Plot hole city: Part II!

[Cyke101]

^ I think that makes sense, as it were, since the idea of a warp drive is to overcome relativistic limitations by warping space. When warping space, you'd expect certain observers to see distorted proportions.

I was five years old when I first saw TNG. Sorry, my knowledge of perception, relativity, spatial analysis, astrophysics, and creative licence wasn't quite developed at that age yet. As an adult, I get that, but I was a kid then, that's why I said " as a youth."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

 

[William Wallace]

Again what may be "hard to swallow" for you maybe easier for another. Also, where do you draw the line with implausibility to begin with? Where does suspension of disbelief fall apart? There is no standard answer for that.

Well, it's subjective of course. The only "standard" answer is that the more plausible a plot is, the more authentic the movie seems, and the more enjoyable it can be.

Sure, I admit it. I could count all day the times Star Trek ignores the laws of Physics. In the part where they slingshot around the sun in Star Trek IV they are reaching the upper ends of Warp 7.9 yet they show on screen that it takes almost 5 minutes to reach the sun. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia at Warp 8 it should take a star ship 39 seconds to travel across the solar system. It should be almost instantaneous from the earth to the sun.

Yeah, but most people don't know that. Most people do know that falling that far will kill you, and if it doesn't, it's reasonable to look closely at why it didn't, and that's where the movie fails.

Heck time travel itself violates the laws of physics and the theoretical aspects of it are debatable.

So does warp drive, when you get down to it. That's just something you have to accept to make Star Trek work.

How many times in the franchise when things were not as bad as they thought!!!!??? How many times was the crew in immediate danger only to survive in the last few moments?

If you're bothered that Spock had enough time to rescue his family and the other officials then your standards are extremely high.

Can you cite some specific examples of things suddenly becoming not as bad as they thought? Because there's a difference between "unlikely" situations and "impossible" ones. For instance, in the Voyager episode "Scientific Method" (where invisible aliens are secretly experimenting on the crew, and only Seven can see them), they end up getting rid of the aliens by dangerously flying through a pair of binary stars, with a 1-in-20 chance of survival, which causes the aliens to flee in fear for their lives. Voyager, of course, survives the 95%-chance-of-death and continues on its merry way. Unlikely? Yes. Contrivance? Probably. But not an impossibility.

If you want to talk about implausibility any space ship would be obliterated in a black hole so the fact that we are supposed to believe that a matter crushing black hole not only sucked up two space ships but sent them back in time and your only problem is the fact that the jellyfish didn't outrun the Narada and the black hole?

Matter only gets crushed once it reaches the center of the black hole. One could presume that a ship might travel back in time before it reached the center of the black hole, due to the extreme gravitational acceleration (gravity and time are related, after all). Since they don't really explain the details of how black-hole-based-time-travel works, then it's not implausible.

Your ability to accept some things and reject others is very selective and arbitrary.

But it's consistent.

If you read about time travel in Star Trek in the back of the Star Trek Encyclopedia the Okuda's mention that it has wrecked havoc with continuity and it is really difficult to know what is the true time line...if it exists at all.

The temporal police is such a late addition to Star Trek that they were absent from the majority of time travel stories in the franchise?

Where were the temporal police in the original series and their movies and TNG?

As I addressed in an earlier post, none of those episodes significantly altered history. The timeline usually gets set "back to normal" by the end of the show.

I think the more able a person is willing to suspend disbelief the more enjoyable a movie is. If you are able to suspend disbelief even with the implausible a movie cans till be enjoyed.

I think the more I have to use my own imagination to suspend disbelief, the less enjoyable it is. If I wanted to use my imagination, I'd just make up my own story in my head. The whole point of movies and TV shows is so you don't have to use your imagination; someone else does it for you. If I have to concentrate harder to pretend the plot holes don't exist, then it's harder to be entertained by the movie. That's why the fewer plot holes, the better.

