Plot hole city: Part II!

[Sean Aaron]

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

Does it matter? I'm not sure whether they came out in the same coordinates or not, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the plot.

It takes very little imagination to make an assumption like that, because it's obvious. But what if he leaves the station at 10am, and doesn't get there until nightfall? Doesn't that make you wonder what he's been doing all day, and/or why he didn't go straight there immediately?

I might wonder that in which case I would use my imagination!

As a rule a good filmmaker tends to show only those events which advance the story, otherwise films would be many hours and days long with an entire diary of events that are irrelevant to the story.

The thing I dislike about a lot of Trek novels is the attempt to "gap-fill" events from the show which are undocumented. I kind of like filling in those details on my own. There is such a thing as being overly-descriptive.

 

[Broccoli]

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

You know, a dirty mind could interpret this entirely differently.

That's how I choose to interpret it.

 

[BillJ]

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

You know, a dirty mind could interpret this entirely differently.

That's how I choose to interpret it.

 

[BillJ]

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

Does it matter? I'm not sure whether they came out in the same coordinates or not, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the plot.

I think where it matters is in how the audience perceives Nero as a character. Eric Bana did a great job with the material given, but I'll always wonder if the character took care of Hobus. That's something the film should've given us and could have done it with minimum effort.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Eric Bana did a great job with the material given, but I'll always wonder if the character took care of Hobus. That's something the film should've given us and could have done it with minimum effort.

Why though? Granted without it this alternate universe wouldn't exist, but the star isn't actually what the story is about.

 

[Saquist]

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

Does it matter? I'm not sure whether they came out in the same coordinates or not, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the plot.

I think where it matters is in how the audience perceives Nero as a character. Eric Bana did a great job with the material given, but I'll always wonder if the character took care of Hobus. That's something the film should've given us and could have done it with minimum effort.

Well, we're trying to place HOW Kirk KNEW that a Big Honking Romulan SHIP would be waiting for them at Vulcan.

The question is then where is the Neutral Zone in relation to vulcan so it would be relevant to the plot as there seems to be not DIRECT LINK between the facts that Kirk Gives that Spock labels as Sound...

 

[Gojira]

Does it matter? I'm not sure whether they came out in the same coordinates or not, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the plot.

I think where it matters is in how the audience perceives Nero as a character. Eric Bana did a great job with the material given, but I'll always wonder if the character took care of Hobus. That's something the film should've given us and could have done it with minimum effort.

Well, we're trying to place HOW Kirk KNEW that a Big Honking Romulan SHIP would be waiting for them at Vulcan.

The question is then where is the Neutral Zone in relation to vulcan so it would be relevant to the plot as there seems to be not DIRECT LINK between the facts that Kirk Gives that Spock labels as Sound...

Kirk knew that the only other time there had been a "lightning storm in space" the Narada had shown up and ended up costing his father's life. So it was logical to conclude that the Narada had shown up once more when Chekhov mentions that the seismic activity on Vulcan was accompanied by a "lightning storm in space."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And since we are now back to this point, way back upthread I asked this question, but I never saw an answer (please forgive me if it was given though).

So, the lightning storm in space observed near the neutral zone immediately prior to the destruction of Vulcan, and reported to the crew by Chekov, that would be the arrival of Spock Prime's Jellyfish ship?

(By the one "immediately prior", I mean the one mentioned in Chekov's report to the crew, and not the one 25 years earlier.)

 

[William Wallace]

It was not the behavior of gravity in isolation that I was referring to; it was the behavior of beaming an object falling in a gravitational field, especially one in violent and evidently unpredictable flux. If the behavior of beaming an object that is falling in a gravitational field strictly agrees with all expectations of "common sense", then the authors aren't doing a good enough job and I want a better author. But this is especially so when that field is in violent flux about to implode a planet, under the influence of some remarkable form of matter. The fact that that field should be in violent flux in ways that the algorithms in the transporter systems are likely incapable of accurately predicting is precisely a good enough reason for me to accept that the cancellation of momentum would not be perfect to materialize Kirk and Sulu at rest over the pad, since I'm willing to accept that, in these circumstances anyway, an unregulated amount of kinetic energy was introduced into their materialized molecules. Lucky for them it wasn't too far from zero. Next.

I still don't buy that. Either the transporter can cancel momentum or it can't. It should be able to detect how much momentum is in the molecules when the transport takes place (otherwise the transport would fail), so there's no reason to assume that it can cancel some of the momentum, but not all of it. Regardless of the gravitational field they're in, once the transport takes place, the transporter has all the information it needs to re-materialize them, so gravity no longer has any effect on the transport.

As for my usage of the phrase "defy common sense", I used that phrase in accordance with its common usage. The phrase "defy common sense" in quotes has about 361,000 results in Google; I won't defend how I used that phrase in the context I used it in further.

