When there's a plothole, do you ignore it?

[johnar]

I think we're using slightly different definitions of "plot holes." To my mind, a continuity error is different from a plot hole, which is some sort of glitch in the plot of an individual story. Like: "Wait a second, if her car was stolen was in Act One, how did she manage to drive herself home?" Or: "Wait a second, if he already knows who the double agent is, why is he meeting him alone with no backup?"

Well the most glaring pot hole to my mind (and definition heh heh) is the Bird of Prey. In TOS Errand of Mercy Stiles clearly stated it was THE way to identify a Romulan ship the bird of prey painted on its underside. STAR TREK II suddenly it was a Klingon Bird of prey and in TNG the Romulans flew Warbirds.

But I love Trek, it's just TV shows or Movies, I am thoroughly entertained. I don't have a problem with things like this, I just wish it were on TV or in movies more. {SMILE}

 

[johnar]

Oh one more, can't resist... with the understanding that I am okay wit these oochies in the over all genius that is the cultural icon that is Trek...
The Borg Queen. It's their show and they are entitled to do with it what they will. But I wish they found some other way around the story line difficulties than assigning a singular head to the otherwise perfect collective. How that would be accomplishd I am sure I don't know. But they are the geniuses not me.

 

[FormerLurker]

THE way to identify a Romulan ship (is) the bird of prey painted on its underside

This is the bugaboo that gets me. Stiles never said it was what the ships were called. He said it was how they were decorated. Yet ever since, fans have called Romulan ships "Birds of Prey" to the point that the ship in SFS was called a Bird of Prey from when it was a Romulan ship, through when it was a Romulan ship the Klingons stole, all the way to the finished film, when it became a Klingon Bird of Prey, pissing off a majority of fans. But they should never have been pissed off. It's their own fault they think the Bird of Prey is a Romulan ship. It was never called that in Balance of Terror.

 

[johnar]

This is the bugaboo that gets me. Stiles never said it was what the ships were called. He said it was how they were decorated. Yet ever since, fans have called Romulan ships "Birds of Prey" to the point that the ship in SFS was called a Bird of Prey from when it was a Romulan ship, through when it was a Romulan ship the Klingons stole, all the way to the finished film, when it became a Klingon Bird of Prey, pissing off a majority of fans. But they should never have been pissed off. It's their own fault they think the Bird of Prey is a Romulan ship. It was never called that in Balance of Terror.

Well, not wanting to be argumentative, I defer to your explanation.

 

[Ketrick]

Star Trek is full of plotholes, most of them I ignore, the ones that make me roll my eyes with amusement I still enjoy (I confess Cadet Kirk makes Captain still bugs me).

Kirk being only a Cadet was a product of his cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test being reviewed. Had he been assigned a ship, he would have been a Lieutenant most likely. So really, the rank jump would be more like Lieutenant to Captain.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I agree with @Greg Cox and @Spot261 on this. My priority with any work of art is whether it affects me, emotionally and intellectually. Does it make me think? How does it make me feel? I only really start to take notice of plotholes if the work fails those two criteria. Sometimes people who go hunting for plotholes sound to me like people who call people out on Twitter for their spelling mistakes. Like, yes, you're right, but you kinda missed the point.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Oh one more, can't resist... with the understanding that I am okay wit these oochies in the over all genius that is the cultural icon that is Trek...
The Borg Queen. It's their show and they are entitled to do with it what they will. But I wish they found some other way around the story line difficulties than assigning a singular head to the otherwise perfect collective. How that would be accomplishd I am sure I don't know. But they are the geniuses not me.

Somebody having the right to do something doesn't make it a good idea. For example, I have the right to slash my own tires, but it would be a very bad idea. Same as the Borg Queen.

Most of this thread is talking about the kind of plot hole you need to go over scene by scene with a notepad. The ones that are more obvious can really be illlusion breaking. For me they're the sort of thing that would take an 8 down to a 7.

 

[cosmic mouse]

There are some occasions when the writers haven't really thought things though and there's a plothole in some episode, maybe a tiny one one or big enough to drive a truck through it. Do you let it bug you or try to ignore it with some own headcanon?

Even if the episode is great in every other way, a plothole can ruin it for me... I can try to make some sense out of it but... that episode might not get much attention from me later.

