Tech differences in ST XI - blame the Xindi? The Vulcans?

[UFO]

You mean its likely to have world peace if most individual people in each county are violently nationalistic as they were early last century?

Nothing even compares to that here.

Well, I see you understand the principle anyway.

Surely you wouldn't claim the fight in The Trouble with Tribbles as is the same in every important respect to the one in STXI?

I would. A bar fight is a bar fight. In the "Tribbles" episode it was even done for comedic purposes! No "heavy lesson" learned. Even the confining to quarters was all done very lightly and for comedic purposes. I can assure you that particular scene after the fight wasn't written there to teach us all a valuable lesson.

You agree the Tribbles fight was for comedic reasons which the STXI fight wasn’t, so already we have a significant difference. I didn’t spot a "heavy lesson" either so it is appropriate the repercussions are also comedic. By contrast the STXI scene is more serious (where it counts) and therefore consequences should reflect that. But instead we don’t see even a few seconds that prove Star Fleet gives a damn.

I didn't say they never did. I said they didn't always uphold their end of the bargain.

The fact some may not always uphold their obligations doesn’t necessarily render the actions of those that do, humanitarian. They may take their commitments more seriously, or are simply in a better position to help at the time.

Based on a bar fight that involved Kirk and Kirk firing on the Narada?

They struck me as important. Most people seem to have things that characterise what Star Trek should embody, these are some of mine.

"Plot holes" still seems to cover my examples.

Then ask yourself what was impossible, illogical, or happened for no apparent reason in those "plot-canyon" examples? Some of the examples you cited are actually just questioning the science (and the red matter one was even touched on as to why it acted the way it does on the bridge scene.)

The galaxy threatening supernova is left unexplained in the movie. Ditto how a black hole of any type can put a cork back in that bottle. We know about the "impossibility" or running across Spock Pime etc. In fact all of my examples are either implausible or otherwise jarring. Tastes may vary on a couple.

Otherwise you're going off a very broad interpretation and will find yourself with all sorts of "plot canyons" about every 10 minutes for the past 40+ years of Star Trek if you are going to use that interpretation fairly.

There might be one or two of similar proportions in most ST movies but I think its fair to say this one had ten movies worth. That’s partly excused by what they were trying to do, but not cancelled out. People like exaggerating the problems with past Trek when comparing it to STXI, I can see why.

 

[Devon]

You agree the Tribbles fight was for comedic reasons which the STXI fight wasn’t, so already we have a significant difference. I didn’t spot a "heavy lesson" either so it is appropriate the repercussions are also comedic.

Then we have to assume that Starfleet in the prime universe doesn't necessarily care about drunken bar fights on space stations with other species and does not take the repercussions seriously. Because we're making broad assumptions based on one or two minor things, right?

By contrast the STXI scene is more serious and therefore consequences should reflect that.

Why should it? What purpose to the story would it serve? Who do you think honestly even cares what happens to Cupcake and his two friends?

But instead we don’t see even a few seconds that prove Star Fleet gives a damn.

It was 30 seconds earlier. When was it established that those characters were not dealt with accordingly?

The fact some may not always uphold their obligations doesn’t necessarily render the actions of those that do, humanitarian. They may take their commitments more seriously, or are simply in a better position to help at the time.

So what examples do you have that Starfleet did not uphold its humanitarian or peacekeeping values here? I can probably grant you Kirk's firing on the Narada (but that's Kirk though and we know what he's done before.) What else?

The galaxy threatening supernova is left unexplained in the movie.

So?

Ditto how a black hole of any type can put a cork back in that bottle.

Don't assume that it did. For all we know they still had to deal with it after Spock disappeared.

We know about the "impossibility" or running across Spock Pime etc.

Why was it impossible for Kirk and Spock to be dropped off on the nearest planet? What made that impossible?

In fact all of my examples are either implausible or otherwise jarring.

They may be implausible to you, but not impossible, and some even explained with logic like the Transwarp beaming and why red matter behaves the way it does (which was even touched on in the bridge scene.)

There might be one or two of similar proportions in most ST movies but I think its fair to say this one had ten movies worth.

