The Supernova.

[lawman]

"The Voyage Home." (And yes it counts, and yes it was product placement.)

Plus the Michelob beer (mentioned by name) at the pizza place and the Chevrolet truck (seen multiple times) and the Pacific Bell Yellow Pages and a USA Today newspaper rack. But I would think the rules would be a touch different in a film that takes place in the 20th Century.

Yeah, the setting covers a lot of incidental things, but you're right: Michelob in the dialogue is completely gratuitous. No defending that.

(Why can't some good beer companies pay for product placement, at least? )

And it's especially odd that you mention Winona and Sam, since I'd already pointed out that neither one was named on screen.

I'm going to assume you meant to say George instead of Sam, since Sam was named when we saw him in Operation Annhilate.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I meant in this movie. Winona was shown (for the first time ever, in fact), but never actually named on screen (even though her name was in the script). Sam wasn't on screen at all; he was left on the cutting-room floor.

Regarding the supernova, the film states that the Red Matter was needed in order to create a black hole that would stop it. But the Romulans themselves are fully capable of creating their own artificial singularities, which they use to power their ships, so what do they need the Red Matter for in the first place?

Excellent point, and the first time I've heard that mentioned. It's amazing how even all these months later, more plot glitches in this film keep being discovered!...

Or *gasp* he meant it!

Perhaps you're not reading all the posts here. Do you really mean to suggest that Pike (and thus by extension the writers) meant to refer to the Federation (not just Starfleet) as an "armada"?

To clear this up: The reasoning for it being built on the ground isn't important. There would be zero reason to explain why it is the way it is because it is there for about all of 5 seconds. The important part of that scene was Kirk's turning point and seeing his future. ... I mean do you honestly think that many people care? They don't. Also how is it important to the story? ... It seems to be of little importance to anyone else for that matter. Therefore the writers knew what worked and went for it.

When someone brings up a point of discussion about which they care (and, given available evidence from past debates, about which a great many others also care), saying "nobody cares" really isn't a relevant response. (Lots of people don't care about anything that happens in the U.S. Congress, either, but that doesn't mean it's not worth debating among those who do.)

IMHO, building a starship on Earth (much less in Riverside, Iowa) seems staggeringly counter-intuitive, even if I didn't know that past Trek canon indicated far more logical space-based construction. For story purposes it's obviously convenient to have it in Kirk's hometown, thus enabling that symbolic beat you describe, but that doesn't make it any more plausible. Therefore, a line or two of dialogue to explain that implausibility would have been welcome, rather than just expecting viewers to swallow it as-is.

That's a problem with a lot of what's in this movie, actually: something may make sense in metanarrative terms given our knowledge of what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, but it doesn't make sense within the story. One kind of reason is not a substitute for the other.

Not at all. I didn't think it would be hard to figure that some changes would happen because of an alternate timeline (like anything else in Trek in which this occured.) Plus how would some of these "changes" be explained? The people of this timeline aren't even aware of the changes until 3/4 of the way through, or 25 years after they started. That's what you need to understand. To them, the Enterprise looks the way it's supposed to, it's built on the ground because it's supposed (which obviously caused no problems,) etc. Therefore there are no changes to have to explain.

Decent SF stories routinely find ways to explain things to readers/viewers that are taken for granted by the characters themselves. Likewise decent historical fiction, etc., and essentially every other genre that's not present-day mimetic. There's nothing unusual about this. It's just good storytelling.

You're making all these claims that the writers "should do this" or "should do that" as though you're some sort of self proclaimed authority figure on how to write, but have offered little reasoning or solutions to doing so yourself.

Ah, the old "if the critic is so smart why didn't he write something better" argument. I trust you understand why this, too, is nonresponsive to the actual points under discussion?

...I dont like making accusations like "careless stupidity". I've no idea what the thought process behind a creative decision might be. They might be perfectly aware that the science is bad but went with it any way for any number of reasons. We dont write or produce movies ( well I know I dont) so I'm not sure I can always differentiate bewtween "stupid" and needs of the medium/story/visual presentation or impact. But I'm the generous sort and the world's negative enough.

