Plot hole city: Part 3!

[William Wallace]

Here we go again

1) When Nero is about to destroy the Enterprise, but says "WAIT!" when he realizes it's the Enterprise, and that nuSpock might be on board, how does he know? Sure, he could have learned it from history books, but why does he assume that, in this altered timeline, Spock will be assigned to the exact same ship he was before? The coincidence of the exact same crew of Enterprise ending up on the same ship together is just a contrivance by the writers, but Nero knowing which ship he's on? That's just him reading the script.

Besides, if he's so sure nuSpock is on the Enterprise, why does he go around hastily destroying Federation ships without checking their names? He only says "wait!" at the last second, realizing it's the Enterprise just before he's about to destroy it.

2) I still can't get past oldSpock inputting a simple formula into the transporter and suddenly being able to transport half way across the galaxy. IIRC that wasn't even possible for ships in the TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline, but even if it were, hadn't the Enterprise already gone to warp several hours before that? How do they even locate the ship? Even TNG/DS9/Voyager era sensors can't seem to track a ship after it goes to warp, so how do oldSpock/Scott/Kirk do it?

3) When Kirk and Scott beam to the Enterprise, Scott ends up trapped in a fluid conduit. When Kirk hits the release valve to free him, Scott falls about 20 feet to the ground and lands face first. Despite this, Scott gets up and walks away completely unharmed.

4) When Spock decides to beam down to Vulcan to save the elders, why doesn't he beam there directly from the bridge? Why does he waste precious time casually walking to the transporter room? If he'd gotten there just a minute sooner, his mom probably wouldn't have died.

5) Since when does temporarily being put in charge of a ship automatically promote someone to "captain" (e.g. "Captain Spock", "Captain Kirk")? Of all the times Picard left the Enterprise leaving Riker in charge, he was never called "Captain Riker", it was always still "Commander Riker".

 

[F. King Daniel]

These aren't plot holes.

 

[Pauln6]

1) Vulcans and Romulans share a common heritage - maybe his intense hatred of Spock triggered his nascent psychic abilities?

2) There is no excuse for this. Extending the power of Federation transporters beyond anything we've seen was at best foolish and at worse a game changer for both the Feds and any other race that can use the technology. Transporting at warp - fine. Transporting a light year onto a vessel at warp using a standard shuttle transporter modified only by a computer program and not even to said vessel's transporter room - terrible.

3) Variable artifical gravity is entirely possible. It's a health and safety issue.

4) Given that they can now beam light years, I have no idea why they feel the need to trot down to the transporter room. However site to site beaming wasn't the sort of thing they did much in TOS.

5) The writers didn't credit the audience with much intelligence and thought they might get confused if Kirk's first name wasn't Captain?

 

[Gojira]

Here we go again


5) Since when does temporarily being put in charge of a ship automatically promote someone to "captain" (e.g. "Captain Spock", "Captain Kirk")? Of all the times Picard left the Enterprise leaving Riker in charge, he was never called "Captain Riker", it was always still "Commander Riker".

This is the only one I will comment on. It isn't a plot hole because it is something that helps drive the story. We see George Kirk being made captain so it does set a precedence for when his son is made captain.

However it is a new and different way of doing things that was not done in any previous incarnation of Star Trek. So this may be inconsistent with the other shows in the Star Trek franchise but it isn't a plot hole.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Dammit, Paul.

2. They did it in TNG's "Bloodlines". It's already done. In the books. Canon. There is no crime in recycling it and certainly no plot hole here.

 

[Dukhat]

As much as I am not a fan of your ridiculous over-nitpicking of this film and your tiring erroneous use of the phrase "plot hole," I'll answer your questions.

1) When Nero is about to destroy the Enterprise, but says "WAIT!" when he realizes it's the Enterprise, and that nuSpock might be on board, how does he know? Sure, he could have learned it from history books, but why does he assume that, in this altered timeline, Spock will be assigned to the exact same ship he was before? The coincidence of the exact same crew of Enterprise ending up on the same ship together is just a contrivance by the writers, but Nero knowing which ship he's on? That's just him reading the script.

