Plot hole city: Part 3!
- Thread starter William Wallace
- Start date
- Status
Spock did identify himself prior to the mindmeld and although Kirk was hesitant at first he certainly wasn't mind raped.
Jesus Christ, when will people get over this fucking mind rape nonsense? 
The big difference between Valeris and nuKirk? nuKirk gave consent, and had no reason to hide anything. And in TUC, Spock was trying to extract information, whereas in XI, the primary reason for the mindmeld is the opposite -- Spock giving information.
Btw...am I the only one that finds the whole rape analogy *very* problematic on a variety of levels? I missed the part of the movie where the protagonists weren't just lucky non-heroes, but also rapists too. I understand the need to criticize the movie -- it's by no means perfect -- but equating their actions to rape is not only stretching it, it's perhaps extreme and quite inappropriate too. So now we're also now bashing Nimoy Spock, one of the few direct links this film has across the franchise, as someone who wants to exert domination over others. Let's find new ways to bash the movie, even if it means taking down our old heroes in the process. We shall spare no one!
He was able to "save" the Enterprise because 1) he just happened to be fooling around with Uhura's roommate, which allowed him to learn about Nero's incident with the Klingons, and he happened to know about the Kelvin, seeing as how his parents happened to be on board the very ship that ran into Nero. Kirk shouldn't have even been on board the enterprise, since cheating on the Kobayashi Maru got him suspended. McCoy just happened to help him sneak aboard. Does Kirk really deserve credit for happening to be in the right place at the right time?
And before he destroys the drill, he nearly gets killed by the Romulan, but gets bailed out by Sulu who just happens to win his battle just in the nick of time to come save Kirk's behind.
And when he jumps after Sulu, his backup chute fails, in part, because it has to support twice as much weight. Normally the fall would have killed him because they can't beam him up while falling, but he once again lucks out because Chekov just happens to know how to "do zat", and he happens to get to the transporter room just in the nick of time to save him (even though Chekov left the bridge about a minute after Spock did, he gets there a minute before him).
You say "heroic traits", I say extraordinary luck, and constantly happening to be in the right place at the right time. I don't mind heroes getting the benefit of lucky coincidences, but when a movie tries to convince me that they're heroes because of the coincidences, then it loses credibility. I mean come on, this is Star Trek, not Inspector Gadget.
I love how William Wallace knows Kirk's heroic traits and potental (emphasis on potential) better than the guy who shared minds with both his TOS and STXI incarnations.
Spock got the most direct comparison possible. It's NOT about genetics, not about DNA, it's that he saw in Kirk's mind - that he had the potential to be the James T. Kirk that Spock knew. That maybe he already was.
(of note, William Shatner's 2007 young Kirk novel Star Trek Academy: Collision Course portrays Kirk almost exactly the way Chris Pine would a few years later. But what does Shatner know, eh? William Wallace should be writing these things!)
Um, I think everything Spock can see in Kirk, we, the audience can see, too. Unless, of course, you're insinuating that there are things about Kirk that aren't revealed to us in the movie or the shows, that we're supposed to just assume fills in the gap. But then, if we have to assume things that the movie fails to tell us, doesn't that make it a plot hole?
I see it. Sucks that you can't.
Kirk had no idea who Spock was.
"Look, I don't know you.
I am Spock.
Bullshit."
Also, where does Kirk give concent?
"Spock - Please, allow me. It will be easier.
Kirk - Whoa, whoa, what are you doing?
Spock - Our minds, one and together."
So since he's friends with Kirk in one reality that gives him the right to meld with any Kirk from any alternate reality? Concent from one is concent for all?
The forced meld with Valaris, also performed by Nimoy Spock, is a well known scene. What else would you call it? He's using his power to violently take information from her mind. In ST09 he does the same thing with Kirk, but in this case the information is two way apparently and isn't as violent. However, in neither case was concent given. What would you call it when the very contents of your mind are shared without your permission?
I was told that it'd be a good idea to post this from part four, so I'm going to post it again.
I actually think there's far less problems with the movie than some people like to claim. I have a different view on plot holes.
One of the things I've found out is that what plot holes are actually mistakes and most of the time minor ones. For example, the scene in ST V in the turbolift tunnel. Spock shot up over a hundred decks in that scene when the Enterprise has about 25 decks. That's just a minor mistake.
Some people would call that a plot hole. But it isn't. It is definately a mistake, although an intentional one because the director wanted it in there to give audiences a laugh.
