Why the %$&@ not? Makes perfect sense...
About as much as building a multi-kiloton starship on the ground with no visible means of getting it into space made sense... :rolleyes:
Printable View
I'm still trying to figure out what the @*@&_=_.;?:! that abyssal canyon was doing in the middle of friggin' Iowa!
Somebody suggested it was part of the scar from the weapon that killed Trip's sister, but Iowa's a long way from Florida...
That was obviously symbolic of the gaping holes in the plot, selek.
Like, young Kirk stealing a 'classic car' that can go like stink... never mind that it's 250+ years old... and would 23rd-century Earth even still have hydrocarbon-based fuels? :rolleyes:
Wow. Is it just me that loves the new movie, then?
Crow
Plenty of people on this board loved this movie (actually it was strange for me, who was OK with Voyager and Enterprise, to find myself on the other side of the "Arrgh plot holes continuity" vs "Hey, good moment of fun" debate).
It's just this thread attracts those who like to poke fun at it, and maybe there are a tad more of those amongst the people who did not like it.
Not that I know much about the rock strata of Iowa, the thing he nearly fell into was clearly a quarry... It's sides were hewn rock. From the vast mesa-sized sci-fi constructed structures seen on the horizon, I suspect that's what they built with that stone! It's actually a extremely simple explanation, and not really a plot hole at all. Those cool looking Sci-fi structures on the horizon actually gave me that goosebump feeling that Startrek is in the future, instead of most of the low budget TV and film's where the most they ever did to indicate it was the future was film in a couple of modernist buildings.
The car issue is a non-issue really. It's owned by a Starship Captain, who all famously get good 'wages' and can spend it on nothing, because they are in space for years at a time, and we can make hydrocarbon based fuel out of plants today, for example in states where they grow a lot of plants, like say IOWA, for example, and yeah it may be expensive, but you know, see above! :) the late 20'th/early 21'st century is full of living acronisms: We both preserve what we have now and also embrace future stuff: You can go to remote places in england and ride on Steam trains, or rent canal boats and ride in the crumbling canal network, and I can't imagine it being any different in 50-100 years time, just like people buy antique furniture and like living in 400 year old houses.. in the UK that's COMMON. In a post-war earth yeah I can imagine a lot of people would likewise want to keep hold of relics from the past, and to them our era would be just as relevant as any other for collecting (and lets face it we made a LOT of junk for them to collect, mass production era anyone!)
I'm always very suspicious of the strain of fanboiism which seems to like to be able to pick and choose what it finds acceptable: Like it's totally fine to have energy beams which can reconstitute your body 40,000 km away but not 1 lightyear; Or that having a ship the size of a football field is fine, but one that's 2 is ludicrous beyond belief; or having the ability to alter the internal environment to have internal gravity, and turn it on and off at will is fine, but being able to do that TOO a starship is STUPID; being able to summon any known substance from nothing is fine, but having a world economy not based on being paid is UNREALISTIC... It's a very fine tuned set of plausibility rules which really make no sense on the face of it, especially when what's 'implausible' is usually quite plausible in the presented reality.
Tobian, I'm usually a sarcastic, evil-minded &@*&*$. I enjoyed the film - but then again, I like zombie films...
It's been said to me that if I get cut, whatever leaks out will burn through the deck plates beneath me.