Because Nero either didn't know or care that the timeline had been changed, and because he probably knew that Spock spent most of his Starfleet career on the NCC-1701, he assumed Spock was on board.

Besides, if he's so sure nuSpock is on the Enterprise, why does he go around hastily destroying Federation ships without checking their names? He only says "wait!" at the last second, realizing it's the Enterprise just before he's about to destroy it.

Uh, because the Enterprise got there later than the other ships? Maybe he recognized it's shape on his viewscreen?
And how do you know he didn't check their names before destroying them?

2) I still can't get past oldSpock inputting a simple formula into the transporter and suddenly being able to transport half way across the galaxy. IIRC that wasn't even possible for ships in the TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline, but even if it were, hadn't the Enterprise already gone to warp several hours before that? How do they even locate the ship? Even TNG/DS9/Voyager era sensors can't seem to track a ship after it goes to warp, so how do oldSpock/Scott/Kirk do it?

Dude, now you're just using hyperbole. They didn't transport "halfway across the galaxy." And are you forgetting that by Old Spock's time, it's possible that Starfleet (and/or Prime Scotty) could have uncovered the secret to the Dominion's use of long-range transport, which is essentially what was done here?

3) When Kirk and Scott beam to the Enterprise, Scott ends up trapped in a fluid conduit. When Kirk hits the release valve to free him, Scott falls about 20 feet to the ground and lands face first. Despite this, Scott gets up and walks away completely unharmed.

Would you like a list of other films where people survive things that in reality would have killed or severely wounded them? It's a long list.

4) When Spock decides to beam down to Vulcan to save the elders, why doesn't he beam there directly from the bridge? Why does he waste precious time casually walking to the transporter room? If he'd gotten there just a minute sooner, his mom probably wouldn't have died.

How do you know that being beamed from the bridge was even possible? This is a new universe. You don't know the capabilities of the nuEnterprise any more than I do.

5) Since when does temporarily being put in charge of a ship automatically promote someone to "captain" (e.g. "Captain Spock", "Captain Kirk")? Of all the times Picard left the Enterprise leaving Riker in charge, he was never called "Captain Riker", it was always still "Commander Riker".

And yet there are several instances in DS9 where this is precisely the case. In fact, there's one ep (I forget which one) where Dax is put in command of the Defiant and O'Brien makes a point to Nog that she should be referred to as "captain" regardless of her rank.

Let me give you some advice, Billy: Next time you go see a Star Trek film, enjoy it for what it is, not for its perceived flaws.

 

[6079SmithW]

5. Kirk's temporary field bump to acting Captain was made official by Starfleet in the ceremony scene.

4. There aren't any transporters on the bridge. Spock had to go to the transporter room.

3. I'll have to review that scene.

2. The long distance transport only needs a software update, not a reconfiguration of the hardware. Prime Scott probably had only just discovered it post Nemesis so we never saw it in the prime universe.

Ships don't actually move at warp, they warp space past themselves. Enterprise may have been at warp for hours but it still had the same relative position as when it left.

1. Nero wasn't concerned with exacting vengence on NuSpock, just Prime Spock. He was not expecting the Enterprise to come to Vulcan. When he recognized it he realized that he could get a 2-for-1 deal and inflict suffering on both Spocks.

How did Nero know Spock would be on the Enterprise? Well, why should he expect anything different? He has no reason to expect his temporal incursion shifted crew rosters. If anything, he had to hail them and make sure, although there wasn't a doubt in his mind. Besides, Fate will always ensure that the correct people are in their correct assignments.

 

[Gojira]

Ships don't actually move at warp, they warp space past themselves. Enterprise may have been at warp for hours but it still had the same relative position as when it left.

That makes my head spin!

 

[6079SmithW]

Ships don't actually move at warp, they warp space past themselves. Enterprise may have been at warp for hours but it still had the same relative position as when it left.

