Star Trek XI Plot Holes

posted on April 7th, 2010, 11:52 pm

Here's one I noticed last night, while playing a game actually.

The antagonist in the movie was named NERO, commanding the evil Romulan mining freighter 'Narada.' 
I don't know how weak those Constitution ships were, buuuuut.......

Attachments

posted on April 24th, 2010, 5:34 pm

Star Trek XI Plot Hole:

Unsubtle crossovers:

posted on April 29th, 2010, 1:21 am

Wow, I pretty much forgot about Fleet Ops and these forums for a while. I expected to come back to find this thread dead after 3 pages.

What I think (keep in mind I did not read all the new posts):

Ship construction: If ST's anti-gravity tech uses a lot of power, then the ship should be built in space to reduce the amount of power used. The two universes' ships are different so the TOS Enterprise being built in space doesn't have anything to do with the XI Enterprise being built, but making it built on the ground a short drive from Kirk's hometown just so he can see it is bad writing, not a plot hole, but stupid.

Plot Hole: A plot hole is when something that logically should be done, isn't done. It does have one big one: since Nero is in the past with the stuff necessary to save his homeworld, why doesn't he save it and forget about tormenting Spock for not yet showing up a few hours late? Had he saved his homeworld with the Red Matter after waiting 125 years (but this is his homeworld, so he probably cares enough, judging by how crazy seeing it destroyed made him, to dedicate his life to saving it)  there would be no plot hole.

There are other plot holes, but they aren't anywhere near as bad as that huge one.

Main Problem I have with the movie: Inconsistency, the "black hole" went from being a "thunderstorm-wormhole in space that Starfleet has never seen before" to "black hole that somehow scoops up supernova blast but not the nearby planet or ships and is also a wormhole" to "sucks up planets like a black hole, but only the one it is inside of and not any that are very close to it (Old Spock SAW Vulcan get destroyed from the icey planet), doesn't affect ships either" to  "black hole that barely destroys ships it's inside of, then has time delayed gravitational affect on ships nearby." It was different every time it was shown. A real black hole would destroy Romulus, Spock's ship, and Nero's ship in the scene where Romulus get's destroyed. It would have destroyed everything in the solar system when used on Vulcan (no drilling required, say goodbye to Ice Planet, the Enterprise, and Nero's ship), and the Enterprise would have been in danger immediately, with Nero's ship destroyed immediately too.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 1:24 am

Oops, I thought this forum supported HTML. I'm too lazy to replace all those, just remember b=bold, i=italicized, u=underlined.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 1:27 am

Just to clarify, if a real blackhole ( ) were formed out of Vulcan, it would have exactly the same gravitational effects as.... Vulcan! If our own Sun was suddenly removed, and a blackhole of identical mass was put in its place, the planets would continue to orbit it without any changes due to gravity.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 2:19 am

Unless you assume that it replaced the planet with some kind of gas which instantly dissapated.  Or maybe it was just a an unstable whormhole which literally atomized the planet upon collapse.


Come on Dom, the red ball of goo which makes wormholes that eat matter has plenty of real world applications.  :fish:

posted on April 29th, 2010, 2:22 am

Hey, he said real black holes - we aren't talking about Red Matter  . If we were, because it's in Star Trek, of course it's plausible that things can have multiple effects in the same movie/show. Just like the disruptor, or phaser effects, or changing sizes of a certain B'rel, or reset button, or an unholy amount of equally (or even worse) ridiculous problems that we ignore if we like the storyline in the first place.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 2:35 am

I believe we know too little about the nature of black holes to dispute their effects.  As far as we know there is no such black whole in existence which is merely the size of a planet.

Infact, everything we know about them, as with most things in out universe, is learned from visual observations from a far.  On top of that, the light we receive is extremely old(regardless of how old you believe the universe is)

Anyway, like I said, debate about things we barely understand is pointless and futile .

Our time would be much better spent on argueing about red matter which we totally understand

posted on April 29th, 2010, 2:40 am

On the contrary, we know about the effects of a blackhole quite well - not to mention mass and size too of the observed singularities . Beyond the event horizon, we cannot know of course - but observation lets us know quite nicely what a blackhole does in our universe. Everything that we scientifically know about the universe is observationally based. That doesn't stop gravity from working, does it?

[Anonymous]

posted on April 29th, 2010, 3:08 am

Last edited by Anonymous on April 29th, 2010, 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

True that most all of what we know is gained through visual perception(an unfortunate limitation to the meaning of proof) However I contest that we have still never seen a black hole that small, therefore we have no way of saying that one exists.  And (asfar as I know, ) Black holes are fixed points in this galaxy,(this is an assumption, so I could be verry wrong ) and have enormous gravatational effects.  We have no idea if the holes themselfs have mass atall or merely the things contained in the event horizon have mass.

In that case, a blackhole, newly made, most likely with the energy created by the destruction of a planed would have extreme effects on the other planets in the solar system, even if it only existed for a breif moment, it would, as we have learned form our observations, draw in all other objects near it because of its immense gravitational pull.  Even if that is only enough to slightly mis-align a planet, it could have serious implications on near by planets.


Anyway, this is my opinion, and it is all theory.  We are delving into some deep Gravitational theory which assumes an almost two dimensional plane(you surely know what I"m referring to) and theory about cosmotic phenomenon which I still contest that we barely understand.  When each theory is based on the belief that another theory is true, many jumps in logic may be made, and what is produced is a very weak idea which can be destroy with the dis proving of a single almost unrelated theory.



I'm trying to writ a paper atm so forgive me for being long winded.  I"m trying to retain my state of mind while still staying on topic.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 4:04 am

Regarding the possibility of Nero saving Romulus instead of...what he did do...it would have been easy for him.  Romulans, like Vulcans, live a LONG damned time.  He could even avoid causing paradox to his own perception by waiting until after he discovered the supernova-to-be, and then after the younger Nero went to go warn people, he could fly in, red matter it, and scurry off, content in the salvation of Romulus.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 4:07 am

Unlike Vulcans, however, Romulans are also very emotional. He was likely unbalanced.

Not much of an excuse for a plot problem, but that's how they made the film.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 8:13 am

Not exactly a plot hole (necessarily) but something that bugged me about this movie, compared to every other ST film.  PRODUCT PLACEMENT. 
Nokia Commlinks?  Budweiser Classic?!  WTF!!

One of the things I always admired about the other movies (all of them) was that they were literally marketing 'Star Trek' as the product (various paraphernalia included) and that's all they needed.  Fans see Star Trek movie, fans buy Star Trek merchandise.

I think that even Paramount knew how sketchy this film was, so they sold ad space (like a filthy, filthy billboard) to try and break even.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 9:40 am

Everyone wants to talk bad about this movie yet it sold the most of any of the movies, and has the best reviews of any of the movies. It must be bad...  . As said in earlier post many of the things people say are plot holes are not... because this is a different time line. Using anything from prime to justify something is almost impossible. Things have changed, and the writers are free do pretty much what ever they want because of it. And truthfully I'm glad there not doing the same old things, I wanted something new and that's what I got.   ^-^

posted on April 29th, 2010, 11:58 am

What does it matter what reviews said? It doesnt suddenly make me like the movie.
And Star Trek for Dummies sold well? Wow what a surprise.