Plot hole city: Part II!

[William Wallace]

Why would they want to make the impact seem bigger than it really was? Wasn't the point of that scene to show that Kirk and Sulu survived the transport because they avoided the impact of the fall?

They were trying to create the illusion that Kirk and Sulu fell a couple of feet post-materialization, rather than the few inches that the actors actually flopped or rolled into frame. See, the actor's didn't actually fall at all, and their feigned "impact" would have been far too gentle to be believed as the genuine impact of even such a short fall as was desired. Speeding the footage up made the impact look more like a genuine impact. Speeding footage up, and adding/removing frames to create visual "beats" are commonplace tricks that are essential to any stunt sequence that involves impacts or physical blows of any kind.

Speeding the footage up also made it look like their momentum wasn't being cancelled, and that they were still "falling" when they re-materialized. You give the movie too much credit.

 

[chardman]

No, I just understand how action sequences are filmed, and credit them only with doing it exactly the same way that just about any other competent film crew would have shot the sequence. While you, on the other hand, apparently think they should have structured the scene in anticipation of nerds with stopwatches testing them for compliance with Newtonian Physics.

 

[Saquist]

The ship is usually circling in orbit with thousands of kilometers and hour, and they can't beam moving objects. That was stupid. And then Chekov manages to beam Kirk and Sulu aboard while they fall, but he can't manage to beam Amanda, who fell AFTER she was already getting beamed.

The beaming process also had the speed of plot. It took maybe a second to beam Kirk and Sulu, or Kirk and Scotty, but like ten seconds to beam Spock and Amanda.

That was one of the things I did happen to roll my eyes at a bit. Once Chekov manages to lock on to Kirk and Sulu it takes a moment to beam them but it takes considerably longer to beam up Spock et al. once they have been locked on.

It would have made more sense if Amanda had fallen prior to being locked on but from a dramatic sense it works to have her fall as the beaming begins.

It seems the "sudden movement of Amanda by falling was enough to fool the Transporters and it couldn't compensate for the fall. That's why I don't understand why they lost her. Why not reacquire the lock?

That beaming process was different than the one before.
And there is a line of dialogue that explains the difference and why it probably takes longer; Chekov says something about a "volume transport/beam".

I'll look it up

 

[number6]

I think some of you may be over thinking all of this just a tad.

 

[William Wallace]

No, I just understand how action sequences are filmed, and credit them only with doing it exactly the same way that just about any other competent film crew would have shot the sequence. While you, on the other hand, apparently think they should have structured the scene in anticipation of nerds with stopwatches testing them for compliance with Newtonian Physics.

You don't need a stopwatch to see that they're falling faster than they would have if the transporter had cancelled their momentum. A reasonable person might conclude that the transporter didn't cancel any momentum, and they're still falling because they were falling when the transport occured.

 

[number6]

How many people go see a film with a stopwatch??

 

[Broccoli]

I think some of you may be over thinking all of this just a tad.

Pfft...I say we are not over-thinking it enough.

How many people go see a film with a stopwatch??

You haven't? Then you haven't lived!

 

[Sean Aaron]

A reasonable person might conclude that the transporter didn't cancel any momentum, and they're still falling because they were falling when the transport occured.

I figured since it was a hasty series of calculations all momentum wasn't resolved myself.

 

[Broccoli]

A reasonable person might conclude that the transporter didn't cancel any momentum, and they're still falling because they were falling when the transport occured.

A "reasonable person" wouldn't give two shits and just think "Cool action scene, bro."

 

[DrBashir]

A reasonable person might conclude that the transporter didn't cancel any momentum, and they're still falling because they were falling when the transport occured.

A "reasonable person" wouldn't give two shits and just think "Cool action scene, bro."

Exactly. Think about any of it too much (or, for some parts, at all) and it falls apart. It's a summer popcorn flick. It's big explosions and bigger than life characters and SFX out the wazoo.

Enjoy it for what it is.

 

[M'Sharak]

A reasonable person might conclude that the transporter didn't cancel any momentum, and they're still falling because they were falling when the transport occured.

