Plot hole city

[Saquist]

We assume this because he refers to himself as simple or just a miner himself

No, he says "I chose a life of honest labour" and "In my time, this is a simple mining vessel". You're confusing the two.

That's still a contradiction of sorts.
This is what happens when you don't explain your villain. Why would he know temporal mechanics. He chose a life of honest labour...exactly what part of his filed would require him to know how time travel would work with the agent of Red Matter?

It's just as lame and half thought as Spock's Deus Ex Machina.

 

[number6]

Except when it isn't. Everyone else seems to get it. Sorry you're having so much trouble trying to grasp it. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough for you.

 

[Cyke101]

We assume this because he refers to himself as simple or just a miner himself

No, he says "I chose a life of honest labour" and "In my time, this is a simple mining vessel". You're confusing the two.

That's still a contradiction of sorts.
This is what happens when you don't explain your villain. Why would he know temporal mechanics. He chose a life of honest labour...exactly what part of his filed would require him to know how time travel would work with the agent of Red Matter?

It's just as lame and half thought as Spock's Deus Ex Machina.

How do the two quotes contradict each other at all? Mind you (and this is the state of our system today), but for one reason or another, there are over 5,000 PhDs in America that work as janitors. For the vast majority of them, it's because of the poor job market. Some of them may have just become disillusioned with their degrees or wanted a career change and sincerely joined that line of work. Still, it's honest labor, a seemingly simple job, and those janitors just happen to be quite brilliant.

Do we know if something similar happened to Nero? Who cares? But your point was that laborers can't be advanced thinkers, when even in the present day we have just that.

And finally: he never said he was simple AND a miner. There is no contradiction.

 

[beamMe]

We assume this because he refers to himself as simple or just a miner himself

No, he says "I chose a life of honest labour" and "In my time, this is a simple mining vessel". You're confusing the two.

That's still a contradiction of sorts.

Just for you perhaps.

This is what happens when you don't explain your villain.

He's explained well enough to make his motivation clear to even the much maligned ADD-audience of today to which that movie is supposedly aimed.

Why would he know temporal mechanics.

Why wouldn't he?
Why wouldn't his ship's computers?

He chose a life of honest labour...exactly what part of his filed would require him to know how time travel would work with the agent of Red Matter?

Uhmmm... his 25 years of well cultured hatred and quest for revenge against all things that are Spock, perhaps?

It's just as lame and half thought as Spock's Deus Ex Machina.

Which Deus Ex Machina?

 

[Saquist]

Except when it isn't. Everyone else seems to get it. Sorry you're having so much trouble trying to grasp it. I guess they didn't dumb it down enough for you.

Everyone else is adding their assumptions to the film and everyone else are also fans like you have a personal stake in defending it. As a critic I don't defend I just show the contradictions, the lack of necessary information and the poor development of plots and characters. The movie is already sufficiently dumbed down so that individuals can interpret it just the way they want to.

Abrams had one goal, to bring in money for Paramount. He did that by stylizing Star Trek, flashy, big, explosions simple made to be beaten bad guys and lots of unnecessary or irrelevant scenes that entertained but didn't tell much of a story or rather. And while those scenes were nice touches because of time constraints the necessary parts are sacrificed for the entertainment. This is designed to entertain the masses...not to tell a well thought out story and definitely nothing educational involved.

He well succeed in the Dumb Category.

How do the two quotes contradict each other at all? Mind you (and this is the state of our system today), but for one reason or another, there are over 5,000 PhDs in America that work as janitors. For the vast majority of them, it's because of the poor job market. Some of them may have just become disillusioned with their degrees or wanted a career change and sincerely joined that line of work. Still, it's honest labor, a seemingly simple job, and those janitors just happen to be quite brilliant.

He chose honest labor.
It didn't say he aspired to be more but couldn't because of economic failures. That's the contradiction in character.

We have an individual that is ,for all intents and purposes, portrayed as a thug maniac. Perception matters in story-telling. The prevailing stero-types matter. In stories you don't just show a walmart cashier that knows knows how to calculate quantum physics . There is a story there, don't just leave it to (well it's not literally contradictory) That's LAZY.

When movies or stories display societal norms like Cinderella it's often for comparison of differences. The highly educated are often thinkers, the under educated are workers. Khan was setup as highly intelligent. Nero wasn't set up at all they gave him tattoos and a mining vessel and he was EXTREMELY STUPID...

So yes it's out side belief that this individual who got himself killed because he put a Star Fleet Officer from the Future that had developed an incredible new technology to swallow black holes on a planet within walking distance of a Federation Outpost.

 

[beamMe]

This is designed to entertain the masses...

Yes, it is... since 1966.

