Plot hole city: Part II!

[Ryan8bit]

I think a good example of a plot hole in Star Trek is in the movie Generations. Picard could leave the Nexis at any time and place so he chooses to go back right before Soren launches the missile toward the planet's sun instead of at any other point in the movie where it would have been much easier for him to stop him such as when they first meet in 10 Forward.

This was my thought exactly. I was thinking what would be a good example of a plot hole in other movies to contrast why ST09 didn't really have any largely apparent plot holes. The Generations one is probably the biggest plot hole in any of the movies. Although Nemesis might rank up there.

 

[Broccoli]

Man, I hate this movie so much that I only saw it five times in theaters, bought the DVD and BluRay, picked up most of the collectibles, and watch it at least twice a week. I do this to make sure how much I hate it, so I can then come here and talk about how much I hate it. The producers should have made something good. They owe me.

 

[Gojira]

From reading your posts I don't think you understand what a plot hole is.

So that you'll understand yourself this is the 6th time I've posted the definition.

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

There is no need to interpret or translate. The definition is quite simple. I had the same definition in creative writing. Most people don't understand the finer points of the definition but I passed my test with flying colors...

So I appreciate you may have a different opinion or perspective on it but I'll go by the written standard an my A+ scores from the instructors. If you've anything to show how they defined it is wrong or skewed...I'm listening but from what I've seen this is mostly just people that like the movie offended that something they like has been so heavily scrutinized but for me...I do all movies like this...regardless of whether I like them or not. It's good practice.

As other have pointed out the wiki article you posted in not entirely accurate.

Deep Space Nine had the most plot holes because it changed details just for the drama. One of the Biggest being how the Federation Won the War with no Fleet victories....

Or why Ferengi one episode like Gold and the next find it worthless.

These two things are not plot holes. Yes, they are inconsistencies within the franchise and Star Trek is full of them. They can only be considered plot holes if they happen within the same story!!!!

So for instance if the Ferengi like Gold in on episode but not in another episode that is an continuity error within the franchise but if during the telling of a single story the Ferengi like Gold one moment and does not like Gold the next moment and that change has a significant effect on the plot of the story then it would fit the definition of a plot hole.

 

[beamMe]

You are missing "One ship. One massive ship."

I don't think so.
They didn't say there was a Massive ship attacking Vulcan that I can find. All that I found was there was a report of a seismic event. So there is no connection.

Abrams has thrown the wool over the eyes of the audience. The movie seems to be, at every juncture, an absolute assault against the intelligent mind. He litterally tells you here...

"It doesn't have to make sense in order for Trek Fans to approve."

No one has offered a tangible explanation of this film from the film that corrects the problems. The man's a...magician and he's convinced the gullible that his slight-of-hand is real magic instead of just tricks. In this case he's trying to convince you the story he's put together is complete...and apparently he's succeeded en mass.

Spock says ." The cadets logic is sound." and there is not a single proper syllogism in the dialogue to come to that conclusion. It works because the audience doesn't understand what logic is. So he's really making fun of Vulcans. He's making fum of Star Trek fans.

He's a visual artist but it seems he's no story-teller.

What a wordy way of telling everybody but you is just too stupid to live.

I'm sorry that you don't get that scene, but that's not the film's or the filmaker's fault. It's yours and yours alone.

 

[number6]

Man, I hate this movie so much that I only saw it five times in theaters, bought the DVD and BluRay, picked up most of the collectibles, and watch it at least twice a week. I do this to make sure how much I hate it, so I can then come here and talk about how much I hate it. The producers should have made something good. They owe me.

I won't even watch this when they show it on TV. I'll have someone TiVo it so I can complain about how much they cut out for broadcast and how the pan and scan doesn't match the image in my head, which makes it yet another plot hole.

 

[Gojira]

You are missing "One ship. One massive ship."

I don't think so.
They didn't say there was a Massive ship attacking Vulcan that I can find. All that I found was there was a report of a seismic event. So there is no connection.