A true plothole is an oversight that can have a direct impact on the story. If there is no explanation, that isn't a real plothole. It's just an omission.
Here's what I mean. let's take the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. That movie has a very big plothole in it.
HAL 9000 decides to murder the astronauts. There are two of them, Bowman and Poole, who are not put into hibernation. So he decides to fake a malfunction in the ships communication dish. While outside putting the component back HAL takes command of the pod, cuts Poole's air hose so he can't get any oxygen, and shoves his body out into space.
In the movie Bowman is able to retrieve Poole's body using the other pod, then reenter the ship, and disable HALs' higher functions. Then he finds himself at Jupiter and the monolith. Because he was the first and only astronaut there, he is able to enter the monolith and merge with it becoming the Starchild we see in 2010 The Year We make Contact.
Now, here's the big plothole that could alter the entire story.
If HAL took over the first pod, there was nothing to prevent him from taking over the pod Bowman was in, and shoving him out into space. If that would've happened, the ship would have no astronauts in it and there would've been no Bowman to merge with the monolith and no Starchild.
That is an example of a real plothole. Most things people rally about don't even come anywhere near that big of a mistake. They are simple omissions. But not everything needs to be explained for if everything was explained to the detail that some people want then it would lengthen the movie.
So in short, the things that people call plot holes aren't really plot holes. They could be mistakes, but they aren't really, most of the time.
I actually think there's far less problems with the movie than some people like to claim. I have a different view on plot holes.
One of the things I've found out is that what plot holes are actually mistakes and most of the time minor ones. For example, the scene in ST V in the turbolift tunnel. Spock shot up over a hundred decks in that scene when the Enterprise has about 25 decks. That's just a minor mistake.
Some people would call that a plot hole. But it isn't. It is definately a mistake, although an intentional one because the director wanted it in there to give audiences a laugh.
A true plothole is an oversight that can have a direct impact on the story. If there is no explanation, that isn't a real plothole. It's just an omission.
Here's what I mean. let's take the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. That movie has a very big plothole in it.
HAL 9000 decides to murder the astronauts. There are two of them, Bowman and Poole, who are not put into hibernation. So he decides to fake a malfunction in the ships communication dish. While outside putting the component back HAL takes command of the pod, cuts Poole's air hose so he can't get any oxygen, and shoves his body out into space.
In the movie Bowman is able to retrieve Poole's body using the other pod, then reenter the ship, and disable HALs' higher functions. Then he finds himself at Jupiter and the monolith. Because he was the first and only astronaut there, he is able to enter the monolith and merge with it becoming the Starchild we see in 2010 The Year We make Contact.
Now, here's the big plothole that could alter the entire story.
If HAL took over the first pod, there was nothing to prevent him from taking over the pod Bowman was in, and shoving him out into space. If that would've happened, the ship would have no astronauts in it and there would've been no Bowman to merge with the monolith and no Starchild.
That is an example of a real plothole. Most things people rally about don't even come anywhere near that big of a mistake. They are simple omissions. But not everything needs to be explained for if everything was explained to the detail that some people want then it would lengthen the movie.
So in short, the things that people call plot holes aren't really plot holes. They could be mistakes, but they aren't really, most of the time.
Saquist
Commodore
Nero not destroying Enterprise when he had every reason to (2x) would fit that very same style of plot hole. But the less acute believe that Nero simply didn't want to. Maybe Hal simiply didn't want to either.
Those kind of character plot holes happened repeatedly in the film.
1-Why didn't Nero take steps to save Romulus? (part of the plot)
2-Why did Nero leave Spock on a Federation Outpost (part of the plot) Why release him at all?
3-Why didn't Enterprise simply fire on the Drill?
Those are aside from the scientific plot holes and the stupidity of some of the explanations that can be either caulked up to embellishment or apathy on the part of the writers.
Plot holes aren't a whimsical idea of subjectively. It has to fit the parameters and those parameters can't be explained by the producers as "easter eggs" or etc. The movie has the obligation of telling a complete story, which it didn't. The Nero Character was a woefully inadequate movie manikin. I think they other wise created good characters but didn't create a seamless story to tell let alone to the subject side of whether it was good or not.
They admitted as much.
Any time you hid behind the excuse of "need" for introduction of characters you're admitting it was more than you could handle.
Saquist
Commodore
That's not an explanation for why he DIDN"T do what irrationality had already caused him to do. Destroy vulcan, attack Spock, Destroy the Kelvin, Destroy the entire star fleet. Irrationality explains why he did do those things. Irrationality doesn't mean unpredictable or insane.
