What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device(s)
- Thread starter enterprisecvn65
- Start date
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
For this thread my answer is underground caverns. Massively overused. I'm guessing they did it because it's much easier to paint some blocks of foam and plywood brown instead of creating an outdoor environment. Unfortunately it looks exactly like a foam and plaster set too.
And a very well-lit one at that. Not just the tunnels but the people's faces too, somehow. Contributes even more to the fake look. Star trek had a LOT of horrible, incredibly fake sets and lighting IMO (and lots of other stuff too like camera work and directing). I guess there's a reason it never won any awards (don't mention the one or two - not significant) - not that winning awards means something is good.
For this thread my answer is underground caverns. Massively overused. I'm guessing they did it because it's much easier to paint some blocks of foam and plywood brown instead of creating an outdoor environment. Unfortunately it looks exactly like a foam and plaster set too.
And a very well-lit one at that. Not just the tunnels but the people's faces too, somehow. Contributes even more to the fake look. Star trek had a LOT of horrible, incredibly fake sets and lighting IMO (and lots of other stuff too like camera work and directing). I guess there's a reason it never won any awards (don't mention the one or two - not significant) - not that winning awards means something is good.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
I hate them, but not the people that enjoy them. I'm happy if anyone likes them and telling someone they're a fan or not is assinine. They just aren't for me.
And truthfully, IMO, of the unbelievable things in the '09 movie, the transwarp beaming is probably around number 10 on the countdown.
I hate them, but not the people that enjoy them. I'm happy if anyone likes them and telling someone they're a fan or not is assinine. They just aren't for me.
And truthfully, IMO, of the unbelievable things in the '09 movie, the transwarp beaming is probably around number 10 on the countdown.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Yes, that's the main problem about those caves, they have sources of light in them, otherwise it would be completely dark and they would need to carry lighting devices, which they never do.
For this thread my answer is underground caverns. Massively overused. I'm guessing they did it because it's much easier to paint some blocks of foam and plywood brown instead of creating an outdoor environment. Unfortunately it looks exactly like a foam and plaster set too.
Yes, that's the main problem about those caves, they have sources of light in them, otherwise it would be completely dark and they would need to carry lighting devices, which they never do.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
My answer for this thread topic is in the slightly unbelievable category:
When (usually) Kirk accepts a fancy clipboard from a yeoman, glances at It, and signs it with what appears to be a (space) pen.
I dunno, but it just doesn't feel right -surrounded by all that futuretech - that things would be signed by hand. And if so, why didn't we see the Subspace Mail Room, where they scan and transwarp beam the paperwork to Start Fleet. Didn't see that room on the blueprints.
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
My answer for this thread topic is in the slightly unbelievable category:
When (usually) Kirk accepts a fancy clipboard from a yeoman, glances at It, and signs it with what appears to be a (space) pen.
I dunno, but it just doesn't feel right -surrounded by all that futuretech - that things would be signed by hand. And if so, why didn't we see the Subspace Mail Room, where they scan and transwarp beam the paperwork to Start Fleet. Didn't see that room on the blueprints.
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
They needed better consultants on the show - people who actually knew anything about technology. The original series was still mentioning tapes!
In ST you get the occasional good idea for future technology but overall you can tell it's just that the writers have little knowledge or intelligence or imagination in that area - i.e. are English majors.
They needed better consultants on the show - people who actually knew anything about technology. The original series was still mentioning tapes!
In ST you get the occasional good idea for future technology but overall you can tell it's just that the writers have little knowledge or intelligence or imagination in that area - i.e. are English majors.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Personally I don't hate them, hate is too precious an emotion to be wasted on something as trivial as a film (Unless we're talking about the Star Wars prequels)
But to me they're pretty much the same as most sci-fi/action films these days. Self indulgent, special effects top heavy, little story or character development, crap.
I truly believe that if you took these films and kept basically everything the same about them, except they were some new franchise of sci-fi film and not "Star Trek", they would have not been very successful. Of course I could be wrong I mean if you combine the Transformers and the Fast and Furious franchises we're up to what.....12 total films now.
I think it was ridiculous that Abrahams decided to reset the entire time line so he could basically do anything he wanted and say "See it's totally realistic because one Federation ship encountered a Romulan ship and it totally changed everything in history."......Seriously.
