|
Unfortunately they can. :/ For every well thought-out opinion there is a crowd of denial and you'll never defeat them. The majority of old Treak is also pointless and dumb. Today they could do better. Especially, if they only make one film every 4 years.
|
On May 10 2013 06:13 _SpiRaL_ wrote: I see, so a film making absolutely no sense, the characters constantly doing stupid things that are in no way justifiable, huge gaping massive plot holes are not valid criticisms? You are very bad at watching films. That's all I can say. These are absolutely unforgiveable errors, they are the most heinous of all errors in a movie. Because they remind you you are just watching a stupid movie written by people who did not think about certain things for more than a few seconds.
Some people are like utter sheep and at the same time cannot take any criticism at all of movies they liked despite there being things that are OBJECTIVELY terrible about the movie. How is this possible? To watch a movie mindlessly without thought or analysis and yet be so determined in your opinion?
That's right the movie is objectively, no argument possible, stupid. It might still be entertaining, I enjoyed it ok I suppose, but you cannot defend this.
I'm sorry, but is this about the 2009 ST or the new one? I have not watched the new one yet, so can't comment. If the old one, we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Sure there were scenes in the movie that did not make sense - for example, the Federation giving command of its flagship to a newbie crew? But, you know what? This is a new federation and a new Universe. And I'm willing to let it slide and see what happens because what did happen was damn fun and damn enjoyable.
Problems with the science? Red matter and black holes? I mean, what the fuck? But, yeah. It resulted in enabling a good story. Besides, I'm not going to carp at the Science when WOK featured the Genesis wave (yeah, evolution in a day!). And TNG was noted for sometimes writing its way out of a hole with some barely plausible science babble.
It seems to me that some Trek fans went in determined to find everything wrong, while others (like myself) were willing to give it a shot, let a couple of things slide, and enjoyed a good movie. A movie that moreover showed a sense of fondness for the OS with an element of nostalgia. If they stretched the bounds of credibility by pursuing that - for example, by having a young Scotty handily placed to come out of nowhere and take command of the Enterprise's nacelles, I have no problem with that. (Another movie that showed the same sentiment, but far more obviously and with a lot more love was Galaxy Quest - now that was a good, under-rated and hilarious movie.) Heh, this may be a schism moment where the old Trek fans diverge, like the Vulcans and the Romulans. Clearly, we'd be the Vulcans. Maybe, in time, a Spock will find his way to you.
|
The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie.
|
|
the movie had no star trek feeling in it imo.so many things annoyed me.shields not being shields,so much emotional spock stuff,but its fucking spock.very unlike star trek world overall with the "Partys" we saw in some scenes,ships getting destroyed from a lame hand-phaser..
|
Problems with the science? Red matter and black holes? I mean, what the fuck? But, yeah. It resulted in enabling a good story
I guess this is the difference between the standards of "the masses" and the standards of "the elders", but does anyone here remember any of the ideas introduced in the days when Roddenberry's style was very much adhered to?
ST2009 you had red matter and some weird time-travel stuff and in episodes like "The Doomsday Machine" you had... well lets just say if you haven't seen it, do so. That's a real story of destruction and loss done the right way.
|
On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie.
You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel).
As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way.
In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing.
Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing.
SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining
IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot.
If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong.
edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means.
|
On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means.
(wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics?
And lets not quibble over semantics. Here is a storyline plothole. The genesis device was supposed to destroy an existing living matrix and replace it with a new one or take dead/inert matter and make it into living matter. So when Khan explodes the genesis device in the middle of a gaseous cloud, it took the existing matter and converted into a sun, plants, a habital planet with oxygen, etc. In all circumstances it took the existing matter and totally reformulated it into something else. So when Spocks body landed on the planet, the device should have transformed his matter into something completely different. But no - Vulcan DNA is somehow immune to the genesis device. It just took his body and made into a younger body which stopped aging so he would look exactly the same before his death. If that isn't a plot hole by your definition I don't know what is.
Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument.
|
On May 10 2013 15:09 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. (wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics?
Umm..
Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
That is the relevant part of the definition, not the part you bolded. No one, anywhere, will agree with you that breaking the laws of (real world) physics is a plot hole in a sci fi movie. So long as events are consistent with regard to that movies own established rules and logic, there is no plot hole.
Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument.
That's funny, I don't remember bringing up the old movies. Plot holes per-se aren't the reason I didn't like ST2009, but I did have an issue with your definition of a hole, hence the discussion. My issue was with the irrational/stupid/unexplainable actions of characters in the movie.
|
On May 10 2013 15:37 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 15:09 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. (wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics? Umm.. Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. That is the relevant part of the definition, not the part you bolded. No one, anywhere, will agree with you that breaking the laws of (real world) physics is a plot hole in a sci fi movie. So long as events are consistent with regard to that movies own established rules and logic, there is no plot hole. Show nested quote +Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument. That's funny, I don't remember bringing up the old movies. Plot holes per-se aren't the reason I didn't like ST2009, but I did have an issue with your definition of a hole, hence the discussion. My issue was with the irrational/stupid/unexplainable actions of characters in the movie.
SciFi movies break their own rules in regards to "established rules and logic" all the time. And ask any physicist what SciFi plot holes bother them - they will often cite some violation of the laws of science as a "hole in the plot". I've actually had this conversation with my friends who are engineers and doctors and they all cite Faster than Light Travel, energy consumption, etc. as major holes in movie plots. And you can read this forum where other people cite bad physics as plot holes: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182623.
|
Then your friends are just wrong?
Not "accepting" FTL travel in a scifi movie is like not accepting "Orks/Dwarfs" or whatever creatures in a fantasy movie. You don't accept the reality of the world/universe the story is based in, this has nothing to do with a plot hole.
"Bad/wrong" physics are not plot holes, they are just "bad/wrong" physics.
|
On May 10 2013 16:33 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 15:37 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 15:09 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. (wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics? Umm.. Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. That is the relevant part of the definition, not the part you bolded. No one, anywhere, will agree with you that breaking the laws of (real world) physics is a plot hole in a sci fi movie. So long as events are consistent with regard to that movies own established rules and logic, there is no plot hole. Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument. That's funny, I don't remember bringing up the old movies. Plot holes per-se aren't the reason I didn't like ST2009, but I did have an issue with your definition of a hole, hence the discussion. My issue was with the irrational/stupid/unexplainable actions of characters in the movie. SciFi movies break their own rules in regards to "established rules and logic" all the time. And ask any physicist what SciFi plot holes bother them - they will often cite some violation of the laws of science as a "hole in the plot". I've actually had this conversation with my friends who are engineers and doctors and they all cite Faster than Light Travel, energy consumption, etc. as major holes in movie plots. And you can read this forum where other people cite bad physics as plot holes: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182623. That's like saying people being throw across a room by a gun shot is a plot hole... By that logic every action movie in existence have massive plot holes just because they don't follow the laws of physics. You can argue it's stupid or bad writing but I have a hard time believing most people would say those things are plot holes.
|
On May 10 2013 16:33 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 15:37 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 15:09 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. (wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics? Umm.. Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. That is the relevant part of the definition, not the part you bolded. No one, anywhere, will agree with you that breaking the laws of (real world) physics is a plot hole in a sci fi movie. So long as events are consistent with regard to that movies own established rules and logic, there is no plot hole. Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument. That's funny, I don't remember bringing up the old movies. Plot holes per-se aren't the reason I didn't like ST2009, but I did have an issue with your definition of a hole, hence the discussion. My issue was with the irrational/stupid/unexplainable actions of characters in the movie. SciFi movies break their own rules in regards to "established rules and logic" all the time. And ask any physicist what SciFi plot holes bother them - they will often cite some violation of the laws of science as a "hole in the plot". I've actually had this conversation with my friends who are engineers and doctors and they all cite Faster than Light Travel, energy consumption, etc. as major holes in movie plots. And you can read this forum where other people cite bad physics as plot holes: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182623.