You can't use common sense to explain time dilation and quantum effects, any more than you can use common sense to explain rocket science or brain surgery. Therefore, there's no way you can "defy" common sense, when common sense doesn't apply in the first place.

I might wonder that in which case I would use my imagination!

As a rule a good filmmaker tends to show only those events which advance the story, otherwise films would be many hours and days long with an entire diary of events that are irrelevant to the story.

The thing I dislike about a lot of Trek novels is the attempt to "gap-fill" events from the show which are undocumented. I kind of like filling in those details on my own. There is such a thing as being overly-descriptive.

I actually agree with that. There's nothing wrong with having to use your imagination to fill in the boring details that are irrelevant to the story. The problem arises when you have to use your imagination to fill in the relevant plot elements that the writers failed to account for, that end up confusing the viewer.

It's not just plot elements either; anything that reduces the amount of effort by the viewer to "make believe" along with the movie helps it out. Would you want to see the Star Wars space scenes with or without the "boxes" around the ships? I think everyone would prefer them without the boxes, since it makes the scenes more believable. With the boxes, the viewer is forced to use their imagination to "pretend" the boxes aren't really there. But if the boxes aren't there to begin with, no pretending is necessary, and it's easier to sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was not the behavior of gravity in isolation that I was referring to; it was the behavior of beaming an object falling in a gravitational field, especially one in violent and evidently unpredictable flux. If the behavior of beaming an object that is falling in a gravitational field strictly agrees with all expectations of "common sense", then the authors aren't doing a good enough job and I want a better author. But this is especially so when that field is in violent flux about to implode a planet, under the influence of some remarkable form of matter. The fact that that field should be in violent flux in ways that the algorithms in the transporter systems are likely incapable of accurately predicting is precisely a good enough reason for me to accept that the cancellation of momentum would not be perfect to materialize Kirk and Sulu at rest over the pad, since I'm willing to accept that, in these circumstances anyway, an unregulated amount of kinetic energy was introduced into their materialized molecules. Lucky for them it wasn't too far from zero. Next.

I still don't buy that. Either the transporter can cancel momentum or it can't. It should be able to detect how much momentum is in the molecules when the transport takes place (otherwise the transport would fail), so there's no reason to assume that it can cancel some of the momentum, but not all of it. Regardless of the gravitational field they're in, once the transport takes place, the transporter has all the information it needs to re-materialize them, so gravity no longer has any effect on the transport.

There are strictly speaking no reasons for us to assume anything besides the reasons given to us on screen. What other reasons we insist on applying determine how well we receive the movie. But if we see it happen, then that's a pretty good reason to suppose that might be the way it's intended to be.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "What is the frame of reference relative to which things are assumed at rest?" Chekov ran down from the bridge and was the only person on the whole ship apparently qualified to specify a frame of reference and he appeared to do that manually for the transporter system. For some reason the system was not able to do that automatically. I use my imagination to fill in the remaining gaps. If you don't like my explanation exactly, maybe Chekov specified a rest frame as close as he could, but given the random surges that I assume made the computer unable to get a lock by itself, a random surge during transport is enough for me to accept that the frame of reference Chekov specified did not remain the most ideal one when they materialized. I floated "incomplete algorithms" as the reason for that, but perhaps unpredictability is a factor, and I floated another idea earlier not completely unrelated, and I'm sure there are other plausible explanations, perhaps some even more so.

In any case, I've replied enough on this subject, so I'm done with it. This is nowhere close to the worst treatment of transporter technology in Trek. It gave me something interesting to think about too.

 

[M'Sharak]

And since we are now back to this point, way back upthread I asked this question, but I never saw an answer (please forgive me if it was given though).

So, the lightning storm in space observed near the neutral zone immediately prior to the destruction of Vulcan, and reported to the crew by Chekov, that would be the arrival of Spock Prime's Jellyfish ship?

(By the one "immediately prior", I mean the one mentioned in Chekov's report to the crew, and not the one 25 years earlier.)

Yes, the second one - not the one seen by the crew of the Kelvin. It's generally understood that the "lightning storm in space" mentioned in Chekov's report is the same one we see in conjunction with this dialogue:

AYEL: Sir, we've arrived at the coordinates you calculated.
ROMULAN 2: There's nothing here.
AYEL: What are your orders?
NERO: We wait. We wait for the one who allowed our home to be destroyed, as we've been doing for twenty-five years.
AYEL: And once we've killed him?
NERO: Kill him? I'm not gonna kill him. I'm gonna make him watch.
(a black hole opens and the Jellyfish exits)
NERO: Capture that ship. Welcome back, Spock.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thanks. The point being it was not a new lightning storm generated by Nero's ship.

 

[BillJ]

Well, we're trying to place HOW Kirk KNEW that a Big Honking Romulan SHIP would be waiting for them at Vulcan.

The question is then where is the Neutral Zone in relation to vulcan so it would be relevant to the plot as there seems to be not DIRECT LINK between the facts that Kirk Gives that Spock labels as Sound...