 

[Broccoli]

It looked pretty messy. Lots of CGI and fig leafs.. It would have never been believable.
The scene was full of plotholes, like how Kirk's eyes are brown.

I will admit that the scene was oddly placed in the film. I mean, Spock and Kirk beam onto Nero's ship and split up. Kirk goes to find Pike, but then has this interlude with Chewie for about 30 pages in the script.

I think it would have been better placed earlier in the film while intercutting with the death of Spock's mom.

 

[Saquist]

It was probably a plot hole.

It either is or it isn't.
There is no probably.

So in other words, you’re okay with the concept of a wormhole that sends people over 100 years back in time, but the idea that it also transports travelers in space is just… too much? How does this explain Nero and Spock ending up in different places?

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

No, I mean in order for Romulus to have been destroyed before Hobus was stopped or any substantial evacuation attempt was completed, while Federation or Klingon losses were conspicuously not even mentioned, it would most likely have been in Romulan space. Let’s see what STO’s “Path to 2409” has to say about it:

You're using your Trek knowledge, not movie knowledge and you're trying to stitch the two together. They never said any of this in the film.

Isn’t it interesting that I came to the same conclusion before even reading that?

I don't find irrelevant data interesting when it encourages assumptions that I can't logically make. You can believe this if you want but what we see in the film is in strict contradiction...

Another misstatement of the plot. They’re piling up. The Klingon ships were not destroyed in a Neutral Zone. They were destroyed in the vicinity of a Klingon prison planet ( Rura Penthe ) in Klingon space.

wow....
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. It says...Prison Planet....and...it says a transmission was intercepted from the planet concerning said armada.

...and...
It's not the plot, it's an event within the plot.
The correction is confirmed and accepted. However Kirk making the connection between Kelvin and Klingon attack is suspect.

The Elements of Kirk's Connection
Lightning Storm: One at 25 years ago on Klingon Boarder/ The other occurring in the Neutral Zone. (which one?)

Romulans: Romulan attacks a Federation starship/ Romulans attack Klingon Armada 25 years later.

Vulcan: Has seizmic disturbance. (why does this require a fleet of ships) Neutral Zone implied proximity to Vulcan but only one Neutral Zone mentioned in the film.
----------------------------

Okay...so where is the connection for these three events that allow us to deduce that a big bad Romulan ship is attacking vulcan? A lighting storm is such a vague description and 25 years removed. If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Then Romulan attack? What was special about the Romulan attack? Is this the last time the Romulans attacked. Do Romulans not attack and there for unusual?

And what does seismic disturbances at vulcan have to do with Romulans or lightning storms? Kirk literally connects the Kelvin's attack at the edge of Klingon Space 25 years ago with an attack "last night" with ONE sentence... which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

Spock calls this "sound logic" but where is the connection with any of these events that you can determine anything "logical" from? You've got the gloating thing going so why don't you "enlighten me" since this all makes so much sense to you. (formal request)

Even if you pretend that Path to 2409 does not exist, you cannot prove that they did emerge next to the Hobus star, and thus the idea is nothing more than unsupported speculation, which cannot be used as a legitimate case against Nero’s actions.

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

First, the online script refers to the “Klingon Neutral Zone” in the Kelvin sequence. The use of this nomenclature would seem to imply that “Neutral Zone” on its own is not quite specific enough as an obvious reference to the KNZ, because of the other Neutral Zone that we know of. In fact, when the term “Neutral Zone” was used in TNG, it pretty much always referred to the Romulan Neutral Zone, and there’s really no particular reason to assume that STXI is using the term differently. Also, Starfleet’s apparent assumption of a connection between the anomaly in the Neutral Zone and seismic activity on Vulcan seems to indicate a degree of relative spatial proximity, just as we saw with Vulcan and the Romulan Neutral Zone in TNG’s Unification.

This isn't TNG.
This is Star Trek 2009. And in Star Trek 2009 Delta Vega is in the Vulcan system not on the edge of the Galaxy. So now what?