A "reasonable person" wouldn't give two shits and just think "Cool action scene, bro."

Exactly. Think about any of it too much (or, for some parts, at all) and it falls apart. It's a summer popcorn flick. It's big explosions and bigger than life characters and SFX out the wazoo.

Enjoy it for what it is.

That's what I'd do, but this thread is evidence that there's clearly more than one way to watch a Star Trek movie.

I think that at this point, rather than getting into debating what a reasonable person might or might not do, the best course would be to acknowledge that there are things on which everyone isn't going to agree (plot holes apparently among them) and leave it be. Some questions just aren't going to get answered to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[DrBashir]

There's numerous things about the movie I'd change if I had the chance (Kirk's character, Scotty, the design of the Enterprise) but that's all out of my hands. I can either accept it or let it go and find something else to spend my move $$ on. Bitching about all you cannot change is a waste. If you don't like it, don't spend any money on it, as happened with the TNG movies. If enough people agree with you, one will flop and we'll get another reboot eventually. Star Trek is too valuable for them to let it lay fallow for too long.

 

[number6]

That's true. Plus there is the fact that some people have elevated Star Trek to such a high art form it makes me wonder if any of these people actually watched the show.

 

[M'Sharak]

That's true. Plus there is the fact that some people have elevated Star Trek to such a high art form it makes me wonder if any of these people actually watched the show.

Eh, like I said above, there's clearly more than one way to watch Star Trek. If someone wants to take very seriously the stories or the production values or whatever philosophy they may perceive, I believe it's neither my business nor anyone else's to tell them "No, you're doing it wrong!"

If, on the other hand, you're in this Star Trek fan thing more to have fun? Well, then... go ahead. I'm not gonna say you're doing it wrong, either.

 

[Saquist]

I've always enjoyed dissecting a film. Of course some view it at over thinking or a waste of time but I attribute what writing talent I have to the break down of the work of other writers I respect and writers that have failed in the art of conveying their complete idea of the imagination. I've seen a lot of short cuts and I can't help have my enjoyment of the film swayed by it either way.

When I first saw Trek 09' it was clear to me that there wasn't much to praise. I immediately noticed the 25 year do-nada gap, the 3 way contrivance of Delta Vega and Spock's Dues Ex Machinma. Breaking down the film such as this thread did help to show that there was considerably more. Perhaps if the 3 big problems weren't there I would have enjoyed the film even after learning of the minor plot issues like the bad science and such.

At first I attributed these problems to the Writers Strike since the writers evidently knew there were problems in the plot (through interview) so I'm not sure how that reflects on the next Trek film they'll produce. One the one hand the real common denominator is the money and they may consider going in a more serious and proper a direction as an unnecessary risk to those profits. (which I can't blame them) At which point Trek ceases to be a hybrid of imagination and commercialism but truly becomes an egregious example of Holllywood sensationalism, like Star Wars, Transformers, when my hope was that Star Trek's big time moment would be more like Lord of the Rings, the first Matrix, or (gag me) the Harry Potter Movies. But I guess you can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would have like something to be excited about as a former Trek fan but I suppose as a Movie guy this fits right in with the summer's best.

 

[Set Harth]

You can believe what you want to explain the movie but you're still wrong in context of the facts.

That still fails to make sense. Nothing in the film proves my assumption wrong, while the script proves that my assumption matches writer intent.

Everything external of the film is irrelevant that includes your belief and the script.

The script may be irrelevant to you, but that's because you're determined to rewrite the plot in order to invent so-called "plot holes" based on speculation.

You insisted on Federation space then deduced from my objection, Romulan Space.

No, I just used Romulan space as one example, one which you specifically mentioned, while I pointed out that analogous reasoning applied to other locations.

You assumed one or the other and never considered neutral territory.

Wrong. I explicitly referred to non-Federation space which includes all other possibilities. You're rewriting history again.

My conclusion concerning the Hobus star was out of logic.

I agree, if "out of logic" means "empty of logic" the way a store might be "out of bananas". For example, what does Occam's Razor tell us about the location of the Kelvin?