It wouldn't be fair to say so. You only came up with 7 examples of what you thought they might be.

 

[F. King Daniel]

As I should have asked KingDaniel, how is this a good example for the younger set the film is apparently largely aimed at?

It's not, nor is it supposed to be. That feeling of revulsion you got when the cadets were wailing on a defenceless Kirk? That's the point. That "younger set" experienced the same emotions. We also saw an unhappy Kirk suffering in the aftermath.

It didn't portray Starfleet in the best light (I'd still pick this version over the one that allows the genocidal Section 31 any day), but it did portay the bar fight as an unpleasent and undesirable experience. "The Trouble With Tribbles", on the other hand, portrayed their bar fight as a bit of harmless fun, where no-one gets hurt and there are no real consequences - hardly a good message for the impressionable youth.

 

[F. King Daniel]

UFO, if you think this new Trek's version of Starfleet is bad/immoral/whatever, and that the new writers and director are to blame, I direct you to this review of Harve Bennett's script for his aborted early-90's prequel movie, Star Trek: The Academy Years. Institutionalized racism at Starfleet Academy, from the man behind the TOS movies.

 

[UFO]

Then we have to assume that Starfleet in the prime universe doesn't necessarily care about drunken bar fights on space stations with other species and does not take the repercussions seriously. Because we're making broad assumptions based on one or two minor things, right?

You have to get that it’s a comedy. I thought you did?

Why should it? What purpose to the story would it serve? Who do you think honestly even cares what happens to Cupcake and his two friends?

It would tell you the kind of organisation you are dealing with. Which it does either way of course. If the writers aren’t willing to tidy up when they have finished playing because it would hurt the story (no guarantee of that, it could be a dramatic moment if done well) then don’t make the bad guys Star Fleet personnel. Simple.

It was 30 seconds earlier. When was it established that those characters were not dealt with accordingly?

When we didn’t see it on screen. When we saw them on the shuttle the next day. When not one of them complains about being demoted etc.

So what examples do you have that Starfleet did not uphold its humanitarian or peacekeeping values here? I can probably grant you Kirk's firing on the Narada (but that's Kirk though and we know what he's done before.) What else?

I don't recall Kirk doing that before (Nice try, but don't even bother trying to make the ST3 scene into something it isn't) However that’s my point, they tell us SF is about peace and light but give us a war movie.

So?

So it’s a plot hole.

Don't assume that it did. For all we know they still had to deal with it after Spock disappeared.

I think that is what Spock said he was doing so still a plot hole.

Why was it impossible for Kirk and Spock to be dropped off on the nearest planet? What made that impossible?

When did I say it was? Its just very convenient. Meeting each other is nearly impossible.

They may be implausible to you, but not impossible, ...

They were implausible to my neighbours cat! And they don’t have to be impossible to be plot holes, just ridiculous.

... and some even explained with logic like the Transwarp beaming and why red matter behaves the way it does (which was even touched on in the bridge scene.)

Scotty just happened to be on planet. He just happened to be into experimental beaming. He just happened to be working on the very thing they need. Spock just happened to have the formula. The hardware just happened to be compatible with no significant alterations. It didn’t take six months and a research project to sort the bugs out given (even with the formula) he had never tried it before. In short it’s the way things keep fall into place that’s a plot hole. But you knew that right?

There might be one or two of similar proportions in most ST movies but I think its fair to say this one had ten movies worth.

It wouldn't be fair to say so. You only came up with 7 examples of what you thought they might be.

I was lazy OK? Besides one of these days I will learn to count propa. I see this is turning into a comedy as well.

That feeling of revulsion you got when the cadets were wailing on a defenceless Kirk? That's the point. That "younger set" experienced the same emotions. We also saw an unhappy Kirk suffering in the aftermath.

Perhaps, I can’t claim to know what the writers intended. It seemed to me like Star Fleet personnel were used as a low rent way to "characterise" Kirk so it seems more believable when he is redeemed by Pike. I'm not sure there was any other point. It just seemed trite and tacky.

It didn't portray Starfleet in the best light (I'd still pick this version over the one that allows the genocidal Section 31 any day), ...

