ST 5: The Final Blunder

[Beam Brain]

In my continued quest to expose bad plot holes, this movie tops the list. I like so many felt it was the worst and Shatner must have had his ego badly wounded.

Traitor Spock: Allowed his half brosky to hijack the ship.
Not the Kirk we know: Kirk did zip to get his ship back after breaking out of the brig.
No one to watch the store: The crew are so taken by this god creature that no one is watching the tactical screens to see that a Klingon cruiser has just decloaked.
Photon Torpedos don't kill: The Enterprise fires a torpedo on the location of the evil god creature. A torpedo can destroy a ship but doesn't kill the 3 Stooges who simply dive out of the way.
DUH! HELLO-Fire Again: When the evil creature didn't die with the first shot why didn't Kirk tell them to keep firing? Instead they ran. The Klingons hadn't attacked yet.

Those are a few of my observations. In all while the movie had a few good things to it, the effects were rushed and the overall look of it was cheap. Thankfully we have ST6....

 

[Khan 2.0]

doesn't kill the 3 Stooges who simply dive out of the way.

 

[fireproof78]

Photon Torpedos don't kill:

I mean, variable yields are a thing.

 

[Vger23]

I love Star Trek V

I honestly think if your goal is to pick apart "plot holes" in Star Trek movies, if you went about that in an objective fashion, you'd find them all severely wanting. TWOK and TUC, two "fan darling" films, are riddled with issues that would fill a couple of notebook pages.

 

[Beam Brain]

"I honestly think if your goal is to pick apart "plot holes" in Star Trek movies, if you went about that in an objective fashion, you'd find them all severely wanting. TWOK and TUC, two "fan darling" films, are riddled with issues that would fill a couple of notebook pages."

Vger23, you are absolutely right! I just haven't gotten to them yet! My goal isn't so much to pick them apart but to have fun noting the flaws. They all have good and bad to them. TWOK and TUC do as well.

 

[Vger23]

"I honestly think if your goal is to pick apart "plot holes" in Star Trek movies, if you went about that in an objective fashion, you'd find them all severely wanting. TWOK and TUC, two "fan darling" films, are riddled with issues that would fill a couple of notebook pages."

Vger23, you are absolutely right! I just haven't gotten to them yet! My goal isn't so much to pick them apart but to have fun noting the flaws. They all have good and bad to them. TWOK and TUC do as well.

For Star Trek V, one of the biggest ones for me is “Why send the Enterprise if she is not ready for action?” Admiral Bob even tells Kirk that there are other ships, but no experienced commanders. It makes no sense that they’d send the Enterprise, which doesn’t even have operational transporters, to a hostage rescue mission in the Neutral Zone. In real life, they’d just put Kirk and perhaps some of the command crew on a fully-operational ship and get them to the crisis.

 

[Jeyl]

For Star Trek V, one of the biggest ones for me is “Why send the Enterprise if she is not ready for action?” Admiral Bob even tells Kirk that there are other ships, but no experienced commanders. It makes no sense that they’d send the Enterprise, which doesn’t even have operational transporters, to a hostage rescue mission in the Neutral Zone. In real life, they’d just put Kirk and perhaps some of the command crew on a fully-operational ship and get them to the crisis.

Especially when the Enterprise herself is floating right next to the Excelsior in Space Dock. This reasoning comes off more as a 'self-indulgent' attempt to glorify Kirk rather than a plot device that compliments the story.

And Admiral Bob is a pretty pathetic admiral if he's acting with sincerity. He highlights the need for 'experience', but Kirk didn't exactly do the best job with the last two instances where both Khan and Kruge murder the people they capture and both of them wind up dead. The only way I can see Bob's reasoning make any sense is if he actually wants Sybok and/or Kirk blown to bits. Maybe the admiral thought Kirk wasn't punished enough (Or in his view, at all) for his actions in STIII and would like Sybok dead for bringing attention to a failed relations stunt.

