Plot hole city: Part 3!

[Broccoli]

If it wasn't in the film then it didn't happen.

The film takes place over a 25 year time period, beginning with the birth of Captain Kirk. During the film, we never saw Kirk use the bath room. Therefore, by your logic, Kirk (or any of the other characters for that matter) never took a dump or a piss. Then again, we never saw any of the characters eat, so they probably didn't need to use the bath room...

 

[number6]

Toilets are not canon.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Neither are anuses.

 

[Vulagr]

I don't have to.

Yes you do, you made the claims, the onus is on you to back it up. That's the way it works in a debate. Ether back it up or retract it.

Plot problems that don't rise to the level of an actual plot hole are called simply plot weaknesses.

I can go with that. But I love TV Tropes.

 

[Cyke101]

Why is it that everyone here has to back up their assertions, but a select few are exempt from that requirement (even if they're the ones making the assertion)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

anus

onus

Yes, I know what these two words mean, but I couldn't help but think "tomayto" "tomahto."

 

[BK613]

But it still is a big plot hole.

I already agreed it is a weakness. But just because I also agree it is a good point that raises questions, that is not the definition of a plot hole. Plot holes occur only when there is no reasonable explanation for what happened.

Due to the fact that Dave is shown to be manually in control of the pod, that makes it plausible to suppose that HAL can't take over right then. Yeah, it's not the most satisfactory way of handling the situation, but no movie or story is infinitely satisfactory.

It's not a plot hole.

^^
HAL is shown to have some limits to the control of the pod earlier in the film, when the audio was disabled and HAL had to resort to lip reading. Not to much of a leap to extend that to complete manual control.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Good point.

 

[Saquist]

The film takes place over a 25 year time period, beginning with the birth of Captain Kirk. During the film, we never saw Kirk use the bath room. Therefore, by your logic, Kirk (or any of the other characters for that matter) never took a dump or a piss. Then again, we never saw any of the characters eat, so they probably didn't need to use the bath room...

Negative...that's your attempt to counter logic.
The logic is not property to be owned.

Logic is a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference:

In this case the systematic reasoning order has nothing to do with biological function which are a reasonable given. Rather, the order of reasoning belongs to the officialism (or canon) of statements or visuals as well as plot relevance.

Your play on unseen biological events is soundly cumbersome because while we may not see these events they are alive...thus proving that some method of relieving themselves is in play (all things being equal of course). We have proof of them relieving themselves. (Being alive). We have NO PROOF the events in question ever happened.

I don't have to.

Yes, you do. Otherwise you're criticizing a situation which cannot be proven to hold true in the film. If all you manage to do is show that your own rewriting of the film has problems, maybe you should stop rewriting the film.

No "rewriting" has occurred.

Wrong. This imaginary rule fails any conceivable logical test.

See above.

That is explicitly "part of the story" and canon.

False:
According to the wiki

When asked whether the filmmakers' involvement in the comic made it canonical, Orci stated he was in no position to declare whether it was, though he felt it could easily remain as such unless it was contradicted in a future film.

Your farcical assumption that a deadline 130 years in the future must be equivalent to a deadline one day in the future is not only "not part of the story" but also a full-scale assault on common sense and reality.

Pejorative Dismissed.

I don't think so. Provide a quote.

No. I don't take orders from you.
I'm not inclined to expend extraordinary effort or assist you in these cumbersome irrational obsessions of proving your baseless and illogical declarations. Do your own research.

Nero can't "say Romulus" without red matter. Unless you think he can destroy the Hobus star just by crashing into it. You've provided no explanation whatsoever regarding how Nero could possibly "say Romulus" between 2233 and 2258. The fact is that he couldn't. This fact hasn't been "meticulously and efficiently dismissed"; the word you're looking for is still ignored.

Der Rettam si ton eht ylno yaw ni chihw ot "yas" eht tenalp, sa ev'I dias erofeb. Eht tcaf taht eh did gnihton ni eht ecaf fo lla eseht srorre (dna rehtar suoivbo srorre) sevorp eht esac.

So, how do we explain this blatant incongruity between your position and things like "facts" and "reason"? It's not difficult. As has been proved time and again on various issues, your recall and comprehension of the specifics of the film range from poor to nonexistent. The answer to the "riddle" is that you made a mistake about the film and simply refuse to own up to it. Instead you're doubling down on the original mistake.

I don't mind you using my past errors in hyperbole to prove your point. But you haven't made any points so really you're just forcing large amounts of grandstanding in my direction in hopes of some how legitimizing and disguising your lack of sound argument.

Let me know how that works out for you.

I'm okay with this.
If I agreed with you on such loose basis then we'd both be wrong.

 

[Vulagr]

Neither are anuses.

Hey, I happen to like Tasha Yars' butt. Are you daring to say she doesn't have one?!

 

[Saquist]

I thought I was doing both? It's not like I'm ignoring everything everyone says and just repeating myself; I listen to your arguments, and then respond by pointing out what I think is wrong with them. Isn't that the same thing you're doing to me? I don't have a problem with it, I just don't understand why I'm the bad guy here...

