ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Feb. 25 2010, 5:51 am

A couple of others:

I've heard it's unknown why Khan didn't find the Genesis cave... - This one is very obvious. Khan was tearing the lab apart, torturing scientists and such, but Kirks arrival interrupted him. This is clearly stated. Khan would have found the cave just fine...

When Saavik refers to Order 12 but Kirk interrupts her. - That's only an assumption that Order 12 is to raise shields. We don't know that.

Khan recognizing Checkov. - I think it's already understood that, although we didn't see him in Space Seed, Checkov could have easily been a part of the crew while Khan was aboard, or that Khan may remember him from the reading he did while aboard.

Ceti Alpha VI being considered for Genesis when it might barely contain life. - The crew of the Reliant is there to see if they can't "transplant" whatever it is they're picking up on their sensors.

Back to the necklace - I don't understand why it wouldn't have been possible for Khan to have taken it from one of the Reliants crew members? Is there any reason why this isn't possible?

Also, although I don't think it's very important, when Scotty comes up the lift with Preston, it's not very hard to imagine that Scotty may have thought McCoy was on the bridge, or that the lift may have malfunctioned. In addition, with regard to Checkov and the brain eel, it's possible that since the brain eel is somehow linked to your brain the eel was able to cognitively discern that a starfleet officer with a phaser was capable of turning the weapon on themselves after seeing Terrell, and in order to "escape" it incapacitated Checkov.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 25 2010, 9:17 am

Quote (Blockman @ Feb. 25 2010, 4:28 am)
Thank you for the list !

I'm so glad that you're truly perceptive to notice all of those and are devoted enough to Star Trek to find them!

However, how many of those TRULY affect the main plot of the film. I mean if you say "Yes, all those little mistakes truly make my viewing experience worse." Then what can I say...

Nitpicks can be fun, but I can't hold anything that small against a movie. Not like a major problem that is essential to the main story of the film. Things like Carol referring to some "Hyperchannel" or how Khan might have come about his "necklace". None of those are on par with say the Enterprise shield frequency in Generations.

(I don't mean to pick on Generations) but the fact that the shield frequency wasn't simply reset, when they've shown that they can do it before, is so essential to the plot that you unfortunately can't ignore it. Having the shields penetrated is crucial to all other scenes that follow after it. You can't look past it like you could for "The Reliant casting a shadow over the Enterprise in open space."

I think it needs to be clarified when people say things like "many flaws, inconsistencies" whether they're talking about a lot of unimportant nitpicks, or if they're talking about major significant problems.

See, this (and your subsequent posts) is EXACTLY what I'm talking about though. Fans have the capacity to look at flaws and inconsistencies in a movie like TWOK and say "yeah, but it was done for dramatic purposes" or "Well...it's okay that though because they needed it to happen that way."

EXCUSE ME?

THAT'S the double standard, folks! That's excuse-making! And, I'm okay with that if you do it for every movie (like I do).

All these posts you just made are perfect examples of just brushing inconsistent BS under the rug because "hey...you LIKED THE MOVIE!"

You say that these things don't really "matter" or "affect the plot?"

How can you take the following set of facts as anything other than a GROSS discrepancy in the primary plot of the film?:

Genesis Device is a completely experimental scientific project. They have taken the time and resources to devote a Federation Starship (the Reliant) to wander around the galaxy searching for the perfect lifeless planet to "satisfy the requirements of a test site" (ie: size, mass, distance from a star, lifeless, appropriate orbit, etc. etc. etc.). But then, at the end of the movie, Khan detonates the #### thing in the MIDDLE OF A NEBULA, and it still creates a planet??? Not only does it create a planet, but it somehow puts it in orbit right around the "sweet spot" of a compatible star???? That, sir, is a load of horsescoot. And, not only does it affect the plot of the entire film, but it also affects the plots of the 2 films that follow it! I'd say that this is an issue that "is so essential to the plot that unfortunately you can't ignore it" if there ever was one!!!

My whole point is that people will go through the process you just went through ("No...no...you can EXPLAIN all that stuff. It doesn't really matter to the story. Etc, etc.) but NOT apply that same process or standard to other films in the same series.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 25 2010, 10:00 am

Then, (oh boy...I'm pi$$Ing on the hornet's nest now, aren't I...?) you have everyone getting charged up about the JJPrise and it's seemingly inconsistent physical characteristics related to size and dimensions. There was a 537-page post out here a couple of months ago exploring how the details shown on the screen don't support the proportions of other elements of the ship, making it seem like Star Trek XI was the laziest, most technically incompetent story ever written in the history of written language and that all they care about is making money and obviously not taking care of the fans blah blah blah.

