"Plot hole" is a term that has lost almost all meaning and been misused by people like the OP.
Plot hole city: Part II!
- Thread starter William Wallace
- Start date
- Status
"Plot hole" is a term that has lost almost all meaning and been misused by people like the OP.
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.
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.M'Sharak said:
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. [We aren't? - M'] 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.
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.
If the transporter can have "Heisenberg Compensators" and violate the Uncertainty Principle then how far of a stretch is it to say it also has momentum reduction technology? In Broken Bow, Archer is transported mid run and when he materializes he still has forward momentum as he takes a few steps to stop.
The plausability of this movie is no more or no less than any of the previous Trek movies or TV shows. The science is just as ludicrous. The plot is just as paper thin. Trek shines best when the focus is on the characters. Try and do a serious story and it's giggle time.
Notice how big a shadow over the movie George Kirsk casts and yet his son never mentions him. Pike, on the other hand, has a serious man-crush. Almost makes you wonder why JTK would recognize the "lightning storm in space" line yet Pike doesn't. Does it make sense? Nope but it's necessary for Kirk to be taken seriously bu Pike, leading to him being in a position to take control from Spock. And it led to a rolling, good time.
Stop over thinking it. As a matter of fact, stop thinking about it. Enjoy your popcorn instead.
Notice how big a shadow over the movie George Kirsk casts and yet his son never mentions him. Pike, on the other hand, has a serious man-crush. Almost makes you wonder why JTK would recognize the "lightning storm in space" line yet Pike doesn't. Does it make sense? Nope but it's necessary for Kirk to be taken seriously bu Pike, leading to him being in a position to take control from Spock. And it led to a rolling, good time.
Stop over thinking it. As a matter of fact, stop thinking about it. Enjoy your popcorn instead.
Saquist
Commodore
This movie has definitely taken stupidity to a whole new level. Where trek before took liberties with the science this one is taking liberties with the science...the plot...and the plausibility in less than 2 hours of time.
It seems the only thing they got right were the pronouns.
Implausable - Kirk given command while still a cadet
Implausable - Kirk given command after stealing a starship, travelling to a restricted planet, destroying said ship.
Implausable - Spock kidnaps Pike, steals the Enterprise, travels to only planet that carried death penalty for visiting with no penalty.
Star Trek has never been plausable.
It's use of science is usually laughable and best ignored. After all, it's not Nova, it's a scie-fi action adventure show.
Implausable - Kirk given command after stealing a starship, travelling to a restricted planet, destroying said ship.
Implausable - Spock kidnaps Pike, steals the Enterprise, travels to only planet that carried death penalty for visiting with no penalty.
Star Trek has never been plausable.
It's use of science is usually laughable and best ignored. After all, it's not Nova, it's a scie-fi action adventure show.
Saquist
Commodore
Yes, implausible but not ridiculous like a cadet being given command of a starship.
As far as I can tell, that's wrong.
Not every Movie had plot holes don't make such massive generalizations just because you like THIS Film.
You should have said. "plot holes don't matter to me."
There were no plot holes in Insurrection. It was a very simple story.
No Plot holes in Voyage Home. Again a very simple story.
No Plot holes in Undiscovered Country. (and it was the most complicated of Trek Movie Plots.)
And while what The Final Frontier did to the characters was Plot Hole LIKE, because the loyalty of the characters was never established in the film then the betrayal of Sulu, Uhura and Checkov don't constitute plot holes because their loyalty is established in the previous movies not this one.
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.
This was precisely the thought process that my mind went through while I was watching the film for the first time: Since they didn't die, and since they didn't start falling from rest over the pad, the moderation of momentum must merely have been within safety parameters. Next.
From reading your posts I don't think you understand what a plot hole is.
Discussion with demonstrably knowledgeable and accomplished persons in this very thread have helped me better appreciate the differences between plot holes, inconsistencies, character definition problems, and other errors that may exist in fiction, theater, and film. It would be a shame if readers of this thread who were unclear on certain pertinent issues didn't come away from it with at least a better understanding than they had initially. It might even be enough to make one feel frustrated in engaging in discussion, I'm sure.
Very well stated. 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.
I dislike this new film intensely, I've absolutely no time for it.
It is my favorite Star Trek movie. Why didn't you like it?
AFAIK, at that point, there was no evidence that Soran did anything wrong. Picard would have had no grounds to arrest him. Soran hadn't yet destroyed the planet's sun, so if Picard had just stormed in and hauled him away, it wouldn't work.
Oh, come on. How many times in TNG did a character have to explain some wild and wacky thing that happened to them and the rest of the crew believed them? Worf traveling through Parallel Universes in 'Parallels" and Picard traveling back and forth through time in the series ending "All Good Things..." are just two incidences I can think of off the top of my head where the main character explained what was happening to them and the crew eventually believing them.
He could have gone to 10 Forward with Worf and other security people and arrested him and thrown him in the brig. I am sure Worf would have followed orders without a problem and He would have explained to the crew what happened to him before going into the Nexis and Guinan would have backed him up.
You just made the time.. on a thread that has nothing to do with if one likes it or not.
number6
Vice Admiral
That's a plot hole.
Saquist
Commodore
So that you'll understand yourself this is the 6th time I've posted the definition.
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.
number6
Vice Admiral
Your ability to copy and paste a definition on a message board doesn't mean you understand what it means. You don't. Your lack of understanding of the finer points of this movie doesn't constitute a plothole. I am not interested in your test scores. That's between you and your doctor.
- Status
Similar threads