Abrams has thrown the wool over the eyes of the audience. The movie seems to be, at every juncture, an absolute assault against the intelligent mind. He litterally tells you here...

"It doesn't have to make sense in order for Trek Fans to approve."

No one has offered a tangible explanation of this film from the film that corrects the problems. The man's a...magician and he's convinced the gullible that his slight-of-hand is real magic instead of just tricks. In this case he's trying to convince you the story he's put together is complete...and apparently he's succeeded en mass.

Spock says ." The cadets logic is sound." and there is not a single proper syllogism in the dialogue to come to that conclusion. It works because the audience doesn't understand what logic is. So he's really making fun of Vulcans. He's making fum of Star Trek fans.

He's a visual artist but it seems he's no story-teller.

What a wordy way of telling everybody but you is just too stupid to live.

I'm sorry that you don't get that scene, but that's not the film's or the filmaker's fault. It's yours and yours alone.

I remember this argument when the movie came out. Abrams has tricked you all and if you liked the movie you have been swindled and you are not intelligent.

 

[Ghost Bones]

I watched this yesterday for the first time since the cinema. It's fucking shit; there was practically something wrong or stupid with every fucking scene.

One thing I did notice that I hadn't before (and it's not a plot hole as such, but...) is that every ship or shuttle seems to make a fucking Star Wars noise. Close your eyes and it could have been a pod race.

I ate Meatloaf with garlic mashed potatoes yesterday in a hospital cafeteria. There, the value of our contributions to this glorious thread are equal.

Aren't you the funny one.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Ah, what a great interesting thread.
Brings back memories of when I used to post more actively in here. Deja vu.

Kudos to the ones who still have the patience to go through this.

 

[M'Sharak]

Deep Space Nine had the most plot holes because it changed details just for the drama. One of the Biggest being how the Federation Won the War with no Fleet victories....

Or why Ferengi one episode like Gold and the next find it worthless.

These two things are not plot holes. Yes, they are inconsistencies within the franchise and Star Trek is full of them. They can only be considered plot holes if they happen within the same story!!!!

So for instance if the Ferengi like Gold in on episode but not in another episode that is an continuity error within the franchise but if during the telling of a single story the Ferengi like Gold one moment and does not like Gold the next moment and that change has a significant effect on the plot of the story then it would fit the definition of a plot hole.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't the episodes in which Ferengi like gold part of TNG, not part of DS9? Off the top of my head, I can think of "The Last Outpost" (the ep which saw the Ferengi introduced in rough, almost cartoonish version, later to be substantially revised in many aspects) and "The Price" as examples of episodes showing the Ferengi interested in gold (both from the early seasons of TNG,) whereas DS9 had them only interested in latinum (whether gold-pressed or otherwise) from very early on in the first season.

So: cross-series inconsistencies as plot holes? No, to make that claim would be to would be stretch any reasonable definition of the term beyond the breaking point.

I watched this yesterday for the first time since the cinema. It's fucking shit; there was practically something wrong or stupid with every fucking scene.

One thing I did notice that I hadn't before (and it's not a plot hole as such, but...) is that every ship or shuttle seems to make a fucking Star Wars noise. Close your eyes and it could have been a pod race.

I ate Meatloaf with garlic mashed potatoes yesterday in a hospital cafeteria. There, the value of our contributions to this glorious thread are equal.

Aren't you the funny one.

I wasn't particularly amused, but neither am I amused at the prospect of you bringing your act over here and trying to pick fights with people. Do make an effort to avoid going that route, won't you? A good place to start would have been to refrain from responding to Devon's post at all. (Devon could have done the same for yours, as far as that goes.)

 

[Ryan8bit]

So: cross-series inconsistencies as plot holes? No, to make that claim would be to would be stretch any reasonable definition of the term beyond the breaking point.

A better one that still uses Ferengi would be how Ferengi minds can't be read. That was a new invention in "Menage a Troi," despite Troi being able to read Ferengi previously.

I'm still not sure whether it can be called a plot hole or not, but I don't think it matters what you call it, it's bad consistency.