That makes my head spin!

My head is fine as it's just silly Star Trek Science which I don't try to nit pick.

 

[Zeke]

I agree that these can be rationalized (some more easily than others), but what's wrong with his use of the term "plot hole"?

 

[Set Harth]

The only thing that seems to be at odds is that Vulcan is apparently close to the Neutral Zone (somewhat implied since the characters believe the lightening storm and Vulcan's seismic activity are connected). However, this is really only at odds if you continue to rely on "what came before" instead of looking at the film as a reboot (which, lets face it, fan service or not, it is).

It’s not a problem in any case if the Neutral Zone in question is assumed to be the RNZ, which was implied to be relatively close to Vulcan in TNG’s Unification. The problem is the mistaken assumption that STXI takes place in a universe that can have only one Neutral Zone. This film is not actually a reboot in the purest sense of the term. It is somewhat similar to a reboot in that the history of the Enterprise is now allowed to go in a new direction unconstrained by TOS and everything that followed. However, Spock Prime is a refugee from the original Trek universe who was transported bodily into the new one, and the new universe directly results from events in the original; call it “fan service” if you want, but these things are still irrevocably true. That kind of thing doesn’t happen in an actual reboot, such as the Nolanverse. http://www.startrek.com/article/orci-johnson-talk-trek-comics-movies-and-more

Orci: It’s tough to sum it up in one word, whether the word is re-set, re-boot, prequel, even sequel!
Johnson: The real genius of the ’09 movie was to make it a continuation of everything that has come before, not a “re-boot” in the sense that it made everything that had come before irrelevant. Trek never re-boots, it just evolves into the future.

The "rewrite" you see is imaginary.

Unfortunately it’s all too real. Nothing in the film supports unable to decided exactly what he wanted an how he wanted to go about getting it done. That has no resemblance to the actual content of the film. It’s just the usual tired song and dance: rewrite the plot, criticize the rewrite, pretend this applies to the actual film.

Writer intent is irrelevant to the plot.

So sayeth “Death of the Author” – but when did that become law? When did agenda-driven fan revisionism supersede the writer? Writer intent dictates what the intended story of the film actually is; since your rewrites are not what the film intended, their so-called “plot holes” reflect only on the rewrites themselves and have nothing to do with the film. Even if writer intent is ignored, your speculative repositioning of locations can’t be used as the basis for “plot holes” because you can’t prove any of it. You seem to think that apparent ambiguity in the film only serves your agenda and no one else’s. It doesn’t work that way. That’s why it’s called ambiguity. It goes both ways. You can argue that the film doesn’t prove various things claimed by non-film sources, but neither does it prove your misguided and inaccurate assumptions.

You got to get your facts right. I never said that the Kelvin was in "non Federation Space" so I can't be wrong.

So you never took any position at all regarding the location of the Kelvin? So what was the point of disputing the Federation-Klingon border as a location? Here’s what the novelization has to say about it:

That bothered Captain Pierre Robau almost as much as the fact that it was presently sharing this part of Federation space with an as-yet-unidentified intruder.

In any event, you said the star in the Kelvin sequence was the Hobus star. On that you can be wrong, and are wrong.

Analyzing the plot has nothing to do with canon.

Then replace “never before seen in canon” with “never before seen anywhere”. You’re still acting as if somehow you’re the ultimate authority on fictional red matter black holes, which is ludicrous self-aggrandizement.

The film establishes that the threat was Galactic and therefore without knowing where Romulus is in relation to the Hobus Star there is no logical deduction of it's area location.

Once again, “the threat was galactic” isn’t the sum total of the information presented in the film. It doesn’t allow you to move the star anywhere you want. The fact remains that Romulus was destroyed before it could be saved or a full-scale evacuation could be completed, while the first priority of the Federation types like Spock was saving Romulus as opposed to, for example, any location of similar importance in Federation or Klingon territory. In fact, losses on the part of non-Romulan areas were conspicuously not even mentioned. This means that according to logic the star being in Romulan space is the most likely possibility, which makes Star Trek Online’s confirmation of that fact wholly unsurprising.