If we're strictly speaking of Trek, then I'd likely ignore it, but it might depend on the exact nature of the episode and the impact of the plot hole on the rest of the story.

Generally speaking (film and above and beyond Trek) it also depends, but I am probably a harsher critic with film specifically...

 

[The Wormhole]

So really, the rank jump would be more like Lieutenant to Captain.

That really doesn't improve anything.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Cadet Kirk leaping into Captain Kirk doesn't make sense but honestly it's one of those things that I just shrug and say, "Yeah, but....meh, whatever?" and enjoy the ride. Maybe that makes me seem superficial, but it just doesn't bother me enough to ruin everything else that's great about that movie.

That said, it does stand out to me more because I don't think 09 is THAT strong of a movie. It has great moments, but STID and Beyond far surpass it, imho.

 

[galad2003]

It depends on how big of a plot hole and how frequently they occur to the point he impact my enjoyment of the show or movie. I ignored most plot holes in Star Trek for most of the series but when nuTrek came out there were so many that I just wrote nuTrek off and don't watch them.

 

[at Quark's]

Generally, yes. I'll just assume that there is an explanation for the seeming discrepancy we didn't receive on screen. Sometimes it can be fun to figure such an explanation out, most of the times I simply don't bother, since it is a tv show I watch for entertainment. I really only get irked when I find a notion offensive, plothole or not (such as the ENT-D crew perfectly willing to let a 'primitive' race die out because of the hallowed Prime directive).

 

[Mojochi]

I only hold it against an episode if it takes me out of the thing, or is absurd. I'm willing to overlook a fair amount of writers exploring stuff, even if it doesn't always add up. TNG's Measure of a Man falls right apart if you scrutinize it, & no amount of finnagling your head canon can save it, (believe me, I've tried lol) but it still holds as one of their better outings, especially of their earlier ones

Whereas ST: Generations loses me a little with it's silly use of the Nexus. That one really tripped me right into disbelief

 

[Richard Baker]

Plot holes usually do not distract me if the show is engaging and enjoyable, later on though when I am reflecting back upon it I often have a WTF? moment when something jumps out.

 

[2takesfrakes]

When the episode is a "message" show, like "Let that be your last battlefield," or something like that, then I can forgive plotholes very easily, because there's layers to the show that more than compensate for the need to thread all of the elements and everything perfectly together. On the other hand, when it's the kind of episode some shitty-assed writher slapped together whilst sitting on the shitter one day, then I take much greater exceptions to its shortcomings ... including plotholes.

 

[at Quark's]

Do simple science errors technically qualify as plot holes? Statements such as "It also resembles a quasar, in that it has a high rate of rotation," Or does it have to be in contradiction with other material in the episode itself in order to be one?

 

[Nightdiamond]

But there are some things that are down right absurd on the shows. Like what ever happened to the Borg baby they found on Voyager.? They made it clear they beamed her aboard Voyager and the ship she came from was destroyed, and there was no mention of her every sense. Things like this happen in cartoons all the time, but this is supposed to be a sci fi/drama set in a "real world" atmosphere.


Another is Sela's plot (Cue the mustache twirling and evil laugh) to send 2,000 Romulan troops to conquer the entire planet of Vulcan. Maybe at first when you watch it, it slips by you, but then in retrospect, that was a downright awful idea.

 

[Ralphis]

Honestly, I don't even really notice half of the plot holes until I get on social media and see the negative posts about said plot hole.

But with that said, if I do happen to notice them, I generally just let it go if I'm enjoying the story. At some point you just have to accept it's a movie/TV show.

 

[Greg Cox]

Do simple science errors technically qualify as plot holes? Statements such as "It also resembles a quasar, in that it has a high rate of rotation," Or does it have to be in contradiction with other material in the episode itself in order to be one?

That's a science error, not a plot hole. Simply as a matter of terminology.

Although the same criteria probably applies. How much does it spoil the episode? Well, that probably depends on how glaring it is, how fundamental it is to the plot, and how good the rest of the ep is. Is it just a throwaway line that one can simply overlook, or does the entire climax hinge on the difference between a quasar and a pulsar or whatever?

 

[Shawnster]

Do I ignore plot holes? What other choice do I have? Stop watching?