 

[fireproof78]

For Star Trek V, one of the biggest ones for me is “Why send the Enterprise if she is not ready for action?” Admiral Bob even tells Kirk that there are other ships, but no experienced commanders. It makes no sense that they’d send the Enterprise, which doesn’t even have operational transporters, to a hostage rescue mission in the Neutral Zone. In real life, they’d just put Kirk and perhaps some of the command crew on a fully-operational ship and get them to the crisis.

Yup. Have the Enterprise rendezvous with a more functional ship, Kirk is mission commander and move forward.

 

[UssGlenn]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be ST 5: The Final Blundeer?

 

[There Be Whales Here]

I think one of the biggest plot holes was in how the Enterprise (and the Klingon ship) made it through an energy barrier we are led to believe is impenetrable as well as how they got to the center of the galaxy so fast. While I know this was explained in the novelization that Sybok supposedly made some modifications, but I don't recall any mention of this ever on screen. And if it could be penetrated so easily, why didn't the "God Thing" escape? And why would he need a starship?

Maybe not so much a plot hole, but I did always wonder the justification (beyond real-life budgetary reasons) of the Enterprise-A having such a scaled down hanger deck that can barely fit two shuttles side by side. Not only was this in contrast to the enormous combined hanger and cargo deck from the first refit, but even the original TOS one seemed much larger in scale.

 

[Vger23]

I think one of the biggest plot holes was in how the Enterprise (and the Klingon ship) made it through an energy barrier we are led to believe is impenetrable as well as how they got to the center of the galaxy so fast. While I know this was explained in the novelization that Sybok supposedly made some modifications, but I don't recall any mention of this ever on screen. And if it could be penetrated so easily, why didn't the "God Thing" escape? And why would he need a starship?

Maybe not so much a plot hole, but I did always wonder the justification (beyond real-life budgetary reasons) of the Enterprise-A having such a scaled down hanger deck that can barely fit two shuttles side by side. Not only was this in contrast to the enormous combined hanger and cargo deck from the first refit, but even the original TOS one seemed much larger in scale.

I think the timeline associated with the journey to the galactic core is more of an issue with the science associated with the film, rather than an actual "plot hole." Honestly, when TFF was released, there was far less continuity about warp speeds and galactic distances than there may have been by the time TNG was more fully established. The Enterprise generally moved at the speed of plot in TOS and the previous films. If you look at TWOK, for example, the Enterprise is 12 hours away from Regula 1 at Warp 5 when she is attacked by the Reliant. The attack essentially destroys the warp drive, and 2 scenes later, on aux power...the ship is arriving at the Space Labratory.

The issue with the Great Barrier being "not so great" is a different story. It feels as though there was a more profound / important plot element associated with the Barrier that was never fully developed. The dialogue seems to imply at various points that it is an unknown but impenetrable force. At other times, the entire reality of the Barrier is questioned by Sybok ("the danger is an illusion" and "the ultimate expression of universal fear")...as if it's danger has never been scientifically proven. It felt like it was set up as a "leap of faith" test as such...but the script never fleshed it out clearly enough for the audience to understand.

I actually like the idea of the smaller hanger. I love the overall TMP design, but I honestly hated how the refit was depicted in that movie as basically dedicating 3/4 of the secondary hull to hanger and cargo bay facilities. Seemed like a horrific waste of space to me.

 

[UssGlenn]

Maybe not so much a plot hole, but I did always wonder the justification (beyond real-life budgetary reasons) of the Enterprise-A having such a scaled down hanger deck that can barely fit two shuttles side by side. Not only was this in contrast to the enormous combined hanger and cargo deck from the first refit, but even the original TOS one seemed much larger in scale.

I mean, there isn't one beyond budget reasons. However I would like to know how far off the TFF hanger is from what would actually fit in the hull of the 947 foot ship. It's probably closer than we think.

 

[Maurice]

Why start so many threads instead of one thread about the film series and the issues you have with each film?

 

[Beam Brain]

Why start so many threads instead of one thread about the film series and the issues you have with each film?

1) I was under the impression that I had to do 14 posts before I get graduated off the rookie level .
2) Scrolli8ng through the answers would have been a nightmare if I included all movies.

