Plot hole city: Part II!

[Saquist]

Yes, Earth's magnetic field encounters those waves of energetic particles all the time but it's far from a shockwave....shockwaves move through some sort of medium. Space isn't that "think" with particles to allow shock waves. What we do see is concentrations of particles from exploded stars that have thrown off their shell. We call it a shockwave but the star is litterally creating the energy AND the medium at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Presently accepted astronomical theory says that the interstellar medium, though not very dense at all, still is dense enough to propagate sound waves and shock waves. For an introduction, simply search for the word "sound" on http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/IBEXDidYouKnow_prt.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Termination_shock.

I've read both articles before.
Confused...I read them again. Could you perhaps highlight exactly where these articles say space can propagate sound waves?

I am going buy what we saw on screen at least in this instance.

But black holes don't collapse, they are collapsed thus the name "collapsar" or collapsed star.

With a flash of light the final pieces of Vulcan are consumed and then the Black Hole is gone.

That entire idea idea violates the conservation of energy and the conservation of matter. Matter can't be created or destroyed in a closed system only converted. While the technology aspect may allow for this...(barely) the story doesn't tell us this and just because you don't see a black hole doesn't mean it isn't there.

The movie is science fiction therefore the science will serve the story and there will be times when the science will be flat out wrong. Inaccurate science in a science fiction movie is not a plot whole. If we were to critique the actual science in Star trek we would be here all day.

That's not the point.
The use of science in these particular events DO impact the plot and thus can be technically called "plot holes". Granted it's a nitpick of bad science but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. These sort of plot holes may be considered extremely minor because the public is unaware of them but I have to say the definition of plot holes isn't about awareness of the audience. (Look at Jurassic Park) Does this happen at other sci fi mediums of course and if we were discussing other sci fi mediums I would surely point them out. This thread is about Trek 2009's plot holes.


We tend to regard the science portion of Trek with an almost cursory is not dismissive attitude as opposed to the entertainment. Trek 09' goes a bit farther because even though (apparently) they had a consultant they added that line on the supernova anyway and that is just plain stupid. If you're going to play in the science fiction back yard at least make some pretense of following it's rules.

Not destroying Delta Vega isn't a big issue.

Are you advocating that in science fiction that the science has to be 100% accurate and realistic?

Absolutely not. (event thought that's what I would prefer.) But I also don't advocate Trek' 09's stupidity on the issue of the supernova.

The flaw isn't the audience imagination it's the story-tellers ability to tell a proper story.

 

[Gojira]

Because the last one was so much fun!

1) When Kirk and Sulu fall off the drilling platform, and Chekov beams them back to the ship as they're falling ("I Can do zat!"), how do they survive the fall? Obviously the transporter doesn't "cancel" their momentum, because they're still falling as soon as they materialize. So shouldn't they die as soon as they smash into transporter room floor?

You're assuming their velocity is going to be the same when they re-materialize. Once they are re-materialize in the transporter room they are only falling a few inches.

Being transported stopped their forward motion and when being
re-materialized they begin again their forward motion but now it is only a few inches they are falling so they do not have the space with which to once again increase velocity

2) When the black hole is about to destroy Vulcan, an officer on the Enterprise says "We won't reach minimum safe distance if we don't leave immediately." Yet somehow, there's plenty of time for nuSpock to beam down and evacuate the high council (which takes at least several minutes), and the Enterprise still gets away without any problem.

This type of thing happens throughout the entire franchise of Star Trek! It builds tension. Without the sense of time being limited for nuSpock there would be no tension.

3) How did Nero intercept Spock Prime's Jellyfish, before they both got sucked into the black hole? Wasn't the Jellyfish the "fastest ship" available at the time? Why would it have any trouble at all outrunning a giant mining vessel?

You're making an assumption that the Narada was chasing after the Jellyfish and overtook it. It is entirely plausible that they crossed paths coming from different directions.

