[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

That's correct. The information is neither negative nor positive.

Which would be fine - if we knew that Starfleet (and Chekov) had never been there before either. But they have.

In which case, there should have been a line of dialogue along the lines of 'sensors show one less planet than the last time a Federation starship passed through this system and the gravitational orbits of the remaining planets has also been affected'.

Since there wasn't, we would have to assume they felt nothing was wrong at all, and that makes no sense.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

Not to mention, how does Genesis exploding create a star system out of a nebula? You can go on and on with this. Yet, somehow these are mortal sins in this one movie, but not any of the others.

Exactly, there are more of these things than can be counted. Dressing it up in a variety of ways is one thing, but what it ultimately reduces to is simple 'choice'.

People 'choose' to let it slide, or 'choose' to be bothered.

[I-Am-Zim]

Once again, using previous Star Trek as a benchmark to judge this movie doesn't work. This is a new franchise. It just happens to be called Star Trek. What has happened before has absolutely no bearing on STXI. And one would assume, after 40+ years of plot holes and continuity errors, the writers of the film that is supposed to jump start the franchise would have at least tried to outdo the others. To me, it looked as if they made no effort at all to keep even the internal consistency...consistent. This movie makes all the others look like Shakespeare.

[starwarsrcks]

that's an opinion you always come up with yawn ok the film may suck to others but not to me.

[Saquist]

What's with all the green links all of sudden?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Once again, using previous Star Trek as a benchmark to judge this movie doesn't work. This is a new franchise. It just happens to be called Star Trek. What has happened before has absolutely no bearing on STXI. And one would assume, after 40+ years of plot holes and continuity errors, the writers of the film that is supposed to jump start the franchise would have at least tried to outdo the others. To me, it looked as if they made no effort at all to keep even the internal consistency...consistent. This movie makes all the others look like Shakespeare.

Once again, denying the actual facts that Star Trek has operated in this way since the start doesn't work either.

If it didn't matter after 40 years to every other writer, once again, why are we treating Orci & Kurtzman differently? Oh, that's right - because not everyone liked the result this time. And suddenly, it's a hanging offence.

IMO, I don't think so.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

correction: created a planet out of the Nebula.
We're not told what star became the host of Nebula in the Mutara sector. It could have been Ceti Alpha star.

Yes, we know the Nebula was the source of the Planet (thanks for the correction but that one wasn't actually needed). However, are we to then assume that not only can Genesis create a planet but it can actually create - a planet, and a Star for that planet to orbit?

Ok - so it can do that. All wrapped up in a little torpedo sized tube? (And we're still trying to contend that humans building a starship on Earth would be so implausible? OK, that one's not dying anyway but really...........).

We'll just say that the Genesis Device can really can do whatever the writers needed it to, despite the demonstration and explanation of it the film not telling us anything of the sort about it.

Including resurrect the dead.

Essentially the planet was created from the Nebula, that all we can assume since we saw matter falling in on the system. What isn't quite right is how fast it all happened which implies that the devices gravitational field worked at warp speed over a vast distance...but that's Hollywood for you. Speeding up Time is done alot.

Hollywood does a lot of things indeed. Interestingly, you seem to pick and choose which ones are a problem the same as every other person does.

I'm sorry Kevin, the "IF" in your statement isn't actionable.
The movies statement on the planets from the Star Fleets perspective cannot be assumed negative if it remains neutral on the subject.

The Assumption

In other words:
"If we don't hear Star Fleet question the missing planet we must assume they didn't know about it."

That is a logical fallacy.
The movie makes no statement on the subject and is completely neutral... There is no basis for which to assume a negative.

In fact there is reason to assume a positive.
The lack of objection from the Star Fleet crew at Khan's statement is a speculative reason to assume a positive although it's not definitive.

In which case, there should have been a line of dialogue along the lines of 'sensors show one less planet than the last time a Federation starship passed through this system and the gravitational orbits of the remaining planets has also been affected'

Assuming a positive or a negative from a reaction or statement is not uncommon or illogical. But assuming a negative or a positive from no reaction and or statement is baseless speculation. That is the difference.

I'm gonna go with - Meyer was still careless and could have fixed the problematic set up by having actually paid attention to 'Space Seed' when he watched it instead of glossing over the whole thing.

There remains no sense in Reliant being unaware of the significant changes in the Ceti Alpha Star System if one watches 'Space Seed' first and then goes to TWOK.

Indeed the entire argument between the two should be null and void. It's basically leaning on the franchise to allow for it's tremendously bad science which in this modern age of information resource and consulting are cheap or at a click of the button.

It's the excuse: He started force or even worse it's the human shield technique of arguing. The film has no virtues of it's own to block the criticism so throws an innocent bi-standard between them and the fire.

Since when did having science advisors and access to NASA prevent Star Trek from getting it's science bad for the conventions of plot? (I'm quite sure that's the human shield argument as well, but since we know it's still true even if some like to ignore the obvious I won't feel bad about using it again.)

Never. Star Trek has always had access to top scientific information and people who are in the know and they still don't always abide by it. Which is where the 'fiction' not 'fact' comes into science-fiction.

Let's not also ignore the more basic fact that the majority of people getting het up about these issues are the people who didn't like the end result anyway. Which includes those who had also decided as such before even seeing the flick. It's not that others who like the films aren't aware of these issues (I hate to break it to you, but you are not entirely illuminating the unknown in regards to the film at times) but there is, of course, a quite clear correlation to be found between concern about them and reception of the film.

Plot holes, inconsistencies, continuity errors and bad science are in fact not a problem for Star Trek fans. They never have been. It's only when they don't like the end result that they become so.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

What's with all the green links all of sudden?

?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Once again, using previous Star Trek as a benchmark to judge this movie doesn't work. This is a new franchise. It just happens to be called Star Trek. What has happened before has absolutely no bearing on STXI. And one would assume, after 40+ years of plot holes and continuity errors, the writers of the film that is supposed to jump start the franchise would have at least tried to outdo the others. To me, it looked as if they made no effort at all to keep even the internal consistency...consistent. This movie makes all the others look like Shakespeare.

In a sense I do agree with you. This was the point of a reboot, to wipe the slate clean. But let's not pretend that there aren't some mental gymnastics going on here to excuse plot holes and contrivances in other films, and damn this one.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

It's not a perfect movie, no one is claiming that it is. For instance, I do agree with Saquist on the scene where Spock decides to maroon Kirk. That's pretty forced.