The irrational pattern he set was that he was going to kill and destroy because of his loss regardless of the innocence involved. But when it came to the main characters thats exactly what he didn't do.
Irrationality also doesn't explain why he didn't say Romulus when he had 25 years to do something...anything. Again...Irrationality isn't the sort of unbrella statement you can make in this film to save the plot.
He was clearly rational enough to destroy the Fleet when threatened. He was rationale enough to calculate Spock's coordinates. He was rational enough to know he needed codes to destroy Earth. He was rational enough to know he needed to find out what time he was in from the Kelvin and stop short of destroying it. But those situations have REASONS for why he did them and so we cannot therefore follow that Nero was "irrational" as an explanation for very obvious failures that lead to his defeat at the end.
Plot holes represent a literary standard in writing and as such as justified by definition. They are no subjective in anyway. I was though precisely what they were and how to avoid them. Only laziness or apathy allows an inconsistency in the plot to remain.
That's not an explanation for why he DIDN"T do what irrationality had already caused him to do. Destroy vulcan, attack Spock, Destroy the Kelvin, Destroy the entire star fleet. Irrationality explains why he did do those things. Irrationality doesn't mean unpredictable or insane.
The irrational pattern he set was that he was going to kill and destroy because of his loss regardless of the innocence involved. But when it came to the main characters thats exactly what he didn't do.
Irrationality also doesn't explain why he didn't say Romulus when he had 25 years to do something...anything. Again...Irrationality isn't the sort of unbrella statement you can make in this film to save the plot.
He was clearly rational enough to destroy the Fleet when threatened. He was rationale enough to calculate Spock's coordinates. He was rational enough to know he needed codes to destroy Earth. He was rational enough to know he needed to find out what time he was in from the Kelvin and stop short of destroying it. But those situations have REASONS for why he did them and so we cannot therefore follow that Nero was "irrational" as an explanation for very obvious failures that lead to his defeat at the end.
To you. This is called stating opinion as fact.
Plot holes represent a literary
Yes they can, but not when fans are complaining about things they don't like and are purposefully nitpicking it to death. Anybody can nit pick anything else to death.
They are no subjective in anyway. I was though precisely what they were and how to avoid them. Only laziness or apathy allows an inconsistency in the plot to remain
Yes, they are highly subjective. It's also very lazy to say that something is a plothole when it's nothing but. Plothole is a very overused term in fandom, and probably the most over used excuse to nitpick something to death when really there is not any real plot holes.
Anybody can come up with plot hole excuses really easily.
And anybody and criticize and complain.
But the real challenge is to be quiet and write a script without any plotholes what so ever.
You see, that's also the thing about writing, is of course there will always be paths not taken, and things not explained. But that doesn't mean that everything has to be explained. That's one of the things you should've learned in writing too. Not everything has to be explained, especially when somethings' really obvious, and sometimes it's actually better to leave some things unexplained for it will cause a lot more speculation and when people hear the speculation, they'll go an watch it, for years and years to come.
And just because something is not explained very well is not laziness or apathy, nor is it a plot hole.
The irrational pattern he set was that he was going to kill and destroy because of his loss regardless of the innocence involved. But when it came to the main characters thats exactly what he didn't do.
Irrationality also doesn't explain why he didn't say Romulus when he had 25 years to do something...anything. Again...Irrationality isn't the sort of unbrella statement you can make in this film to save the plot.
He was clearly rational enough to destroy the Fleet when threatened. He was rationale enough to calculate Spock's coordinates. He was rational enough to know he needed codes to destroy Earth. He was rational enough to know he needed to find out what time he was in from the Kelvin and stop short of destroying it. But those situations have REASONS for why he did them and so we cannot therefore follow that Nero was "irrational" as an explanation for very obvious failures that lead to his defeat at the end.
To you. This is called stating opinion as fact.
Plot holes represent a literary
Yes they can, but not when fans are complaining about things they don't like and are purposefully nitpicking it to death. Anybody can nit pick anything else to death.
They are no subjective in anyway. I was though precisely what they were and how to avoid them. Only laziness or apathy allows an inconsistency in the plot to remain
Yes, they are highly subjective. It's also very lazy to say that something is a plothole when it's nothing but. Plothole is a very overused term in fandom, and probably the most over used excuse to nitpick something to death when really there is not any real plot holes.
Anybody can come up with plot hole excuses really easily.
And anybody and criticize and complain.
But the real challenge is to be quiet and write a script without any plotholes what so ever.
