Plot hole city: Part II!

[beamMe]

That's another good point.
Pike really should have known this before Kirk...

How could he?
He was missing a huge chunk of information?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Pike's missing the Romulan connection, the fact that a Romulan ship had just struck recently, but that's all he's missing right?

Maybe it's a d'oh moment, maybe it's even a weakness of a sort, but it's not a plot hole. Humans don't necessarily always realize all possibilities consistent with the information they're given, especially the more far-fetched ones. The more information you have to base a conclusion on, the less far-fetched it is, and Kirk knew more.

I don't think this is a hole, for sure.

 

[Saquist]

Don't be plot hole paranoid.

The story has certain needs and primarily Kirk making this discovery was deemed a NEED by the writer even though it may not make perfect sense. The only real problem is working out the deduction that Narada was lying in wait.

 

[beamMe]

Don't be plot hole paranoid.

The story has certain needs and primarily Kirk making this discovery was deemed a NEED by the writer even though it may not make perfect sense. The only real problem is working out the deduction that Narada was lying in wait.

That is still not a plot hole.

 

[BillJ]

Don't be plot hole paranoid.

The story has certain needs and primarily Kirk making this discovery was deemed a NEED by the writer even though it may not make perfect sense. The only real problem is working out the deduction that Narada was lying in wait.

That is still not a plot hole.

But it makes Pike and Starfleet both look incredibly ignorant...

- Starfleet receives report on incident and no one does any research on "lightening storms in space". They have the original Kelvin reports. No one knows how to use 23rd century Google?

- Pike receives the orders and reads them. Nothing in them jogs his memory that he'd written a report on a similar incident.

- Pike listens to the mission briefings en route and it still doesn't jog his memory about the Kelvin incident that he did his dissertation on.

- Once Kirk is on the bridge Pike refers to Spock about the situation Kirk is reporting on, still seemingly lost.

Everyone is made to look idiotic so Kirk can come to the bridge and be heroic. It may not be a plothole but it destroyed this viewers suspension of disbelief.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But it makes Pike and Starfleet both look incredibly ignorant...

- Starfleet receives report on incident and no one does any research on "lightening storms in space". They have the original Kelvin reports. No one knows how to use 23rd century Google?

- Pike receives the orders and reads them. Nothing in them jogs his memory that he'd written a report on a similar incident.

- Pike listens to the mission briefings en route and it still doesn't jog his memory about the Kelvin incident that he did his dissertation on.

- Once Kirk is on the bridge Pike refers to Spock about the situation Kirk is reporting on, still seemingly lost.

Everyone is made to look idiotic so Kirk can come to the bridge and be heroic. It may not be a plothole but it destroyed this viewers suspension of disbelief.

This is a typical formula in Star Trek. The heroes do the heavy lifting, while everyone else is an NPC.

Shall we consider why a half-Vulcan recently resurrected and not working on all thrusters can figure out an alien probe's transmission at the drop of a hat, while the rest of Starfleet has had a lot longer to pool all their collective resources but is still stumped? See The Voyage Home for an answer.

 

[Broccoli]

Does Pike know enough at least to realize that Enterprise could be warping into a trap?

How could he? Admiral Ackbar wasn't there!

 

[Set Harth]

You used the exact words...Klingon-Federation Border numerous times.

I used those words, but I never said the film used those words. I said that location was clearly implied by the film. Examination of the script shows that my interpretation of the film's intent was correct, a result which I do not find especially shocking.

The false logic you've used is that if it's not Romulan then it must be Federation. There is no indication either way whose space they were in or it's proximity to what other space.

Romulan was just one example, which I only mentioned because it was one of your suggestions, one that you presumably thought would be valid. But the same reasoning applies to other locations. Why is a Federation ship patrolling non-Federation space, or even potential enemy territory, without this being mentioned anywhere in the film in any way? Furthermore, you typically go too far in assuming you can casually rewrite everything about this point in the film. Their proximity to Klingon space is established.

Stop thinking 2 Dimensionally.

I'm not. The retcon-ploy of "they're not in Federation space" is not an issue of three dimensions vs. two dimensions. Those are two separate issues. One is speculation that cannot be conclusively proven and thus cannot be used as an allegation against the film's actual plot, since the film cannot be proven to conform to it; the other fails to achieve even that much, being inaccurate and useless in practice.

