Biggest single contrivances that make stories "work"?

[zar]

Because it is directly established that Khan was idiotic enough NOT to realise that space has 3 dimensions and a starship can actually fly up or down.

It wasn't. All that was said on the matter was (from memory) that "his pattern seems to indicate 2D thinking". That's it. Nowhere was it established that he has no idea that space has 3 dimensions -- not indirectly, and certainly not directly. We even see the Reliant moving on the z axis sometimes.

What it means is that he's using tactics better suited to ground-based battle, which makes perfect sense. Those tactics don't automatically transfer over to space combat just because you have the knowledge that 3 dimensions exist, it's a completely different arena. You need training or experience, and Kirk's crew had both.

If anything, the unbelievable part is that Khan and his crew were able to figure out the starship and do any damage at all. He was most definitely not portrayed as an idiot.

 

[STR]

^Agreed. Just because you're aware of all 3 dimensions doesn't mean you're using tactics designed with all 3 axis foremost in mind. Hell, even air to air tactics are largely fought 2 dimensionally, with height generally being used to increase or decrease speed. Submarines generally just use depth to mask themselves with thermal layers. Combat in orbit is defined by ballistic trajectories, which makes them almost 1 dimensional. There is no school of combat on all of the planet that's been designed for deep space combat, which is the only arena that offers complete freedom in all directions of travel and axis of attack.

Given the quote, the Reliant could very well be swooping up and down through X,Y and Z, but Spock and Kirk observed that the tactics are an evolution of 2D combat, as opposed to thinking that's inherently 3D. Khan was a genius, but he spent 15 years barely surviving, not pondering over deep space combat mechanics which hadn't even been invented by the time he froze himself.

 

[Ghel]

How about this one in Nemesis:

At the beginning of the film, Data carries one emergency transport unit with him. Because of this, he and Picard must battle through Shinzons whole ship to get to the little fighter craft.

So at the end of the film, Data jumps across open space to rescue Picard and still only brings ONE emergency transport device!?!

No matter how new and experimental these devices were, shouldn't the Enterprise have at least two on hand considering Data is allowed to carry one around with him in his handy arm compartment?

 

[STR]

^The entire Nemesis movie is one big contrivance.

The whole cloning plot was strained.

The idea that Romulans would promote a human to any kind of rank, even if it is in the Reman branch of the service.

That we never, ever saw a Reman before, despite them being in Da War.

That Remans, despite being slaves, built the I.R.W. Fanwank.

Picards shiny new off-road RV. With wheels. ####ing wheels.

The whole Troi brain-rape thing. I was so over that the second time they did it on the show, and they still did it a 3rd time before All Good Things. 4 times? I'd be wearing a foil helmet wherever I go now. My brain can only take so much raping.

That nobody thought there might be something up with B4, given that the only other "brother" of Data was seriously touched in the headplate. I mean really, the first words coming out of my mouth upon on seeing the little B4 pieces would be "did someone steal Lore and dump him here after he started singing?"

They let Data mainframe dump decades of classified and sensitive (both professionally and personally) material into Lore Jr.

The only way you can fix my cloning-induced skin problem is with your special Picard juices. Seriously, just grab a syringe, suck out some stem cells, and clone that crap. There's a guy in India that will do that for you today for under a grand.

The conveniently placed nebula that Picard flew right into, despite knowing that it would cause a communication blackout.

Nobody in the fleet though "Umm...they've been in that inconveniently placed nebula for a while, haven't they? I think we should check it out."

That the Fanwank could outrun the Enterprise.

The aforementioned "mobile transporter"

The fact that all the shuttle transporters stopped working.

That the Enterprise-E runs out of torpedoes in...oh...3 minutes.

The best idea Picard had was to beam over himself, with a rifle and zero plan to do something just in case you couldn't phaser the oddly unsecured thalaron core.

That the best idea Data had was to shoot the thalaron core, rather than plant a bomb or something.

That Picard didn't just ram the ship into the Fanwank again. Hell, pull out the shuttles and kamikaze the suckers.

That nobody knew how to manually set the self destruct. Hell, have Data phaser the warp core.

"Deck 29"

The conveniently placed bottomless pit with the poorly constructed walkway over it.

Can someone tell me how the hell Worf even got here? While we're at it, who the hell invited Wesley? P.S. Shut up Wesley!

 

[Silvercrest]

Getting back to Star Trek, the only time aside from TWOK that space wasn't depicted as two-dimensional was DS9 when we saw Empok Nor, a Cardassian space station of the same design as DS9 that was always shown on its side for some reason.

Actually, it's still two-dimensional. The only way Empok Nor can be "on its side" is if there's some sort of objective "up" or "down".

 

[zar]

That the best idea Data had was to shoot the thalaron core, rather than plant a bomb or something.

Even his phaser could be turned into a bomb. Or just programmed to shoot by itself. The worst part is the contrivance wasn't necessary... Data could have easily had a heroic sacrifice that actually made sense.