More importantly the movie NEVER gives you any indication of more than one Neutral Zone. So on the one hand NuTrek almost completely abandons continuity but on the other hand expects people that may have never have seen TOS, TNG or DS9 to know that there is a ROMULAN Neutral Zone? So...in the simulations why were Klingons in the Neutral Zone that's for the Romulans? I mean I think I asked this before....

Well, which is it? It sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways. ( The solution to the riddle is that you’re not really sticking to the narrative. )

Both ways? Firstly in Repetition: The Film never says ROMULAN NEUTRAL ZONE
Secondly. I wasn't talking you. (bottom quote was to Daniel) If it was misquote.sorry. What NARATIVE from the film says "Klingon Neutral Zone?" because while you're busy assuming my misunderstanding of the movie you're assuming some battle took place near Rura Penthe and imagining the name occurs in the film narrative.

Nowhere in the film is the above shown or even implied. It's nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

That's a pure confidence statement.
It's your opinion. I'm fine with that.
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. You can believe what ever you want. I'll not contradict how you see it but you're APPROACHING ME as though your position is factual and you're not finding the hard evidence from the film to back up your assertions, nor any logic. You're using your "Trek-ology) which you assume is valid in this film despite contradictions. You're using the script which is a rather amusing admittance that key information is missing from the movie...and here we are discussing plot holes.

Completely false. These things were adequately explained and made sense to many viewers.

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

He didn't have the red matter yet, which was already explained in the previous thread, to no apparent effect. Baffling, eh?

Argument from Repeition
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"

I hope not… because I was the one who suggested it. That the film does not show this happening on screen does not necessarily mean that it did not happen. The film’s failure to show you something you wanted to see does not constitute a real plot hole.

That's not a good excuse nor any sort of answer.
If it doesn't show events then they didn't happen.
That's why they're called plot holes...
That's why it's called story-telling, not story-guessing.
------------------------------

But I've enjoyed the debate immensely. It's nice to stretch the ole noggin in a pitch logic debate.

Star Trek as a franchise isn't "necessary" - what's your point?

What's yours?

Yeah... well... you know that in Star Trek the ships don't actually move but bent... no... warp the space around them to reach their destination... except when they actually do move...
Oh well, it's Star Trek.

Actually they do move. It's not space folding. Their method of movement merely cheats the laws space and time. At the very least the particles of the upper atmosphere should have been induced to warp even as the warp field collapsed. Have we seen this before...no of course not but they've never had this sort of budget before and they could have shown a really awesome effect. They just chose something simple...It's not a big deal but it's that Trek at least didn't go out of its way to wrong effects.

 

[Ghost Bones]

Since I like Star Wars too I have no problem with the sound effects. I love how the star ships in the new movie go to warp speed.

I did like the new warp effect. It's good. But I didn't like the fact every shuttle sounded like it was piloted by Sebulba.

It's fucking shit; <...> every fucking scene.

<...> fucking Star Wars noise.

Dude, you kiss your momma with that mouth?

Seriously, though -- have you never learned to regulate your vocabulary in polite company?

Um, sorry if it offends you, but I'm not the first person to swear on this forum.

Star Trek has always had sound in space. Engine noise, phaser, torpedo, disrupter fire, oh and antiproton beams.

Yes, but they weren't ripped wholesale from Coruscant.

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.

That's because you were actually watching The Phantom Menace, which explains your first paragraph as well.

I think I prefer The Phantom Menace.

 

[Saquist]

I always hated the "warp poof" (white flash). When I was little, I thought the TNG intro featured the ship exploding twice, just for dramatic effect.

I didn't undertand it either when I was little but heard that they changed it because science consultants said it was more accurate....

But after I got used to it...Voyager and Defiant's warp effect was my favorite.


------------
^ I hated Phantom Menance when it came out....one of the biggest disappointments in movie history at the time...untill Attack of the Clones came out and got many multiple worse than I could possibly imagine.

Then I started liking...TPM....(ugh)

 

[Devon]

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.