Thanks for acknowledging that. You have a good point about 31, though my objection is mainly to the lack of reaction (bad things do happen after-all). I seem to recall there was at least a debate about the actions of section 31, although one source I found states:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_31)
Throughout the series, several Deep Space Nine officers, including Captain Sisko infiltrate Section 31, aiming to obtain from it a cure for the disease in order to save the life of Odo, but themselves collude in hiding the crime. This is part of a pattern of overall loss of moral credibility by Starfleet, in comparison to that which it had in the original series and The Next Generation. The Deep Space Nine series and the film Star Trek: Insurrection position the Starfleet authorities in a very dubious light".

It would seem as time went on Star Fleet became more questionable, perhaps reflecting our social cynicism. This film seemed to carry that into star fleet proper (to a less obnoxious but more in your face degree), perhaps in the name of realism but I don’t think our current military thinking supports that view.

By the way, isn't there a section 31 in the new universe?

... but it did portay the bar fight as an unpleasent and undesirable experience. "The Trouble With Tribbles", on the other hand, portrayed their bar fight as a bit of harmless fun, where no-one gets hurt and there are no real consequences - hardly a good message for the impressionable youth.

I guess they though people had more common sense when viewing a comedy back then. In STXI, as I said, it’s a more gratuitous affair, and as far as we can see, they pretend it didn’t happen.

UFO, if you think this new Trek's version of Starfleet is bad/immoral/whatever, and that the new writers and director are to blame, I direct you to this review of Harve Bennett's script for his aborted early-90's prequel movie, Star Trek: The Academy Years. Institutionalized racism at Starfleet Academy, from the man behind the TOS movies.

That was great. Thanks very much! I see what you mean about the racism though it doesn’t appear to be promoted by Star Fleet. By the sound of it, it seemed to be an issue that the script addressed, not a problem to be treated as acceptable or brushed under the carpet because it didn't move the film forward or something. Classic Trek.

PS. I wondered how STXI writers got the idea everyone was at the academy together. Shame they didn't do that movie.

 

[Devon]

Then we have to assume that Starfleet in the prime universe doesn't necessarily care about drunken bar fights on space stations with other species and does not take the repercussions seriously. Because we're making broad assumptions based on one or two minor things, right?

You have to get that it’s a comedy. I thought you did?

I did obviously since I was established that in my post, and it changes what?

It would tell you the kind of organisation you are dealing with.

No, it would tell you how the academy deals with a couple of snotty cadets. There are much better ways to tell us what kind of organization it is.

Which it does either way of course.

You keep implying this as though they weren't going to be nor were ever dealt with.

If the writers aren’t willing to tidy up when they have finished playing because it would hurt the story (no guarantee of that, it could be a dramatic moment if done well) then don’t make the bad guys Star Fleet personnel.

Star Fleet personnel were never portrayed as "bad guys."

When we didn’t see it on screen.

Which means it didn't happen off screen.

When we saw them on the shuttle the next day. When not one of them complains about being demoted etc.

Demoted from what? They were cadets, and I believe new ones at that too.

I don't recall Kirk doing that before (Nice try, but don't even bother trying to make the ST3 scene into something it isn't)

I didn't say Kirk did that before. I said we know what Kirk has done before.

However that’s my point, they tell us SF is about peace and light but give us a war movie.

99% of any devastating events caused within the film was caused by Nero, not Starfleet.

So it’s a plot hole.

It isn't.

I think that is what Spock said he was doing so still a plot hole.

You haven't given the reason why it is.

When did I say it was? Its just very convenient. Meeting each other is nearly impossible.

We know it's possible since they did. It may have been unlikely, which would a more correct way to put it. It is unlikely I will win the lottery tomorrow, but because if I do doesn't constitute some fluke in logic, impossible, or a "plot hole" in a film to be made about it, etc.

They were implausible to my neighbours cat! And they don’t have to be impossible to be plot holes, just ridiculous.

"Ridiculous" is an opinion, not the pre-req for a plot hole.

Scotty just happened to be on planet. He just happened to be into experimental beaming. He just happened to be working on the very thing they need. Spock just happened to have the formula. The hardware just happened to be compatible with no significant alterations. It didn’t take six months and a research project to sort the bugs out given (even with the formula) he had never tried it before. In short it’s the way things keep fall into place that’s a plot hole. But you knew that right?