Can someone tell me how the hell Worf even got here?

That part makes sense. He came for the wedding and plans got interrupted by a priority message from Janeway explaining the plot.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

I hate it when the Captain (usually Janeway or Sisko) says "Disable their weapons!" Then the crew pushes two buttons and it's done.

First off, Voyager is constantly encountering vessels of completely unknown origin, and the Defiant is constantly encountering new warships specifically designed to combat the Federation. How could they possibly even know where the weapons ARE? Let alone know how to knock them out, or get past the shields, or get a good shot, or damage them so effectively in such a short amount of time? ALL AT ONCE?

 

[YARN]

--In response to "hyperbole-meld... ....Telling someone a story, even an autobiographical one, requires far different rhetorical strategies than forcing someone to provide information they do not wish to share.

Why would Spock need to use a rhetorical strategy with Kirk on this point?

Why would he need to use hyperbole?

What gain is there in claiming that a supernova would have destroyed the entire galaxy? Isn't it enough of an exigent circumstance to have a populated solar system threatened by such an event?

Spock prevaricates on occasion, but only when the occasion demands it. Otherwise, he is so rigorous that he demands accurate reporting of data up to several decimal places. Spock is not one given to casual misrepresentation of factual data.

Consequently, your analysis here is horseshit.

--On the idea that just because the meld is exposition for the film, this still does not rule out hyperbole. Remember, most film viewers are not hard core Star Trek fans. Hence, having Spock wax on about how the supernova is going to destabalize the alpha quadrant and how the klingons, Federation, Cardassians, Ferengi et al are all going to react is silly, when the exposition can be shortened to "it could destroy the galaxy." Even in the directors commentary, Abrams mentioned he wanted to keep the info vague because he felt getting into too much detail would only serve to confuse causal viewers.

This is not just horseshit, but badly thought-out horseshit.

Spock is a character in a film. He cannot intentionally lie to, distort, or otherwise withhold information from the audience.

There is no "real" or "actual" Star Trek universe in which (unbeknownst to the audience) the supernova never threatened the entire galaxy. JJ Abrams is not lying to us about really happened there, because there is no "there" there. If we, the audience, are told that the supernova was about to destroy the galaxy, then that IS the case.

Except of course for the whole bit of dialogue between young and old Spock (paraphrased) "You let Kirk believe that universe ending consequences could happen if you and I were to meet. . . so you lied!"
"I exaggerated."
Of course, this does take place at the end of the film and references the dialogue that took place directly after the mind-meld scene. It would certainly seem to imply to me that Spock was willing to bend the truth a bit to get this universe to turn out as Spock believes that it should . . .

Again, we already knew that Spock equivocates on occasion, but only when the occasion demands it and there is nothing about this revelation which indicates that Spock was pulling our leg about the supernova.

You supply no explanatory mechanism (i.e., motive) for Spock to misrepresent affairs on this point.

We have no more reason to believe that Spock was lying on this point than any other thing he communicated in the film. Perhaps Spock was lying to Nu-Spock about helping Vulcans relocate (he has no reason to, but hey, he is known to stretch the truth, and we can't prove he isn't lying)?

Because you offer no explanation as to why Spock would lie to Kirk on this point, and because, at most, your argument amounts to the weak claim that we cannot absolutely prove that he wasn't lying, your analysis turns out, one again, to be horseshit.

Hence, I would hardly call what I am doing wild speculation since there is clear supporting evidence and dialogue that Spock is being liberal with the truth when it suits his purposes in this film!

What you are doing is worse than wild-speculation. It is disingenuous and specious argument aimed only at apologizing for a scientific inaccuracy.

There is no evidence that Spock is lying on this point and the mere fact that Spock is capable of lying proves nothing.

 

[sojourner]

^It's capable of proving that his argument is just as valid as yours. The character of Spock was addressing another character, not the audience, he could easily be exaggerating the situation to ensure that Kirk was aware of the stakes involved. Where is your proof that Spock wasn't lying? Star charts? casualty lists? anything?

 

[zar]

Where is your proof that Spock wasn't lying?

I could easily pick any other random line out of the movie and suggest that it actually doesn't have anything to do with the plot and ask you to offer me proof that it wasn't a lie. It doesn't work like that. I would be the one who needs to prove that it was a lie. When you have dialogue exposing the plot, you assume that none of it is lies unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.

It's capable of proving that his argument is just as valid as yours.

If that were true, it would mean that anything a character says is equally likely to be either true or false, and every movie would have to stop after every line and show you its "proof" otherwise you would be completely confused as to what is actually going on.

The character of Spock was addressing another character, not the audience

The mind-meld scene was a narration more than anything.

he could easily be exaggerating the situation to ensure that Kirk was aware of the stakes involved

Are you suggesting that Kirk would not have considered an entire populated solar system high enough stakes? Or that a Starfleet-trained person would actually believe that a single star supernova could threaten an entire galaxy? It's all quite a stretch. The most logical assumption is that the writers were too scientifically illiterate to tell the difference.

