What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device(s)

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Data's head! Sometimes it works without a body attached to it, sometimes it doesn't... Make up your freaking mind, already!

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Uses subspace to transport over great distances. How exactly is that different from what we see in the Abrams films?

The average range of a transporter is 40,000 km. They use the Enterprise transporter to send someone three-hundred billion km.

It is done in the Prime timeline (two different species have the tech) and everyone is okay with it never being mentioned again. It gets done in an Abrams movie and somehow it is a universe breaker.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

In DS9's Covenant they transport Kira over a distance of three light years, that's thirty thousand billion kilometers. About a hundred times the greatest distance you quoted.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

So transwarp beaming in the Abrams films isn't the universe breaking invention some claim it to be?

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

It would seem so.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

That's your strawman, you answer it.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

I'm not part of the cadre of fans that believe that Star Trek is over because of transwarp beaming.

Thanks for playing though.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

I don't see how that's a strawman. In each case in the Prime universe that long-distance beaming takes place, it's always perceived as some sort of technological wonder, which it is. Whether it's transwarp beaming or not, it's still the same thing, just under a different name.

Like how black holes and quantum singularities are the same thing in the franchise.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

The most unbelievable one for me is the sheer amount of sensor shielding rock/ore/minerals on that many planets throughout every series. I mean really, the good, and bad, geological luck those away teams had is astounding

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

There is no solid canonical evidence to say that "subspace beaming" and "transwarp beaming" are not the same thing. They could plausibly be the same thing. That's the assumption of our esteemed Christopher, veteran Star Trek novelist.

Take, for example, what his recent novella The Collectors says. (warning: his annotations site contains numerous spoilers)
http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/DTICollectors_Annot.html#Ch4

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

So anyone that doesn't like nuTrek believes that? The intolerance nuTrek fanboys have towards criticism while turning around and unabashedly shitting on whatever "classic" trek they don't like paints them as hypocrites. Thin skin anyone? And you assume everyone knows every trivial thing about everything trek. The tng episode Bloodlines is largely forgettable to be honest. Do you like it? That's what I thought. But it's useful for your particular argument, right?

Just because it's a TNG episode doesn't mean it's universally adored by anyone who isn't a nutrek fanboy. So there was a forgettable plot device involving some beaming magic, one which could have been written differently and not made a lick of difference. It wasn't in your face, nutrek style, nor was it alongside other contrivances.

Thanks for playing though.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Beaming hundreds of light years using a device that Scotty could hold in his arms? Yes, that is "universe breaking" to a absurd degree. Much like the movie that it was in.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Who said it was hundreds of light years?

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

The Voyager episode "Prime Factors" has an alien tech which beams Harry Kim 40,000 light years.

So, basically, it's okay except for when it happens in the new movies

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

There are tons of good examples in this thread, without which a lot of good episodes would have to be entirely different.

How about this: the Enterprise, or the spin-off protagonists ship, is never the first to encounter a devastating opponent. The first get killed. Original Series examples:

Where No Man has Gone Before
Charlie X
The Naked Time
Balance of Terror
The Omega Glory
The Doomsday Machine
The Immunity Syndrome
The Tholian Web
And the Children Shall Pump Their Fists

When you get there second, and everyone who got there first is dead, it's a pretty sure sign something's up.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Which was the first one in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

The SS Valiant, whose recorder-marker they find early in the episode.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

So then it truly wasn't 'Where No Man Has Gone Before", more like where no man has gone before and returned alive.

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

 

Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device

Nope. But some do and use transwarp beaming as an argument against the Abrams films.

Whose intolerant or shitting on anything? Seems more like people get mad when the Prime series get called out for doing things the Abrams films do. If transwarp beaming breaks the Abramsverse, isn't it fair to say the same thing if it happens in the Prime series/movies?

If you're going to claim to be a fan and complain about something being universe breaking, you may want to make sure that it is actually unique to the film you're complaining about.