Otherwise it's nothing more than an extremely improbable event (among many in the film) that Narada happened upon the Kelvin. Space is too large and empty to just...(whoops heres a ship with Captain Kirk as a baby on it.)

That's your case? What does this have to do with the location of the Kelvin? Isn't happening upon "Captain Kirk as a baby" equally "improbable" even if the location is assumed to be the Hobus star? So much for that "logic" you keep talking about. It takes more than just saying the word.

Analysis does not equal rewrite.

Strawman. No one is arguing that analysis equals rewrite. But you're rewriting what happened with Nero, not just "analyzing" it.

Unless you can prove the meaning of the words are other than the tradition meaning then your appeal to majority stands.

Except I made no appeal to majority, and I specifically said that I have no idea who is in the majority on this issue. You're simply rewriting my positions in addition to rewriting the plot of the film. Contradiction of "the film doesn't make sense to me" is not an appeal to majority. One person is not a majority in a group of two people.

You held the majority up as evidence of a sound plot.

Never happened.

because the point is not that a majority disagrees with you, but that at least one other person "got" the things you seem to have a problem with.

That is argumentum ad populum.

No, it isn't. You don't get to rewrite the definition of argumentum ad populum ( though it's clear your general rewriting spree knows no bounds ). Look it up. It does not include my statement of at least one other person which you helpfully quoted above. One person is not a majority.

Then at the least...it's Strawman argument because I never said anything about equating a real problem with the film plot with one person. I always used the accepted writing expectations and standards through out the whole argument, quoting the definition and rigidly using it it more than 6 times so far. I've always made my case on the facts the accepted definitions while you've wandered into the script to justify the film.

You never said anything about "one person"... you always used "accepted writing expectations and standards". Defined by who, I wonder? You - AKA one person.

The script nor comic book nor any other source other than the film is acceptable evidence in a plot discussion.

These things show writer intent, which supersedes your revision of the plot.

 

[Gojira]

I've always enjoyed dissecting a film. Of course some view it at over thinking or a waste of time but I attribute what writing talent I have to the break down of the work of other writers I respect and writers that have failed in the art of conveying their complete idea of the imagination. I've seen a lot of short cuts and I can't help have my enjoyment of the film swayed by it either way.

When I first saw Trek 09' it was clear to me that there wasn't much to praise. I immediately noticed the 25 year do-nada gap, the 3 way contrivance of Delta Vega and Spock's Dues Ex Machinma. Breaking down the film such as this thread did help to show that there was considerably more. Perhaps if the 3 big problems weren't there I would have enjoyed the film even after learning of the minor plot issues like the bad science and such.

At first I attributed these problems to the Writers Strike since the writers evidently knew there were problems in the plot (through interview) so I'm not sure how that reflects on the next Trek film they'll produce. One the one hand the real common denominator is the money and they may consider going in a more serious and proper a direction as an unnecessary risk to those profits. (which I can't blame them) At which point Trek ceases to be a hybrid of imagination and commercialism but truly becomes an egregious example of Holllywood sensationalism, like Star Wars, Transformers, when my hope was that Star Trek's big time moment would be more like Lord of the Rings, the first Matrix, or (gag me) the Harry Potter Movies. But I guess you can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would have like something to be excited about as a former Trek fan but I suppose as a Movie guy this fits right in with the summer's best.

Do you remember when the movie was filmed it was made during a writers strike and they could not change the script because of that?

 

[JarodRussell]

I've always enjoyed dissecting a film. Of course some view it at over thinking or a waste of time but I attribute what writing talent I have to the break down of the work of other writers I respect and writers that have failed in the art of conveying their complete idea of the imagination. I've seen a lot of short cuts and I can't help have my enjoyment of the film swayed by it either way.

When I first saw Trek 09' it was clear to me that there wasn't much to praise. I immediately noticed the 25 year do-nada gap, the 3 way contrivance of Delta Vega and Spock's Dues Ex Machinma. Breaking down the film such as this thread did help to show that there was considerably more. Perhaps if the 3 big problems weren't there I would have enjoyed the film even after learning of the minor plot issues like the bad science and such.