If Abe Lincoln weren't shot, yeah some history would be different, but I pretty sure WWI would have still started the same, Hitler would have rose to power WWII would have been the same, JFK would have been assassinated, we would have walked on the moon, the Challenger and Columbia accidents would have happened, 9/11 would have happened this crazy shit with IS would be going on. One event changing is not going to change EVERYTHING in history, let alone a random encounter between 2 ships.
But in nutrek one event basically says, HEY now everything in the universe can be different!!!!!! He had basically 10-15 years of backstory to work with before TOS started, sure some things had to be changed and updated for modern movies. But he was so challenged to create something from that past that he had to start over from scratch? And then in only the second film in he decides to bring in the most popular villian in ST history???
The films are weak, the reboot premise is pathetic and they just are mediocre grade sci-fi with "Star Trek" slapped on it.
Personally I don't hate them, hate is too precious an emotion to be wasted on something as trivial as a film (Unless we're talking about the Star Wars prequels)
But to me they're pretty much the same as most sci-fi/action films these days. Self indulgent, special effects top heavy, little story or character development, crap.
I truly believe that if you took these films and kept basically everything the same about them, except they were some new franchise of sci-fi film and not "Star Trek", they would have not been very successful. Of course I could be wrong I mean if you combine the Transformers and the Fast and Furious franchises we're up to what.....12 total films now.
I think it was ridiculous that Abrahams decided to reset the entire time line so he could basically do anything he wanted and say "See it's totally realistic because one Federation ship encountered a Romulan ship and it totally changed everything in history."......Seriously.
If Abe Lincoln weren't shot, yeah some history would be different, but I pretty sure WWI would have still started the same, Hitler would have rose to power WWII would have been the same, JFK would have been assassinated, we would have walked on the moon, the Challenger and Columbia accidents would have happened, 9/11 would have happened this crazy shit with IS would be going on. One event changing is not going to change EVERYTHING in history, let alone a random encounter between 2 ships.
But in nutrek one event basically says, HEY now everything in the universe can be different!!!!!! He had basically 10-15 years of backstory to work with before TOS started, sure some things had to be changed and updated for modern movies. But he was so challenged to create something from that past that he had to start over from scratch? And then in only the second film in he decides to bring in the most popular villian in ST history???
The films are weak, the reboot premise is pathetic and they just are mediocre grade sci-fi with "Star Trek" slapped on it.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Hey, Beckler and welcome to the Forum. Overall, I think you will find all the iterations of ST had some pretty competent people "aboard". In this instance, however, it just did not sit right with me. Enjoy the "ship" but do not be late for duty!
They needed better consultants on the show - people who actually knew anything about technology. The original series was still mentioning tapes!
In ST you get the occasional good idea for future technology but overall you can tell it's just that the writers have little knowledge or intelligence or imagination in that area - i.e. are English majors.
Hey, Beckler and welcome to the Forum. Overall, I think you will find all the iterations of ST had some pretty competent people "aboard". In this instance, however, it just did not sit right with me. Enjoy the "ship" but do not be late for duty!
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
That's why getting a Russian in orbit costs like a hundredth of the sum it takes for an American...
My answer for this thread topic is in the slightly unbelievable category:
When (usually) Kirk accepts a fancy clipboard from a yeoman, glances at It, and signs it with what appears to be a (space) pen.
I dunno, but it just doesn't feel right -surrounded by all that futuretech - that things would be signed by hand. And if so, why didn't we see the Subspace Mail Room, where they scan and transwarp beam the paperwork to Start Fleet. Didn't see that room on the blueprints.
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
That's why getting a Russian in orbit costs like a hundredth of the sum it takes for an American...
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Also, that's a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
Also, that's a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Yeah, it's not like the American spacial program costs many times more than the Russian's for basically the same results, is it?
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
Also, that's a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Yeah, it's not like the American spacial program costs many times more than the Russian's for basically the same results, is it?
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Yeah America has fallen in love with "Gotta have the shiniest and best" Bullshit since the 70's and it's really starting to bite us in the ass in some major places now because of the cost.
We didn't want to use standard rockets anymore because it was expensive and a waste to only use them once. So we came up with the space shuttle a reusable vehicle that would be much cheaper.
Only it turns out it wasn't. The shuttle was expensive as hell because it was so complex, NASA fed us this line "Well as the program progresses the costs will come down" Which never happened.