Analysis does not equal rewrite

And I never said that it did. I know those are two different concepts – that’s the whole point. You’re doing a rewrite and trying to get away with it by calling it “analysis”.

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

Wrong: But the same reasoning applies to other locations. Why is a Federation ship patrolling non-Federation space, or even potential enemy territory, without this being mentioned anywhere in the film in any way? You’re rewriting my posts in addition to everything else.

Your Red-Herring objection is dismissed.

Ignore it all you want, but I never assumed 2-dimensional borders, and the 3-dimensional tactic does absolutely nothing to help your position. It’s nothing more than desperate guesswork, also known as the “kitchen sink” approach.

You're the one that thinks its a plot hole.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense – I’m the one alleging plot holes in the film, and I’m the one who thinks that coincidence is a problem in the film. In reality, I didn’t come to identify plot holes. I came to debunk illegitimate ones. And it wasn’t me who said:

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.)

 

[Dukhat]

^Uh, how did a completely different thread topic get shoehorned into this one? (Answer: it's the continuation of the previous plot hole thread that was locked. Not that I have a huge problem with these thread getting closed, but at least can you drop the argument now that there's a new thread with new topics?)

I agree that these can be rationalized (some more easily than others), but what's wrong with his use of the term "plot hole"?

Because Mr. Wallace's history with these threads is that he points out things to nitpick, we give him tons of answers as to why the said nitpick is just fine, and he basically comes back and says we're all wrong. This is not a discussion about plot holes in a film; this is a discussion about why he thinks he's so much smarter than us.

 

[Gojira]

Ships don't actually move at warp, they warp space past themselves. Enterprise may have been at warp for hours but it still had the same relative position as when it left.

That makes my head spin!

My head is fine as it's just silly Star Trek Science which I don't try to nit pick.

Oh, I don't nit pick this stuff either it would take all the fun out of it.

 

[BK613]

Here we go again


5) Since when does temporarily being put in charge of a ship automatically promote someone to "captain" (e.g. "Captain Spock", "Captain Kirk")? Of all the times Picard left the Enterprise leaving Riker in charge, he was never called "Captain Riker", it was always still "Commander Riker".

This is the only one I will comment on. It isn't a plot hole because it is something that helps drive the story. We see George Kirk being made captain so it does set a precedence for when his son is made captain.

However it is a new and different way of doing things that was not done in any previous incarnation of Star Trek. So this may be inconsistent with the other shows in the Star Trek franchise but it isn't a plot hole.

IBTL
I had a similar hand-waverism thought: "You're the Captain" became a euphemism for "You're in command" because of Capt. R's and GK's exchange (and GK's subsequent heroism, of course.)

Otherwise it is a bit of silliness of which I would say to the writers: Write about what you know.

But not a plot hole.

 

[M'Sharak]

^Uh, how did a completely different thread topic get shoehorned into this one? (Answer: it's the continuation of the previous plot hole thread that was locked. Not that I have a huge problem with these thread getting closed, but at least can you drop the argument now that there's a new thread with new topics?)

I quite agree. That thread is closed and so are the arguments in it; I'd rather they not be resurrected in this manner.

New thread, new start, let's have some new discussion instead of the same old tired things trotted out and flogged 'round in circles some more.

I agree that these can be rationalized (some more easily than others), but what's wrong with his use of the term "plot hole"?

Because Mr. Wallace's history with these threads is that he points out things to nitpick, we give him tons of answers as to why the said nitpick is just fine, and he basically comes back and says we're all wrong. This is not a discussion about plot holes in a film; this is a discussion about why he thinks he's so much smarter than us.

While the OP has, in previous threads, indeed shown an inclination to stick rather firmly to the positions originally espoused, let's try not to make it overly personal before we get off the first page, shall we? Again, a new start; otherwise, this thread is likely to have a very short run.