At first I attributed these problems to the Writers Strike since the writers evidently knew there were problems in the plot (through interview) so I'm not sure how that reflects on the next Trek film they'll produce. One the one hand the real common denominator is the money and they may consider going in a more serious and proper a direction as an unnecessary risk to those profits. (which I can't blame them) At which point Trek ceases to be a hybrid of imagination and commercialism but truly becomes an egregious example of Holllywood sensationalism, like Star Wars, Transformers, when my hope was that Star Trek's big time moment would be more like Lord of the Rings, the first Matrix, or (gag me) the Harry Potter Movies. But I guess you can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would have like something to be excited about as a former Trek fan but I suppose as a Movie guy this fits right in with the summer's best.

Do you remember when the movie was filmed it was made during a writers strike and they could not change the script because of that?

I don't believe that. There are many films that are done in improvisation, even in a large scope with improvised scenes/sets. I don't think that you really need to consult the scriptwriter for every fucking line an actor says.

 

[Gojira]

I've always enjoyed dissecting a film. Of course some view it at over thinking or a waste of time but I attribute what writing talent I have to the break down of the work of other writers I respect and writers that have failed in the art of conveying their complete idea of the imagination. I've seen a lot of short cuts and I can't help have my enjoyment of the film swayed by it either way.

When I first saw Trek 09' it was clear to me that there wasn't much to praise. I immediately noticed the 25 year do-nada gap, the 3 way contrivance of Delta Vega and Spock's Dues Ex Machinma. Breaking down the film such as this thread did help to show that there was considerably more. Perhaps if the 3 big problems weren't there I would have enjoyed the film even after learning of the minor plot issues like the bad science and such.

At first I attributed these problems to the Writers Strike since the writers evidently knew there were problems in the plot (through interview) so I'm not sure how that reflects on the next Trek film they'll produce. One the one hand the real common denominator is the money and they may consider going in a more serious and proper a direction as an unnecessary risk to those profits. (which I can't blame them) At which point Trek ceases to be a hybrid of imagination and commercialism but truly becomes an egregious example of Holllywood sensationalism, like Star Wars, Transformers, when my hope was that Star Trek's big time moment would be more like Lord of the Rings, the first Matrix, or (gag me) the Harry Potter Movies. But I guess you can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would have like something to be excited about as a former Trek fan but I suppose as a Movie guy this fits right in with the summer's best.

Do you remember when the movie was filmed it was made during a writers strike and they could not change the script because of that?

I don't believe that. There are many films that are done in improvisation, even in a large scope with improvised scenes/sets. I don't think that you really need to consult the scriptwriter for every fucking line an actor says.

I am just relaying what JJ said that as a writer himself he could not and would not change the script during filming.

 

[Saquist]

I've always enjoyed dissecting a film. Of course some view it at over thinking or a waste of time but I attribute what writing talent I have to the break down of the work of other writers I respect and writers that have failed in the art of conveying their complete idea of the imagination. I've seen a lot of short cuts and I can't help have my enjoyment of the film swayed by it either way.

When I first saw Trek 09' it was clear to me that there wasn't much to praise. I immediately noticed the 25 year do-nada gap, the 3 way contrivance of Delta Vega and Spock's Dues Ex Machinma. Breaking down the film such as this thread did help to show that there was considerably more. Perhaps if the 3 big problems weren't there I would have enjoyed the film even after learning of the minor plot issues like the bad science and such.

At first I attributed these problems to the Writers Strike since the writers evidently knew there were problems in the plot (through interview) so I'm not sure how that reflects on the next Trek film they'll produce. One the one hand the real common denominator is the money and they may consider going in a more serious and proper a direction as an unnecessary risk to those profits. (which I can't blame them) At which point Trek ceases to be a hybrid of imagination and commercialism but truly becomes an egregious example of Holllywood sensationalism, like Star Wars, Transformers, when my hope was that Star Trek's big time moment would be more like Lord of the Rings, the first Matrix, or (gag me) the Harry Potter Movies. But I guess you can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would have like something to be excited about as a former Trek fan but I suppose as a Movie guy this fits right in with the summer's best.

