Plot hole city: Part II!

[Broccoli]

In my state, which everyone can see is Kentucky, there is a city called "London".

CANON VIOLATION!

 

[number6]

I live 8 miles from Salem MA and 25 miles from Salem NH. Is that a plot hole too??

 

[Broccoli]

I live 8 miles from Salem MA and 25 miles from Salem NH. Is that a plot hole too??

No. You just live in the nexus of the universe.

 

[number6]

I live 8 miles from Salem MA and 25 miles from Salem NH. Is that a plot hole too??

No. You just live in the nexus of the universe.

Where else would I be?

 

[Devon]

I also live near Union City, Indiana, which turns into Union City, Ohio since it's on the border. Therefore, I blame the Lens Flares and MTV ADD Generation.

 

[number6]

So which one is the Blondie song named after?

 

[number6]

Is Paradise City in Star Trek V the same one Axl Rose was singing about??

 

[Broccoli]

Is Paradise City in Star Trek V the same one Axl Rose was singing about??

No. The city was named after the song obviously.

 

[number6]

So then T'Pau of Vulcan was named after the band??

And Mr. Atoz used an Atavachron, named after an Alan Holdsworth album he liked in college??

 

[Saquist]

Wrong. The film clearly depicts Nero and Spock emerging in different places,

I can't concur with "wrong".
It's inconclusive. On the one hand...coordinates implies a different location (not necessarily a different region) but black holes don't transport in space but rather in time. Nor can I call Spock's fuzzy dream sequence explanation as "clear"

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.

Seth...
Why are gloating? Check your facts first before gloating.
You're deducing things you can't deduce logically. The movie doesn't say "Klingon-Federation border"....EVER....
Nothing you said precludes or deduces that the Hobus star or Romulus wasn't in this vicinity especially considering that the movie thinks that the destruction of a star can threaten an entire galaxy.

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.

I didn't say it was the Neutral Zone.

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.

I didn't want to take it for granted since it was an accusation against my argument.

Sorry, but you don't understand. I'm not making an appeal to majority.

Yes, you did.

... if any one person has a problem understanding the film, the film is automatically at fault.

Strawman.
I never made such an argument.

Furthermore, in the original concept he "twiddled his thumbs" because he was in a Klingon prison.

Which didn't make it into the movie for us to consider as part of the plot of said movie so "twiddling Thumbs" still stands...(Note the Title of the Thread...Plot hole city)

As I've already demonstrated, logic indicates that the Hobus star was most likely in Romulan space, so logic is not on your side.

You didn't use logic you used Trek-ology.
Logic dictates that it's not impossible for the star in question to Hobus just because it was 70,000 kilometers from Klingon Space. Since they didn't say it was Federation or Romulan space or Neutral Territory. And since said star could threaten the entire Galaxy proximity of local area isn't a big issue.

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

Leave what I think to me.
Just because you looked up Delta Vega on Memory Alpha and liked their explanation doesn't mean you've found anything logical. In Trek 2009 we know of no other location named "Delta Vega" other than it's only reference in the film.

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.

There is only one Neutral Zone in the film.
Klingons were in it. It's the job of the Story-teller to clarify other wise. The purpose of exposition in writing is to establish a knowledge of persons, places and things in the story. If there are two people named Michael you give a last name...other wise there is only one Michael.

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

No one had the script in their hand when they saw the movie in the theatre. No pamphlets were given out as crib sheets...Don't require us all to be Trek Fanatics in order for you to tell a proper story.

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

My determinations are based on the contradictions within the film and are not false.

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 ).

It's not wrong, it's absolute.

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

Different how?

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.

So far I've not forgotten anything significant and the same is true here. How does two Romulan attacks bring us to the same ship that attack 25 years ago?

Have you even seen the film?

Have you?

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.

So how do we know that ship is at Vulcan?

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

Thank you.

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

For the same reason you attributed my words to your quote tags. The Forum reply method is convoluted and people make mistakes. Sorry.

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.

Declarative but not informative.

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

Then it is your burden to prove your education was not a waste of time and money. Directly contest the comparison. If you succeed, I'm wrong, but so far no one including yourself wants to go head to head with the facts of movie instead of their perceptions of the movie.

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.

It's fascinating how knowing the facts can prevent missteps like this. We are comparing DS9 to DS9. Not DS9 to the rest of the franchise. That's just what I answered to to M'Sharack. DS9 says Gold has value in one episode and then reduces that value to zero in another.

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.

Of course.