Plus the thing was so complex and poorly designed in some ways we lost 40% of the shuttles built (not counting the never in space Enterprise) and 14 lives. And if you do some serious reading into it NASA was damn lucky all 5 weren't destroyed because many missions had an incident where disaster was avoided by the narrowest of margins. The only real benefit of the shuttle was it's carrying capacity which IMHO wasn't enough to cover the cost in $ and lives.
The Saturn V was a far superior craft and no astronaut, of any country, that has ever died did so because a conventional rocket blew up on take off or reentry. Hell the Saturn was so strong that Apollo 13 had a large part of it blown away and it survived. The Challenger was lost because of a commonly used rubber ring and the Columbia because it was so fragile that a piece of foam hitting it at high speed knocked a big hole in it's carbon skin.
Shuttle defenders can get as mad as they want but the truth is before the Space Shuttle America had never lost an astronaut during an actual mission, and we were using some pretty primitive rockets for a while. By the time the program ended we had lost 14 people and 2 ships that costs billions. But hey, we had to have the newest toy, couldn't just keep using expendable rockets.
The military is the same way. Literally 4 hours ago I read an article that they estimate China has passed us in # of subs in their fleet. Why? Because we couldn't be content with improving the Los Angeles class subs. We had to build Seawolf, which was top of the line but cost a shit load so there were only 3 built. They down scaled to a cheaper nuclear sub but still way more expensive than quality diesel electric subs that are far cheaper and can be produced in large #'s. The Navy defends this by saying....yeah but ours are better. Uh don't care when you're outnumbered 5 to 1 I don't think the quality is going so save you.
Same thing with carriers. Nimitz class are the most powerful warships afloat, no other country is close. Nope gotta develop a new class the Gerald R. Ford.....for a cool $15 billion (The last straight Nimitz class ship, George Washington, cost $5 billion.) For comparison a 1960's era conventional powered super carrier, which when you get down to the bottom line has pretty much the same destructive force as a Ford does, although it's not as sophisticated and not nuclear powered...cost about 1.5 billion in today's $ to build.
I don't give a shit how great the Ford class is. I'm positive that if you put 1 of it up against 10 conventional super carriers modernized to carry current aircraft (which they were doing when they were retired) you'd have the most expensive shipwreck ever on the ocean floor in short order.
The US military better get over this 1 of the top of the line is better than 10 less capable, but still very good, weapons soon...numbers do matter, not just having the shiniest and best.
My answer for this thread topic is in the slightly unbelievable category:
When (usually) Kirk accepts a fancy clipboard from a yeoman, glances at It, and signs it with what appears to be a (space) pen.
I dunno, but it just doesn't feel right -surrounded by all that futuretech - that things would be signed by hand. And if so, why didn't we see the Subspace Mail Room, where they scan and transwarp beam the paperwork to Start Fleet. Didn't see that room on the blueprints.
We invent a pen that writes in space, that costs multiple thousands of dollars to develop. The Russians use a pencil.
That's why getting a Russian in orbit costs like a hundredth of the sum it takes for an American...
Yeah America has fallen in love with "Gotta have the shiniest and best" Bullshit since the 70's and it's really starting to bite us in the ass in some major places now because of the cost.
We didn't want to use standard rockets anymore because it was expensive and a waste to only use them once. So we came up with the space shuttle a reusable vehicle that would be much cheaper.
Only it turns out it wasn't. The shuttle was expensive as hell because it was so complex, NASA fed us this line "Well as the program progresses the costs will come down" Which never happened.
Plus the thing was so complex and poorly designed in some ways we lost 40% of the shuttles built (not counting the never in space Enterprise) and 14 lives. And if you do some serious reading into it NASA was damn lucky all 5 weren't destroyed because many missions had an incident where disaster was avoided by the narrowest of margins. The only real benefit of the shuttle was it's carrying capacity which IMHO wasn't enough to cover the cost in $ and lives.
The Saturn V was a far superior craft and no astronaut, of any country, that has ever died did so because a conventional rocket blew up on take off or reentry. Hell the Saturn was so strong that Apollo 13 had a large part of it blown away and it survived. The Challenger was lost because of a commonly used rubber ring and the Columbia because it was so fragile that a piece of foam hitting it at high speed knocked a big hole in it's carbon skin.