I don't think the question is how Kirk put the pieces together (even though that's a leap), but how Starfleet did? How did Starfleet make the leap that "seismic events on Vulcan" and a "lightening storm in space" near the Neutral Zone would be connected? They were both included in the same mission briefing that Chekov gave, meaning they were seen as a cause-and-effect situation.

They had connected "lightening storm in space" with a huge Romulan vessel from the past, but nothing in the film indicates that they had any idea about the abilities of Red Matter or that it would be used by the same vessel causing the storm.

 

[Saquist]

Well, we're trying to place HOW Kirk KNEW that a Big Honking Romulan SHIP would be waiting for them at Vulcan.

The question is then where is the Neutral Zone in relation to vulcan so it would be relevant to the plot as there seems to be not DIRECT LINK between the facts that Kirk Gives that Spock labels as Sound...

I don't think the question is how Kirk put the pieces together (even though that's a leap), but how Starfleet did? How did Starfleet make the leap that "seismic events on Vulcan" and a "lightening storm in space" near the Neutral Zone would be connected? They were both included in the same mission briefing that Chekov gave, meaning they were seen as a cause-and-effect situation.

They had connected "lightening storm in space" with a huge Romulan vessel from the past, but nothing in the film indicates that they had any idea about the abilities of Red Matter or that it would be used by the same vessel causing the storm.

It is a leap...
It's star trek. If we observe a phenomenon with lighting like characteristics like one that happened 25 years ago...they send a science vessel...not a fleet. It's a scientific Phenomenon. But you're right...how did they know that the planet was in any danger to even need evacuation?

 

[Sean Aaron]

I actually agree with that. There's nothing wrong with having to use your imagination to fill in the boring details that are irrelevant to the story. The problem arises when you have to use your imagination to fill in the relevant plot elements that the writers failed to account for, that end up confusing the viewer.

I don't understand how you could be confused by this movie. It wasn't high art; there is no symbolism to puzzle over unlike something like Barton Fink. The plot isn't idiotically simple, but it's not overly complex either.

It really doesn't seem like a "I need help to connect the dots" kind of film if one pays attention to the dialogue and watches it.

 

[Saquist]

I actually agree with that. There's nothing wrong with having to use your imagination to fill in the boring details that are irrelevant to the story. The problem arises when you have to use your imagination to fill in the relevant plot elements that the writers failed to account for, that end up confusing the viewer.

I don't understand how you could be confused by this movie. It wasn't high art; there is no symbolism to puzzle over unlike something like Barton Fink. The plot isn't idiotically simple, but it's not overly complex either.

It really doesn't seem like a "I need help to connect the dots" kind of film if one pays attention to the dialogue and watches it.

I think the raging debate earlier has shown that the viewer is filling in more than they think. It's not a complex movie but how do you explain that it's missing so much? To many that enjoyed the movie and see no problem with it they don't see what's wrong with the missing information. That's how you know their imagination is filling in the gaps.

 

[F. King Daniel]

We've seen space phenomena affect planets in Trek before. Even if we hadn't, that Chekov mentioned it tells the viewer that someone, somewhere made the connection and that it was considered valid enough to be included in the briefing. The exact how and why are irrelevent.

 

[Saquist]

And that's why Sci Fi movies don't get Oscars for anything other than special effects and make-up.

 

[Gojira]

I actually agree with that. There's nothing wrong with having to use your imagination to fill in the boring details that are irrelevant to the story. The problem arises when you have to use your imagination to fill in the relevant plot elements that the writers failed to account for, that end up confusing the viewer.

I don't understand how you could be confused by this movie. It wasn't high art; there is no symbolism to puzzle over unlike something like Barton Fink. The plot isn't idiotically simple, but it's not overly complex either.

It really doesn't seem like a "I need help to connect the dots" kind of film if one pays attention to the dialogue and watches it.

I think the raging debate earlier has shown that the viewer is filling in more than they think. It's not a complex movie but how do you explain that it's missing so much? To many that enjoyed the movie and see no problem with it they don't see what's wrong with the missing information. That's how you know their imagination is filling in the gaps.

How can my imagination be filling gaps that I never consciously saw? Because you saw plot holes everyone else has to see them too?

 

[Saquist]

I don't understand how you could be confused by this movie. It wasn't high art; there is no symbolism to puzzle over unlike something like Barton Fink. The plot isn't idiotically simple, but it's not overly complex either.

It really doesn't seem like a "I need help to connect the dots" kind of film if one pays attention to the dialogue and watches it.

I think the raging debate earlier has shown that the viewer is filling in more than they think. It's not a complex movie but how do you explain that it's missing so much? To many that enjoyed the movie and see no problem with it they don't see what's wrong with the missing information. That's how you know their imagination is filling in the gaps.

How can my imagination be filling gaps that I never consciously saw?

Strange you should ask that as the visual cortex does the same thing with the gap in your vision.