Plot hole city: Part 3!

[Set Harth]

The TF saying nothing could get through their shields was backed up by a similar comment from Ric Olie. This was about the overall strength ( when active ) of the shield protecting the various parts of the ship from external attack. It didn't cover timing when the hangar shield would be down because an enemy would have no way to predict that. Not coincidentally, in the Battle of Coruscant at the beginning of ROTS, the TF ships are the only ones whose deflector shields can be observed visually as still being active
( through the use of a blue ripple effect, when the ship is hit by laser fire, which was previously seen in video games like Battlefront II but not used elsewhere in the films ).

 

[Broccoli]

Good for them. Nobody asked.

 

[Silvercrest]

He flew it through a plot hole, I tell you! A plot hole in the shields!

 

[Set Harth]

Nobody asked.

Come on, don't sell yourself short. You are somebody!

 

[Broccoli]

Nope. I looked at my post again. I don't think I asked for a detailed summary of who said what and how the shield crap was applied in other SW-related media.

Then again, my initial comment was a completely flippant gag considering how "Star Wars-ish" people claim NuTrek is. It was a joke you failed to get (twice).

Then again, maybe this is an example of a plot hole? I think yes.

 

[Set Harth]

Then again, maybe this is an example of a plot hole?

Is that "Nobody" asking again?

There's an answer, but it involves "a detailed summary of who said what and how the shield crap was applied in other SW-related media". Which you didn't ask for - but it still applies to the question of whether or not it is an example of a plot hole.

 

[Ghost Bones]

Should have called this thread Illogical Inconsistency and Coincidence City, then there might be a danger of some conversation beyond the usual "That's not what a plot hole is" mantra.

 

[Broccoli]

Then again, maybe this is an example of a plot hole?

Is that "Nobody" asking again?

There's an answer, but it involves "a detailed summary of who said what and how the shield crap was applied in other SW-related media". Which you didn't ask for - but it still applies to the question of whether or not it is an example of a plot hole.

Lets see, we can go with this:

or this:

Both are applicable.

 

[number6]

True that.

 

[Set Harth]

 

[Broccoli]

Congrats. Though your fail, you've learn what a facepalm is.

 

[M'Sharak]

 

[Broccoli]

^ That's not a plot hole! That's just a big hole in the ground! That makes the image a plot hole! But if the image is a plot hole...

::Head Explodes::

 

[Set Harth]

you've learn what a facepalm is.

Once upon a time I use the standard Picard variety and was subsequently ask to, and I quote, "holster that head".

 

[number6]

That just sounds so wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Should have called this thread Illogical Inconsistency and Coincidence City, then there might be a danger of some conversation beyond the usual "That's not what a plot hole is" mantra.

And since they didn't call it that, you get what you get.

 

[Set Harth]

I would suggest that "Warp 4" in the Abramsverse may not be the same thing as "Warp 4" in previous canon.

But would that be itself a plot hole?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TNG pulled that stunt, so "no".

 

[F. King Daniel]

I would suggest that "Warp 4" in the Abramsverse may not be the same thing as "Warp 4" in previous canon.

Why not?

 

[Broccoli]

I would suggest that "Warp 4" in the Abramsverse may not be the same thing as "Warp 4" in previous canon.

But would that be itself a plot hole?

No. If there even was a change from a previous work, that's all that it is. A change from a previous work.