Shuttle defenders can get as mad as they want but the truth is before the Space Shuttle America had never lost an astronaut during an actual mission, and we were using some pretty primitive rockets for a while. By the time the program ended we had lost 14 people and 2 ships that costs billions. But hey, we had to have the newest toy, couldn't just keep using expendable rockets.
The military is the same way. Literally 4 hours ago I read an article that they estimate China has passed us in # of subs in their fleet. Why? Because we couldn't be content with improving the Los Angeles class subs. We had to build Seawolf, which was top of the line but cost a shit load so there were only 3 built. They down scaled to a cheaper nuclear sub but still way more expensive than quality diesel electric subs that are far cheaper and can be produced in large #'s. The Navy defends this by saying....yeah but ours are better. Uh don't care when you're outnumbered 5 to 1 I don't think the quality is going so save you.
Same thing with carriers. Nimitz class are the most powerful warships afloat, no other country is close. Nope gotta develop a new class the Gerald R. Ford.....for a cool $15 billion (The last straight Nimitz class ship, George Washington, cost $5 billion.) For comparison a 1960's era conventional powered super carrier, which when you get down to the bottom line has pretty much the same destructive force as a Ford does, although it's not as sophisticated and not nuclear powered...cost about 1.5 billion in today's $ to build.
I don't give a shit how great the Ford class is. I'm positive that if you put 1 of it up against 10 conventional super carriers modernized to carry current aircraft (which they were doing when they were retired) you'd have the most expensive shipwreck ever on the ocean floor in short order.
The US military better get over this 1 of the top of the line is better than 10 less capable, but still very good, weapons soon...numbers do matter, not just having the shiniest and best.
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
I hope you mean the #'s are sad and not me
I hope you mean the #'s are sad and not me
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
It's the same crap that happened with the M-16. The military couldn't be content to take the AK-47 design, maybe improve it some and make it the standard issue. God forbid we use some "Commie design" even if it was excellent.
Instead they had to design the most expensive fancy rifle they could. Unfortunately "fancy" often fails in combat and the M-16 was a disaster for much of the Vietnam War and got its ass totally kicked by the AK which is still the most popular assault rifle in the world today despite being nearly 50 years old.
A guy I knew from Vietnam told it like this. You could take an AK-47 put it underwater, jump on it a few times, throw it into a box of sand and mud, shake it around, let sit a day and when you put in a clip there's a 90% it would fire.
On the other hand he said 50% of the M-16's wouldn't even make it to the box because the water and jumping would break them and of the 50% that came out of the box about 10% of them would fire immediately.
The military always tried to argue that the M-16 issues were negated by the fact it was "more accurate and carried a lighter round so soldiers could carry more ammo" Than the AK-47.
Talk to guys who served in Vietnam and ask them their opinion of the two weapons.......I'm fairly certain most of the responses will be along the lines of "The M-16 was a POS that cost a lot of soldiers their lives. Would have traded it for an AK in a second."
It's the same crap that happened with the M-16. The military couldn't be content to take the AK-47 design, maybe improve it some and make it the standard issue. God forbid we use some "Commie design" even if it was excellent.
Instead they had to design the most expensive fancy rifle they could. Unfortunately "fancy" often fails in combat and the M-16 was a disaster for much of the Vietnam War and got its ass totally kicked by the AK which is still the most popular assault rifle in the world today despite being nearly 50 years old.
A guy I knew from Vietnam told it like this. You could take an AK-47 put it underwater, jump on it a few times, throw it into a box of sand and mud, shake it around, let sit a day and when you put in a clip there's a 90% it would fire.
On the other hand he said 50% of the M-16's wouldn't even make it to the box because the water and jumping would break them and of the 50% that came out of the box about 10% of them would fire immediately.
The military always tried to argue that the M-16 issues were negated by the fact it was "more accurate and carried a lighter round so soldiers could carry more ammo" Than the AK-47.
Talk to guys who served in Vietnam and ask them their opinion of the two weapons.......I'm fairly certain most of the responses will be along the lines of "The M-16 was a POS that cost a lot of soldiers their lives. Would have traded it for an AK in a second."
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
Stepping back into fiction for a moment, isn't that what hapened with the Dominion War?
Starfleet had a proven ship with the Defiant, but instead of creating a large dedicated fleet, they still focused on creating advanced ships like Enterprise E, and the Prometheus.