 

[Saquist]

What a wordy way of telling everybody but you is just too stupid to live.

Well you can take it that way...
But there are a couple of options. Since you've been informed that the plot holes exist and have been given that information in explicit detail compared to the definition (considering the lack of any effective rejoinder) then there are three option. Either the majority doesn't want to see those facts, (assuming we have the same mental abilities) don't understand the definition, or your options because there is no way these issues aren't plot holes especially since the writers implied as much by answering such criticism with information that there was indeed critical to the plot that was missing.

I remember this argument when the movie came out. Abrams has tricked you all and if you liked the movie you have been swindled and you are not intelligent.

It does take intelligence but there is no way to tell if the opinion in swayed by intellect or bias for the film. Evidence leads me to believe by the heavily negative reaction that it's film bias.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't the episodes in which Ferengi like gold part of TNG, not part of DS9?... whereas DS9 had them only interested in latinum (whether gold-pressed or otherwise) from very early on in the first season.

That's a common miss conception. But Quark is credited in at least one negotiation as saying. "Gold is good".~Little Green Men.

So: cross-series inconsistencies as plot holes? No, to make that claim would be to would be stretch any reasonable definition of the term beyond the breaking point.

I agree.
Series are constructed fairly independently even when related but their plots are usually separate.

I'm sorry that you don't get that scene, but that's not the film's or the filmaker's fault. It's yours and yours alone.

It's always the story-tellers fault for forcing the viewer/reader to story-guess their way through books and movies. Story-tellers are guides...they are telling you where to go, No good guide would bring you to a fork in the road and tell you to guess which is the right way to get to your destination.

As other have pointed out the wiki article you posted in not entirely accurate.

You're hiding behind confident statements of declaration. Only two people have posted the accepted definition. I and another and after being told to use and compare them to Trek 09' he is now mysteriously...absent.

Talk is cheap.
They would rather attack me for pointing out the obvious than prove their point. So pointing to the irrational as your defense for the film is fallacy at best. If you think you're right...prove it. Use the definition and compare it to the film in contrast to my criticisms.

Or if it suits you...leave it to opinions.

These two things are not plot holes. Yes, they are inconsistencies within the franchise and Star Trek is full of them. They can only be considered plot holes if they happen within the same story!!!!

The reason why they are plot holes is not for the individual stories but for the greater story the series is telling which is just as much a plot as any one episode...especially in DS9 where there is no episodic isolation.

While I would be willing to agree with you that Ferengi like in gold in one episode and the next having a disgust for it is not a plot hole because there is no defined plot for the Ferengi in DS9 that not likely or liking gold really effects the outcome...

However, the Federation not winning any Fleet Battles is a problem as well as other war details is part of an overall plot of the series that would effect the out come. If Federation ships are so ineffective against the Dominion, If the Dominion makes ships faster than the Federation, if the Dominion creates soliders faster than the Federation then how does the Federation win the war? If there was no Fleet to Fleet battles that the Federation won...

The Federation usually is only working a few thousand ships. The same with the Klingons and the Romulans were never seen in any sort of massive force...while we know there were some 30,000 Dominion Axis ships.

Sacrifice of Angels is a good example. The Federation didn't win that fleet battle. They were down 2:1 and the Klingons were stingy on giving them anything more than a few ships...yet the Dominion withdraws simply because they didn't have reinforcements through the Wormhole.

Or what about Chintoka...
Or Betazed
Or the Initial Loss of the Seventh Fleet....

They were so busy spinning a tragedy they didn't thread any logical progress through DS9...that's the story they didn't tell because they were so character drama oriented.

 

[William Wallace]

Why, though? You haven't explained why their momentum must be either cancelled absolutely or affected not at all. What law of Star Trek transporter physics says it must be one or the other? As Sulu and Kirk most certainly were not pulped upon striking the transporter platform, Chekov therefore must have been able to moderate their falling speed quite substantially, and it was to that which I alluded in the final sentence of my preceding post.