4) Why doesn't Spock Prime travel with Kirk back to the Enterprise? Wouldn't that make battling Nero just a little bit easier if there were 2 Spocks instead of one, one of whom has access to futuristic knowledge and technolgy? And why does Spock think that Kirk commanding the Enterprise is the best way to beat Nero? Kirk couldn't even handle a snow monster by himself, what in God's name makes Spock think he's a match for Nero and his Death Star?

Old Spock explains this one very well. NuKirk and NuSpock diliked one another they needed the experience of working together to build their friendship that would, as Old Spock says, "come to define you both."

5) During all this time travelling and alteration of history, where are Braxton and the rest of those dudes from Voyager who are supposed to protect the timeline from things like this? Did they go on vacation?

You're kidding right? Anyway more than a plot hole this one seems to be more about your expectations.

Star trek is all about telling good stories if the temporal police is part of a good story the writers want to tell then they will be included.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yes, Earth's magnetic field encounters those waves of energetic particles all the time but it's far from a shockwave....shockwaves move through some sort of medium. Space isn't that "think" with particles to allow shock waves. What we do see is concentrations of particles from exploded stars that have thrown off their shell. We call it a shockwave but the star is litterally creating the energy AND the medium at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Presently accepted astronomical theory says that the interstellar medium, though not very dense at all, still is dense enough to propagate sound waves and shock waves. For an introduction, simply search for the word "sound" on http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/IBEXDidYouKnow_prt.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Termination_shock.

I've read both articles before.
Confused...I read them again. Could you perhaps highlight exactly where these articles say space can propagate sound waves?

The interstellar medium of mostly hydrogen atoms that occupies all interstellar space is what propagates sound waves at speeds on the order of 100 km/s. Evidently, this medium has existed at least as long as the galaxy has. According to presently accepted theory, all stars and solar systems formed out of it. One can never expect to encounter empty space within the galaxy that is devoid of this medium. If expanses of actually empty space consisting of absolute vacuum of astronomical proportions were ever discovered, it would be noteworthy and truly remarkable.

I never, ever said that empty space propagates sound waves. What I said was that interstellar space isn't empty, and the medium that occupies it everywhere (within the galaxy) and that probably always has (even before the first supernova) does propagate sound waves.

But don't take my word for it. Look it up, take courses on astronomy, like I did.

 

[Satyrquaze]

^ See, you're just drawing attention to a perceived problem because you apparently don't have a good enough imagination, or simply choose to not understand the plot points.

I really don't think your nitpicking really deserves everyone making the effort to cater to your ignorance through two maybe three threads.

None of these complaints are really plot holes. Some of it could be contrivances, coincidences and stuff that the OP simply fails to understand or is unwilling to understand, despite two threads worth of rational, simple, and plausible explanations.
You can debate the issues and discuss things, but when one or two people refuse to listen to, understand, accept, or respect the other opinions expressed in the course of the debate, then there really is no debate.

Which is where I was coming from when I posted my comments. You simply said it more eloquently.

 

[Gojira]

Yes, Earth's magnetic field encounters those waves of energetic particles all the time but it's far from a shockwave....shockwaves move through some sort of medium. Space isn't that "think" with particles to allow shock waves. What we do see is concentrations of particles from exploded stars that have thrown off their shell. We call it a shockwave but the star is litterally creating the energy AND the medium at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Presently accepted astronomical theory says that the interstellar medium, though not very dense at all, still is dense enough to propagate sound waves and shock waves. For an introduction, simply search for the word "sound" on http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/IBEXDidYouKnow_prt.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Termination_shock.

I've read both articles before.
Confused...I read them again. Could you perhaps highlight exactly where these articles say space can propagate sound waves?




But black holes don't collapse, they are collapsed thus the name "collapsar" or collapsed star.

That entire idea idea violates the conservation of energy and the conservation of matter. Matter can't be created or destroyed in a closed system only converted. While the technology aspect may allow for this...(barely) the story doesn't tell us this and just because you don't see a black hole doesn't mean it isn't there.