The problem was, both seemed to be single prototypes, with no other ships being produced. And the Akiras, Steamrunners etc, were made in very limited numbers.
The Mirandas and Excelsiors may not have been upgraded and just thrown into the war, but that just wouldn't make much sense.
Stepping back into fiction for a moment, isn't that what hapened with the Dominion War?
Starfleet had a proven ship with the Defiant, but instead of creating a large dedicated fleet, they still focused on creating advanced ships like Enterprise E, and the Prometheus.
The problem was, both seemed to be single prototypes, with no other ships being produced. And the Akiras, Steamrunners etc, were made in very limited numbers.
The Mirandas and Excelsiors may not have been upgraded and just thrown into the war, but that just wouldn't make much sense.
Another irony from the DS9:
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
There are some parallels Americas military could learn from that. The cardassian/federation weapon is a direct parallel of Vietnam. In a climate controlled range the M-16 was great. In actual combat it jammed, broke, shots blew up in the chamber and had to be cleaned constantly to keep it in working order. The M1 rifle was called the "war winner " in WWII because it was cheap effective reliable and could be made in large numbers.
Of the Vietnam veterans I've talked to the highest praise I've heard was "it wasn't always as bad as it was portrayed " not exactly a ringing endorsement. More often I hear how worthless it was and one vet said he's convinced the M16 killed more Anerican troops than the AK 47 did.
If we got into a conventional war with China someday we might find out our fancy weapons that were too expensive to produce in large numbers might be in for a surprise.
There are some parallels Americas military could learn from that. The cardassian/federation weapon is a direct parallel of Vietnam. In a climate controlled range the M-16 was great. In actual combat it jammed, broke, shots blew up in the chamber and had to be cleaned constantly to keep it in working order. The M1 rifle was called the "war winner " in WWII because it was cheap effective reliable and could be made in large numbers.
Of the Vietnam veterans I've talked to the highest praise I've heard was "it wasn't always as bad as it was portrayed " not exactly a ringing endorsement. More often I hear how worthless it was and one vet said he's convinced the M16 killed more Anerican troops than the AK 47 did.
If we got into a conventional war with China someday we might find out our fancy weapons that were too expensive to produce in large numbers might be in for a surprise.
Last edited:
Re: What is/are the worst or most unbelievable plot convenience device
You're equating two different things as the same. And then mixing timelines and standard time in the original universe.
Voyager takes place about a hundred years before the TOS timeline, which JJ RebootTrek is supposed to be an alternate timeline of.
It's an alien technology, not a Federation technology. We have no idea how old the technology is; just because it is in use and advanced, doesn't necessarily mean it's old.
We actually don't know exactly how it worls; we assume it's a form of beaming.
The problem is we are talking an alternate timeline universe that's so much more advanced, for no apparent reason, than the TOS timeline, that you can beam great distances with, as one user put it, something Scotty can hold in his hands. Look at the side of the JJ Enterprise engine room. Look at the friggin' girth of the warp nacelles. They can't even power the ship or go to warp with anything that could be remotely held in your hands, but somehow a small magical McGuffin device can achieve what are far beyond simple suspecion of disbelief, it's more like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
This would be like Abraham Lincoln showing the alternate timeline of the Civil War only this time they have tanks, airplanes, and a small magical device that can allow then to cross the country in a day.
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
You're equating two different things as the same. And then mixing timelines and standard time in the original universe.
Voyager takes place about a hundred years before the TOS timeline, which JJ RebootTrek is supposed to be an alternate timeline of.
It's an alien technology, not a Federation technology. We have no idea how old the technology is; just because it is in use and advanced, doesn't necessarily mean it's old.
We actually don't know exactly how it worls; we assume it's a form of beaming.
The problem is we are talking an alternate timeline universe that's so much more advanced, for no apparent reason, than the TOS timeline, that you can beam great distances with, as one user put it, something Scotty can hold in his hands. Look at the side of the JJ Enterprise engine room. Look at the friggin' girth of the warp nacelles. They can't even power the ship or go to warp with anything that could be remotely held in your hands, but somehow a small magical McGuffin device can achieve what are far beyond simple suspecion of disbelief, it's more like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
This would be like Abraham Lincoln showing the alternate timeline of the Civil War only this time they have tanks, airplanes, and a small magical device that can allow then to cross the country in a day.
