Plot hole city: Part II!

[DrBashir]

The stories were more sophisticated and the props different from the usual ray-guns and poorly disguised gadgets that most sci-fi was using up to that point. The scientific plausability of a flip top communicator doesn't enter into it. It was jsut a cool design as opposed to the microphone wired to the belt of LiS or the (then) modern day equipment used on VTTBOTS. Except for the computers, with nothing but blinky lights and reels of tape and the occasional advanced weapon there wasn't a lot of work put into the props on Voyage. Most of the tech was the sub and associated vehicles like the flying sub.

Just saying anti-matter instead of "atomic rockets" doesn't make it more scientifically accurate but it does sound like it is. Let's not forget that the tech on Star Trek was doled out in bits and pieces and mostly tacked together by the fans. If you watch it in isolation, most of the episodes are lucky to make a single reference to a bit of tech that was previously introduced.

 

[Broccoli]

There is so much to discuss, I'm surprised we haven't gotten walls of text going back and forth and, ultimately, running in circles. They would make such interesting reads!

 

[Saquist]

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.

If Trek didn't even make an attempt at creating a aura of science many would not have took it seriously in the way that those people did. Many of NASA's astronauts wouldn't have been inspired by it's futuristic and scientific look of the future. The impact it's had on the scientific community is stronger in many cases than the American Military. After all Enterprise (shuttle) was not named after the Aircraft carrier. Thats a powerful statement on Trek's contribution to the sciences. I tend not to down grade that contribution because what it has given is much appreciated.

I hope it continues because the next generation needs similar inspiration and more than ever.

 

[DrBashir]

An aura of science is not the same as accurate science. It's the apperance of accurate science. And there's nothing wrong with the way they did it. However, there's nothing scientifically accurate about phasers, the transporter, warp drive or subspace communications. They work in universe but have nothing holding them up that you could call real world science.

As I said before, the "science" is just window dressing. Some window dressing is better than others, as is the case with LiS and Voyage. Just because Trek sounded a bit more sophisticaed doesn't mean the science is accurate.

If you used the same tech and told the same stories as LiS did, do you think that Trek would have attracted the following it did? It's about the stories, not the props.

 

[Saquist]

An aura of science is not the same as accurate science. It's the apperance of accurate science. And there's nothing wrong with the way they did it. However, there's nothing scientifically accurate about phasers, the transporter, warp drive or subspace communications. They work in universe but have nothing holding them up that you could call real world science.

Of course an aura of science isn't the same as "accurate science" An aura refers to an atmosphere, mood or quality that would surround the real thing. Which is not what Trek 09' had. That aura can include all fictional speculations on future including transporters, warp drive or subspace communications. But most importantly the aura would specifically be the quality or possibility and the proper explanation of that tech AS WELL as what science we do know where ever it appears.

 

[DrBashir]

Sorry, got to disagree. Trek '09 had just the same amount of actual science as previous Trek production, that is to say hardly any at all. They even got Carolyn Porco from JPL to tell them about Saturn and then tossed it all out and went with what looked cool. It's popcorn entertainment, not a science documentary.

Even as drama it's pretty lightweight. City on the edge of Forever. If Edith Keeler lives the nazis win WWII. "Sorry Edith. Shove. Thud!" Instead it gets dragged out until Kirk can make this "dramatic" moment of stopping McCoy. If they had been acting clearly Edith would have been cold 5 minutes after Spock found the diversion point.

 

[Saquist]

Sorry, got to disagree. Trek '09 had just the same amount of actual science as previous Trek production, that is to say hardly any at all. They even got Carolyn Porco from JPL to tell them about Saturn and then tossed it all out and went with what looked cool. It's popcorn entertainment, not a science documentary.

Even as drama it's pretty lightweight. City on the edge of Forever. If Edith Keeler lives the nazis win WWII. "Sorry Edith. Shove. Thud!" Instead it gets dragged out until Kirk can make this "dramatic" moment of stopping McCoy. If they had been acting clearly Edith would have been cold 5 minutes after Spock found the diversion point.

I can't agree either.
Star Trek has had more than it's fair share of science (listed in example previously) but it's rarely gone out of it's way to get it wrong like this movie has.

*Describing a supernova impossibly wrong
*Diving into an atmosphere without the slightest sign of friction.
*Warp cores that fall faster than starships
*Seeing a planet from the surface that isn't any where near it's orbit...

No Trek movie has these sort of errors.

-In the original Series the writers wrote that the Enterprise had the possibility of sawing a moon size object in half... (incredulous but not impossible) but then Enterprise gets gets back to the planet at sublight which should have taken much longer that 2 months.

-In Tin Man the Enterprise is flung a considerable distance from a supernova but the nova shows up on screen instantly.