The movie is science fiction therefore the science will serve the story and there will be times when the science will be flat out wrong. Inaccurate science in a science fiction movie is not a plot whole. If we were to critique the actual science in Star trek we would be here all day.

That's not the point.
The use of science in these particular events DO impact the plot and thus can be technically called "plot holes". Granted it's a nitpick of bad science but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. These sort of plot holes may be considered extremely minor because the public is unaware of them but I have to say the definition of plot holes isn't about awareness of the audience. (Look at Jurassic Park) Does this happen at other sci fi mediums of course and if we were discussing other sci fi mediums I would surely point them out. This thread is about Trek 2009's plot holes.


We tend to regard the science portion of Trek with an almost cursory is not dismissive attitude as opposed to the entertainment. Trek 09' goes a bit farther because even though (apparently) they had a consultant they added that line on the supernova anyway and that is just plain stupid. If you're going to play in the science fiction back yard at least make some pretense of following it's rules.

Not destroying Delta Vega isn't a big issue.

Are you advocating that in science fiction that the science has to be 100% accurate and realistic?

Absolutely not. (event thought that's what I would prefer.) But I also don't advocate Trek' 09's stupidity on the issue of the supernova.

The flaw isn't the audience imagination it's the story-tellers ability to tell a proper story.

You seem to be arguing that the science used in the movie regarding the physics of Black Holes and supernova is wrong. You are most likely right.

But it is the point that in science fiction the science will not always be accurate.

You have every right to not like the scientific inaccuracies in Star Trek 09 and I have every right to not be upset by the the scientific inaccuracies in Star Trek 09.

I see scientific inaccuracies in science fiction all of the time and yes there are moments I will roll my eyes at the implausibility of it all. But I do not watch science fiction expecting a science lesson.

I watch science fiction expecting there to be scientific inaccuracies. If I had expectations that the science will be accurate I would be disappointed most of the time.

 

[Saquist]

Scientific inaccuracies can get in the way of enjoying the film. That depends on the person and I thin the type of film it is.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Its a Star Trek film. A franchise who's scientific accuracy rate is pretty low. Probably not even in the double digits.

 

[number6]

It's not an historical document. It's entertainment.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The ship is a model as big as "this." (Well not any more; it's CGI.) But it's still a very clever deception!

 

[Gojira]

Scientific inaccuracies can get in the way of enjoying the film. That depends on the person and I thin the type of film it is.

I also love historical movies (one of my degrees is in European History) and many historical movies are ripe with inaccuracies but 95% of the times it doesn't bother me.


I really don't have anything else to add. If scientific inaccuracies bother you then the only thing you can do is accept that about yourself and hopefully you can find some science fiction stories and shows that will meet your expectations.

 

[William Wallace]

I really don't think your nitpicking really deserves everyone making the effort to cater to your ignorance through two maybe three threads.

It's about 11 pages too late to say that now

Can you come up with your own answers to the plot holes you see?

If I could, then they wouldn't be plot holes anymore. So, no.

So if you don't think plot holes cannot be resolved (which is what you seem to be saying here) then why seek solutions to them?

It's not about seeking solutions, it's about thought-provoking discussion. Isn't that the whole point of internet forums?

Because the last one was so much fun!

1) When Kirk and Sulu fall off the drilling platform, and Chekov beams them back to the ship as they're falling ("I Can do zat!"), how do they survive the fall? Obviously the transporter doesn't "cancel" their momentum, because they're still falling as soon as they materialize. So shouldn't they die as soon as they smash into transporter room floor?

2) When the black hole is about to destroy Vulcan, an officer on the Enterprise says "We won't reach minimum safe distance if we don't leave immediately." Yet somehow, there's plenty of time for nuSpock to beam down and evacuate the high council (which takes at least several minutes), and the Enterprise still gets away without any problem.