The movie doesn't comment on where the Kelvin was specifically. In order for it to be repositioned it would have to have an original position which the film doesn't establish.

In order for your positioning to generate a legitimate flaw in the plot, it would have to be conclusively established by the film. It's not. Thus, by citing this positioning as a flaw, you only indicate that there are flaws in your revised and gerrymandered version of the film, not the actual film itself.

There is only one Neutral Zone in Trek 2009.
The fact is self evident.

It may be evident to you, but this is just more revisionist speculation which you cannot prove. There is no particular reason to assume that STXI departs from the canon Trek reality of at least two Neutral Zones, and no particular rationale for why the writers would want it to. You can't take the citation of the KNZ in the Kobayashi Maru scenario as indication that the RNZ does not exist; that's ridiculous and another example of obvious desperate reaching intended to fabricate imaginary fault on the part of the film. TWOK and TNG were never regarded as contradictory chapters of Trek canon on this issue.

At no time were they ever called. RMBHs.

I know, that's what I'm calling them, because that's what they are: generated by red matter. The point is that we've never seen red matter before, so these "black holes" ( or whatever they are ) which are generated by red matter can presumably operate in whatever way the writers want them to.

If it's not in the movie then it's not included in the plot, then it didn't happen.

Wrong. By that logic these "humans" that we see on screen never have to use bathroom facilities, ever. Very few films occur in real-time. The "didn't happen" position has absolutely no validity whatsoever, especially in a franchise with an ongoing continuity and time gaps between sequential episodes or films. Are we to assume that the characters fail to exist in-universe between films, popping back into existence only when once again appearing on the screen? Are we to assume that the only events happening in the STXI universe are the ones depicted in the film, restricting the shape of the universe to a small bubble enapsulating only these events and nothing else? The inherent untenability of the "didn't happen" position aside, this takes us back to the main point: if you can't prove that something did not happen based on the information in the film, you can't really allege the existence of a plot hole based on assumption that it did not happen, when the film allows for the possibility that it did happen.

Indeed it does.

If you say so...

The movie certainly needs a rewrite but the intention is irrelevant.

Not when you rewrite what happened in the film by bringing Nero's intention into question. You claimed that Nero was indecisive, which is not supported by the film. Don't try and hide behind bogus "strawman" claims, just admit you were wrong.

It is the proper understanding of what you wrote.

By insisting on putting words in my mouth, you only show that you're as willing to rewrite my positions as you are to rewrite the film. My argument against the stance I called "appeal to minority" is not itself an appeal to majority; if it were, those would be the only two options, which would be a false dichotomy.

 

[Saquist]

Don't be plot hole paranoid.

The story has certain needs and primarily Kirk making this discovery was deemed a NEED by the writer even though it may not make perfect sense. The only real problem is working out the deduction that Narada was lying in wait.

That is still not a plot hole.

But it still makes you plot hole paranoid because I've been reading a few peoples comments aswell as my own and they didn't say it was a plot hole.

Everyone is made to look idiotic so Kirk can come to the bridge and be heroic. It may not be a plothole but it destroyed this viewers suspension of disbelief.

It didn't destroy my belief in the film but it did look stupid which didn't help my willingness to believe in the film. Kirk has shown zero interest in his father and suddenly he bust out with this "I know what this is." speech. That's another failure in the character or Kirk.

This is a typical formula in Star Trek. The heroes do the heavy lifting, while everyone else is an NPC.

Shall we consider why a half-Vulcan recently resurrected and not working on all thrusters can figure out an alien probe's transmission at the drop of a hat, while the rest of Starfleet has had a lot longer to pool all their collective resources but is still stumped? See The Voyage Home for an answer.

I don't think so...
It's one thing to contrive for a main character but it's completely another to contrive ignorance for main characters against other main characters.

Spock has always been the best at what he does. You can't deduct from the film simply because he's a genius that figures things out that others can't. You can question whether Voyage Home establishes that genius, (and I think they do! With all the test and such at the beginning) so I don't think Trek making characters look smart at the expense of other CHARACTERS (not merely and organization) expense is remotely equivalent.

I used those words, but I never said the film used those words.

You said:

The film alone made it sufficiently clear that they were near the Klingon-Federation border.

When the film makes no comment at all on what border they are on.

I already know you used those words in defense of the film. You were wrong and still are wrong. They represent your assumptions alone.