You're still not getting it. SciFi movies have their own physics that's more advanced than our physics. Does Star Trek violate physics as we know it today? Yes. Is Star Trek set in the future? Yes. There's no contradiction here. So long as Star Trek doesn't break it's own rules, it's ok.
For example, the Star Trek universe has the following rules: - FTL travel is possible - There is a maximum speed limit to FTL travel.
Using these rules, we can identify a plot hole: - The Enterprise travelled from Planet X to Planet Y in 5 hours. The distance between them was given as Z. Thus the Enterprise violated the maximum speed limit stated in episodes 1, 23, 67 and in movies A, B and C.
Violating the Star Trek universe's rules = not ok Violating real world rules = ok.
|
On May 10 2013 17:11 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:33 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 15:37 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 15:09 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. (wikipedia) Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. By that definition the things I've stated are plot holes. And having a starship class vessel with hundreds of people on board - it makes no sense that the most senior officers, regardless the circumstance, would beam onto a hostile planet/ship armed with only a phaser. Lots of illogic or impossible events = plot holes. Sorry sir - SCIFI movies are full of them. Old star trek - new star trek - all have lots of plot holes. Name one good scifi movie that didn't have the characters doing the most stupidest of things or some kind of huge suspension of the laws of physics? Umm.. Plot Hole: A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events,events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. That is the relevant part of the definition, not the part you bolded. No one, anywhere, will agree with you that breaking the laws of (real world) physics is a plot hole in a sci fi movie. So long as events are consistent with regard to that movies own established rules and logic, there is no plot hole. Like I said - I love the old and new movies. Saying that either one was superior to the other is a matter of opinion and preference and cannot be justified by the "superior plot/science" argument. That's funny, I don't remember bringing up the old movies. Plot holes per-se aren't the reason I didn't like ST2009, but I did have an issue with your definition of a hole, hence the discussion. My issue was with the irrational/stupid/unexplainable actions of characters in the movie. SciFi movies break their own rules in regards to "established rules and logic" all the time. And ask any physicist what SciFi plot holes bother them - they will often cite some violation of the laws of science as a "hole in the plot". I've actually had this conversation with my friends who are engineers and doctors and they all cite Faster than Light Travel, energy consumption, etc. as major holes in movie plots. And you can read this forum where other people cite bad physics as plot holes: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=182623. You're still not getting it. SciFi movies have their own physics that's more advanced than our physics. Does Star Trek violate physics as we know it today? Yes. Is Star Trek set in the future? Yes. There's no contradiction here. So long as Star Trek doesn't break it's own rules, it's ok. For example, the Star Trek universe has the following rules: - FTL travel is possible - There is a maximum speed limit to FTL travel. Using these rules, we can identify a plot hole: - The Enterprise travelled from Planet X to Planet Y in 5 hours. The distance between them was given as Z. Thus the Enterprise violated the maximum speed limit stated in episodes 1, 23, 67 and in movies A, B and C. Violating the Star Trek universe's rules = not ok Violating real world rules = ok.
That is my point - all SciFi movies violate their own rules. All of them.
Nero is pissed off at Spock for not arriving on time to save Romulus. The catalyst for the whole event was Spock and Nero traveling through Space and Time via the singularity created by the "red matter". Spock managed to stop a super nova by exploding a pea sized drop of the red matter. He unwittingly released so much energy and mass that he created a singularity that was able to swallow the super nova's energy. But somehow the gravity caused by this singularity didn't destroy his ship or Nero's vessel - how convenient. Then at the end of the movie, Young Spock explodes the entire red matter payload on Nero's ship. Shouldn't that have created a singularity so massive, or multiple singularities, that would have resulted in a super massive black hole? In the movie you can see the Enterprise was right next to it - it should have been sucked in or destroyed similar to Nero's ship. The physics, as defined by the movie itself, were tossed out the window in that one scene - bad physics as defined by the movie lore itself.