 

[Gojira]

Well, it's subjective of course. The only "standard" answer is that the more plausible a plot is, the more authentic the movie seems, and the more enjoyable it can be.

I hope you're just speaking for yourself. I have enjoyed some very implausible far out wacky movies in my day.

Yeah, but most people don't know that. Most people do know that falling that far will kill you, and if it doesn't, it's reasonable to look closely at why it didn't, and that's where the movie fails.

You are the only person I have come across that has a problem with that scene. I think that is an important point. I never questioned that scene to begin with! It was a dramatic scene filled with suspense and it was very entertaining. Was it realistic? No, but I never ever had expectations that it would be.

If I became critical of the implausibility of movies that I see I would be a very unhappy movie viewer. But I am pretty easy going and I just don't let things like this bother me.

So does warp drive, when you get down to it. That's just something you have to accept to make Star Trek work.

Now you're starting to understand! There are many things in Star Trek (the entire franchise) you have to accept to make it work. I really don't see this movie being any more implausible or unrealistic than the rest of the franchise.

Can you cite some specific examples of things suddenly becoming not as bad as they thought? Because there's a difference between "unlikely" situations and "impossible" ones. For instance, in the Voyager episode "Scientific Method" (where invisible aliens are secretly experimenting on the crew, and only Seven can see them), they end up getting rid of the aliens by dangerously flying through a pair of binary stars, with a 1-in-20 chance of survival, which causes the aliens to flee in fear for their lives. Voyager, of course, survives the 95%-chance-of-death and continues on its merry way. Unlikely? Yes. Contrivance? Probably. But not an impossibility.

You're willing to accept the premise that invisible aliens exist and yet you have a problem with Spock actually having enough time to save some people from Vulcan?

Matter only gets crushed once it reaches the center of the black hole. One could presume that a ship might travel back in time before it reached the center of the black hole, due to the extreme gravitational acceleration (gravity and time are related, after all). Since they don't really explain the details of how black-hole-based-time-travel works, then it's not implausible.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q285.html

According to some theories time travel is only one direction and that is into the future. But I agree with you that the black hole as a time travel plot devise is within the realm of plausibility.

I only brought it up to demonstrate how subjective and selective your ability to accept or reject premises in Star Trek.

As I addressed in an earlier post, none of those episodes significantly altered history. The timeline usually gets set "back to normal" by the end of the show.

Do you think this movie takes place in an altered time line or in a parallel universe?

I think the more I have to use my own imagination to suspend disbelief, the less enjoyable it is. If I wanted to use my imagination, I'd just make up my own story in my head. The whole point of movies and TV shows is so you don't have to use your imagination; someone else does it for you. If I have to concentrate harder to pretend the plot holes don't exist, then it's harder to be entertained by the movie. That's why the fewer plot holes, the better.

I really enjoyed the movie when I saw it in the theater. I came home and got on line and people who didn't like the movie were all complaining about plot holes. Plot holes? What plot holes I thought to myself, I didn't see any. I still don't.

So I never had to sit and come up with answers to plot holes I never saw to begin with! But when asked to find solutions to the plot holes others do see I find it quite easy to do so.

What we like in our entertainment is highly subjective and for some people, even when they do see things that are implausible or plot holes, they generally don't detract from the enjoyment of the movie if there are other elements in the movie they do like.

I think it is also based on personality. Some people are highly critical and some are more easygoing. I happen to be an easy going person.

 

[Broccoli]

It was probably a plot hole.

It either is or it isn't.
There is no probably.

Hmm...considering you are not understanding the usage of the word "probably", I would suggest your post is a plot hole then.

I bet JJ Abrams probably wrote your post.

 

[number6]

It was probably a plot hole.

It either is or it isn't.
There is no probably.

Hmm...considering you are not understanding the usage of the word "probably", I would suggest your post is a plot hole then.

I bet JJ Abrams probably wrote your post.