 

[Gojira]

Everyone else is adding their assumptions to the film and everyone else are also fans like you have a personal stake in defending it. As a critic I don't defend I just show the contradictions, the lack of necessary information and the poor development of plots and characters. The movie is already sufficiently dumbed down so that individuals can interpret it just the way they want to.

Abrams had one goal, to bring in money for Paramount. He did that by stylizing Star Trek, flashy, big, explosions simple made to be beaten bad guys and lots of unnecessary or irrelevant scenes that entertained but didn't tell much of a story or rather. And while those scenes were nice touches because of time constraints the necessary parts are sacrificed for the entertainment. This is designed to entertain the masses...not to tell a well thought out story and definitely nothing educational involved.

He well succeed in the Dumb Category.

I think the idea that Star Trek is this deep philosophical intellectual franchise is highly overrated. I began watching the original series in the early 1970s when I was 10 and I wouldn't have considered myself an intellectual at the time.

Sure Star Trek (the franchise) does have stories that touch on some timely subjects and there are episodes that appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect.

Star Trek (the franchise) has many layers to it (like an Ogre ) such as good and interesting characters and action, adventure, suspense, drama, comedy, tragedy as well as philosophical debates. But many people who pull out the alleged anti-intellectualism of the Abrams Star Trek movie focus on one aspect of the entire Star Trek Franchise to the exclusion of all other elements of the series. We cognitive therapists call that thinking distortion as a "mental filter" where we myopically focus on one aspect of life or ourselves to the exclusion of all others.

Personally I found Star Trek XI to have no less plot holes than any other Star Trek episode or movie and any alleged plot whole can easily be explained. But I also found within the movie many of the elements that has made the Star Trek franchise the long running success that it is.

 

[beamMe]

I think the idea that Star Trek is this deep philosophical intellectual franchise is highly overrated. I began watching the original series in the early 1970s when I was 10 and I wouldn't have considered myself an intellectual at the time.

I was seven when I saw my first Trek-episode in the mid 80s.
It was as much fun for me then as it is now for my 31-years-old-self to watch that green hand grab the Enterprise...

It's that kind of fun with just enough depth to be interesting on levels that speak to different people and different ages that was missing from Star Trek in the late 90s and the early Naughties...

 

[Cyke101]

How do the two quotes contradict each other at all? Mind you (and this is the state of our system today), but for one reason or another, there are over 5,000 PhDs in America that work as janitors. For the vast majority of them, it's because of the poor job market. Some of them may have just become disillusioned with their degrees or wanted a career change and sincerely joined that line of work. Still, it's honest labor, a seemingly simple job, and those janitors just happen to be quite brilliant.

He chose honest labor.

Correct, and he didn't say he was a simpleton when he said he chose it, either.

It didn't say he aspired to be more but couldn't because of economic failures. That's the contradiction in character.

We have an individual that is ,for all intents and purposes, portrayed as a thug maniac. Perception matters in story-telling. The prevailing stero-types matter. In stories you don't just show a walmart cashier that knows knows how to calculate quantum physics . There is a story there, don't just leave it to (well it's not literally contradictory) That's LAZY.

When movies or stories display societal norms like Cinderella it's often for comparison of differences. The highly educated are often thinkers, the under educated are workers. Khan was setup as highly intelligent. Nero wasn't set up at all they gave him tattoos and a mining vessel and he was EXTREMELY STUPID...

So yes it's out side belief that this individual who got himself killed because he put a Star Fleet Officer from the Future that had developed an incredible new technology to swallow black holes on a planet within walking distance of a Federation Outpost.

Y'know, for a guy who's all up about the importance of perception, I'm getting the feeling that you're not really reading these posts: I didn't say he chose mining because of economic times, I listed economy as reasons for many PhDs of TODAY as an example, and that other PhDs chose that line of work because they ultimately decided to go down that route. There's no contradiction in that. There's nothing that says being educated and being a laborer are mutually exclusive -- in fact, thinking that they *are* mutually exclusive speaks of classism and elitism. There are poets out there that work as cabbies, there are MDs that choose to become fishermen, there are scholars that work in grocery stores (one of whom I know personally), there are inventors that do nothing else but tinker in their basements, and yes, there are physicists who work as janitors. In any case, thinkers that go into labor, whatever they feel their calling is. That's not contradictory, and if anything that just shows how fluid people can be with their lives. There's no contradiction if your goal isn't to feel better or superior to anyone.

 

[Saquist]

I think the idea that Star Trek is this deep philosophical intellectual franchise is highly overrated.

I'm not holding Trek 09' to the measure of Star Trek TOS
And am also not using TOS as a hostage to defend Trek 09. Notice I don't reference former Trek with this.

For all the attempts to write away the former canon so this film can stand on it's own it was mostly not successful. And it wasn't necessary either. It was a peace offering to the fans...a show of attempting to include their perceptions.