Why is a Federation ship patrolling non-Federation space, or even potential enemy territory, without this being mentioned anywhere in the film in any way?

Patrolling is your description.
The answers why are up to the film to provide.

Furthermore, you typically go too far in assuming you can casually rewrite everything about this point in the film. Their proximity to Klingon space is established.

I've rewritten nothing.
I've assumed very little.

I'm not. The retcon-ploy of "they're not in Federation space" is not an issue of three dimensions vs. two dimensions.

You are.
You're assuming it has to be SOMEBODIES Territory or that because you think it's Romulan that it must be immediately next door and noone else can be in the same vicinity so that's a lack of 3 Dimensional perspective.

In order for your positioning to generate a legitimate flaw in the plot, it would have to be conclusively established by the film.

I didn't say it was a flaw.
My assertion was that this is the Hobus star.
You said that was a flaw and tried to prove dimensionally that it wasn't. (which you can't)

It may be evident to you, but this is just more revisionist speculation which you cannot prove.

It's already proven.

There is no particular reason to assume that STXI departs from the canon Trek reality of at least two Neutral Zones, and no particular rationale for why the writers would want it to.

There is already precedent as the Federation knows what the Romulans look like even though TOS has no knowledge of their visual appearance which Pike displays.

You can't take the citation of the KNZ in the Kobayashi Maru scenario as indication that the RNZ does not exist;

I take the KNZ citation as the only mention of any Neutral Zone...period.

I know, that's what I'm calling them, because that's what they are: generated by red matter.

We don't know what they are.
We know they are black holes and singularities.

The point is that we've never seen red matter before, so these "black holes" ( or whatever they are ) which are generated by red matter can presumably operate in whatever way the writers want them to.

I would agree with that if the characters didn't behave as if they were anything other than normal black holes and singularities. Hence in order for them to be the exotic tool that you or the writers suggest they are or might be then the characters MUST follow that logic aswell...which they don't. According to the characters everything happens as they expect black holes and singularities to behave.

Wrong. By that logic these "humans" that we see on screen never have to use bathroom facilities, ever.

Which is completely irrelevant to the plot.

If you say so...

Indeed I do.

The movie certainly needs a rewrite but the intention is irrelevant.

Not when you rewrite what happened in the film by bringing Nero's intention into question.

Questioning a series of contradicting behavior and stated intentions is not a rewrite.

You claimed that Nero was indecisive, which is not supported by the film.

He was either indecisive or deceptive
Because he stated saving Romulus as an objective
And didn't save Romulus.

Don't try and hide behind bogus "strawman" claims, just admit you were wrong.

Strawman can only be evoked against an opponent in debate. There was no strawman against you. And from the clumsy method of how you applied it no "strawman" exist against the film since we're talking about what the film..."DIDN'T" say.

By insisting on putting words in my mouth

They were your words by equal meaning.

My argument against the stance I called "appeal to minority" is not itself an appeal to majority; if it were, those would be the only two options, which would be a false dichotomy.

You invoked an appeal to populous through your own appeal to majority populous. You said:

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

We're breaking down the logic and the explanation by factual deduction and you insert the evidence of "made sense to many viewers."...as though many viewers are looking for the film to make sense...

Definitely an appeal to populum.
Then an strawman fallacy as you crudely attempted to evade the accusation by claim of a phantom appeal to authority on my part (apparently me being said authority which we relate as an appeal to "minority" which there is no such thing...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't think so...
It's one thing to contrive for a main character but it's completely another to contrive ignorance for main characters against other main characters.

My remarks there were primarily intended to show the making all of Starfleet except the heroes look incompetent is nothing new.

As to making Pike look like he was having a slow day - yes it does, and I conceded that it might be fairly called some sort of flaw, but it's not bad enough to be a plot hole.

Does Pike know enough at least to realize that Enterprise could be warping into a trap?

How could he? Admiral Ackbar wasn't there!

Good point!

 

[Saquist]

My remarks there were primarily intended to show the making all of Starfleet except the heroes look incompetent is nothing new.

Nothing really says that Starfleet should have known. Spock was playing a hunch that doesn't reflect on starfleet.

As to making Pike look like he was having a slow day - yes it does, and I conceded that it might be fairly called some sort of flaw, but it's not bad enough to be a plot hole.