It's common sense. Why would the transporter cancel some of the momentum but not all of it? Since it's essentially re-creating a person molecule-by-molecule, if it has the power to change each molecule's velocity, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to eliminate any and all motion in the subject being transported.

I can only suppose, from reading the above, that you approach viewing movies very differently than I do. If my imagination isn't engaged while I'm watching, then it's my belief that the filmmaker has fallen down on the job and why am I wasting my time sitting in front of it? Even so-called "mindless entertainment" shouldn't mean that your imagination isn't involved on some level or other.

I don't mean that you're actively working at it, in the way that phrases such as "the easier it is for the viewer to suspend their disbelief" or "suspending one's disbelief becomes more difficult" would seem to be implying - that kind of idea feels a bit foreign to me, to be honest. What I mean is that your mind does it anyway, without it being necessary for you to make the conscious effort. "Willing suspension of disbelief" is much more a voluntary inclination toward being receptive to a story—a way of being open to it from the start—than it is a concerted effort which must be actively maintained throughout.

Imagination always takes effort. That's why movies and TV shows exist, so we can entertain ourselves without any effort. If a movie fails to explain its seemingly implausible events, then the viewers are forced to use more of their own imagination (and thus effort) to piece the story together in their heads. That, in my opinion, is poor storytelling, and lowers the entertainment value of the movie. I don't want to use my own imagination to make the story work; that's what I'm paying the writers to do for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Saquist's definition of "plot hole" is flatly incorrect, as we've already discussed - it's idiosyncratic and tailored to fit his preferred arguments, but that doesn't make it accurate, or even interesting.

 

[Gojira]

What a wordy way of telling everybody but you is just too stupid to live.

I did not say this why is the quote attributed to me????

I remember this argument when the movie came out. Abrams has tricked you all and if you liked the movie you have been swindled and you are not intelligent.

It does take intelligence but there is no way to tell if the opinion in swayed by intellect or bias for the film. Evidence leads me to believe by the heavily negative reaction that it's film bias.

???? Whether any one likes a movie or dislikes a movie that will be decided via a person's subjective and personal bias.

In other words it is subjective bias no matter if you like or dislike a movie. My issue is when people look down upon others or question their intelligence because they happen to disagree with a subjective opinion.

As other have pointed out the wiki article you posted in not entirely accurate.

You're hiding behind confident statements of declaration. Only two people have posted the accepted definition. I and another and after being told to use and compare them to Trek 09' he is now mysteriously...absent.

I also have experience and education. I was also raised by an English Literature Professor and I am a writer myself. You throw the term plot hole rather interchangeably with words you think are synonymous with plot holes.

Talk is cheap.
They would rather attack me for pointing out the obvious than prove their point. So pointing to the irrational as your defense for the film is fallacy at best. If you think you're right...prove it. Use the definition and compare it to the film in contrast to my criticisms.

It is difficult to debate with someone that wrongly uses the terms.

These two things are not plot holes. Yes, they are inconsistencies within the franchise and Star Trek is full of them. They can only be considered plot holes if they happen within the same story!!!!

The reason why they are plot holes is not for the individual stories but for the greater story the series is telling which is just as much a plot as any one episode...especially in DS9 where there is no episodic isolation.

The highlighted section of what you wrote is an example of how you are misusing the definition of plot hole. If episodic TV shows have a long story arch then yes what you have said could be considered a plot hole. But inconsistencies within a franchise telling singular stories are not plot holes.

Also, not all plot holes carry the same weight. In other words not all plot holes are equal. There may be a plot hole that is illogical and doesn't make sense but it doesn't make the story completely fall apart.

While I would be willing to agree with you that Ferengi like in gold in one episode and the next having a disgust for it is not a plot hole because there is no defined plot for the Ferengi in DS9 that not likely or liking gold really effects the outcome...

I can agree with that.

However, the Federation not winning any Fleet Battles is a problem as well as other war details is part of an overall plot of the series that would effect the out come. If Federation ships are so ineffective against the Dominion, If the Dominion makes ships faster than the Federation, if the Dominion creates soliders faster than the Federation then how does the Federation win the war? If there was no Fleet to Fleet battles that the Federation won...