It's similar to a post he wrote in a Transformers thread, which is an indication on posts he'll write about the new Star Trek film, which is also a plot hole.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Everyone here realizes that this is all "make believe" right? Fiction is and should be mutable.

 

[number6]

Everyone here realizes that this is all "make believe" right? Fiction is and should be mutable.

Some of us know that!

 

[beamMe]

Okay...so where is the connection for these three events that allow us to deduce that a big bad Romulan ship is attacking vulcan? A lighting storm is such a vague description and 25 years removed. If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Then Romulan attack? What was special about the Romulan attack? Is this the last time the Romulans attacked. Do Romulans not attack and there for unusual?

And what does seismic disturbances at vulcan have to do with Romulans or lightning storms? Kirk literally connects the Kelvin's attack at the edge of Klingon Space 25 years ago with an attack "last night" with ONE sentence... which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

You are missing "One ship. One massive ship."
1. He hears the report about "one massive" Romulan Ship destroying a Klingon fleet.
2. He hears the report about a phenomenon called "lightning storm in space" that happened after the Romulan attack on the Klingons.
3. Now Vulcan sends out a distress signal.
4. All contact with Vulcan and the fleet breaks of.
5. Everyone else got the above the first time they saw and heard it in the cinema.

 

[number6]

Okay...so where is the connection for these three events that allow us to deduce that a big bad Romulan ship is attacking vulcan? A lighting storm is such a vague description and 25 years removed. If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Then Romulan attack? What was special about the Romulan attack? Is this the last time the Romulans attacked. Do Romulans not attack and there for unusual?

And what does seismic disturbances at vulcan have to do with Romulans or lightning storms? Kirk literally connects the Kelvin's attack at the edge of Klingon Space 25 years ago with an attack "last night" with ONE sentence... which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

You are missing "One ship. One massive ship."
1. He hears the report about "one massive" Romulan Ship destroying a Klingon fleet.
2. He hears the report about a phenomenon called "lightning storm in space" that happened after the Romulan attack on the Klingons.
3. Now Vulcan sends out a distress signal.
4. All contact with Vulcan and the fleet breaks of.
5. Everyone else got the above the first time they saw and heard it in the cinema.

Except for Saquist, apparently.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Okay...so where is the connection for these three events that allow us to deduce that a big bad Romulan ship is attacking vulcan? A lighting storm is such a vague description and 25 years removed. If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Then Romulan attack? What was special about the Romulan attack? Is this the last time the Romulans attacked. Do Romulans not attack and there for unusual?

And what does seismic disturbances at vulcan have to do with Romulans or lightning storms? Kirk literally connects the Kelvin's attack at the edge of Klingon Space 25 years ago with an attack "last night" with ONE sentence... which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

You are missing "One ship. One massive ship."
1. He hears the report about "one massive" Romulan Ship destroying a Klingon fleet.
2. He hears the report about a phenomenon called "lightning storm in space" that happened after the Romulan attack on the Klingons.
3. Now Vulcan sends out a distress signal.
4. All contact with Vulcan and the fleet breaks of.
5. Everyone else got the above the first time they saw and heard it in the cinema.

See this is one of those scenes where they might have stopped the forward movement of the movie to explain to us (spoon feed) everything that was going on.

Instead Abrams and Co. did not insult our intelligence and let us put two and two together ourselves.

I don't get how some didn't figure this out, or that in any event Nero needed to wait for the red matter to act, which is actually a better (more organic to the plot) stop gap then being imprisoned by the Klingons.

 

[M'Sharak]

Not going to try to address the entire post here, but a couple of things stood up and waved:

Yeah, but most people don't know that. Most people do know that falling that far will kill you, and if it doesn't, it's reasonable to look closely at why it didn't, and that's where the movie fails.

How does the movie fail there? Kirk and Sulu could have fallen all day and it wouldn't have killed them; it's the really abrupt interruption of the fall that really hurts, and Chekov was able to pull their butts out just before that part. If he'd had a little more time and gravity hadn't been quite so wonky, he could probably have set them neatly on the transporter platform, standing upright, without so much as a bump.