 

[Gojira]

Here we go again


5) Since when does temporarily being put in charge of a ship automatically promote someone to "captain" (e.g. "Captain Spock", "Captain Kirk")? Of all the times Picard left the Enterprise leaving Riker in charge, he was never called "Captain Riker", it was always still "Commander Riker".

This is the only one I will comment on. It isn't a plot hole because it is something that helps drive the story. We see George Kirk being made captain so it does set a precedence for when his son is made captain.

However it is a new and different way of doing things that was not done in any previous incarnation of Star Trek. So this may be inconsistent with the other shows in the Star Trek franchise but it isn't a plot hole.

IBTL
I had a similar hand-waverism thought: "You're the Captain" became a euphemism for "You're in command" because of Capt. R's and GK's exchange (and GK's subsequent heroism, of course.)

Otherwise it is a bit of silliness of which I would say to the writers: Write about what you know.

But not a plot hole.

That is actually a very good point. I like the idea that in this alternate universe "You're the Captain" became a euphemism for "You're in command" due to George Kirk's heroism.

 

[William Wallace]

Because Nero either didn't know or care that the timeline had been changed, and because he probably knew that Spock spent most of his Starfleet career on the NCC-1701, he assumed Spock was on board.

So Nero is smart enough to carefully calculate and plan the abduction of Spock, and the assault on the Klingon and Federation armadas, yet is too dense to realize that destroying a Federation ship might alter history? Considering that most of the Enterprise crew are cadets that just happened to scramble onto the ship in a big fat rush, the chances of any of the original crew ending up there is remote. Uhura and Kirk nearly didn't make it on, and Scott was stuck on Delta Vega.

The massive coincidence that they all ended up together again on the Enterprise, I can chalk up to artistic license (aka artistic convenience), as long as they don't make too big a deal about it. But the fact that Nero can read the minds of the writers to know with such certainty that Spock is aboard, that's just absurd.

Uh, because the Enterprise got there later than the other ships? Maybe he recognized it's shape on his viewscreen?
And how do you know he didn't check their names before destroying them?

Because when Nero's crewman announces the arrival of "another Federation ship", Nero immediately yells "Destroy it!" or something to that effect (without any orders to examine or identify it), and it's only sheer coincidence that he happens to recognize it right before it's obliterated

Dude, now you're just using hyperbole. They didn't transport "halfway across the galaxy." And are you forgetting that by Old Spock's time, it's possible that Starfleet (and/or Prime Scotty) could have uncovered the secret to the Dominion's use of long-range transport, which is essentially what was done here?

OK maybe not halfway across the galaxy, but halfway to Earth wouldn't be hyperbolizing. Besides, how could one formula suddenly turn century-old transporter into a super-duper-long-range transporter? You could throw all the formulas in the universe at ENIAC, but you'll never turn it into a modern-day supercomputer. The idea that one formula can account for over a hundred years of technological advancements is silly.

Would you like a list of other films where people survive things that in reality would have killed or severely wounded them? It's a long list.

Most of those films have their authenticity severely diminished by such unlikely events. If the movie doesn't require much authenticity to work, then it's not such a bad thing. But since ST09 is more than a just mindless action movie, the inconsistency hurts it.

How do you know that being beamed from the bridge was even possible? This is a new universe. You don't know the capabilities of the nuEnterprise any more than I do.

Even if it weren't possible, why doesn't he just beam from the bridge to the transporter room, and immediately beam again from the transporter to the planet? That's still a hell of a lot faster than walking across the ship to get there.

And yet there are several instances in DS9 where this is precisely the case. In fact, there's one ep (I forget which one) where Dax is put in command of the Defiant and O'Brien makes a point to Nog that she should be referred to as "captain" regardless of her rank.

Touché. I looked up that episode ("Behind the Lines", Season 6, episode 4), and you're right. But I'm still fairly certain Riker was never called "Captain Riker" in TNG, so I guess it's an inconsistency across different ST franchises more than a problem with the film.