I try to extend a lot of benefit of the doubt to storytellers, knowing that it's not as easy as it looks. Nevertheless, to my eyes Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman frankly wore out that benefit before the first act of this movie was over. There's a point of diminishing returns beyond which the effort required to think "well, this must be serving the story somehow, even if it seems stupid" is just more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Nerys Myk]

...I dont like making accusations like "careless stupidity". I've no idea what the thought process behind a creative decision might be. They might be perfectly aware that the science is bad but went with it any way for any number of reasons. We dont write or produce movies ( well I know I dont) so I'm not sure I can always differentiate bewtween "stupid" and needs of the medium/story/visual presentation or impact. But I'm the generous sort and the world's negative enough.

I try to extend a lot of benefit of the doubt to storytellers, knowing that it's not as easy as it looks. Nevertheless, to my eyes Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman frankly wore out that benefit before the first act of this movie was over. There's a point of diminishing returns beyond which the effort required to think "well, this must be serving the story somehow, even if it seems stupid" is just more trouble than it's worth.

Totally worth it if you have a good time. No sure what you saw in the first act that didn't "serve" the story, though.

Just saw the Mythbusters were the the Gorn Cannon is "busted". I can never watch Arena again!!! What...will we do?

 

[Devon]

Excellent point, and the first time I've heard that mentioned. It's amazing how even all these months later, more plot glitches in this film keep being discovered!...

Not really. If the Narada runs on a singularity then I doubt they would want to use their OWN supply that they depend on to start destroying planets and then left be stranded in the middle of space eventually and powerless. This way they keep their own supply, have an exhaustive supply of the Red Matter and if they even need it for their power they have it. Problem solved.

Perhaps you're not reading all the posts here. Do you really mean to suggest that Pike (and thus by extension the writers) meant to refer to the Federation (not just Starfleet) as an "armada"?

Sure, why don't you ask him?

When someone brings up a point of discussion about which they care (and, given available evidence from past debates, about which a great many others also care), saying "nobody cares" really isn't a relevant response.

A great many? Not really (and the only fuss about it is seemingly coming from you and maybe two other people at the moment.)

For story purposes it's obviously convenient to have it in Kirk's hometown, thus enabling that symbolic beat you describe, but that doesn't make it any more plausible.

To you. However, you'll have a hard time disproving that this Enterprise was built on the ground.

Therefore, a line or two of dialogue to explain that implausibility would have been welcome, rather than just expecting viewers to swallow it as-is.

Obviously the writers felt no implausibility, therefore why would they talk about how implausible it is? And what purpose would it serve?

That's a problem with a lot of what's in this movie, actually:

Actually? In your opinion.

something may make sense in metanarrative terms given our knowledge of what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, but it doesn't make sense within the story. One kind of reason is not a substitute for the other.

It doesn't make sense to you.

Ah, the old "if the critic is so smart why didn't he write something better" argument. I trust you understand why this, too, is nonresponsive to the actual points under discussion?

I would hope that you wouldn't make statements telling people how to do their job without actually knowing how to do their job as well? Therefore I'm interested in all of your alternatives to these supposed problems, if you have any, based on your sudden expertise in film writing.

 

[Pauln6]

I understand all the reasons why they made the decisions that they did. The Enterprise was built on Earth 10 years later than normal for no reason other than they wanted Kirk to ride past it and be inspired.

Kirk was fired down to the planet in the middle of nowhere for no reason other than they wanted to pit him against some cgi critters.

The brewery - ok this one I do NOT understand. Engineer's say it was dumb and not even comparable to 21st century engine rooms. Best I can do is that they wanted a comedy moment for Scotty and bathing him in plasma would have been bad. Good way to kill Keenser though!

It wasn't the story they were worried about it was the emotional/excitement quotient. There are hundreds of examples of Hollywood film opting for dumb stunts, explosions, and gratuitous moments of sentimentality to the detriment of the plot. One of the things that irked me in the Dark Knight was the sheer size of the explosion when Joker blew up the hospital. I mean, how long would it have taken him and his men to pack HOW MUCH(?) explosives in the hospital to produce an explosion of that size. Dumb and unnecessary.