Not a plothole.
It's a two way Fork.
If anything there nothing wrong with Kirk figuring it out but if it was really as logical as spock says (which it's not) but keeping within the stories "logic" then Pike should have caught on VERY fast...

 

[DrBashir]

But it makes Pike and Starfleet both look incredibly ignorant...

- Starfleet receives report on incident and no one does any research on "lightening storms in space". They have the original Kelvin reports. No one knows how to use 23rd century Google?

- Pike receives the orders and reads them. Nothing in them jogs his memory that he'd written a report on a similar incident.

- Pike listens to the mission briefings en route and it still doesn't jog his memory about the Kelvin incident that he did his dissertation on.

- Once Kirk is on the bridge Pike refers to Spock about the situation Kirk is reporting on, still seemingly lost.

Everyone is made to look idiotic so Kirk can come to the bridge and be heroic. It may not be a plothole but it destroyed this viewers suspension of disbelief.

This is a typical formula in Star Trek. The heroes do the heavy lifting, while everyone else is an NPC.

Shall we consider why a half-Vulcan recently resurrected and not working on all thrusters can figure out an alien probe's transmission at the drop of a hat, while the rest of Starfleet has had a lot longer to pool all their collective resources but is still stumped? See The Voyage Home for an answer.

Precisely. ST 09 is just as badly plotted as any other Star Trek episode or movie. It's never going to win an academy award for writing. They're not that kind of movie. SFX? Sure. Costuming? Perhaps. Writing? Not a chance in hell. But it's in good comapy with the other summer blockbusters in that regard so just enjoy it for what it is.

Pointing out the various failings of the plot does not mean it's not enjoyable. It just means "don't think about it too much".

"The Federation is a peacekeeping armada" anyone?

 

[Gojira]

But it makes Pike and Starfleet both look incredibly ignorant...

- Starfleet receives report on incident and no one does any research on "lightening storms in space". They have the original Kelvin reports. No one knows how to use 23rd century Google?

- Pike receives the orders and reads them. Nothing in them jogs his memory that he'd written a report on a similar incident.

- Pike listens to the mission briefings en route and it still doesn't jog his memory about the Kelvin incident that he did his dissertation on.

- Once Kirk is on the bridge Pike refers to Spock about the situation Kirk is reporting on, still seemingly lost.

Everyone is made to look idiotic so Kirk can come to the bridge and be heroic. It may not be a plothole but it destroyed this viewers suspension of disbelief.

This is a typical formula in Star Trek. The heroes do the heavy lifting, while everyone else is an NPC.

Shall we consider why a half-Vulcan recently resurrected and not working on all thrusters can figure out an alien probe's transmission at the drop of a hat, while the rest of Starfleet has had a lot longer to pool all their collective resources but is still stumped? See The Voyage Home for an answer.

Precisely. ST 09 is just as badly plotted as any other Star Trek episode or movie. It's never going to win an academy award for writing. They're not that kind of movie. SFX? Sure. Costuming? Perhaps. Writing? Not a chance in hell. But it's in good comapy with the other summer blockbusters in that regard so just enjoy it for what it is.

Pointing out the various failings of the plot does not mean it's not enjoyable. It just means "don't think about it too much".

"The Federation is a peacekeeping armada" anyone?

I guess that is why I didn't "see" any plot holes. This movie seemed like a very good Star Trek movie. Character driven, great special effects and a good story with about the same implausibility ratio as any other star trek series or movie.

 

[DrBashir]

I guess that is why I didn't "see" any plot holes. This movie seemed like a very good Star Trek movie. Character driven, great special effects and a good story with about the same implausibility ratio as any other star trek series or movie.

I saw the holes, I just didn't let them distract me any more than usual. I put this move roughly in the middle of the pack of the Trek movies, sometimes it moves up or down depending on my mood. Still don't like this version of Kirk but the rest of the characters came across fairly well.

Special effects were nothing jaw dropping and in some places looked like a 21st century version of some of the stuff from TFF but overall the effects worked.

Story wise, who goes to Trek for the story?

 

[Saquist]

I saw the holes, I just didn't let them distract me any more than usual. I put this move roughly in the middle of the pack of the Trek movies, sometimes it moves up or down depending on my mood. Still don't like this version of Kirk but the rest of the characters came across fairly well.

Special effects were nothing jaw dropping and in some places looked like a 21st century version of some of the stuff from TFF but overall the effects worked.