-However in Blood Lines The Enterprise must race to a point within 20 minutes and is one of the few times Trek gives a distance and time which of course gives us the speed and it actually works out to be the speed of Enterprise at warp 9.

-Or when Enterprise is pushing a moon Geordie's dialogue actually gives us the required Delta v the Enterprise would have to induced to succeed.

-The same episode Enterprise is show impacting the atmosphere accurately which Abrams couldn't even get right in his film.

-But in TWOK the Enterprise is 5 hours from Regula at warp 5 when they fight Reliant loosing their warp drive but their trip, nor Reliants, doesn't take several months.

-Remember THE EGG and Dr. Stubbs project to research the binary system? Well such stars are real! They actually build up material over a long period of time and explode.

-Where No Man Has Gone Before got the distance to the Triangulum Galaxy correct at under 3 million Ly.

-Or even the simple use of depressurizing a shuttle bay to move the ship is accurate in Cause and effect.

-Amazingly the entire idea of field propulsion may indeed be possible and has inspired science to explore the possibility.

-even the "everyday" use and understanding of warp cores using hydrogren and deuterium is accurate to what would actually be used for an antimatter reactor.

-There are no less than 38 REAL star systems quoted in Trek from TOS to ENT.

-----
But Trek 09' what did it do right is an easier question to answer than to go through all it got wrong. I mean they were sitting in the middle of a black hole....a black hole and communicating back and forth at the end....

We take for granted that Trek uses all these simple facts to ground our imagination and give it's fiction the aura of plausibility and fandom sometimes TOO readily accepts the silly and the incredulous making the mistake that nothing has really change and all things are equal when they aren't.

 

[DrBashir]

They weren't sitting in a black hole. A black hole was on the ship. They weren't beyond the event horizon yet. Depending on the mass of the hole what we saw may have been overblown. After all, a black hole is simply gravity. Replace the earth with a black hole of equal mass and if we were the same distance from it that we are from the center of the earth the gravity would be exactly the same. Of course, we wouldn'd have a surface to stand on so we'd fall into it but the space station would keep orbiting as if nothing had changed.

Let's not forget that TMP had a Voyager probe fall into a black hole and emerge somewhere else. First off, where is this black hole that's so close to Earth? Second, it came out of a black hole?

Silly science is silly science and it didn't start with '09.

 

[beamMe]

There is so much to discuss, I'm surprised we haven't gotten walls of text going back and forth and, ultimately, running in circles. They would make such interesting reads!

"That's not a moon! It's a Saquist-post."

 

[Cyke101]

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.

If Trek didn't even make an attempt at creating a aura of science many would not have took it seriously in the way that those people did. Many of NASA's astronauts wouldn't have been inspired by it's futuristic and scientific look of the future. The impact it's had on the scientific community is stronger in many cases than the American Military. After all Enterprise (shuttle) was not named after the Aircraft carrier. Thats a powerful statement on Trek's contribution to the sciences. I tend not to down grade that contribution because what it has given is much appreciated.

I hope it continues because the next generation needs similar inspiration and more than ever.

I don't disagree that Star Trek inspired a couple generations of astronauts, scientists, engineers, navy personnel, etc -- that's important, and Star Trek's role in society is also undeniable; but the biggest factor in that inspiration wasn't the accuracy of science, but stories of wonder. GI Joe in no way pretends to have that aura of seriousness, but it helped with military recruitment. Same deal with cop shows and seafaring shows as well.

 

[Gojira]

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.

To me my focus on Star Trek is the characters and their stories. The science is just a backdrop to the story and it doesn't bother me in the slightest when they get it wrong.

 

[Broccoli]

The biggest plot hole was the fact that Kirk and them all worked for Starfleet. Um...hello? In the early TOS, they worked of UESPA!!! Guh! Hacks! HACKS, I tell you!

 

[Saquist]

They weren't sitting in a black hole. A black hole was on the ship. They weren't beyond the event horizon yet. Depending on the mass of the hole what we saw may have been overblown. After all, a black hole is simply gravity.

Did you know that you that you could hover inches above the event horizon of a black hole (using massive amounts of fuel and thrust)? It's much how Trek 09 portrayed the Enterprise as tried to escape and since Enterprise was "at warp and couldn't get away, then it was absolutely without a shadow of doubt within the event Horizon of a black hole, which means that Narada was sitting on the singularity...intact. (which those of you with a little scientific background knows is impossible) and the ship was able to communicate with no red-shift distortion at all. Essentially Disney got it more correct more than 20 years ago what going through a black hole is like than this movie...

Replace the earth with a black hole of equal mass and if we were the same distance from it that we are from the center of the earth the gravity would be exactly the same. Of course, we wouldn'd have a surface to stand on so we'd fall into it but the space station would keep orbiting as if nothing had changed.