 

[sojourner]

^Or that they did not intend for the comment to be taken literally. I always thought of it as similar to the "shot heard 'round the world".

 

[zar]

"(grave voice) A star will explode... and threaten to destroy the galaxy."

Does this seem like a figure of speech to you? Really?

 

[sojourner]

^Yes, I've never heard of a star threatening anyone. Especially knowing that Spock is smart enough to realize that a single supernova can't destroy a galaxy.

 

[YARN]

The character of Spock was addressing another character, not the audience,

Which means that you also disagree with Ghell's analysis which asserts that the scene is one in which JJ Abrams is using hypebole to keep from confusing the audience. And I quote:

Even in the directors commentary, Abrams mentioned he wanted to keep the info vague because he felt getting into too much detail would only serve to confuse causal viewers.

At this point, however, I have to, at least, credit Ghell with realizing that the function of the character of Spock in that scene is indeed to provide exposition for the audience. The character of Spock is addressing the character of Kirk for the benefit of the audience.

Otherwise, we might cut the scene entirely. We could, perhaps just show Kirk at the very end of the mind meld and have him say "OK, I totally get it now! I understand what's happening!" After all, according to your argument, Spock is giving Kirk this information strictly for his own benefit. But if you remove the scene, a good portion of the audience would become confused and frustrated. "What did Spock tell him during the mind-meld? Why is Nero so mad at Spock? How did Spock get involved in all this?"

he could easily be exaggerating the situation to ensure that Kirk was aware of the stakes involved.

No, if he misrepresents what happened to Kirk, then Kirk will not be aware of the stakes, but rather a misrepresentation of the stakes.

And what stakes are we speaking of here? Why would Kirk need to be all panicked about a star that will not explode for another hundred years? Spock already knows that Kirk is aware of the destruction of Vulcan - the stakes in this timeline are already on the table.

Why would Spock need or wish to misrepresent the stakes that only exist in a possible future for Kirk?

 

[zar]

^Yes, I've never heard of a star threatening anyone.

threaten, verb - endanger; pose a threat to; present a danger to

Especially knowing that Spock is smart enough

Except he wasn't in this movie. You need to come up with bizarre apologetics just to salvage this reputation that he's smart enough to know the difference between a galaxy and a solar system. The truth is, Spock is only as smart as the people who give him his lines. This time those people obviously goofed.

 

[YARN]

^Yes, I've never heard of a star threatening anyone.

There are a great many expressions which once served a vivid figurative function, but which are now cliches, dead metaphors, and more or less direct ways of "saying something." For example, at one time it was very clever to say of a boxer who knocked out another boxer that "He cleaned his clock!" Or that a person with a grudge "has an axe to grind" or a "bone to pick". Today, however, these worn-out expressions are just idiomatic ways of expressing oneself. Ironically, they are often the most direct way of saying something - the figurative becoming literal.

The idea of a dangerous natural phenomenon which is likely to produce significant damage by using personification to say that the phenomenon is "threatening" is a well-worn, unexciting, and universally understood expression.

But this isn't even what matters here!

What matters is the way in which the figure is being used. That is, does the term "threaten" suggests a non-literal exaggeration of effect? If I say, "The sky is threatening rain" or "the volcano is threatening to erupt" am I exaggerating the effect that a rain or an eruption would have? The answer, quite obviously, is no.

You, however, are just as obviously confused on this point because you continue to write ---

Especially knowing that Spock is smart enough to realize that a single supernova can't destroy a galaxy.

Spock is not a real person. If Spock were an actual smart person, he would NOT announce that diamonds are the hardest substance known to man (Arena), but also state that Rodinium is that hardest substance known to man (Balance of Terror). Spock is only as smart as he is written to be.

Moreover, Spock does not live in our universe and so cannot be judged by his knowledge of the laws which govern our universe. In Spock's world, magical "red matter" can create black holes, supernovas can destroy galaxies, and exploding moons create shock waves that batter starships light years away. Sure, he's real-world stupid (so are Sherlock Holmes and Dr. House), but as a character he only needs to be fiction-world smart.

 

[sojourner]

Sigh, this isn't worth it. You two enjoy your delusion.

 

[zar]

Delusion? You're the one defending an obvious error by speculating beyond what is onscreen, without any evidence other than that Spock, a nonexistent person, is "smart enough" to know better. Where have either of us referred to anything other than what is already clearly seen and heard in the movie itself?

 

[JarodRussell]

It's more like the writers were real-world stupid and that the character is innocent.

 

[Listener4]

The entire plot of the new movie is bizarre and contrived. It seems to have been built around finding a way to have Leonard Nimoy in the movie, who was only there to give the movie a sense of legitimacy. He seemed completely out of place to me.