Still not plot holes. That's like saying most of the events in "The Wrath of Khan" are "plot holes" because of the way things just "happened" to fall into place with who was where and the coincidences, something that's been covered many times.

Perhaps, I can’t claim to know what the writers intended. It seemed to me like Star Fleet personnel were used as a low rent way to "characterise" Kirk so it seems more believable when he is redeemed by Pike. I'm not sure there was any other point. It just seemed trite and tacky.

That's the way it usually works.

 

[UFO]

I did obviously [get that it’s a comedy] since I was established that in my post, and it changes what?

I’m going out on a limb here but most people don’t take comedy too seriously.

No, it would tell you how the academy deals with a couple of snotty cadets. There are much better ways to tell us what kind of organization it is.

Forgive me if I don’t ask you for any recommendations then.

You keep implying this as though they weren't going to be nor were ever dealt with.

I call em as I see em.

Star Fleet personnel were never portrayed as "bad guys."

Not intentionally.

Which means it didn't happen off screen.

We have no reason to believe anything happened off screen. The on screen evidence suggests not.

Demoted from what? They were cadets, and I believe new ones at that too.

Then demoted to civilian seems appropriate.

I didn't say Kirk did that before. I said we know what Kirk has done before.

I know, but your imply he is capable of it. But we are rehashing old ground here.

99% of any devastating events caused within the film was caused by Nero, not Starfleet.

And the writers aren’t responsible for that?

It isn't [a plot hole].

I though we had managed to widen your horizons on this topic?

You haven't given the reason why it is [a plot hole].

In your place I would have assumed that it was because it’s unexplained and therefore improbable (see widened definitions of plot holes).

We know it's possible since they did.

They are fictional characters. Nothing really happened. And I said "nearly" impossible to forestall such comments.

It may have been unlikely, which would a more correct way to put it. It is unlikely I will win the lottery tomorrow, but because if I do doesn't constitute some fluke in logic, impossible, or a "plot hole" in a film to be made about it, etc.

How could there be a plot hole in a non fiction work if it kept to the facts?

"Ridiculous" is an opinion, not the pre-req for a plot hole.

I get the irony in your signature.

That's like saying most of the events in "The Wrath of Khan" are "plot holes" because of the way things just "happened" to fall into place with who was where and the coincidences, something that's been covered many times.

And if some events in "The Wrath of Khan" are indeed too implausible then yes they are plot holes (again see wider definitions of plot holes).

That's the way it usually works.

Maybe it shouldn’t.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Then demoted to civilian seems appropriate.

Cupcake ended up a lowly redshirt security guard - which on the Enterprise is essentially a death sentence.

Seriously, the thuggish bully graduated the academy as cannon fodder - I'd say that's a pretty apt assignment. Also recall that he did his job and arrested Kirk and Scotty without incident. Maybe he learnt something in those three years?

 

[UFO]

Then demoted to civilian seems appropriate.

Cupcake ended up a lowly redshirt security guard - which on the Enterprise is essentially a death sentence.

When you put it like that, OK, he can stay. I wish I wasn't such an old softy!

 

[kkozoriz1]

And NuKirk is just the sort that would choose him specifically for the mission that Cupcake won't be coming back from.

 

[shapeshifter]

Or, it turns out, Cupcake's real name was Ben Finney.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Another theory - the Kelvin's scans of the Nerada, its weapons, and propulsion led to some new ideas developed over the next couple of decades, culminating in the more advanced Enterprise. The data would have been carried back to Federation scientists in copies of the logs carried by the escape shuttles.

Or the ejection of the log buoys from the Kelvin before it collided with the Narada.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

And honestly, Starfleet in this movie didn't look all that militaristic to me. Nobody's saluting or carrying around sidearms. You're making it sound like it looked like nuBSG.

On that last point, I'd say that the ship design, interior design, and costume design for the Starfleet cadets, costume design for young James Kirk (at 12 and 22) plus the way the movie was shot indicate to me that nuBSG was something of an inspiration.