You see, that's also the thing about writing, is of course there will always be paths not taken, and things not explained. But that doesn't mean that everything has to be explained. That's one of the things you should've learned in writing too. Not everything has to be explained, especially when somethings' really obvious, and sometimes it's actually better to leave some things unexplained for it will cause a lot more speculation and when people hear the speculation, they'll go an watch it, for years and years to come.
And just because something is not explained very well is not laziness or apathy, nor is it a plot hole.
Saquist
Commodore
It's called stating a definition as fact. Otherwise known as sourcing to which there is appropriate references for.
Then don't be fan.
But nitpicking is what I do. The precise break down of errors within a work. (I'm a drafter so it's something I make a living on.)
It's not subjective and nothing here is very convincing in terms of logic to over turning my standard on that point. You can look at it as "subjective" as many people do. That's your prerogative of course. My prerogative though is to maintain a taught standard I learned through traditional collegiate education.
Which isn't difficult at all.
The true difficulty is maintaining writin standards, while appealing to the masses withing a strict time frame. People don't brainstorm particularly logically so many times and we tend to carry ideas forward because of audience appeal rather than to stick to literary standards. It doesn't help that Hollywoods standards of writing have continually declined bellow that of just 15 years ago explaining the inundation of the many fluff movies on the market. Much of this has to do with the technology present in the average home now that allows people to have a better quality experience that at mass auditoriums as well as the problem of hacking and piracy. In the 2000's and Late 90's it was Theaters were not making their profit margin and Cinemark and AMC and many dollar theaters were closing up smaller venues. The whole 3D and IMAX revolution is bring it back in part. They'll have to continue to innovate to stay ahead of the home theater but for now Fluff movies are cheaper and quicker.
As long as the missing information is plot relevant then it's a plot hole. Cut N Dry.
You didn't post any source material to back up your claims.So until then it's stating an opinion as fact.
It's not subjective and nothing here is very convincing in terms of logic to over turning my standard on that point. You can look at it as "subjective" as many people do. That's your prerogative of course. My prerogative though is to maintain a taught standard I learned through traditional collegiate education.
What must be true for you must be true for everybody else and if not then must be made to be true.
Not everybody has the same standards.
As long as the missing information is plot relevant then it's a plot hole. Cut N Dry.
No it isn't. It's only a plot hole if it has an effect on the story. That's what is cut n dry.
Which isn't difficult at all.
Then do it and let people enjoy the movie how they want to and let writers write the movie they want to, not how you think they should write. Writing is not an easy thing.
Nitpicking never accomplishes anything because there is always something that can be nit picked. And that's why it's highly subjective. And of course there is also such a thing as being argumentive for the sake of being argumentive, which is what nitpicking is really all about. People can always make excuses why they're "not" nitpicking, of course, and hide behind them, but in the end it all boils down to one thing:
"This happened in a movie, and I didn't like it so I must nit pick."
As for me, sure, I can see minor errors in some things and can muse about them, but for me unless it is something that will drastically alter the story I'm not going to let it bother me and make all kinds of excuses.
What is plausible to one person is not plausible to another.
Movies are supposed to be escapist entertainment, and are always highly subjective. And always will be. The best thing to do is to just lay back and enjoy the movie.
No, it still does not.
While one might (for whatever reason) wish that every detail was so thoroughly explained that it could not possibly be interpreted in more than one way, the storyteller (the filmmaker, in this case) is under no obligation to provide such a thorough and complete explanation. Questions may remain unanswered, and it then falls (whether by design or by default) to the reader/viewer/audience to decide what they believe happened; this neither constitutes a failing in the storytelling nor does it a plot hole make.
Last edited:
This assumes there was no manual override or computer lockout on the pods. Perhaps when the pods were outside the ship, the control that HAL had over them was more limited than when they were still in the pod bay. We only have the one data point of a pod being controlled by HAL, and Frank was not aboard the pod when it happened.
Grant you, what you point out is a weakness in the story. The main thrust of the point is that everything is so very automated.
But with so little explicit description of the nature of the technology in the film, and with explanations so ready that are capable of repairing the weakness, it can't really rise to the level of being a hole. The main thrust of the counterpoint is that Dave seems to be directly in control of his pod, making a great many manual adjustments while picking up Frank's body. Perhaps Dave preferred to manually control picking up Frank's body, on instinct, perhaps even driven subconsciously by the concerns he and Frank had recently expressed.
Nice observation, though.
- Status
Similar threads