You're doing fine. Your comments have been pretty good.
You have to make allowance for the character flaws that come with fandom. The majority of Trek fans believe so strongly anything but praise and adoration is taken as a threat and insult.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But Tasha Yar's fabulous curves aren't really a plot hole in Star Trek (2009).

 

[Saquist]

more like an alternative reality

 

[Vulagr]

But Tasha Yar's fabulous curves aren't really a plot hole in Star Trek (2009).

Not in 2009, of course, but in Code of Honor they were a whole plot.

 

[Broccoli]

The film takes place over a 25 year time period, beginning with the birth of Captain Kirk. During the film, we never saw Kirk use the bath room. Therefore, by your logic, Kirk (or any of the other characters for that matter) never took a dump or a piss. Then again, we never saw any of the characters eat, so they probably didn't need to use the bath room...

Negative...that's your attempt to counter logic.

No, it is my attempt to point out the flaw in your earlier sweeping statement. You are the one who said "if it wasn't in the film, it didn't happen". Now you are applying rules to your earlier rule to help support your nonsense claim. In other words, you are moving the goal post.

The logic is not property to be owned.

What are you even talking about?

But Tasha Yar's fabulous curves aren't really a plot hole in Star Trek (2009).

They were not in the movie, so it's a PLOT HOLE!

Wait...wrong thread.

 

[William Wallace]

I wasn't talking about James Bond movies, and your response makes it quite clear that you're far more interested in making a show of bending over backwards to miss the point than in hearing—much less gaining an understanding of—what anyone else thinks, so I guess I'll be off.

Don't get too carried away with the shtick, though. I'd hate to get the wrong idea.

Yes, you were talking abound James Bond movies. You made it clear that storytellers in general are not obligated to explain everything that happens in a movie, and it's not bad storytelling if they don't. I then gave an example of how it would be bad storytelling if the filmmaker just skipped over the explanation, and left it up to the audience to use their imaginations. It was a perfectly valid analogy, and I don't understand why you think I'm missing your point. I'm getting your point, I'm just not agreeing with it. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

In Trek, we don't see or hear every instance of beaming, every instance of warping, every instance of phaser fire being exchanged. Each time something like that happens, the viewer basically assumes it happens, and yet they're never considered plot holes. Why is that? After all, beaming and warping are ways of almost literally moving our heroes ahead in the plot, and phaser fire in battle obviously denotes conflict and confrontation -- they're all important to the overall plot.

Pick your favorite episode or movie and you'll find these shortcuts and then some. Do they reduce your appreciation for those episodes? I bet they don't.

Only if they are contradictory to what's been previously shown in the episode, or are hard to explain with simple assumptions. Beaming, warping, and phaser firefights can be assumed easily. Other things cannot. For instance, consider the DS9 episode "Sacrifice of Angels", where the Federation fleet tries to retake the station, and Sisko leads the Defiant into the wormhole where they are confronted by a massive fleet of Dominion ships. The Prophets end up making the fleet "disappear" for Sisko.

What if they hadn't shown that part, and simply showed the Defiant coming out unscathed, with no explanation about what happened to the Dominion fleet? That's a much more difficult assumption to make than someone beaming down to a planet off screen. We've seen beamings many times before, so we know what goes on, and we don't need to see one to assume how it happened. An entire fleet of ships disappearing? That needs to be seen to be believed.

 

[Dukhat]

What the hell is this argument even about anymore?

 

[number6]

It's about people who aren't really fans of Star Trek trying to annoy people who liked the last film.

 

[Saquist]

No, it is my attempt to point out the flaw in your earlier sweeping statement. You are the one who said "if it wasn't in the film, it didn't happen". Now you are applying rules to your earlier rule to help support your nonsense claim. In other words, you are moving the goal post.

Firstly you've given no evidence.
Secondly there is no claim made it's a rule. At most a Premise.
Thirdly I made no demand for more evidence.
Fourthly you made no attempt to provide evidence so NO GOAL was ATTEMPTED....


I believe this would be the optimum time for a emotional outburst... You've no idea what you're talking about...That was so amateur in execution. At least read the definition.

What are you even talking about?

It's academic.
If you can't figure it out then you don't need to be talking to me.

Lesson #1
The rule: "If you didn't see it or hear it then it didn't happen." applies specifically to writing. The principle itself is a parameter for creative writing composition as a directive to achieve complete thoughts in a plot. It's not a construct of reality.

Your mistake is that you miss-interpreted the rule as a some sort of statement on logic. Since an attempt at logic must have two premise and a conclusion based on those premises then obviously it was not. What happened is that you extrapolated your own logical statement based off my singular statement you and then formulated another premise and drew your own conclusion.

Not only was the call out on "goal post" illusionary, you fabricated 2/3's of the logic that you disagreed with!

 

[number6]

Again, your list of screenplays is posted where??

 

[Saquist]

Again, your list of screenplays is posted where??

Are you actually talking to me? Why so against a private message? Is it because you'd rather create a public spectacle or snipe from a distant than actually engage in something meaningful in terms of discussion?

Annoyed Indeed, Number666.
That's the first honest thing you've offered in a while.