 

[STEPhon IT]

For Star Trek V, one of the biggest ones for me is “Why send the Enterprise if she is not ready for action?” Admiral Bob even tells Kirk that there are other ships, but no experienced commanders. It makes no sense that they’d send the Enterprise, which doesn’t even have operational transporters, to a hostage rescue mission in the Neutral Zone. In real life, they’d just put Kirk and perhaps some of the command crew on a fully-operational ship and get them to the crisis.

Probably be a better idea to have a fully functioning Enterprise in the beginning but operational properties like the transporter and such started breaking down after going through the rigorous travel of the Great Barrier. If the director decided to have a rigorous travel through the Great Barrier?

 

[DonIago]

Probably be a better idea to have a fully functioning Enterprise in the beginning but operational properties like the transporter and such started breaking down after going through the rigorous travel of the Great Barrier. If the director decided to have a rigorous travel through the Great Barrier?

Except that working transporters would have made the Nimbus III 'rescue' play out significantly differently.

Perhaps a better question...why not stun everyone on Nimbus III from orbit and then go in? Of course, phasers probably weren't working either. Still, I imagine Starfleet Academy might use this as a future example of how not to conduct a rescue mission.

 

[Bad Robot]

I honestly think if your goal is to pick apart "plot holes" in Star Trek movies, if you went about that in an objective fashion, you'd find them all severely wanting. TWOK and TUC, two "fan darling" films, are riddled with issues that would fill a couple of notebook pages.

I don't believe Star Trek IV The Voyage Home has even a single plothole. Making it among the rarest of rarities not just as ST, but as a movie period.

(I already know someone's likely to cite the movie's temporal hijinks, but I ain't counting them as holes. Would that more than a few ST time travel stories were as clever).

 

[Dukhat]

Even if one were to ignore the glaring surface issues with the film, such as 'how did they get to the center of the galaxy so fast?', 'how did the Enterprise and the BoP get through the Barrier so easily?', 'why did Admiral Bob send the Enterprise instead of the Excelsior with Kirk in command?', etc. etc, etc., we're still ignoring the film's primary fundamental flaw: That the entire story and structure of the movie is made to make Kirk look strong, and everyone else in the film to look weak. Discussing trivial 'plot holes' does not do this film justice when looked at in this way.

Everything is set up so that Kirk always ends up looking like the tough guy who can get through anything. From the beginning when he's recklessly climbing the mountain with no survival gear (and gets miraculously rescued by deux ex machina Spock), to his attack on Paradise City, to him being the only one to not fall under the influence of Sybok, to being the only one who can stand up to "God" in the penultimate scene. Since Shatner's original concept was to mock televangelists, it stands to reason that only he was immune to Sybok's charms, and that all the other people in the film who believe in Sybok's quest (Spock and McCoy included) were just made to look weak and foolish when it all falls apart. Add to that the fact that Shatner isn't really playing Kirk; he's more playing an idealized version of himself, makes it clear to me that this whole film was just a vehicle for Shatner's self-indulgence.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Except that working transporters would have made the Nimbus III 'rescue' play out significantly differently.

Perhaps a better question...why not stun everyone on Nimbus III from orbit and then go in? Of course, phasers probably weren't working either. Still, I imagine Starfleet Academy might use this as a future example of how not to conduct a rescue mission.

I wrote my scenario on another thread where I would've had a pre-title sequence where we see how difficult it would be to cross the Great Barrier, to punctuate what Kirk mentioned it can't be reached, the hijacking could still happen by Sybok and have a scary sequence as the crew dives into the Barrier and when they arrive on the planet Kirk, Spock, & McCoy gain knowledge people actually survived. How and by whom? An act of God? My direction would've been more in the vain of Indiana Jones, but you're right working transporters would've made the rescue mission on Nimbus play out differently. Probably would've saved us a lot of time on the bizarre scenes where an 80 year old Uhura is dancing naked as a distraction and for some reason that alien world raised horses there. Not a fan of the rescue sequence.

 

[FormerLurker]

80 year old Uhura

Fifty. That was over thirty years ago.


Thanks for reminding me how old I am.