Story wise, who goes to Trek for the story?

I think it was a good movie...just not well written, but certainly exciting and entertaining...
The characters were the best thing.

 

[Set Harth]

You were wrong and still are wrong.

There is no basis for that statement whatsoever. I think you mean "I want you to be wrong but I can't prove it".

The script shows my assumption regarding the location in the film was correct. So there are only two options here:

1) The script is considered as evidence, in which case I am right;
2) The script is not considered as evidence, in which case I am still potentially right because my assumption is still consistent with the film and was not disproved.

In neither scenario am I proven to be necessarily wrong about the location.

You're assuming it has to be SOMEBODIES Territory

Wrong, you're still putting words in my mouth. Saying "not in Federation space" covers everything but the outcome you reject.

or that because you think it's Romulan that it must be immediately next door and noone else can be in the same vicinity so that's a lack of 3 Dimensional perspective.

Once again, the "3 dimensional" red herring is a useless tactic because I never assumed the borders are 2 dimensional and it is immaterial to my argument.

I didn't say it was a flaw.
My assertion was that this is the Hobus star.
You said that was a flaw and tried to prove dimensionally that it wasn't.

The whole purpose in pretending it was the Hobus star in the first place was presumably to manufacture a supposed flaw in the film ( see thread title ). Or are we now intended to believe that it was just brought up out of context for no reason at all that had anything to do with plot holes?

It's already proven.

I think you're just saying that you convinced yourself. Congratulations. Unfortunately, that's not the standard of "proof" I was referring to. "Only one Neutral Zone" is only your revision of the plot, which flies in the face of established Trek canon and really has no validity in this film. It is not proved.

I would agree with that if the characters didn't behave as if they were anything other than normal black holes and singularities. Hence in order for them to be the exotic tool that you or the writers suggest they are or might be then the characters MUST follow that logic aswell...which they don't. According to the characters everything happens as they expect black holes and singularities to behave.

This makes no sense at all.

Which is completely irrelevant to the plot.

And yet 100% relevant to your bogus "didn't see it, didn't happen" theory, which it debunks.

Questioning a series of contradicting behavior and stated intentions is not a rewrite.

Sorry, you did more than question, you rewrote. He was never portrayed as unable to decided exactly what he wanted an how he wanted to go about getting it done at any point in the film.

And didn't save Romulus.

Because you didn't see it, so it didn't happen. Not to mention the fact that "saving Romulus" means averting an event some 130 years outside the timeframe of the film...

Strawman can only be evoked against an opponent in debate. There was no strawman against you. And from the clumsy method of how you applied it no "strawman" exist against the film since we're talking about what the film..."DIDN'T" say.

I think you misunderstood my meaning.

They were your words by equal meaning.

No, you're just taking your rewriting spree beyond the confines of the film's plot and rewriting my positions.

Then an strawman fallacy as you crudely attempted to evade the accusation by claim of a phantom appeal to authority on my part

Actually, I didn't say anything about an appeal to authority. I attempted to clarify that rejection of your stance cannot itself constitute an appeal to majority, because the point is not that a majority disagrees with you, but that at least one other person "got" the things you seem to have a problem with. That's not an appeal to majority. It merely says that one person having a problem with the film's plot does not necessarily equate to a real problem with the film's plot.

 

[chardman]

Either the transporter can cancel momentum or it can't.

It does, and did. And when Kirk and Sulu materialized several feet above the floor, the gravity aboard the Enterprise prevented them from just hanging weightless above the transporter pad, and instead caused them to fall those several remaining feet to the transporter deck. Something that would still occur even though their previous momentum had been fully cancelled.

 

[DrBashir]

The silliest thing about that scene was Chekov leaving the bridge, where he had been left in command, to run down to the transporter room and do what the trained transporter officers were unable to do.

In TOS at least Kyle was shown as competent.

But, Uhura got her scenes with Spock. Sulu got his sword fight. Chekov got his comedy moment where the computer couldn't understand him eventhough we could and got to save Kirk & Sulu. Maybe they should have left him on the transposrter, they might have saved Amanda.

 

[Saquist]

You were wrong and still are wrong.

There is no basis for that statement whatsoever.
In neither scenario am I proven to be necessarily wrong about the location.

You can believe what you want to explain the movie but you're still wrong in context of the facts. It's a plot discussion. Everything external of the film is irrelevant that includes your belief and the script.