3) How did Nero intercept Spock Prime's Jellyfish, before they both got sucked into the black hole? Wasn't the Jellyfish the "fastest ship" available at the time? Why would it have any trouble at all outrunning a giant mining vessel?

4) Why doesn't Spock Prime travel with Kirk back to the Enterprise? Wouldn't that make battling Nero just a little bit easier if there were 2 Spocks instead of one, one of whom has access to futuristic knowledge and technolgy? And why does Spock think that Kirk commanding the Enterprise is the best way to beat Nero? Kirk couldn't even handle a snow monster by himself, what in God's name makes Spock think he's a match for Nero and his Death Star?

5) During all this time travelling and alteration of history, where are Braxton and the rest of those dudes from Voyager who are supposed to protect the timeline from things like this? Did they go on vacation?

1) You're assuming their velocity is going to be the same when they re-materialize. Once they are re-materialize in the transporter room they are only falling a few inches.

Being transported stopped their forward motion and when being
re-materialized they begin again their forward motion but now it is only a few inches they are falling so they do not have the space with which to once again increase velocity

2) This type of thing happens throughout the entire franchise of Star Trek! It builds tension. Without the sense of time being limited for nuSpock there would be no tension.

3) You're making an assumption that the Narada was chasing after the Jellyfish and overtook it. It is entirely plausible that they crossed paths coming from different directions.

4) Old Spock explains this one very well. NuKirk and NuSpock diliked one another they needed the experience of working together to build their friendship that would, as Old Spock says, "come to define you both."

5) You're kidding right? Anyway more than a plot hole this one seems to be more about your expectations.

Star trek is all about telling good stories if the temporal police is part of a good story the writers want to tell then they will be included.

(Quote reformatted for compactness)

I've answered these already in the thread. But I'll save you some time and re-post them:

1) They fall more than a few inches (try a few feet), and they fall much faster than they would have if their momentum had been stopped. Watch the scene again, and you'll see this.

2) Well, I take a line about needing to leave immediately as being a matter of just a few seconds. Following a line like that with several minutes of dilly-dallying makes no sense. It would have actually been better if the line had simply been deleted, or perhaps revised to something like "If we don't leave soon, we'll never make it". But the line, as it is in the movie, serves as a contradiction.

3) How long would it take to go around it? Surely a small ship like that can quickly and eaisily outmaneuver a giant Death Star like Nero's ship?

4) Billions of people just died, and billions of more will die if they don't stop Nero. And Spock is worried about a "friendship"? Where's the logic in that?

5) It's more of a plot hole with the Star Trek continuity than the movie itself. They've already established that the "temporal police" are there to stop time travel from altering history. Therefore, any time-travel-based plot that significantly alters history would have to address this. But instead of addressing it, they simply ignore it and pretend it never happened. I call that a plot hole.

 

[Sean Aaron]

It's not about seeking solutions, it's about thought-provoking discussion. Isn't that the whole point of internet forums?

Thought-provoking would be engaging in an attempt to explain events depicted in the film via real science. Calling things "plot holes" which aren't isn't thought-provoking, it's nitpicking.

 

[number6]

The thoughts that are being provoked are hardly related to the topic.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not about seeking solutions, it's about thought-provoking discussion. Isn't that the whole point of internet forums?

Thought-provoking would be engaging in an attempt to explain events depicted in the film via real science. Calling things "plot holes" which aren't isn't thought-provoking, it's nitpicking.

Bingo! This whole nitpicking discussion isn't thought-provoking in the least. It's simply annoying.

 

[Saquist]

I also love historical movies (one of my degrees is in European History) and many historical movies are ripe with inaccuracies but 95% of the times it doesn't bother me.


I really don't have anything else to add. If scientific inaccuracies bother you then the only thing you can do is accept that about yourself and hopefully you can find some science fiction stories and shows that will meet your expectations.