You seem to understand that concept rather well...
Yet...you don't realize that if it was just the Narada's mass then escaping the black hole should have been no problem or escaping vulcan's black hole for that matter. THE SIZE of the black hole is directly proportional to it's mass. A Black Hole with the sun's mass would only be 3 kilometers wide... Imagine what that would be for the Narada...a couple of millimeters! (IF tat)

Let's not forget that TMP had a Voyager probe fall into a black hole and emerge somewhere else. First off, where is this black hole that's so close to Earth? Second, it came out of a black hole?

The whole concept of traveling through black holes is an error because the same forces that would tear a planet apart at orbital distances would tear you apart molecule by molecule before you hit the singularity as you spiraled in.

Emerging from a black hole isn't theoretically impossible. With the right orbit you can hit a window of space before striking the singularity and DIEING that would send you into a white hole and expel you from the black hole. (don't ask me to explain it further, it's an on going learning process with the whole white hole in a black hole thing)

Silly science is silly science and it didn't start with '09.

Who cares where it STARTS. Why does that matter?
Spock walking around with out brain is where silly science starts are you condoning silly science because it "started" somewhere? Because that's really how silly science continues...

To me my focus on Star Trek is the characters and their stories. The science is just a backdrop to the story and it doesn't bother me in the slightest when they get it wrong.

To each his own but that inspiration would have effected so many people if it had been Star Wars approach. The spirit of exploration and scientific curiosity is why it's called Star "TREK". Which was significant to great number of people that wanted reach higher than the perpetual human shenanigans and discover something new and experience it too.

I don't disagree that Star Trek inspired a couple generations of astronauts, scientists, engineers, navy personnel, etc -- that's important, and Star Trek's role in society is also undeniable; but the biggest factor in that inspiration wasn't the accuracy of science, but stories of wonder.

But in order to create that sense of wonder they had to draw on more than just silly science they had to be grounded in places even IF in other places they took more than a few liberties. It's give and take.

Look at that list and tell me there is more to be found in Trek's serious science category because I'm absolutely sure there is.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>
Star Trek has had more than it's fair share of science (listed in example previously) but it's rarely gone out of it's way to get it wrong like this movie has.

*Diving into an atmosphere without the slightest sign of friction.

Without the slightest sign of friction? The skydivers may not have been glowing around the edges—and I don't know that you could show that a human beginning free fall from an effective velocity (relative to the planet's surface) of zero would ever achieve such speeds (how fast - thousands of miles per hour?) that heat caused by air friction would become a significant issue—but you can hear the difference between the near-silence at the beginning of the jump and the roar of rushing air which starts a minute or so later and above which sound Kirk yells to be heard.

Sign of friction? You make the call.

 

[number6]

He must have seen a different film.

 

[William Wallace]

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.

Well that's where we disagree. The more hard-to-swallow a movie's events are, the harder it is to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the movie, but I think it could have been a lot better if it didn't have so many inconsistencies, contradictions, implausibilities, and coincidences.

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.

So, you're admitting that they just ignored the laws of physics and hoped no one would notice?

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.

Yeah, but resolving tension by going back and saying "oh, it wasn't really as bad as we made it out to be" is weak sauce. The audience has no way of knowing what's true and what's not; we have to rely on the dialogue to tell us what's going on, and if the dialogue is wrong, then that makes it that much harder to believe anything else in the movie.

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

But that still doesn't make sense. Just how long after he shot the red matter into the supernova did Nero come along? Was it right away? Was Spock already at warp? If so, he should have been more than far enough away from the black hole. If not, he shouldn't have had any trouble getting past Nero. Since the movie doesn't specify, the audience is left to simply assume that it's plausible without thinking too much about it.

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.

Nah, he just read the script

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.

If Spock and Nero had travelled to an alternate universe, that would be different. But because they simply travelled back in time, that serves as a plot hole, because the Star Trek franchise had already established that you can't change history without the temporal police getting involved. That's what always happens when you use time travel too much in sci-fi: you make it harder and harder to come up with new plots without contradicting previous ones.

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.

The more plausible the events are, the better the movie is. It takes talent to make a movie that is both creative and plausible. When you just expect the audience to ignore the inconsistencies, it brings it down.

 

[Saquist]

<snip>
Star Trek has had more than it's fair share of science (listed in example previously) but it's rarely gone out of it's way to get it wrong like this movie has.

*Diving into an atmosphere without the slightest sign of friction.

Without the slightest sign of friction? The skydivers may not have been glowing around the edges—and I don't know that you could show that a human beginning free fall from an effective velocity (relative to the planet's surface) of zero would ever achieve such speeds (how fast - thousands of miles per hour?) that heat caused by air friction would become a significant issue—but you can hear the difference between the near-silence at the beginning of the jump and the roar of rushing air which starts a minute or so later and above which sound Kirk yells to be heard.

