First-Aid wrote:Because he's Spock and he's just awesome that way.
I am of the opinion that the explanations you provide offer plausible answers to the questions I posed. However, I am also of the opinion that these answers should have been present in the narrative. By way of example: a little research turned up a quote by Orci and Kurtzman in which they took the opportunity to clarify that indeed, Kirk fired on the Narada - and thus risked losing his ship to the growing threat of a black hole - specifically to prevent the possibility of Nero and his vessel from escaping. This issue could have been addressed within the scene itself, simply by the addition of a line of dialogue - something to the effect of "We cannot risk losing them", "This ends here" or similar.
5150 Cruiser wrote:Personally, i see nothing wrong with anything you pointed out as being faults or plot holes in the latest Star Trek movie. Mainly because 80% of those "problems" can't be proved faults since we have so little understanding of how black holes really work. And even if we did have enough knowledge, this is Star Trek. Many of the standard rules and laws of physics go out the window.
You are quite right to state that a work of fiction is in no way bound to follow the physical laws of our own universe. However, I would argue that any work of fiction should attempt to remain internally consist in regard to the rules of its universe, for the express purpose of avoiding confusion in its target audience.
Take, for instance, the issue of Red Matter. When initially introduced to the audience, Red Matter is shown to be an incredibly destructive substance, a single drop of which results in the destruction of an entire planet. Shortly thereafter, it is explained that Red Matter can create black holes that allow vessels to travel through time unharmed. Next, Nero attempts to use Red Matter to destroy Earth itself; in a reversal of events, Spock is able to use the Red Matter to instigate the destruction of the Narada. Finally, Kirk orders his crew to accelerate the annihilation of the enemy vessel, for fear that the Red Matter will allow the Romulans safe passage to another era.
So: at times, Red Matter is an utterly lethal material, able to wipe out billions of lives in the blink of an eye; or, a relatively stable form of travel into the past. Which outcome should the audience expect at any given moment? (Is it any surprise that Orci and Kurtzman were called upon to clarify Kirk's reasons for firing on an the incapacitated Narada?)
5150 Cruiser wrote:At some point you have to just sit back and enjoy the ride. If your that critical of a movie that is based on many "facts" that only live in that particular universe, then your never going to have fun.
This is a premise I take particular umbrage with - I see absolutely nothing wrong with having high expectations for the narrative element of a given work of fiction. Indeed, let me play fair turnabout here - what if
Transformers featured Oscar-worthy levels of writing and acting, but portrayed the titular robots using stunt personnel in cardboard outfits? How would you feel if you were informed to simply "Close your eyes and enjoy the story?"
cotss2012 wrote:Yeah... the blame still lies mostly with the guys who designed a bad engine. The designer of the whole car has to worry about whether the frame should be steel or aluminum, will the airbags deploy correctly, should the seats be made of leather, does anyone still drive a stick shift anymore, where to install the flux capacitor, etc... if you show him an engine that seems to work well enough on the factory floor, then that has to be good enough for him, and it's not his fault if the thing explodes 2 minutes after leaving the parking lot.
Your first point seems to indicate that we should somehow remove the blame from a director (or in the case of the given analogy, a project manager) if it transpires that he or she does not have the necessary skills to manage each facet of such a large and demanding undertaking. I'm sorry, but to my mind it still sounds as if the person at the top is to blame - only in the situation you cite, it is for the crime of biting off more than they can proverbially chew.
I can also assure you that in the even of a post-parking lot engine explosion, the project manager will most certainly be held responsible for allowing an unsafe product to enter final production (either intentionally, or as a result of insufficient quality assurance efforts).
As for Camerons dialogue, well I'm sorry but Bay is the worst offender out there for me.
She was completely unconvincing,its hard enough trying to believe in a character like Robin. 
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