Do you remember when the movie was filmed it was made during a writers strike and they could not change the script because of that?

I don't believe that. There are many films that are done in improvisation, even in a large scope with improvised scenes/sets. I don't think that you really need to consult the scriptwriter for every fucking line an actor says.

I would have thought that too but it maybe considered taboo, to do any writing at all. The Guild seems to have a ridiculous amount of pull (like many things in Hollywood)

That still fails to make sense. Nothing in the film proves my assumption wrong, while the script proves that my assumption matches writer intent.

It's irrelevant and doesn't prove anything toward the plots except that it was left out there for plot hole.

Everything external of the film is irrelevant that includes your belief and the script.

The script may be irrelevant to you, but that's because you're determined to rewrite the plot in order to invent so-called "plot holes" based on speculation.

The irrelevancy of the script is determined by the definition of plot hole. Going to the script to fill the gap doesn't satisfy the plot hole. It never will.

No, I just used Romulan space as one example, one which you specifically mentioned, while I pointed out that analogous reasoning applied to other locations.

It was your only example and you stuck with the Fed/Kling fallacy based on your former idea of trekology.

Wrong. I explicitly referred to non-Federation space which includes all other possibilities. You're rewriting history again.

If you did, prove it, if you didn't, you are wrong.

I agree, if "out of logic" means "empty of logic" the way a store might be "out of bananas". For example, what does Occam's Razor tell us about the location of the Kelvin?

The conclusion is derived logically from the facts of the film and is the simplest understanding of the film.

That's your case? What does this have to do with the location of the Kelvin? Isn't happening upon "Captain Kirk as a baby" equally "improbable" even if the location is assumed to be the Hobus star? So much for that "logic" you keep talking about. It takes more than just saying the word.

You might try actually using a proper syllogistic statement if you want to represent logic or hope to identify it because this has isn't a concern for logic it's a concern for contrivance through multiple improbable events. In this case the first coincidence Kirk's birth and timing, the second being location. It's a writing issue which leans upon too many coincidence for which to occur realistically.

Logic merely says these are HIGHLY improbable events since space and time are both infinite. If the Hobus Star was actually the birth location of Kirk then it removes the infinite coincidence of location for a (moderately) more believable happenstance. At least reducing two improbable events to one. With this movie you should really take what you can get.

Strawman. No one is arguing that analysis equals rewrite. But you're rewriting what happened with Nero, not just "analyzing" it.

False: you are describing my analysis as a rewrite of the film. At no point did I make an effort to "rewrite" the film. This is your (flawed) interpretation. The conclusion stands, your strawman is dismissed.

Except I made no appeal to majority, and I specifically said that I have no idea who is in the majority on this issue.

You gave a confidence statement and then sited majority.
This is argument through popular vote.

Contradiction of "the film doesn't make sense to me" is not an appeal to majority. One person is not a majority in a group of two people.

You said: " made sense to many viewers" Set Harth

which is more than two.

Never happened.

Your argument sited, "These things were adequately explained and made sense to many viewers."~Seth Harth

You gave a confidence statement and then sited majority.
This is argument through popular vote.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it

to which you said:

Your argument sited, "These things were adequately explained and made sense to many viewers."~Seth Harth

...without identifying the logic of your declaration of adequacy you allowed YOUR only exhibit of evidence "popular opinion" to stand on it's own. You made a conclusion with out use of syllogistic logic.

my post at http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5225839&postcount=88
your reply: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5232566&postcount=217

Since, this point you've not put together one syllogistic statement to justify it.

The Argumentum ad Populum stands...

Then at the least...it's Strawman argument because I never said anything about equating a real problem with the film plot with one person. I always used the accepted writing expectations and standards through out the whole argument, quoting the definition and rigidly using it it more than 6 times so far. I've always made my case on the facts the accepted definitions while you've wandered into the script to justify the film.

You never said anything about "one person"... you always used "accepted writing expectations and standards". Defined by who, I wonder? You - AKA one person.

Another appeal to authority?

These things show writer intent,

...AND irrelevant.