Wrath of Khan - Spock sticking his hands into the dilithium chamber to engage warp drive. The warp drive, powered by the dilithium crystals, has enough energy to travel exponentially faster than the speed of light. It has enough power that the ship can outrun the blast of the new solar system created by the genesis device. Spock should have been instantly vaporized being so close to that kind of energy source. He stuck his hands right into the chamber. Bad physics, as defined by the movie lore = plot hole.
My point here isn't to argue about physics or it's role in movies and how it's used as a means of "deux ex machina" in some instances. My point is that what makes a good SciFi movie is totally subjective. All SciFi movies violate their own science lore. All SciFi movies have characters do stupid or irrational things that completely violate the lore as developed within the movie itself. Name one SciFi movie that didn't violate itself in some way in regards to characters doing stupid things, despite being "scientist", or totally ignored its physics as developed or defined within the tapestry of the story?
|
why make a big deal about the flaws? just enjoy the movie. if you cant, dont watch.
|
On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means.
I thought Nero was the weakest part of the movie, his motivation was somewhat difficult to believe (not impossible, though - yes, it's irrational to be angry that Spock's attempt to save Romulus failed. So what? People are irrational - especially people who are the last survivors of their entire species) and I didn't think he was a very fun character to watch.
Furthermore, the writing relies again and again on extreme coincidences, one or two of which were a bit jarring for me. And there are the plot holes you mentioned, like why the protagonists' ships never get sucked in by the red matter blackholes.
But... I still thought ST2009 was a FANTASTIC movie, and absolute blast to watch, with great characters and an interesting story - and yes, in my opinion, it was well-written. Certainly not the best writing, but good enough to create an investment with the characters, the world, and the stakes, as well as allowing for enjoyable set pieces and comedic one-liners.
But that's just my opinion. To me it's well-written; to you it's not; it's all just a matter of opinion.
|
I enjoyed ST2009 for what it presented as a movie. I'm not a big Star Trek fan but I do like it that they are continuing to keep the franchise alive and modern. Can't wait for Into Darkness to hit cinemas here in SA!
|
EXCITED
Iron Man 3 blew and I'm eager to see this movie!
|
Campitor you are simply wrong man. Those things you mentioned are not plot holes and thats all there is too it.
|
On May 10 2013 21:07 TheRealPaciFist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. I thought Nero was the weakest part of the movie, his motivation was somewhat difficult to believe (not impossible, though - yes, it's irrational to be angry that Spock's attempt to save Romulus failed. So what? People are irrational - especially people who are the last survivors of their entire species) and I didn't think he was a very fun character to watch. Furthermore, the writing relies again and again on extreme coincidences, one or two of which were a bit jarring for me. And there are the plot holes you mentioned, like why the protagonists' ships never get sucked in by the red matter blackholes. But... I still thought ST2009 was a FANTASTIC movie, and absolute blast to watch, with great characters and an interesting story - and yes, in my opinion, it was well-written. Certainly not the best writing, but good enough to create an investment with the characters, the world, and the stakes, as well as allowing for enjoyable set pieces and comedic one-liners. But that's just my opinion. To me it's well-written; to you it's not; it's all just a matter of opinion.
Well said. Anyone here arguing about how the old ST movies are superior to the new ST movies are doing so for subjective reasons. I loved the old ST movies and I love the 2009 movie. The only reason I bring up the plot holes in each movie, and there are many plot holes in each, is to illustrate how each movie violates the most basic premise of science and character development and character motivation as established by its own storyline. So to point out any kind of "bad writing" in one movie while ignoring the "bad writing" in the other movie is just plain bias. See the movies, enjoy them, and judge them for what they are - an indulgent light fantasy that is meant to entertain and make us laugh. These movies aren't supposed to be discussed with any kind of seriousness like old windbags arguing over the bouquet and aroma of fine wines.
|
|
|
|