That's great, but if you look at the other Star Trek movies, they have just as many "impossibilities" associated with the same types of stuff:

1. It TMP, there is a long corridor which leads out of Engineering. You can see it the entire time that Kirk and Decker are having their "Starfleet pep talk." Based on what we know as FACT about the location of the warp engineering core, the size of the secondary hull with relation to the primary hull, etc...it is IMPOSSIBLE for that corridor to exist.

2. In TSFS, the Bird of Prey decloaks above the Merchantman vessle, completely dwarfing it. Later, we see the relative size of the BoP when it lands on Vulcan, and Sulu has already mentioned that it is a vessle that holds "about a dozen" crew. So, what was the merchant vessle? Just that one room we saw in the movie? Or did they miniatureize it with some brilliant new Klingon technology? Even worse, when they show the BoP moving off into attack position after Kruge orders "thrusters," the Merchantman is much larger than the establishing shot when the ship de-cloaks. Maybe it's that dreaded new Klingon "size changing" technology. See, Abrams was just sticking to canon and respecting Trek's history of size-changing tricks.

3. In TSFS, we see several angles at various times in the first 1/3 of the film of the Enterprise entering and leaving the spacedock. In each scene, it looks as though the Enterprise is a fairly tight fit to those doors. But, later, the USS Excelsior, a ship we know to be larger than the Enterprise by significant size and volume (see end of TUC) apparently slips through the doors with ease! Not to mention, what happens when Starfleet starts designing larger starships? Now they have a spacedock that is impossible to get any ship bigger than a Constitution-class into!

4. In TFF, a good portion of the film (arguably some of the best scenes) takes place in a beautiful nautical "officers club" observation lounge. I love this set...but I challenge someone to show me where this set is located by pointing at the outside of the Enterprise-A model. The windows are massive, spanning from almost floor-to-ceiling, and the view is clearly looking straight ahead with no visability to any other parts of the ship (implying that it is on the forward rim somewhere).

5. I'm not even going to touch the turboshaft in TFF.

6. In TUC, the crew dines with the Klingon delegation in a very nice looking dining room (borrowed straight from TNG) with 8 or 9 large bay windows. I challenge someone to show me where this room exists on the Enterprise-A model. The room is clearly adjacent to the hull, and the wall containing the windows is curved. Where is this room?? Where is there a configuration of windows anywhere on the hull that matches what we see on screen? It muse be Nick Meyer's "window-forming ray gun" at work again.

7. The Enterprise-A is shown with 3 completely different bridge modules. The module in TVH is a redress of the design we are familliar with from the first 3 films. The module shown in TFF is roughly the same size and configuration, but of a completely different design. Finally, the set in TUC is a different configuration, but of similar design to the one in TFF. Now, plenty of fans have "excused" this as saying that Starfleet has "detatchable bridge modules" that allow the bridges to be easily retrofitted and swapped out baed on mission needs, tech improvements, etc. That's a great excuse, but it doesn't hold. the turbolift positons change in every one of those movies. The turbolifts in Trek VI are almost on the sides of the set, rather than at the rear of the set. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? It's not! You'd have to completely refit the entire ship to do this! The turbo shafts are structural "hard point" in a vessle. You can't just move the location of a lift door without altering the positioning of the shafts that run up to A-deck. It makes no sense whatsoever. Think about an office building saying "hey, we don't like those elevator doors there. So, let's move them." That's insane! You'd have to move the entire elevator shaft and perform major construction on the entire building. Same drill here, folks.

Based on all of this, I'd be anxious to see a technical manual released on the Enterprise-A.

Nobody take this personally, it's not designed to be so... but it's just another example of how this type of thing is a pattern in Trek and NOT localized to one or two movies.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 25 2010, 3:03 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Feb. 25 2010, 10:15 am)
Very true Vger!!! Stir the pot slowly said the wise man! ;) :p :laugh: :laugh:

It's like I said...I have no desire to pee on the hornet's nest!

:laugh:

That being said, I think it's important to point out that I am IN NO WAY suggesting that those kinds of debates are not fun and, indeed, part of the fundamental purpose of this board.

What I DO worry about is when people get so charged up about that type of stuff that they lose sight of what Star Trek is supposed to be all about: fun and enjoyable entertainment. When people take mistakes in a movie PERSONALLY, that's a bad thing. When people try to justify their feelings by pointing to those mistakes as a reason for hating something and fail to apply that same reasoning to other movies (because they happen to LIKE those other movies that have the same kinds of problems), that's ALSO a bad thing.