Actually, I watched a Man for All Sesaons yesterday for the first tiime and was blown away by how good it was. I loved the Lion in Winter too and I was astounded by how good All About Eve was when I finally got round to watching it. I wonder how many people who are very happy to overlook the plot holes and stupid moments in NuTrek would think that tightly plotted movies like those are stupid and boring? It really is different strokes for different folks but I know which side of the fence I'm happy to be on

 

[Devon]

I understand all the reasons why they made the decisions that they did. The Enterprise was built on Earth 10 years later than normal for no reason other than they wanted Kirk to ride past it and be inspired.

Kirk was fired down to the planet in the middle of nowhere for no reason other than they wanted to pit him against some cgi critters.

How else would they do so?

The brewery - ok this one I do NOT understand. Engineer's say it was dumb and not even comparable to 21st century engine rooms.

I'll explain in a second. But why would it need to be comparable to 21st Century engine rooms?

Best I can do is that they wanted a comedy moment for Scotty and bathing him in plasma would have been bad. Good way to kill Keenser though!

Not exactly. Perhaps you aren't aware of the published image of the originally designed engineering that didn't look like a brewery at all? However, a cost saving and fast alternative was an industrial location that was used in other Sci-Fi, being the Van Nuys engineering. This was touched on by John Eaves at one point if I recall.

It wasn't the story they were worried about it was the emotional/excitement quotient.

You only named three examples, most of which took no more than 5 minutes of the film. They did this many times in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," etc., and others. This is absolutely nothing new in the slightest, even with Trek, of writing scenes for an "emotional impact.'

 

[Pauln6]

Lol - People have this and many other threads to consider all the plot holes and 'errors'. No need to repeat them all surely?

TMP did indeed use some (but not as many) similar things but it has received criticism for similar reasons (long fly-by, only ship in the quadrant etc). If TMP had contained a bit more dramatic tension & excitement it would have been better. If NuTrek had added a few more brief lines of dialogue and a few slight tweaks to justify some of the dumber plot contrivances & holes, it would have been better. I still like both movies but don't get me started on Star Wars III.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about the brewery. Apparently water isn't cold enough to act as a coolant for ship's engines in the real world or among Trek lore. But yeah I know, this universe has different laws of physics. Meh.

 

[lawman]

[Not really. If the Narada runs on a singularity then I doubt they would want to use their OWN supply that they depend on to start destroying planets and then left be stranded in the middle of space eventually and powerless. This way they keep their own supply, have an exhaustive supply of the Red Matter and if they even need it for their power they have it. Problem solved.

I think you're misreading the poster's question. It's not about what the Narada does. It's about 24th-century Romulans: if they have the ability to create quick-and-easy singularities (as they do, to power their ships), then why did they need to rely on Spock and his Red Matter in the first place to defuse the supernova? They could've handled it themselves.

...It wasn't the story they were worried about it was the emotional/excitement quotient. There are hundreds of examples of Hollywood film opting for dumb stunts, explosions, and gratuitous moments of sentimentality to the detriment of the plot. ... It really is different strokes for different folks but I know which side of the fence I'm happy to be on

Hear, hear. You sum it up well, and your examples are spot-on. And there's room for that kind of thing in the entertainment universe. I don't usually spend time criticizing Big Dumb Action Movies, or any other genre I dislike; to each his own, and I can just leave them be and save my ticket money.

But on an occasion like this, when the choice to go that direction is made in the context of a fictional property I care about, it's a different matter. Trek was never perfect, of course, but it did used to have different and higher standards, and I lament seeing those cast aside.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

You're making all these claims that the writers "should do this" or "should do that" as though you're some sort of self proclaimed authority figure on how to write, but have offered little reasoning or solutions to doing so yourself.

Sorry, Devon, but I have to disagree.

lawman has been giving his reasoning all along. He's been pointing out the things he didn't like or that he thought could have been done better, and in each instance he's explained in some detail why he thought so. I don't think his primary aim has been to state how a given thing should have been done (as opposed to the way the filmmakers chose) but he has on occasion offered some suggestions of how a particular element of the film might have been made stronger.