Wrong, you're still putting words in my mouth. Saying "not in Federation space" covers everything but the outcome you reject.

Negative:
You insisted on Federation space then deduced from my objection, Romulan Space. You're still making assumptions to bail out the film.

Once again, the "3 dimensional" red herring is a useless tactic because I never assumed the borders are 2 dimensional and it is immaterial to my argument.

You assumed one or the other and never considered neutral territory. You added Federation-Klingon Border when no such term exist in the film. Sorry. Your Red-Herring objection is dismissed.

The whole purpose in pretending it was the Hobus star in the first place was presumably to manufacture a supposed flaw in the film ( see thread title ). Or are we now intended to believe that it was just brought up out of context for no reason at all that had anything to do with plot holes?

My conclusion concerning the Hobus star was out of logic. Otherwise it's nothing more than an extremely improbable event (among many in the film) that Narada happened upon the Kelvin. Space is too large and empty to just...(whoops heres a ship with Captain Kirk as a baby on it.)

I think you're just saying that you convinced yourself. Congratulations.

Thanks.
All it takes is facts and logic.

Unfortunately, that's not the standard of "proof" I was referring to. "Only one Neutral Zone" is only your revision of the plot, which flies in the face of established Trek canon and really has no validity in this film. It is not proved.

Movies must stand on their own in plot discussions.

This makes no sense at all.

Not my concern.

And yet 100% relevant to your bogus "didn't see it, didn't happen" theory, which it debunks.

I'm not concerned, you can believe what you want.
These are the standards. No one is forcing you to like it.

If it's irrelevant to the plot then it's just reaching in desperation. The only logic that's relevant is all that directly impacts the self contained plot which was formed under the tent of modern day writing standards. So if it's not necessary (even if logical) then it's irrelevant) because you can't reasonably be expected to include everything logical within the story under the restraint of time....

You're committed the VERY definition of RED HERRING.
Your conclusion and analogy is absolutely irrelevant to plot. At the least...it's a False Analogy.

Sorry, you did more than question, you rewrote. He was never portrayed as unable to decided exactly what he wanted an how he wanted to go about getting it done at any point in the film.

Fallacy.
Analysis does not equal rewrite.

Because you didn't see it, so it didn't happen.

Exactly.

No, you're just taking your rewriting spree beyond the confines of the film's plot and rewriting my positions.

Confidence statement.
Declaration without proof.
Unless you can prove the meaning of the words are other than the tradition meaning then your appeal to majority stands.

Actually, I didn't say anything about an appeal to authority.

The appeal you invoked does not exist.
The only appeal remotely similar is Appeal to Authority.

I attempted to clarify that rejection of your stance cannot itself constitute an appeal to majority

You held the majority up as evidence of a sound plot.

, because the point is not that a majority disagrees with you, but that at least one other person "got" the things you seem to have a problem with.

That is argumentum ad populum.
People do it alot. It's mob mentality and peer pressure tactics. "Others got it why didn't you" argument is the one of the oldest fallacies of reasonings in the book. It is the mantra of the irrational. For instance I could have indulged your fallacy with one of my own siting the Origional Poster, Pauln6 and others from everywhere else that caught the same error. But other peoples findings are not proof of the flawed use of writing standards for the film.

That's not an appeal to majority. It merely says that one person having a problem with the film's plot does not necessarily equate to a real problem with the film's plot.

Then at the least...it's Strawman argument because I never said anything about equating a real problem with the film plot with one person. I always used the accepted writing expectations and standards through out the whole argument, quoting the definition and rigidly using it it more than 6 times so far. I've always made my case on the facts the accepted definitions while you've wandered into the script to justify the film.

Sorry...I'm not going to do that. The script nor comic book nor any other source other than the film is acceptable evidence in a plot discussion.

 

[William Wallace]

Either the transporter can cancel momentum or it can't.

It does, and did. And when Kirk and Sulu materialized several feet above the floor, the gravity aboard the Enterprise prevented them from just hanging weightless above the transporter pad, and instead caused them to fall those several remaining feet to the transporter deck. Something that would still occur even though their previous momentum had been fully cancelled.

This has been covered already, but to reiterate, they fall way too fast after re-materializing to have had their momentum "cancelled" by the transport. Go watch the scene again, and you'll see.