So I ask you: where's the fail?

I think the more able a person is willing to suspend disbelief the more enjoyable a movie is. If you are able to suspend disbelief even with the implausible a movie cans till be enjoyed.

I think the more I have to use my own imagination to suspend disbelief, the less enjoyable it is. If I wanted to use my imagination, I'd just make up my own story in my head. The whole point of movies and TV shows is so you don't have to use your imagination; someone else does it for you. If I have to concentrate harder to pretend the plot holes don't exist, then it's harder to be entertained by the movie. That's why the fewer plot holes, the better.

Pardon me, but when did TV and movies become a substitute for imagination? The best storytelling in any form—including motion pictures—is that which provides you just enough detail and leaves your imagination room to fill in the rest. Imagination is what Coleridge was talking about when he coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" - a phrase which seems to be tossed about a little too readily these days by folks who haven't a clear understanding of what it actually means.

 

[Trekkie2]

I don't understand why STXI is the worst for plot holes? All the movies had plot holes. You just learn to ignore with them and not count how many times you said "What the hell, when/how did that happen?"Because if you did count, you'd know that STII lead in plot holes.

 

[Saquist]

Okay...so where is the connection for these three events that allow us to deduce that a big bad Romulan ship is attacking vulcan? A lighting storm is such a vague description and 25 years removed. If your contention is right then the location are COMPLETELY unrelated.

Then Romulan attack? What was special about the Romulan attack? Is this the last time the Romulans attacked. Do Romulans not attack and there for unusual?

And what does seismic disturbances at vulcan have to do with Romulans or lightning storms? Kirk literally connects the Kelvin's attack at the edge of Klingon Space 25 years ago with an attack "last night" with ONE sentence... which according to YOU was in a completely different area....How?

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.

It was probably a plot hole.

It either is or it isn't.
There is no probably.

Hmm...considering you are not understanding the usage of the word "probably", I would suggest your post is a plot hole then.

I bet JJ Abrams probably wrote your post.

Other than just ...trolling, is there any particular reason why you want my attention or are you just trying to get my goat?
Advice: Mature the way you think.
I wrote my post.

Pardon me, but when did TV and movies become a substitute for imagination? The best storytelling in any form—including motion pictures—is that which provides you just enough detail and leaves your imagination room to fill in the rest. Imagination is what Coleridge was talking about when he coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" - a phrase which seems to be tossed about a little too readily these days by folks who haven't a clear understanding of what it actually means.

To an great deal of extent...He's right about suspension of belief. Writing has to include a great deal of information in Novelization to me the proffessional Story-telling Standard because it's it's NOT Visual. Movies thus have the responsibility to be just as succint in their information because the VISUAL is the VAST majority of the information. We're watching the director's imagination.

That's what people don't get about movie making because they're caught up with their end of the experience...(watching and being entertained) But this isn't about YOUR imagination it's about the director's imagination and it's still has to be a complete thought.

 

[William Wallace]

I hope you're just speaking for yourself. I have enjoyed some very implausible far out wacky movies in my day.

Well I guess that depends on the type of movie. A farcical comedy, for instance, can get away with lots of implausibility. But a dramatical film has far stricter standards. It also depends on how central the implausibilities are to creating the drama. So when Kirk and Sulu get rescued from their fall, that drama is created by the implausible survival of hitting the floor without slowing their speed. And when the black hole is destroying Vulcan, drama is likewise created by disregarding what the officer said, and having the black hole conveniently slow its expansion for just long enough for Spock to rescue the elders.

You are the only person I have come across that has a problem with that scene. I think that is an important point. I never questioned that scene to begin with! It was a dramatic scene filled with suspense and it was very entertaining. Was it realistic? No, but I never ever had expectations that it would be.

If I became critical of the implausibility of movies that I see I would be a very unhappy movie viewer. But I am pretty easy going and I just don't let things like this bother me.