Further, I don't believe that lawman has presented himself as any more an authority on writing than anyone else; again, he's simply been pointing out--as a consumer of film and television who enjoys well-written material--what he feels to be weaknesses in this movie's writing, and explaining why he thinks they are weaknesses. He's been holding up his end of the discussion quite satisfactorily, IMO (and quite patiently, I might add.)

 

[EJA]

Regarding the supernova, the film states that the Red Matter was needed in order to create a black hole that would stop it. But the Romulans themselves are fully capable of creating their own artificial singularities, which they use to power their ships, so what do they need the Red Matter for in the first place?

Difference: scale.

Care to elaborate?

 

[BurntSynapse]

It's a reboot. That's why San Fran looks like Trantor, that's why the ships are bigger amd have beer brewery engine rooms.
These things do not matter. They are mostly different artistic spins on what went before and affect only those who worship size-comparison charts and still haven't forgiven The Dark Knight for contradicting Adam West's Batman.
Nobody except a few die-hards wanted to see a Kirk/Mitchell/Piper origin story. They want the real Star Trek crew, not one-shot characters from a pilot whose line-up changed.
Chekov's in it STXI by error, but because they wanted to pit him in, so they changed his age to fit. Most fans forgive these things.

The supernova? Didn't make much sense.

The real question is WHY do we apply scientific rules to supernovas rather than say not to worry, it is an "artistic spin" and we apply an opposite evaluation for ship design? I think we have a right to expect minimal standards that storytellers will have to follow, or be judged hacks.

I had no desire to see a K/M/P origin story since I don't know anything about other than some vague Gary Mitchell quote about "throwing" a woman at Kirk during Academy who Kirk almost married, but that plot can be as badly written as this film - or even worse...although this is a top contender for that dishonor, IMO.

Creating art based on polling data (i.e.:"what fans want") and we create crap. We would never get anything revolutionary, creative, or outstanding, in part because the corporate types that take this approach don't even consider asking questions like:
"Which of the following would make a great Trek?"
___Conveys mystery of exploration and the thrill of discovery,
___Shows intelligent, identifiable characters solving complex problems in an epic conflict
___Features reasonable antagonists with believable motivations and justifications
___Extends today's latest astronomy, physics, engineering, military studies, cognitive science and medicine into the future
___Maintains the highest possible consistency with canon.
___Presents important issues and deep truths for reflection & discussion
___Takes social and political risks
___Contains tight, hard hitting and error-free dialog based on real world cockpit and naval bridge best practices, as appropriate
___Etc.

 

[Pauln6]

I thought this might make a few of the posters on this site happy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/21/hollywood-films-obey-laws-science

 

[lawman]

I had no desire to see a K/M/P origin story since I don't know anything about other than some vague Gary Mitchell quote about "throwing" a woman at Kirk during Academy who Kirk almost married, but that plot can be as badly written as this film - or even worse...although this is a top contender for that dishonor, IMO.

That's a fair point. I didn't mean to suggest that including Mitchell or any other particular character would necessarily have made this a better movie... as long as these writers and this director were in charge, I'm sure it would've still been pretty much as bad as what we saw. I was merely pointing out that including such would at least have validated the writers' claims that they were trying to show respect for prior Trek.

Creating art based on polling data (i.e.:"what fans want") and we create crap. We would never get anything revolutionary, creative, or outstanding, in part because the corporate types that take this approach don't even consider asking questions like:
"Which of the following would make a great Trek?"
___Conveys mystery of exploration and the thrill of discovery,
___Shows intelligent, identifiable characters solving complex problems in an epic conflict
___Features reasonable antagonists with believable motivations and justifications
___Extends today's latest astronomy, physics, engineering, military studies, cognitive science and medicine into the future
___Maintains the highest possible consistency with canon.
___Presents important issues and deep truths for reflection & discussion
___Takes social and political risks
___Contains tight, hard hitting and error-free dialog based on real world cockpit and naval bridge best practices, as appropriate
___Etc.

Wonderfully put. These are the sorts of things I, as a viewer, would "want to see" from Star Trek, but nobody asked me. I might replace your reference to consistency with canon (since that seems to be a hot-button word around here) with "internal consistency in the fictional universe," but that doesn't change the overall thrust of your points.