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Feb. 25 2010, 7:41 pm

Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 25 2010, 6:17 am)
All these posts you just made are perfect examples of just brushing inconsistent BS under the rug because "hey...you LIKED THE MOVIE!"


vger, you TOTALLY misread my post...

I SAID Scotty bringing Preston up to the bridge was a flaw...

I SAID Terrell committing suicide but Checkov just passing out was an inconsistency...

I wasn't defending them by saying they were done for dramatic purposes. I was saying that was THEIR (writers) lousy reason, not MY excuse. You and I can speculate things like malfunctions in the lift and such, but no reason is truly given. I didn't give those problems a pass...

However, do you guys just glance over what people write really fast because you're so eager to label someone as "one-of those-fans" ??? Not one of my questions was answered...

I was posing the debate/discussion: "How can something like Khans necklace be considered on par with something like the "shield frequency" in Generations, when Khans necklace has nothing to do with the actual plot like the shield frequency does...

I mean, you almost agree with me there in the end about the silliness of people complaining about the deck sizes in STXI, so how are you labeling me as "one-of-those-fans". I already said I don't consider any of the nitpicks in STXI a problem. I give them a pass, like I think everyone should do, for EVERY movie, so they can focus on the bigger problems.

I'm trying to show that people need to differentiate between what are big major plot affecting problems and what are just silly insignificant nitpicks. Are you going to just grab EVERY problem in each movie, big or small, and then add them up for a net total and compare who has the most? I don't think so

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 27 2010, 1:22 pm

Quote (Blockman @ Feb. 25 2010, 7:41 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 25 2010, 6:17 am)
All these posts you just made are perfect examples of just brushing inconsistent BS under the rug because "hey...you LIKED THE MOVIE!"


vger, you TOTALLY misread my post...

I SAID Scotty bringing Preston up to the bridge was a flaw...

I SAID Terrell committing suicide but Checkov just passing out was an inconsistency...

I wasn't defending them by saying they were done for dramatic purposes. I was saying that was THEIR (writers) lousy reason, not MY excuse. You and I can speculate things like malfunctions in the lift and such, but no reason is truly given. I didn't give those problems a pass...

However, do you guys just glance over what people write really fast because you're so eager to label someone as "one-of those-fans" ??? Not one of my questions was answered...

I was posing the debate/discussion: "How can something like Khans necklace be considered on par with something like the "shield frequency" in Generations, when Khans necklace has nothing to do with the actual plot like the shield frequency does...

I mean, you almost agree with me there in the end about the silliness of people complaining about the deck sizes in STXI, so how are you labeling me as "one-of-those-fans". I already said I don't consider any of the nitpicks in STXI a problem. I give them a pass, like I think everyone should do, for EVERY movie, so they can focus on the bigger problems.

I'm trying to show that people need to differentiate between what are big major plot affecting problems and what are just silly insignificant nitpicks. Are you going to just grab EVERY problem in each movie, big or small, and then add them up for a net total and compare who has the most? I don't think so

I wasn't so much arguing against you as I was using your post as a springboard to bring up related topics / feelings I have on certain things.

Thanks for your concern though.

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Feb. 27 2010, 2:14 pm

I have no reason to believe that the quality of Star Trek movies will or have gone downhill.  In fact in all respects you have to admit that Star Trek was considerably done better than Sta Trek Nemesis.  So if anything it hasn't gone downhill it has improved.  Using the numbers Sta Trek did considerably better in the box office than Nemesis.  And in the end the numbers prove improvement, not decline.

If I worry about anything it would be what will happen to Star Trek once Abrams gets bored with it?  Abrams reminds me of Tommy Lee a little bit, short attention span, and quick to change story lines.  If you doubt that watch Lost.

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Mar. 01 2010, 8:09 am

Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 27 2010, 1:22 pm)
Quote (Blockman @ Feb. 25 2010, 7:41 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Feb. 25 2010, 6:17 am)
All these posts you just made are perfect examples of just brushing inconsistent BS under the rug because "hey...you LIKED THE MOVIE!"


vger, you TOTALLY misread my post...

I SAID Scotty bringing Preston up to the bridge was a flaw...

I SAID Terrell committing suicide but Checkov just passing out was an inconsistency...

I wasn't defending them by saying they were done for dramatic purposes. I was saying that was THEIR (writers) lousy reason, not MY excuse. You and I can speculate things like malfunctions in the lift and such, but no reason is truly given. I didn't give those problems a pass...