Because Mr. Wallace's history with these threads is that he points out things to nitpick, we give him tons of answers as to why the said nitpick is just fine, and he basically comes back and says we're all wrong. This is not a discussion about plot holes in a film; this is a discussion about why he thinks he's so much smarter than us.

So I'm not allowed to offer a counter-point? I should just accept when you tell me I'm wrong, and not try to defend my poisition at all? Why do you get to point out flaws in my argument, but I'm not allowed to do the same to yours?

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

So I'm not allowed to offer a counter-point? I should just accept when you tell me I'm wrong, and not try to defend my poisition at all? Why do you get to point out flaws in my argument, but I'm not allowed to do the same to yours?

Please refer to my comment a few posts up. It is perfectly all right to argue your points, but I'd also prefer we keep it friendly.

 

[Pauln6]

OK maybe not halfway across the galaxy, but halfway to Earth wouldn't be hyperbolizing. Besides, how could one formula suddenly turn century-old transporter into a super-duper-long-range transporter? You could throw all the formulas in the universe at ENIAC, but you'll never turn it into a modern-day supercomputer. The idea that one formula can account for over a hundred years of technological advancements is silly.

There's no point getting bogged down in semantics about the dictionary definition of a plot hole again! Let's just have fun speculating.

I will admit, I have general problems with the drift of transporter tech that took place over the years. I'm not a fan of 'fudge and forget' storytelling.

I agree that it might be possible to turn a shuttle transporter into a long distance transporter if you can modify it PHYSICALLY to boost its energy output significantly, particularly the annular confinement beam, and if you have a willing receiver at the other end that is expecting you and can meet your signal half way. However, from Scotty's dialogue, long distance transporting was already possible with existing NuTrek tech which seems to far exceed TNG tech. Thus I think I agree that he must be have been working on subspace transporting as defined in TNG's bloodlines. It then makes sense that his equipment would be modified to that type of transport already without further modification. That sort of transporting was cited as being too energy intensive, unstable, and more time consuming than a normal transport but clearly Scotty at this time still thinks he can crack it. This would also be consistent with the loss of Archer's beagle, and the ease with which Kirk and Spock beam onto Nero's ship at the end (it was possible in TNG to subspace beam onto a vessel through its shields).

It doesn't explain why they didn't beam onto the ship from a bit further away to give them the chance to beam on a significant security force well in advance of the drill being activated. However one possible explanation there might be that Scotty, in a Federation outpost, would have transponder codes to track Federation vessels at greater distances. It might not be so easy to track Nero at long distances but then if that was the case you then have another silly contrivance that Nero just happened to approach from the right direction when the planets were perfectly aligned to allow them to hide as they did.

Spock's program was really just to compensate for targeting at warp - it did nothing to increase transporter range as far as I can see.

However, in TNG, didn't the Ferengi use a local targeting device to beam onto the Enterprise and Picard re-traced their carrier wave because it would not be possible to scan for a safe location at that distance? Without a receiver, you need scanning equipment that is capable of pinpointing a precise safe location within the target and if the target adjusts its speed or direction even slightly (let alone while at warp) in the time after your signal is released from the pattern buffer, you will likely miss your location by thousands of Kilometres (in fairness Scotty's dialogue does establish that beaming onto a ship at warp is almost certain suicide but it does stretch credibility to breaking point).

To summarise, I think Scotty MUST have been combining unsafe subspace transporting with unsafe warp speed transporting and unsafe long-distance targeting. However, in failing to distinguish the tech they have opened a can of worms. The unsafe nature of the tech become irrelevant when used by our heroes who will always succeed. Plus, why wouldn't a suicidal Klingon kill squad use subspace transporters to board ships from close range despite the risks? Of course the same question is even more relevant to Dominion troops so I come full circle to my general dislike of transporter tech drift in both NuTrek and TNG.

My personal view is that they should have stuck with the limitations on the tech from early TOS and used similar limitations as featured in Blakes 7.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So: Not a plot hole.