The Federation usually is only working a few thousand ships. The same with the Klingons and the Romulans were never seen in any sort of massive force...while we know there were some 30,000 Dominion Axis ships.

Sacrifice of Angels is a good example. The Federation didn't win that fleet battle. They were down 2:1 and the Klingons were stingy on giving them anything more than a few ships...yet the Dominion withdraws simply because they didn't have reinforcements through the Wormhole.

Or what about Chintoka...
Or Betazed
Or the Initial Loss of the Seventh Fleet....

They were so busy spinning a tragedy they didn't thread any logical progress through DS9...that's the story they didn't tell because they were so character drama oriented.

In all honesty I didn't watch DS9.

Let me say this: A continuity error can be a plot hole but not all continuity errors are plot holes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why, though? You haven't explained why their momentum must be either cancelled absolutely or affected not at all. What law of Star Trek transporter physics says it must be one or the other? As Sulu and Kirk most certainly were not pulped upon striking the transporter platform, Chekov therefore must have been able to moderate their falling speed quite substantially, and it was to that which I alluded in the final sentence of my preceding post.

It's common sense. Why would the transporter cancel some of the momentum but not all of it? Since it's essentially re-creating a person molecule-by-molecule, if it has the power to change each molecule's velocity, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to eliminate any and all motion in the subject being transported.

Maybe the algorithms used to regulate the compensation weren't engineered with consideration for the possibility that Vulcan's gravitational field was being dynamically affected by red matter.

While we're at it, since when is adhering to common sense in science fiction the highest value? Many people don't understand real science, and can't even ballpark accurate scientific predictions with respect to accepted theory. Time dilation and quantum effects are examples of predictions that probably defy the "common sense" of many. Therefore, a universe of science fiction that strictly adheres to "common sense" is actually not the most plausible fictional universe.

 

[Gojira]

Therefore, a universe of science fiction that strictly adheres to "common sense" is actually not the most plausible fictional universe.

a universe of science fiction that strictly adheres to "common sense" would also be very boring to watch!

That is why I emphasize the fiction aspect to science fiction.

 

[M'Sharak]

What a wordy way of telling everybody but you is just too stupid to live.

I did not say this why is the quote attributed to me????

You didn't say it; the quote attribution was sloppy, but I think I've got it fixed now.

 

[Set Harth]

They said black hole. As far as transportation through space the movie doesn't say that occurred.

Wrong. The film clearly depicts Nero and Spock emerging in different places, which is impossible if the red matter black hole travel does not permit transportation through space. Furthermore, the film does not prove that transportation through space did not occur. Therefore your assumption of a plot hole is predicated on nothing more than baseless speculation, which renders it invalid on its face. The manufacturing of imaginary plot holes by moving events to different locations will not suffice as legitimate criticism of the film.

They never said any of this in the film.

Apparently you simply intend to ignore that my last post showed that the same result could be deduced from the film alone. In your rewrite of the plot, the Hobus star erupts on the Klingon-Federation border, yet the first priority of Federation types like Spock is to try to save Romulus? In what way does that make any sense whatsoever? On this point it's painfully obvious that you're really not following what is shown in the film at all.

okay, well, I would hate to deprive you of the justification to gloat...but the Movie doesn't say that the attack was in the vicinity of Rura Penthe. In fact it never uses the name.

The name is really not the point ( though the record shows that the planet in question was intended to be Rura Penthe ). The point is that it's a Klingon prison planet, which would be in Klingon space, not in a Neutral Zone.

...and...
It's not the plot, it's an event within the plot.

Not exactly the most useful comment ever made. Clearly when I referred to a misstatement of the plot, I meant a misstatement of an event within the plot.

Sorry. As I told Number6, consensus doesn't buy you logic.