Sign of friction? You make the call.

LOL!!!!

Skydivers....wow...
No.
Enterprises's Dive into TITAN's atmosphere....wow

(Edit) on second thought...you're right...the sky diving thing from orbital velocities should have burned them up....

 

[Gojira]

To me my focus on Star Trek is the characters and their stories. The science is just a backdrop to the story and it doesn't bother me in the slightest when they get it wrong.

To each his own but that inspiration would have effected so many people if it had been Star Wars approach. The spirit of exploration and scientific curiosity is why it's called Star "TREK". Which was significant to great number of people that wanted reach higher than the perpetual human shenanigans and discover something new and experience it too.

Howe do you know Star Trek 09 didn't inspire someone to pursue science? The movie did inspire me to do more research into Black Holes..

As far as exploration goes almost none of the movies were about scientific space exploration. Most of them were about saving the earth.

The motion Picture: Saving the earth from the V'Ger probe.
Wrath of Khan: Battling Khan who was out for revenge.
Search for Spock: Stealing the Enterprise to rescue Spock
The Voyage Home: Stealing whales so it can speak to a destructive probe.
Final Frontier: Madman steals Enterprise to find the planet God lives on. (maybe the only movie with exploration)
Undiscovered Country: Diplomatic mission to bring Klingon Chancellor to Peace Conference.
Generations: Madman destroying planets and Stars in order to go inside magical world.
Final Frontier: To stop the Borg from assimilating earth in the past.
Insurrection: Enterprise crew trying to stop Federation and the S'ona from forcibly removing the Baku from their planet.
Nemesis: Diplomatic mission to Romulus where the new Praetor is a Picard clone intent on killing Picard and going after Earth.
Star Trek 09: Spock and Kirk come together to stop madman from destroying Federation planets.


The entire franchise has some good examples of science and bad examples of science I would say it is pretty even.

I watch start trek for entertainment and I emphasize the fiction aspect of the show in regards to science because I do not have the expectations that the show will depict science accurately.

You and I could debate for pages on this forum the inaccuracies of science in the Star Trek franchise. So why single out this movie? Are you as critical with other series/movies within the franchise?

 

[Cyke101]

<snip>
Star Trek has had more than it's fair share of science (listed in example previously) but it's rarely gone out of it's way to get it wrong like this movie has.

*Diving into an atmosphere without the slightest sign of friction.

Without the slightest sign of friction? The skydivers may not have been glowing around the edges—and I don't know that you could show that a human beginning free fall from an effective velocity (relative to the planet's surface) of zero would ever achieve such speeds (how fast - thousands of miles per hour?) that heat caused by air friction would become a significant issue—but you can hear the difference between the near-silence at the beginning of the jump and the roar of rushing air which starts a minute or so later and above which sound Kirk yells to be heard.

Sign of friction? You make the call.

The earlier link of the science review of the movie thought this was a nit at first as well, until the author reasoned that they were simply not going fast enough to create the friction trail normally associated with re-entry, and they were already in an area where there wasn't a lot of air to begin with for the immense levels of friction for that trail (nods to Ryan8bit):

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/

Surprisingly, the author doesn't talk about the thin atmosphere, instead jumping (hah) from the parachute scene to the drilling scene.

 

[Cyke101]

But in order to create that sense of wonder they had to draw on more than just silly science they had to be grounded in places even IF in other places they took more than a few liberties. It's give and take.

Look at that list and tell me there is more to be found in Trek's serious science category because I'm absolutely sure there is.

Just because Trek isn't hard science doesn't mean it can't use it. They're not mutually exclusive circles. But in terms of silly science AND inspiring people into careers, Star Trek has a predecessor in this regard: Jules Verne. At the time, his science was ridiculed and the concepts were seen as flights of fancy, fit only for a juvenile audience (sound familiar? It should, those are complaints that Trek has weathered since Day One), but his novels were big sellers for all ages and with numerous reprints because of the sense of adventure and wonder on an unprecedented scale; likewise, he inspired a legion of readers to become scientists and explorers before Roddenberry ever hit the scene. That's good sci-fi.

If everything in Trek were 100% accurate, we'd have no Spock, we'd have no giant space amoeba, the Enterprise would look vastly different, and the Federation would be completely redefined because of no FTL/Warp. Conversely, if it were 100% accurate, we wouldn't have such things as Trek's societal metaphors or the Great Barrier, because that all requires supposition and conjecture of the future, and by definition conjecture will very, very rarely be 100% accurate. What's right today might be wrong tomorrow, but if the story remains consistent, does that really matter in the long run?