The Glaring Plot Hole of TWOK

[fireproof78]

Once again, there could be twenty planets in the system. Finding the debris of a destroyed one, and the next one over seems to match the one they expect to find? That's not a deal breaker.

Reliant's crew is already long since bored with their mission. That's plain from Chekov's initial log entry. Finding a planet that matches the potentially minimal specs of a century old mapping mission, in a similar orbit to the one they expect it in? Mission protocols demand they check it out anyway. It's probably the one they want.

I find that hard to believe that they would just be like "shrug, close enough." The dialog is explicit that they thought it was Ceti Alpha 6. Now, I'm not physicist, but I believe that if a planet exploded some measure of observation would be able to inform these supposed scientists that such an event occurred. The lack of any due diligence is painful. I've been bored at my job. I can still count.

 

[DonIago]

Given the minimal amount of time that the Reliant crew has to make an impression before events kick into high gear, I was impressed that the tedium of their mission and their exhaustion with it comes through so strongly. Chekov's log is already mentioned, but also the first shots of Terrell, to me, show a captain who'd rather be pretty much anywhere than where he is.

Apparently a line cut from the film would have made it explicit that CA6 was the 16th planet they'd investigated.

Yes, they made mistakes (and paid for them), but under the circumstances I can kind of understand how they'd become desperate to just find a planet that met the requirements and move on.

Again, I believe the novelization does include a couple of lines that note that what Reliant finds isn't exactly what they expected to find, but that the anomalous data is listed as being from an old probe (not sure whether that means an actual probe, or whether the Enterprise having been there before counts as a probe), and the crew don't give a crap because they're expecting to find a desert planet that might work for Genesis, and lo and behold they find a desert planet that might work for Genesis.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, that there was a missing planet would have been evident. One of their planets was missing. The idea that the computers couldn't readily determine that it could well have been Ceti Alpha VI that blew up is too far-fetched to excuse the canonical events as anything but contrived. The scenario I presented upthread does not repair that problem; it shows only that it's conceivable that Ceti Alpha V could have assumed the orbital parameters compatible with what Ceti Alpha VI would have had without the interference of an unknown gravitating body, had Ceti Alpha V spontaneously blown up. That the Reliant crew would lazily accept the vanishing of a planet and treat it as no big deal is crazy dumb.

 

[Warped9]

One can excuse/rationalize one or two logic flaws for the sake of story. But when you have a whole raft of them it gets problematical.

 

[David cgc]

It seems relatively well-known in "Space Seed," Spock doesn't have to look it up when Kirk mentions it. If the Federation has visited a system, surely one of the first orders of business would be to chart orbits.

That doesn't tell us much. Spock didn't have to look up a random comet in the RNZ in "Balance of Terror," either.

 

[J.T.B.]

So I've always taken what is said in the movie at face value, the obit changed enough for the Reliant crew to make a mistake and they likely made that mistake becuase they were in a system that had not been exactly mapped.

IF the system had been poorly mapped, and IF the orbital shift moved CA5 into a position where it could be reasonably mistaken for CA6, and IF the crew didn't notice a missing planet or debris where none had been before, and IF they didn't double-check the information they had on the planet they were surveying... then yes it's perfectly explainable. But if the movie had done a good job of explaining it people wouldn't be asking these questions for the last 40 years.

So complaining about that in an otherwise great film makes little sense. It is finding a problem where there isn't one.

I don't find it to be a great film. I really liked it when it came out, but I was 12. It's OK, but it has some dumb things in it and hasn't aged that well.

Reliant's crew is already long since bored with their mission.

Yes, they made mistakes (and paid for them), but under the circumstances I can kind of understand how they'd become desperate to just find a planet that met the requirements and move on.

That's basically arguing that Terrell was not a good captain and had a not-too-good crew. If a job's worth doing it's worth doing right. Their little mistake, fudge, oversight, whatever, got people killed.

 

[yotsuya]

IF the system had been poorly mapped, and IF the orbital shift moved CA5 into a position where it could be reasonably mistaken for CA6, and IF the crew didn't notice a missing planet or debris where none had been before, and IF they didn't double-check the information they had on the planet they were surveying... then yes it's perfectly explainable. But if the movie had done a good job of explaining it people wouldn't be asking these questions for the last 40 years.

Movies aren't in the habit of explaining every tiny detail. Movies gloss over stuff that isn't important to move the story forward. Going into detail about how the planets shifted and why Reliant didn't notice the mistake is not important to the story. That's the sort of think you put in the novelization, but not in the movie itself. All movies do it. You seem to think that all these things are very big ifs. I think it would be more surprising if the scenario you seem to think should exist was the case. The whole premise of TOS was exploring the unknown. So these systems they were visiting may have been mapped by a scout ship, but were not investigated thoroughly. They took a snapshot and moved on. You can't get the kind of detail you are expecting in a snapshot. You are expecting too much both from the movie and from the level of technology displayed in TOS. There are practical considerations to mapping the planets in a system. The size of the planet, the shape of its orbit. A lot of these things can be quickly guessed from the general positions (a Star Trek ship cold warp across the system and detect the planet positions at that time). But deterimining accurate orbits would take months if not years of research. I don't see Starfleet wasting resources to do that unless there is a reason, such as potential colonization. So you can look at it the way you want and see a plot hole, but the way I look at it it fits with TOS and needs not further explanation to enjoy the movie.