What if they hadn't been beamed away, they had simply landed on the ground? Would it bother you that they didn't bother to explain how they survived the fall, but simply ignored physics and counted on you to not think about it too much? There's not that much difference.

Now you're starting to understand! There are many things in Star Trek (the entire franchise) you have to accept to make it work. I really don't see this movie being any more implausible or unrealistic than the rest of the franchise.

But warp drive and time travel aren't real technologies that we're familiar with, so they have quite a bit of leeway in "inventing" how they work, since there are little or no rules they have to go by. But when they start to make things up that we are familiar with, like falling from 5,000-foot drops, and basic timekeeping, that's when the believability of the movie starts to come apart.

You're willing to accept the premise that invisible aliens exist and yet you have a problem with Spock actually having enough time to save some people from Vulcan?

Again, we're talking about futuristic technology vs. basic timekeeping. Invisible aliens aren't implausible. There are lots of things in the universe that we can't see, and lots we don't know about science, so there's plenty of leeway for invisible aliens. There's no leeway, however, for a ship that needs to leave "immediately" to avoid destruction, to screw around for several minutes with no consequences whatsoever, as if the danger never existed in the first place.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q285.html

According to some theories time travel is only one direction and that is into the future. But I agree with you that the black hole as a time travel plot devise is within the realm of plausibility.

I only brought it up to demonstrate how subjective and selective your ability to accept or reject premises in Star Trek.

The second sentence of the article says: "So far as we know, our universe prohibits traveling into the past." (emphasis added). Once again, there's no way to know what we'll learn about the universe in the future, so things like warp drive, tachyon particles, and time travel are not automatically implausible, in and of themselves.

Do you think this movie takes place in an altered time line or in a parallel universe?

Since there's no mention anywhere in the movie about it being an alternate universe (as opposed to simple, run-of-the-mill time travel), it's reasonable to assume that it's simply an altered time line.

I really enjoyed the movie when I saw it in the theater. I came home and got on line and people who didn't like the movie were all complaining about plot holes. Plot holes? What plot holes I thought to myself, I didn't see any. I still don't.

So I never had to sit and come up with answers to plot holes I never saw to begin with! But when asked to find solutions to the plot holes others do see I find it quite easy to do so.

What we like in our entertainment is highly subjective and for some people, even when they do see things that are implausible or plot holes, they generally don't detract from the enjoyment of the movie if there are other elements in the movie they do like.

I think it is also based on personality. Some people are highly critical and some are more easygoing. I happen to be an easy going person.

I still think accuracy and consistency is important. The harder it is to believe, the harder it is to enjoy. Great films feel very authentic, and for that reason are easier to get into. Star Trek 09, while a good film, falls short of greatness. In my opinion, of course

How does the movie fail there? Kirk and Sulu could have fallen all day and it wouldn't have killed them; it's the really abrupt interruption of the fall that really hurts, and Chekov was able to pull their butts out just before that part. If he'd had a little more time and gravity hadn't been quite so wonky, he could probably have set them neatly on the transporter platform, standing upright, without so much as a bump.

So I ask you: where's the fail?

The fail is that they're still falling as they re-materialize, so apparently, the transport didn't cancel their downward momentum, so they should have hit the floor of the transporter pad with just as much force as if they'd hit the ground on Vulcan.

Pardon me, but when did TV and movies become a substitute for imagination? The best storytelling in any form—including motion pictures—is that which provides you just enough detail and leaves your imagination room to fill in the rest. Imagination is what Coleridge was talking about when he coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" - a phrase which seems to be tossed about a little too readily these days by folks who haven't a clear understanding of what it actually means.

I have to disagree there. TV and movies have always been substitutes for imagination. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist, because we'd still be reading books for entertainment. That's what makes movies and TV shows fun; you get entertained without having to do anything. The more authentic the movie is, the easier it is for the viewer to suspend their disbelief and get into it. When the movie disregards authenticity, suspending one's disbelief becomes more difficult and more annoying.