I don't enjoy stupid, no.
I prefer that the film I watch at least...try...and Trek has always tried. Never before though have they put such incredible errors in a show or movie and then meld then to a plot like this movie has.

Threshold: VOY evolution by transwarp was awful yes. But it was one of the few...Infact that's the only one I can think of.

I have a huge amount of respect for Dr. Crushers team pulling off the superfluid reaction to destroy the Rebel Borg ship.

Its a Star Trek film. A franchise who's scientific accuracy rate is pretty low. Probably not even in the double digits.

The are usually above the average. The reason why is because they tend to avoid to much detail in scientific area and focus on the techno babble. But when they do...

-LIke when Geordie used pulses of energy through the tractor beam to channel more power to move the core fragment

-Voyager described being trapped in an event horizon while embellished as something of a physical barrier the illusion they portrayed was somewhat on par with what would happen.

-The REM sleep issues in TNG were very accurate

-Crusher talking about the circadian rhythm running in 24 hour increments was spot on in Clues.

All in all the Franchise has done of decent job...passable, not excellent but passable in it's science. This movie was just so stupid because they didn't even try...and then they connected this ignorance to the plot in a couple places just for the effect. It was as if they wanted one word explanations of everything.

(yeah supernove: That sounds kewl lets threaten the Galaxy with that)

(Yeah lets throw in so black holes that spontaneously disappear just because)

And then you look at the errors in the plot with the writing you see it wasn't merely an aberration, the senselessness continued. The improperly defined villain and his ridiculous slew of missed opportunies, unable to decided exactly what he wanted an how he wanted to go about getting it done.

Was he upset over his families death or not? He sure ignored every opportunity to see them again or guarantee their well being in the future.

Did he really want to destroy the entire Federation? He sure set himself up to fail time and time again.

It's difficult to find any common sense in the direction and writing of the film. What kind of story was it really trying to tell and at what cost? Aside from the scientific plot hole nitpicking the films more significant plot are admitted and it's smacks of a very brazen attitude toward the skill of writing itself.

 

[Gojira]

It's not about seeking solutions, it's about thought-provoking discussion. Isn't that the whole point of internet forums?

I don't mind thought provoking discussions but these "plot holes" are just too nit picky.

(Quote reformatted for compactness)

I've answered these already in the thread. But I'll save you some time and re-post them:

1) They fall more than a few inches (try a few feet), and they fall much faster than they would have if their momentum had been stopped. Watch the scene again, and you'll see this.

I watched the scene again. They do fall a couple of feet. It also looks like they do fall pretty fast. In real life sure they probably would have died. But it is only a movie and in movies many times people don't die when in real life they would have.

2) Well, I take a line about needing to leave immediately as being a matter of just a few seconds. Following a line like that with several minutes of dilly-dallying makes no sense. It would have actually been better if the line had simply been deleted, or perhaps revised to something like "If we don't leave soon, we'll never make it". But the line, as it is in the movie, serves as a contradiction.

I stand by what I said earlier. It was to create or increase tension for that moment. Also, when the officer said that they need to leave immediately he could have been exaggerating out of fear or he was just plain wrong and they actually had more time than he calculated. People have been known to be wrong.

3) How long would it take to go around it? Surely a small ship like that can quickly and eaisily outmaneuver a giant Death Star like Nero's ship?

Sure the Jellyfish could have outmaneuvered the Narada, but neither ship could outrun the gravitational pull of the Black Hole.

4) Billions of people just died, and billions of more will die if they don't stop Nero. And Spock is worried about a "friendship"? Where's the logic in that?

Evidently Spock had more faith in young Kirk than you do.

5) It's more of a plot hole with the Star Trek continuity than the movie itself. They've already established that the "temporal police" are there to stop time travel from altering history. Therefore, any time-travel-based plot that significantly alters history would have to address this. But instead of addressing it, they simply ignore it and pretend it never happened. I call that a plot hole.