I don't find it to be a great film. I really liked it when it came out, but I was 12. It's OK, but it has some dumb things in it and hasn't aged that well.

For you maybe, but that puts you in a minority of Star Trek fans. Most of us think it is the best Star Trek ever made. I think it has aged quite well. The base story is timeless. It is a masterpiece of film making and especially of Star Trek. ILM at its finest. The birth of Pixar. Ricardo Montalban's greatest performance. Spock's epic self sacrifice and death. I think the 30 second addition of Peter Preston's relationship makes the Director's cut the better choice, but both are equally well done.

 

[Warped9]

People have long accused TMP of having no energy, no emotion. TWOK is almost all energy and emotion with little brains—that sums up most action movies.

 

[fireproof78]

I also do not think it is the best and has been overhyped to the point that it weighs the film down under its supposed greatness.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Most of us think it is the best Star Trek ever made.

Most of who? The people on this BBS? It's difficult to say with 100% certainty, because all polls here are opt-in and non-scientific. But based on conversations with board members, it really is quite doubtful. Most BBS members do not rank TOS as the best of the franchise. So, you have movies from the TNG era garnering a lot of support. There are a lot of nuTrek fans here on the BBS, also. Then you add in the TOS fans who don't rank TWOK the highest, and it's not hard to see just how doubtful it is that TWOK gets picked as #1. Like, take me, I think TMP is #1, but I know that I am in the minority.

But sure, you can "no true Scotsman" your Star Trek fans, if that's what you want. You can slice up fandom to reduce to that part that prefers TWOK and claim to be speaking for them. But you're really not speaking for all us.

 

[Warped9]

In a totally non-scientific manner it’s fair to say TWOK is probably seen as the most favourably viewed film overall in the Trek franchise. It’s not hard to see why as it has a decent share of character moments, tension, drama, energy and good pacing, a good dose of action and decent fx. It checks off a lot boxes that help gloss over a lot of logic flaws. It establishes a template that pretty much all subsequent Trek films have tried to emulate in varying degree—the template to just do more of the same in maybe slightly different ways.

I doubt there is such a thing as the perfect or flawless film or television episode. It would certainly be a rarity. Certainly even the very best TOS episodes can have niggling flaws that don’t add up, but also are not blatant enough as to ruin an otherwise solid outing.

Many if not most respond to a film on an emotional level—that it checks off the boxes that matter to them. But, of course, Star Trek has long been held to a somewhat higher standard than something like Star Wars so that when something, or a lot of somethings, doesn’t add up a fair portion of the fanbase can fairly critique it as maybe not being as great as it’s held up to be.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

We're not going to be able to answer this question of how many angels can dance on the head of this pin.

But, anyway, it's irrelevant to the discussion. How well liked a film is can't fill a plot hole. It can only make you not care that it's there.

 

[fireproof78]

We're not going to be able to answer this question of how many angels can dance on the head of this pin.

But, anyway, it's irrelevant to the discussion. How well liked a film is can't fill a plot hole. It can only make you not care that it's there.

Exactly. That I see this plot hole doesn't take away from a well done film. I may not rate it as the best but it certainly is artfully constructed.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

By the way, there's a thread going in General Trek about what film you like to rewatch.

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/what-star-trek-movie-do-you-like-rewatching-the-most.308621/unread

 

[Pauln6]

TWoK is my favourite because of its heart, the fabulous score, and Spock's death, but yeah the plot holes grate more as you get older. If they have no warp speed then the Mutara Nebula must be in the regula system, and would be a ring of gas shepherded by the Star and planets unless the chase is really as long as the chase in the Last Jedi, further out than the goldilocks zone. Even if Genesis can create a planet, that won't matter if it's too far out to support life. it doesn't seem probable that a sun could be created too.

Empire Strikes Back has similar issues.

TMP for all its faults, stands up much better as a piece of sci fi.

 

[fireproof78]

TWOK rides chiefly on the strengths of its characters.

TMP largely works within the bigger concepts, not necessarily the characters.

 

[Warped9]

I have long thought TMP and TWOK as two opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[DonIago]

^Indeed, between the two of them you get a very good sampling of the types of things Trek can be, and perhaps the best Treks are the ones that successfully marry the strengths of the characters with the bigger concepts.

 

[oldtrekkie]

I've never met anyone who couldn't do the Vulcan salute, yet somehow neither McCoy nor Cochrane could do it... Maybe they're related.

 

[dupersuper]

I've never met anyone who couldn't do the Vulcan salute, yet somehow neither McCoy nor Cochrane could do it... Maybe they're related.

The actress who played T'Pau couldn't do it.