Sorry, but you don't understand. I'm not making an appeal to majority. The claim that the film made sense to some viewers really boils down to its having made sense to at least one other person. It has nothing to do with majority consensus. I have no idea how the overall percentages would play out on this issue, but it doesn't matter. The point is that your failure to understand the film's logic does not constitute a failure on the part of the film. In fact, what you're arguing sounds like it should be called appeal to minority: if any one person has a problem understanding the film, the film is automatically at fault.

No counter argument was really made because of the further fallacy of thinking that because he did not have a magical potion that he could not take any action at all. Thus I and the blogger remain validated with the observation that he "twiddled his thumbs"

He didn't have the ability to destroy planets, and he knew from the Kelvin incident that the Narada was potentially vulnerable to enemy attack, so taking premature action may not have been wise. Furthermore, in the original concept he "twiddled his thumbs" because he was in a Klingon prison.

Proof, no.
Logic yes, to which you have neither.

As I've already demonstrated, logic indicates that the Hobus star was most likely in Romulan space, so logic is not on your side. And if you can't prove the assumptions upon which your alleged plot hole is based, then its existence is not supported by the actual film. It's a plot hole in the rewrite of the film. You only succeed in showing that your rewrite of the film has a plot hole. Congratulations.

And in Star Trek 2009 Delta Vega is in the Vulcan system not on the edge of the Galaxy.

I think you mean "in Star Trek 2009 there are at least two places called Delta Vega".

So now what?

So now any references to a Neutral Zone must necessarily be references to the KNZ so you can invent imaginary plot holes? Once again your so-called "plot hole" is based on speculation, not fact. Speculation does not serve as the basis for a plot hole, because you cannot prove that the film conforms to your assumptions.

So...in the simulations why were Klingons in the Neutral Zone that's for the Romulans?

They weren't.

What NARATIVE from the film says "Klingon Neutral Zone?"

I said it was in the script, not the film. The script shows writer intent.

But the implication is a direct result of the character's scattered-brained actions through out the film...to which there was no rhythm or reason to despite his statements otherwise.

That is still completely false and is not indicated by the film at all.

If it doesn't show events then they didn't happen.

Wrong. By that logic characters never go to the bathroom ( and cease to exist along with the rest of the universe between sequential episodes or films ). To assume that nothing can happen in the STXI universe other than what is shown in the film is utterly ridiculous and makes a mockery of your supposed appeals to "logic". Once again, if you can't prove your assumption, you haven't found a plot hole in the film. You've found a plot hole in your rewrite of the film.

If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

My contention was that the emergence points are not spatially proximate. To say that they are "completely unrelated" would be a different contention entirely.

All that I found was there was a report of a seismic event. So there is no connection.

You're forgetting beamMe's point #4. Combined with the destruction of the Klingon armada and the lightning storm in the Neutral Zone ( factors which, in light of the Kelvin incident, together imply that the Romulan ship was near Vulcan ), this forms the basis for characters' assumptions of a connection.

What was special about the Romulan attack?

Have you even seen the film?

which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

How did a ship start in one location but end up in a completely different one? A conundrum indeed... Well, I'd assume it would have to have had some way of traveling through space.

PLOT HOLE!!!

 

[Ryan8bit]

It's common sense. Why would the transporter cancel some of the momentum but not all of it? Since it's essentially re-creating a person molecule-by-molecule, if it has the power to change each molecule's velocity, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to eliminate any and all motion in the subject being transported.

I don't remember the scene that well, but couldn't it have been a reflex? I imagine transporting could be mentally very jarring, and if people can instinctually kick when they wake up before going to sleep, it's not that farfetched to think they might continue an impulse when being transported.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think you mean "in Star Trek 2009 there are at least two places called Delta Vega".

This is a really good point.

In my state, which everyone can see is Kentucky, there is a city called "London". There's another up in Ontario. Not to mention, I understand there's a pretty big city called "London" over in England, that's relatively close to "Paris, France, Europe", as that city is sometimes jokingly called. (Actually, I've been to all of these cities.)

It's entirely reasonable that the full official name of both Delta Vegas is much longer. (I've never been to either of these, though.)