This film must be taken on it's own merits. How it developed it's plot and characters, how it used it's time for exposition, how well constructed was it's dialogue. How good was it's acting? It doesn't matter how it rates up against the rest of Trek (Which was often extremely mediocre it's self).

Y'know, for a guy who's all up about the importance of perception, I'm getting the feeling that you're not really reading these posts: I didn't say he chose mining because of economic times,

Then your feelings are wrong.
I know exactly what you said and at no time did I believe that you made such a statement but I did jump on the illustration you provided to make my point.

-- in fact, thinking that they *are* mutually exclusive speaks of classism and elitism.

A standard in media today whether you like it or not.
I don't pretend that it doesn't exist. But that's not the point whether they are exclusive or not it's the proper exposition to explain the seeming conflict.

 

[Devon]

For all the attempts to write away the former canon so this film can stand on it's own it was mostly not successful.

By whose or what standards?

 

[William Wallace]

Even without the deleted scenes we have Ayel saying, "We've arrived at the coordinates you calculated." Therefore the point is still 100% valid.

But how does he calculate this? He's not some sort of time travel expert, he's just a "simple miner". How would he even know where to begin to calculate the exit point from a black-hole-induced time jump? It seems like it should be way over his head.

 

[Devon]

Everyone else is adding their assumptions to the film and everyone else are also fans like you have a personal stake in defending it. As a critic I don't defend I just show the contradictions, the lack of necessary information and the poor development of plots and characters. The movie is already sufficiently dumbed down so that individuals can interpret it just the way they want to.

Abrams had one goal, to bring in money for Paramount. He did that by stylizing Star Trek, flashy, big, explosions simple made to be beaten bad guys and lots of unnecessary or irrelevant scenes that entertained but didn't tell much of a story or rather. And while those scenes were nice touches because of time constraints the necessary parts are sacrificed for the entertainment. This is designed to entertain the masses...not to tell a well thought out story and definitely nothing educational involved.

He well succeed in the Dumb Category.

This sounds like sour grapes and nothing more.

Even without the deleted scenes we have Ayel saying, "We've arrived at the coordinates you calculated." Therefore the point is still 100% valid.

But how does he calculate this? He's not some sort of time travel expert, he's just a "simple miner". How would he even know where to begin to calculate the exit point from a black-hole-induced time jump? It seems like it should be way over his head.

I really hope you're joking after all that's been explained.

 

[Saquist]

This sounds like sour grapes and nothing more.

Non sense, Devon, as an artist I wouldn't have my name on that film for all the money in the world but I wouldn't mind owning the rights Lucas style.

 

[number6]

Right now the only style you seem to own is bitter.

 

[Saquist]

Even without the deleted scenes we have Ayel saying, "We've arrived at the coordinates you calculated." Therefore the point is still 100% valid.

But how does he calculate this? He's not some sort of time travel expert, he's just a "simple miner". How would he even know where to begin to calculate the exit point from a black-hole-induced time jump? It seems like it should be way over his head.

They are all miners.
It's okay to have Nero as an amateur historian that knows something of the infamous Captain Kirk...
But it's quite another to insist that he JUST HAPPENS to have the know how to calcuate temporal apatures for a signularity made by a substance that's just come on to the scene. It's DEUS EX all the way.

Right now the only style you seem to own is bitter.

Or it's you that's bitter because you don't like someone cutting down something that you like. That's standard fan reaction.

You can like the movie for it's entertainement value but it's fluff. It's blindingly ignorant. "Supernova that threatens the entire Galaxy" ignorant. You endorse it. I get it.

The plot hoels maybe subtle but they are there.
The character inbalance is there
will alone won't make them disappear.
And I won't accept anything other than the strict definition of plot hole as a standard.

 

[number6]

You're blindingly ignorant. We all get that.

 

[Saquist]

Most significant part of the definition ignored is:

*Characters ignoring or avoiding obvious solutions to their problems, provided those solutions are obvious to the characters, and not just the viewers.

Nero dropping a character off at the door of Star Fleet to defeat him later.

*An event occurring that, given other details present in the work, is not possible.

Supernova's that destroy the Galaxy.
At this point it's either Fantasy or Sci Fi...this is either a massive plot hole for the sci fi factor or the story is utter fantasy.

a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,

Nero ignoring the opportunity to save his family: The cause of his rage.

This story is blindingly ignorant.
It makes only the most cursory of attempt to cover over these inconsistencies if at all.

 

[M'Sharak]

Okay, enough. Too many people getting too personal.

It should be possible to keep topic separate from poster, and to carry on civil discussion without condescension, without insulting dismissiveness and without namecalling. It's up to you guys to make it happen.

 

[beamMe]

At this point it's either Fantasy or Sci Fi...this is either a massive plot hole for the sci fi factor or the story is utter fantasy.

Well, since Science Fiction is a sub-genre of Fantasy I can't see your problem.