is a nod to destiny. And there is still something like that in the film.

How about: (which someone decided should be omitted from the finished picture.)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Nero's motivations certainly qualify. 25 years of hatred for the man who tried to save his planet... okay, if he's a madman, I could maybe buy that. But I feel at some point one of his crew would get fed up with the obsession, realize the ramifications of destroying entire worlds, or be worried about mucking up his own timeline that he'd put a distruptor up to the back of Nero's head and pull the trigger.

I found a good respose to that in another thread.

Nero is a passionate, angry, irrational, hate filled, half mad (or fully mad) man.

He has seen his family, his entire planet destroyed because Romulan and Vulcan politicians would not act and do what's necessary. Because they let stupid pride and prejudice blind them.

He placed his trust in Spock and his promises and Spock did not deliver. All he ended up offering is patience and more words when swift action was needed.
He wasted valuable time instead of maybe even helping Nero steal by force the technology and save Romulus at all costs.

He was thrown back in time unwillingly and spent a decade in a Klingon prison.

He has a super advanced powerful ship in his hands that destroys Klingon armadas. He does not believe he can lose.

He has centuries to save Romulus in this timeline and a burning desire for revenge right now.

I don't see how anyone can expect such a man to do what we consider the right course of action sitting safely behind our keyboards.

 

[davejames]

Someone suggested in another thread that a better way to have Kirk meet Spock would be to have Scotty piloting a maintenance/waste management ship in the Vulcan area, scout for survivors, find Spock Prime floating in a debris field spacesuit (where Nero left him to watch Vulcan die), and then have Kirk meet up with him - perhaps Scotty's about to head to Earth with the survivors he's picked up and Spock dumps him there for transit back. I really liked that idea - it doesn't make NuSpock out to be a crazy person who will dump a crewmember on a frozen planet, and it reduces the inane improbability of Kirk crash-landing next to Spock's cave. Tidy, neat, and doesn't require the mysterious hand of destiny to move the plot along.

And it achieves the same purpose.

Eh, Kirk running into Spock Prime in some grungy spaceship just doesn't have the magic and mystery of an ice cave on an alien planet (and I'm sure the writers also wanted a better backdrop for the mind meld sequence). And while Spock Prime watching the destruction of Vulcan from this planet may not be completely plausible, it still seems more visually poetic and elegant than him watching it while floating in space in a spacesuit. All the special effects and hardware would get in the way of the emotion of the moment.

Besides, it would still strike me as a massive coincidence that Spock deposits Kirk on the ONE ship in the quadrant that happens to be carrying Spock Prime and Scotty.