Star Trek XI Plot Holes

posted on March 7th, 2010, 7:10 pm

Because the construction of the ship is against all rules of logic. 
And it was build on a planet not in space...

Not true at all... it's not a plot-hole, nor does it go against all rules of logic. If you don't like it that's fine, but don't bash it because they tried to modernize the design for today's standards.

Also there is nothing, that I'm aware of, that supports the notion that ships can't be built in space and on a planet. There are actually benefits to both... and I could be wrong, but there was nothing in "canon" that really says were the Enterprise was built.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 8:01 pm

Today's standarts? Today's standarts are to save space and build functional. Not a Hangar with 90% air for the powerplant.

The look of the Voyager was modern, the look of the Sovy was modern. Even by today's standarts. The look of the new enterprise was just strange. "The engineering section was an immense maze of pipes and tanks. Often the only sign of futuristic technology was the intercom. Metal catwalks  crisscrossed upper levels in some areas, such as Water Turbine Section 3. ""while the more industrial looking parts of the ship were filmed at a Budweiser brewery"
USS Enterprise (alternate reality) - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

Tell me how this fitt into modern shipconstruktion.

And in the movie you see the enterprise build at the ground. Don't know how to start such a big and fragile struckture. The original enterprise was build in space .

Movie:


"Old" Enterprise buiddock.

Ok, there is the refit, but it has been build there too.

But yes, it is not a real plot hole. Just a logichole in the movie. In my eyes .

[Xanto]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 8:26 pm

Last edited by Xanto on March 7th, 2010, 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, there is the refit, but it has been build there too.

But yes, it is not a real plot hole. Just a logichole in the movie. In my eyes .

Again you can't prove that, as like I said I don't believe it was ever told in "canon", if it was please correct me. I'm not a big TOS fan, just going by what I have read.  But if so, please back it up... which episode and so forth. Like I said there is benefits to both, and there is nothing that says a ship can't be built on a planet. Would it have been more like Star Trek to show the ship built in space, yes, is there anything that says building a ship on a planet is not possible, absolutely not.

Also to me the ships design looks very modern, and looks like what I would expect a ship to look like. But that is here nor there, as the discussion was about plot-holes, which I think we agree, this is not one of them. Some like the new look, some do not... that is okay. I don't think it's a reason not to like the new movie, but hey that's your choice.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 8:52 pm

the enterprise was built at the san fransisco fleet yards in earth orbit. 

San Francisco Fleet Yards - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

[Xanto]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 8:58 pm

Last edited by Xanto on March 7th, 2010, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the enterprise was built at the san fransisco fleet yards in earth orbit. 

San Francisco Fleet Yards - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

Not that I'm saying that is wrong, but that's not really proof. Anybody can write anything on a wiki, if you could find maybe an original TOS episode, where this was disclosed then I would accept the Enterprise being built in space. 

But even if it was, this is a reboot... were things are different. The whole point of a reboot is to do things different, give fans a new story with new concepts. If they wanted everything to be like TOS, then it would be a remake, in which case you could just watch TOS. 

[Tyler]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:04 pm

Last edited by Tyler on March 7th, 2010, 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Memory Alpha is patrolled constantly by people who remove non-canon or unacceptable info. If MA says something, then 9 times out of 10, it tends to be accurate (it isn't the same as the average wiki, it actually tries). Dedication Plaques include the yard of construction.

Many posts I've seen before say that building a ship on the planet would be highly inefficient.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:13 pm

Memory Alpha is patrolled constantly by people who remove non-canon or unacceptable info. If MA says something, then 9 times out of 10, it is accurate. Dedication Plaques include the yard of construction.

Many posts I've seen before say that building a ship on the planet would be highly inefficient.

Maybe so, just saying they don't give a source, so the info can be written by anyone or come from anywhere. This very topic has been debated constantly on the official movie forums, & I have yet seen anyone without a doubt prove that the Enterprise was built in space.

How so, I see it highly inefficient to carry resources into space to build a shipyard, when you could build one on a planet. I also don't see how one would out-way the other really... I have seen nothing to prove that it would be inefficient.

[Xanto]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:31 pm

Last edited by Xanto on March 7th, 2010, 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well this is interesting, according to this Starfleet wiki (scroll down to Starfleet Shipyards) ships were built on Mare Island near San Francisco, on Earth. It also says that there are additional starship assembly facilities located in Earth's orbit. Now it does say that, the Enterprise was built at San Francisco Navy Yards, but this does at least validate the possibility of ships being built on Earth. And because this is alternate reality I could see events leading to the Enterprise being built somewhere else.

There source was StarTrek.com 

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:33 pm

Star Trek.com is as reliable as wikipedia.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:37 pm

Star Trek.com is as reliable as wikipedia.

Isn't that the official site, could be wrong but I would say they would be reliable. 

Anyway it at-least validates the notion that it's a possibility. I see no real reason why it would not be as reasonable to build ships on Earth as it is in space.

[Tyler]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:39 pm

Last edited by Tyler on March 7th, 2010, 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's like the DS9 Tech Manual, known for being inaccurate and tends to contradict canon.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:40 pm

technally cannon is stuff that is in the shows or movies

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:43 pm

It's like the DS9 Tech Manual, well known for being inaccurate and often contradicting canon.

I don't see how it contradicts canon, as there (as far as I'm aware) is nothing in canon that says ships weren't built on Earth. Was it ever shown, not until the new movie, but that doesn't mean it didn't occur or that it's not canon.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 9:45 pm

I'm talking about the site in general, rather than any particular fact.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 10:51 pm

look, the whole thing of building the ship on the ground was to drive the story ... kirk needed to drive up to it like a renegade, so he can see it and decide to join starfleet! because i'm sure that it would've been otherwise pretty hard for a farmboy to grab a shuttle and look as cool as on a futuristic motorcyle, driving up to the spacedock to to see the damn ship ...

as for the point made earlier: it's easier to build everything on the ground, than fly the parts into space and assemble it there! i slightly disagree ... if we're talking bird of prey i'll second that, but not for a starship with part-configuration of the enterprise! you gotta have tractor-beams/cranes/skyhooks constantly directed at the saucer and the necelles until they're connected to the drive-section ... in THIS case it is smarter to build the damn parts on earth and assemble them in zero-g ... don't you think?