However, do you guys just glance over what people write really fast because you're so eager to label someone as "one-of those-fans" ??? Not one of my questions was answered...

I was posing the debate/discussion: "How can something like Khans necklace be considered on par with something like the "shield frequency" in Generations, when Khans necklace has nothing to do with the actual plot like the shield frequency does...

I mean, you almost agree with me there in the end about the silliness of people complaining about the deck sizes in STXI, so how are you labeling me as "one-of-those-fans". I already said I don't consider any of the nitpicks in STXI a problem. I give them a pass, like I think everyone should do, for EVERY movie, so they can focus on the bigger problems.

I'm trying to show that people need to differentiate between what are big major plot affecting problems and what are just silly insignificant nitpicks. Are you going to just grab EVERY problem in each movie, big or small, and then add them up for a net total and compare who has the most? I don't think so

I wasn't so much arguing against you as I was using your post as a springboard to bring up related topics / feelings I have on certain things.

Thanks for your concern though.

Alright, Fair enough...

But I made extra sure to admit flaws in TWoK as well as the other movies I mentioned. I don't hold any one movie to a different set of standards that I don't hold for the rest. However, if there's a minor slip up which is considered a nitpick, like Spock wearing a different jacket in one scene, it should be ignored, for every movie. If we were writing a synopsis for STV, McCoys reference to "marshmellons" wouldn't have any affect on the plot, where as Spock giving up the rifle to Sybok, because he doesn't want to shoot him, yet he simply could have just smacked him, would have to be included since it's essential to the story.

We shouldn't be comparing a list of net total flaws between movies, which include nitpicks, when instead we should be focusing on the larger problems in those movies, then we can debate from there.

:)

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Mar. 02 2010, 6:08 pm

All trek fans should read this and decide first on the possibly outcomes of what the Romulans have done.

http://boards.startrek.com/communi....0;st=75

I have been able to pinpoint numerous causalities in the time line that cannot be changed by the Narada Incident:

These include the V'ger incident and the Whale Probe as well as Q and the Organians. If we can somehow maintain the time line with events that would have occured before the Narada Incident but had a direct effect on the Federation where those involved (V'ger and the Whale Probe) were completely outside of any contact with any member of the Federation, it's allies or any enemies of the Federation we can then at least have starting points from which to launch counter-attacks back through the timeline.

The most important aspect of the timeline shift is Romulus will now be the subject of attack from the Klingons, Federation and any other members so alinged against the Romulans. Should we allow this war to go forth and affect the timeline of the future or should we find Nero's ancestor's assisinate them so that Nero is never born thus eliminating the attack on Vulcan that would save the future as it has already been written while keeping possibly trillions from dieing from the war that will most likely erupt over this incident?

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Mar. 02 2010, 6:12 pm

As we all know the Tal'Shiar are present on every Romulan vessel including mining vessels. Since they are devoted to the highest ruling class on Romulus would they have relayed to their rulers what was going on or would have they waited to overthrow the Senate thus replacing it with a new government led by Tal'Shiar? Or could they simply recede into the shadows waiting and watching for other attempts to take out key figures like Picard, Sisko, Janeway ect to further destroy the timeline and bring about a new Romulan ruled empire led by the Tal'Shiar. I doubt if they would simply wait and watch without taking the oppurtunity to engage in a little Tal'Shiaran mischief.

None the less the new 1701 and storyline as well as Uhura were very hot and exciting to look at.

No stir the pot very fast to make them throw up, nasty little Tal'Shiaran bass turds.

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Mar. 02 2010, 8:37 pm

I bet Abrams forgot or just didn't care or know about the Tal'Shiar. ¿My guess is anyone who disagreed with him in these matters probably got this:



:D

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Mar. 03 2010, 12:17 am

Quote (dryson @ Mar. 02 2010, 6:08 pm)
I have been able to pinpoint numerous causalities in the time line that cannot be changed by the Narada Incident:

These include the V'ger incident and the Whale Probe as well as Q and the Organians.

And as I pointed out to you in the other thread its quite possible that the other comes of both the Whale Probe and V'Ger may not accure.

And your Organian's theroy is based on non canon information.

Quote
Should we allow this war to go forth and affect the timeline of the future or should we find Nero's ancestor's assisinate them so that Nero is never born thus eliminating the attack on Vulcan that would save the future as it has already been written while keeping possibly trillions from dieing from the war that will most likely erupt over this incident?


And as I told you, the grandfater paradox does not apply.

Even if we were to kill Neros mother while Pregnant with Nero it wouldnt change a thing.

This film is useing a variation of the "Parrallels Theory".

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum