Star Trek XI Plot Holes

posted on March 9th, 2010, 11:11 pm

Google is your friend if you are not certain of something 

Mars Climate Orbiter was most certainly launched in real life, and most certainly disintegrated due to friction during descent (obviously due to incorrect entry angle). Landing on the surface (or taking off) is no mean feet. The Martian atmosphere is not at all 'negligible', especially if you are trying to fly through it.

posted on March 10th, 2010, 12:40 am

Sorry,  , I didn't realize it was a real thing. It's true that landing and taking off are difficult but we can presume that any small shuttles moving to and from the Martian surface would have little trouble controlling their ascent or descent and moving components would be easy as well because of the lower gravity and thinner atmosphere, but even under conditions similar to Earth. If this weren't the case every shuttle ever sent to a planet would have either burned up or lost control and crashed.

posted on March 10th, 2010, 12:49 am

In TNG of course that happened quite a lot

posted on March 11th, 2010, 5:17 pm

Look at the hull! It says 1701 quite clearly. But I agree with you that there were almost no on screen references to the location of the ship's construction. (Granted I have not seen every TOS episode, but regardless.)

I don't think 1701 refers to the date of construction, does it?
Again, people keep listing so called plot holes.  Nothing for this film qualifies as a plot hole because of the whole timeline thing.  It was done this way, I assume on purpose, just so Abrams wouldn't piss off Trek fans because he didn't want to research the series.  I think, as a film, it was a great production.  As a Trek movie, I think its better than Star Trek V and Star Trek Generations.....that, however, is just my opinion.....again.....not a plot hole!!

posted on March 11th, 2010, 5:35 pm

I don't think 1701 refers to the date of construction, does it?
Again, people keep listing so called plot holes.  Nothing for this film qualifies as a plot hole because of the whole timeline thing.  It was done this way, I assume on purpose, just so Abrams wouldn't piss off Trek fans because he didn't want to research the series.  I think, as a film, it was a great production.  As a Trek movie, I think its better than Star Trek V and Star Trek Generations.....that, however, is just my opinion.....again.....not a plot hole!!

Okay first Abrams, didn't write the script, so how can anyone say he didn't want to research the series? Second there was many of things in the film that came directly from  TOS, and books based on the TOS series.

This is my whole view on the time-line thing, is was done to respect what has already been done. Trekkers or Trekkie's (which ever your prefer to be called) are the most hardest to please and the most subjective of any series I have seen. If they tried to do a remake, I don't think it would have worked that well. If 1 thing wasn't correct or based on something from TOS, then fans would be screaming that they violated TOS. Nobody is perfect and I have yet to see a remake get it correct, so I doubt a Star Trek remake would. At least with the different time-line, your precious TOS is safe, and there is room for new stories and that we haven't yet seen.

posted on March 11th, 2010, 5:57 pm

Okay first Abrams, didn't write the script, so how can anyone say he didn't want to research the series? Second there was many of things in the film that came directly from  TOS, and books based on the TOS series.

This is my whole view on the time-line thing, is was done to respect what has already been done. Trekkers or Trekkie's (which ever your prefer to be called) are the most hardest to please and the most subjective of any series I have seen. If they tried to do a remake, I don't think it would have worked that well. If 1 thing wasn't correct or based on something from TOS, then fans would be screaming that they violated TOS. Nobody is perfect and I have yet to see a remake get it correct, so I doubt a Star Trek remake would. At least with the different time-line, your precious TOS is safe, and there is room for new stories and that we haven't yet seen.

When I say Abrams, I am talking about the entire film cast/crew/director/producer/script writer/etc.  I just sum it all up under the director because most film commentary usually is.

posted on March 12th, 2010, 12:46 am

I don't think 1701 refers to the date of construction, does it?

No, your question was whether the ship pictured in the dry dock was the Enterprise and since its hull says 1701, it is. (Why or how could 1701 refer to the construction date?)

...Trekkers or Trekkie's (which ever your prefer to be called)

I think the consensus is usually "Trekkie(s)"

The whole alternate timeline thing is mostly just a plot device which lets Abrams (or the writers if you prefer) get away with monkeying with the order of things. There is no real way to redo the original show as a movie since there's no way to compact three years of gallivanting about the galaxy into two hours. It could have been easy for them to tell a new, as yet unseen mission in the original timeline. But heaven forbid that that shouldn't be exciting enough to attract an audience. So instead lets make a new timeline where we can play around all we want and make the characters completely different and make them do crazy ass shit that they would never do in the boring old version, like orbital sky diving for tactical insertions and blowing up Vulcan. What can we say, Adams and company f****d up big time in the minds of most hardcore Trekkies.

[Xanto]

posted on March 12th, 2010, 2:49 am

Last edited by Xanto on March 12th, 2010, 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

The whole alternate timeline thing is mostly just a plot device which lets Abrams (or the writers if you prefer) get away with monkeying with the order of things. There is no real way to redo the original show as a movie since there's no way to compact three years of gallivanting about the galaxy into two hours. It could have been easy for them to tell a new, as yet unseen mission in the original timeline. But heaven forbid that that shouldn't be exciting enough to attract an audience. So instead lets make a new timeline where we can play around all we want and make the characters completely different and make them do crazy ass shit that they would never do in the boring old version, like orbital sky diving for tactical insertions and blowing up Vulcan. What can we say, Adams and company f****d up big time in the minds of most hardcore Trekkies.

The problem I have with that is, the whole point of the movie was to bring in new fans and to restart the franchise. Obviously making an "unseen mission" would not bring in as many new fans because new fans could not relate to the TOS crew who they knew nothing about, and your talking about something that came about in the 60's. So it's better from that standing point to start all over and re-introduce the characters in a new format.

Also your argument that they would not do the stuff they did in the "boring old version", is the reason they didn't do it. It was boring, and had become stale and would not make them money or new fans in today's standards. Trekkies can cry all they want about it, but there in the business for one reason, and that's to make money. There not going to do stuff from the 60's that would not match today's standards. Stuff that worked then, is not going to work today. That's why none of the other Star Trek movies have been able to match the success of this one, it because they all followed the same old formula.

In the mind of the casual Trek fans & some hardcore fans, they did a damn good job. 

posted on March 13th, 2010, 5:28 am

Quote from Quatre:
"while the more industrial looking parts of the ship were filmed at a Budweiser brewery"

I'll Bet they carted a ton of that shite over to the production staff's *brainstorming sessions...

And now, since I kind of noticed it in the last few movies they made, I present the  "Simplified Generic Star Trek Script Template:"

-Bad Guy Is Mad.  Probably Has Good Reason.  Maybe Not.
-Bad Guy Gets Spaceship.  Big Spaceship.  Bad Guy Breaks Things With Spaceship.
-Good Guys Come In Other Spaceship (probably named enterprise).
-Bad Guy Attacks Good Guys.  Bad Guy Beats Them.
-Some Other Stuff Happens. (if robot, robot swears)
-Movie Is Running Out Of Time.  Good Guys Come Up With Convenient Plan.
-Bad Guy Fights Good Guys, Almost Wins Again.  Maybe Good Guys Try Ramming.
-Good Guys' Plan Kills Bad Guy.  The End.
-Professor J Wakes Up In Theatre.  Wants Refund.  Vodka Didn't Help.

*=Term 'Brain' Applied Loosely.

If I'd copyrighted this baby a few years ago, I'd be rolling in it.

posted on March 13th, 2010, 5:46 am

i didn't read all the post


plot hole = the what ever thingy destroyed romulus but not remus?? their basiclly circling each other like our planet's moon


plot hole = they had time to create a New Sci-fi red matter thingy but no time to evacuate the planet population, also on top of that they had time to build a ship?  Also romulans hate spock  why they turn to spock huh huh huh???

[Xanto]

posted on March 13th, 2010, 6:10 am

Last edited by Xanto on March 13th, 2010, 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

i didn't read all the post


plot hole = the what ever thingy destroyed romulus but not remus?? their basiclly circling each other like our planet's moon


plot hole = they had time to create a New Sci-fi red matter thingy but no time to evacuate the planet population, also on top of that they had time to build a ship?  Also romulans hate spock  why they turn to spock huh huh huh???

1. Not a plot hole, Remus was not important, the inhabits were basically treated like second hand citizens, and most were slave labor for mining. No Romulan would care if it was destroyed. And it's possible Spock launched the red matter as Romulus was being destroyed stopping Remus from being destroyed, because it said Spock got there late.

2. Not a plot hole, it would take a long time to get billions of people off a planet, probably longer than it would be to just try and find a solution. It would take many of ships to accomplish that, not just one. It is most common that your most hated enemy would turn to you in a moment of distress. Also I believe the Romulan's and the Federation were working on some kind of treaty right then. Nothing says they built the ship at that time, it could have already been done, and they could have already been studying the effects of red matter.

posted on March 24th, 2010, 5:19 pm

Quote from Quatre:
"while the more industrial looking parts of the ship were filmed at a Budweiser brewery"

I'll Bet they carted a ton of that shite over to the production staff's *brainstorming sessions...

And now, since I kind of noticed it in the last few movies they made, I present the  "Simplified Generic Star Trek Script Template:"

-Bad Guy Is Mad.  Probably Has Good Reason.  Maybe Not.
-Bad Guy Gets Spaceship.  Big Spaceship.  Bad Guy Breaks Things With Spaceship.
-Good Guys Come In Other Spaceship (probably named enterprise).
-Bad Guy Attacks Good Guys.  Bad Guy Beats Them.
-Some Other Stuff Happens. (if robot, robot swears)
-Movie Is Running Out Of Time.  Good Guys Come Up With Convenient Plan.
-Bad Guy Fights Good Guys, Almost Wins Again.  Maybe Good Guys Try Ramming.
-Good Guys' Plan Kills Bad Guy.  The End.
-Professor J Wakes Up In Theatre.  Wants Refund.  Vodka Didn't Help.

*=Term 'Brain' Applied Loosely.

If I'd copyrighted this baby a few years ago, I'd be rolling in it.

Just trolling old threads and read this.  Funny stuff!

posted on March 24th, 2010, 9:22 pm

Yeah, we need more epics like Nemesis, a true star trek canon movie, as some claim.  It just did so well at the box office!

posted on March 24th, 2010, 10:29 pm

The fate of the most recent Star Trek movie is always the same - people bash the latest, and praise the ones that came before it  . When the next one comes out, this one will seem all that much better I predict 

posted on March 24th, 2010, 10:47 pm

wow then i dont see any point to watching it then if its so bad that it will make this one look good