I think even the most passionate fans of this film would be hard-pressed to argue that it measures up to any of these standards. Instead, they look for ways to justify setting a much lower bar.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Regarding the supernova, the film states that the Red Matter was needed in order to create a black hole that would stop it. But the Romulans themselves are fully capable of creating their own artificial singularities, which they use to power their ships, so what do they need the Red Matter for in the first place?

Difference: scale.

Care to elaborate?

Simple: A Black Hole for generating power in a Romulan Warbird is probably created microscopically then fed. Think of the LHC as a possible prototype for how they might do this.

A Black Hole of the mass/size necessary to absorb a portion of the Supernova could not be created as quickly or reliably using that method.

 

[Set Harth]

I had no desire to see a K/M/P origin story since I don't know anything about other than some vague Gary Mitchell quote about "throwing" a woman at Kirk during Academy who Kirk almost married

Carol Marcus.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I had no desire to see a K/M/P origin story since I don't know anything about other than some vague Gary Mitchell quote about "throwing" a woman at Kirk during Academy who Kirk almost married

Carol Marcus.

Yep, a Blonde Lab Technician.

 

[Devon]

I think even the most passionate fans of this film would be hard-pressed to argue that it measures up to any of these standards. Instead, they look for ways to justify setting a much lower bar.

I think it measures up to a few of his made up standards, which is about on par with other Star Trek. Next?

 

[BurntSynapse]

I think it measures up to a few of his made up standards, which is about on par with other Star Trek. Next?

You believe "I think" supports an opinion?

 

[lawman]

Some people don't seem to grasp the distinction between making a blanket assertion, and offering an actual coherent argument. The use of the dismissive "Next?" indicates that such a poster actually thinks he's rebutted something.

 

[Devon]

I think it measures up to a few of his made up standards, which is about on par with other Star Trek. Next?

You believe "I think" supports an opinion?

Yes, as an opinion is based on what one "thinks" or feels.

Some people don't seem to grasp the distinction between making a blanket assertion, and offering an actual coherent argument.

Well it was you who made the blanket assertion that people defending the film are supposedly "defending a lower bar." So this is on you.

The use of the dismissive "Next?" indicates that such a poster actually thinks he's rebutted something.

That's because he actually did in regards to your assertion.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I think it measures up to a few of his made up standards, which is about on par with other Star Trek. Next?

You believe "I think" supports an opinion?

Yes, as an opinion is based on what one "thinks" or feels.

Oh no....Our school system is atrocious, isn't it? If cheating people weren't so profitable (religion, corporations, politics), I really think logic would be taught in grade school. What could be more important than teaching children to recognize well-supported claims, poorly-supported ones, and the rules for recognizing, evaluating, and constructing them...

The use of the dismissive "Next?" indicates that such a poster actually thinks he's rebutted something.

That's because he actually did in regards to your assertion.

In responding, where does one begin?

The "rebuttal" asserted that my claims were opinion, yet despite repeated requests for what supporters regard as rules for acceptable narrative, they have not provided anything to even acknowledge any rule beyond personal enjoyment. Such false claims appear to be maintained either in ignorance or deception.

The "rebuttal" asserted the rules were "mine", falsely implying they originated with me.

The "rebuttal" asserted the rules were "made up" by me, rather than over a long period of hard work by many people involved in literary criticism and study of what constitutes good narrative. If one believes "anything goes" then no rules are appropriate, and "good" or "bad" lose meaning. If breaking rules is good, then someone claiming a 4-sided figure is a triangle could be considered "better" (e.g.: "more creative") than one claiming a 2D, 3-sided figure is a triangle.

It seems unwarranted to cite critics of the former with enforcing their own, "made-up" rules of general geometry and triangles in particular when we all learn and agree triangles properly have 3 sides...and fencing is not bushido or kenjutsu. However, if you or anyone would like to posit why this creative approach is superior to that which people have been working on for a very long time (i.e.: "made up" rules for logic or lit), some of us reasonable people will be happy to consider such proposals.

Finally, whether a claim has been successfully rebutted has NO bearing on whether the observation that use of "Next" is dismissive and/or insulting is valid or not.