I can agree with that.

Finally a consensus on the behalf of logic.

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.

Let's put it this way...
In Season 6 episode 9 of DS9 they established that it's was statistically improbable for the Federation to win the war. 10 Episodes later the Romulans join the war and suddenly they start wining...and nary a Fleet to Fleet battle in site untill the end...


It's a very good series...you should watch.

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.

Saquist doesn't own own Wikipedia or Merriam and Webster and therefore doesn't own the definition of Plot Hole.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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.

Any ship moving at any fraction of impulse power is going a lot faster than Kirk and Sulu falling at terminal velocity (see: Jellyfish ramming Narada at the end, or the Insurrection finale, or dozens more examples). I fail to see how any stopping, slowing or equalizing momentum in transport is suddenly wrong.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is Paradise City in Star Trek V the same one Axl Rose was singing about??

No. The city was named after the song obviously.

Why hasn't anyone done a mashup video of this yet?!?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

at ... impulse power

Oh, gods, don't get me started on how often the Star Trek franchise has violated Newtonian physics.

 

[Sean Aaron]

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.

So, let me guess, when you watch an episode of T.J. Hooker and Hooker leaves the station and then we cut to him in another location do you shake your head and wonder how the hell he suddenly appeared there or do you imagine that he must have driven/walked to that location?

If I had to have every last detail in a film or television show spelled out for me I expect the entirety of my viewing experience would consist of documentaries and programmes made for very small children.

 

[beamMe]

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.

By you.
You are wrong.

 

[beamMe]

if any one person has a problem understanding the film, the film is automatically at fault.

Strawman.
I never made such an argument.

Yes, you did:

It's always the story-tellers fault for forcing the viewer/reader to story-guess their way through books and movies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Refusal or inability of a viewer to pay attention or to use their imagination is not necessarily the fault of the filmmaker - in fact, it usually isn't. Sf-fantasy movies are ill-suited as entertainment for the literal-minded.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Refusal or inability of a viewer to pay attention or to use their imagination is not necessarily the fault of the filmmaker - in fact, it usually isn't. Sf-fantasy movies are ill-suited as entertainment for the literal-minded.

I enjoy being challenged and don't always feel the need to understand every little detail of a film. Three of my favourite movies are Blade Runner, Barton Fink and Brazil. All of them require investment by the viewer in following what is happening and to a degree deciding for themselves what is happening.

Although it's true that film/tv audiences are passive, visual media can engage the imagination of the viewer. If they don't then I'd say they're failing on some level.

 

[M'Sharak]

Is Paradise City in Star Trek V the same one Axl Rose was singing about??

No. The city was named after the song obviously.

Why hasn't anyone done a mashup video of this yet?!?

Someone get ZR to look into that.

 

[BillJ]

I'm afraid the so-called "stupidity" in this argument doesn't come from me. Star Trek Online explicitly says that the Hobus star was in Romulan space, but since I have a feeling you won't accept that as "concrete evidence", you need to think about why they came to that conclusion, based on information depicted in the film, the same way I did. Among other things, assuming that the Hobus star must for some reason be in the same location as Nero's reentry point conveniently ignores the fact that Spock's reentry point is clearly depicted in the film to be a different location. But the main point is that this is a thread about so-called PLOT HOLES ( see thread title ). You cannot create an imaginary "plot hole" from thin air by simple appeal-to-ignorance "can't rule it out" speculation. If an alleged plot hole arises from a desperate rewrite of the story which repositions the locations of stars and other things, it is not a legitimate plot hole because it does not apply to the actual film. It only applies to the rewrite.

How can you say that Spock's re-entry point is clearly a different location? We only see the Jellyfish from a single angle when Nero captures it.

I do ignore Star Trek Online as the amount of people playing that game represent .0000001% of those who actually saw the movie.

I have no horse in the "Hobus star or not?" race. But you seemingly do. Why? Because if Nero and Spock emerged anywhere near Hobus, it makes Nero a total ass-clown for not saving his people before going on his quest for revenge. Now we have no evidence that he didn't save his people, but I would think that the film would've included that big piece of character information. Turning Nero from an "ass-clown" to a more "tragic" type character who killed billions yet save billions in the process.

Star Trek 2009 was a very hit-or-miss proposition for me. On one hand I saw elements that made me smile, on the other hand there were elements that left me scratching my head... like the future fate of the Romulan people. Which could have been done with rather simple dialogue fixes that wouldn't have interrupted the pace of the film in the slightest.