That is not a plot hole. The absence of the temporal police doesn't make the story the writers are telling break down. Sorry wanting the temporal police involved is just fan wanky stuff in my opinion. The writers wanted to begin a new continuity in an alternate universe/time line and this movie accomplished that. If the writers wanted to restore the old time line/universe they would have done that.


Personally I think you're over analyzing this movie to death. A lot of events in movies happen that are implausible in real life. Hopefully they aren't too implausible for an individual to suspend disbelief so a person can enjoy the movie and be entertained.

 

[DrBashir]

Star Trek isn't really Science Fiction, it's sci-fi or space opera. The science, such as it is, is just there to make it sound spiffy. It's about the characters. If you're looking for any sort of science education from Star Trek you're looking in the wrong place. It's use of scientific terms is just a bit more believable that Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. The stories, however, are miles ahead of either of those.

 

[Gojira]

I also love historical movies (one of my degrees is in European History) and many historical movies are ripe with inaccuracies but 95% of the times it doesn't bother me.


I really don't have anything else to add. If scientific inaccuracies bother you then the only thing you can do is accept that about yourself and hopefully you can find some science fiction stories and shows that will meet your expectations.

I don't enjoy stupid, no.
I prefer that the film I watch at least...try...and Trek has always tried. Never before though have they put such incredible errors in a show or movie and then meld then to a plot like this movie has.

Threshold: VOY evolution by transwarp was awful yes. But it was one of the few...Infact that's the only one I can think of.

I have a huge amount of respect for Dr. Crushers team pulling off the superfluid reaction to destroy the Rebel Borg ship.

The Star Trek franchise is full of crazy science and implausible situations. Also what you might consider stupid and incredible errors other may not. Such is the subjective nature of enjoying entertainment.

 

[Saquist]

I also love historical movies (one of my degrees is in European History) and many historical movies are ripe with inaccuracies but 95% of the times it doesn't bother me.


I really don't have anything else to add. If scientific inaccuracies bother you then the only thing you can do is accept that about yourself and hopefully you can find some science fiction stories and shows that will meet your expectations.

I don't enjoy stupid, no.
I prefer that the film I watch at least...try...and Trek has always tried. Never before though have they put such incredible errors in a show or movie and then meld then to a plot like this movie has.

Threshold: VOY evolution by transwarp was awful yes. But it was one of the few...Infact that's the only one I can think of.

I have a huge amount of respect for Dr. Crushers team pulling off the superfluid reaction to destroy the Rebel Borg ship.

The Star Trek franchise is full of crazy science and implausible situations. Also what you might consider stupid and incredible errors other may not. Such is the subjective nature of enjoying entertainment.

and error is an error especially scientifically...
Of course people will think what they will but that doesn't make the writing standards or the science just disappear. No one is begruding liking the movie. But people that like the movie begrudge pointing out it's errors.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I agree that Star Trek was never intended to be impeccably accurate scientifically, not even close. But there are important ways in which its approach to science and technology resonate better on a cultural level, than say the approach did of its contemporaries like Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

For example, Martin Cooper, the leader of the team at Motorola that developed the hand-held mobile phone, cites the Star Trek communicator of Kirk's era as direct inspiration. Talking computers, transporters, and warp drives, specifically the imagined incarnations of these things seen on Star Trek, influence the direction of ongoing scientific research, as is evident from the statements of working scientists in these fields (not in the specifics, but in the broad question of can it be done like it was on Star Trek). Many people who work in the sciences were inspired to pursue scientific careers by watching Star Trek.

To say, then, that the fictional science in Star Trek is simply inconsequential fluff is to miss the point that there is a significant cultural affinity to and curiosity for the fictional world of Star Trek in particular, which notably influences the development of real technology.

In having created something significant and influential, I think we can thank the artists and the writers of the various series who have tried to make the science seem believable and interface realistically with the characters. Somehow Star Trek has been fortunate enough to have had gifted artists who have collaborated to make a cultural masterpiece.