The worst offender is, of course, the extreme plot coincidence that sees Kirk being set down on the icy planet within about half a mile from Spock's cave, and then finding that cave by chance. Out of all the land area on the planet he could have been placed on, being put there at random stretches plausibility. Then, because in for a penny in for a pound I suppose, they also happen to be close to a Federation outpost where of all the people in the galaxy, Scotty is coincidentally posted. A plot probably shouldn't need that level of coincidence to work.
Yes this is a lot of deus ex machina, I wouldn't call that poor story telling but instead bad plot points. I agree with you on this.
There's also the notion that the bad guy blamed Spock so thoroughly that he destroyed Vulcan. He did this because ... Spock tried to save Romulus and failed. Would it have been better if he had never even tried? That's utter crazy person logic, and if he's a crazy person then he's less interesting than a villain who has actual real motives.
It is crazy person logic, but honestly not really crazy logic, it is very twisted-evil logic though.
Some sociopaths once they have suffered will want to cause someone else to suffer so they can feel in control and they will receive some enjoyment from the experience. Nero blamed the destruction of his planet on the federation and not just spock, thus he will destroy the federation so that romulus will grow in its place (not having a rival), furthermore while Nero didn't mention this outright after the federation is destroyed he can take action that would prevent the destruction of romulus.
I have no problem with this.
Did the movie explain the whole Romulus destruction thing? Were all the people on the planet killed? If Spock had time to rig up his red matter machine and warp there, wouldn't there have been a chance for lots of starships to beam as many people as possible off? Did the sun go supernova without warning? If all the people weren't killed, how is it justice to kill all the people on Vulcan? I don't even really remember if any of that was explained, but I suspect it was glossed over.
Details that don't really matter, you are just curious. I agree this part could have been better explained though.
I don't think Nero was looking for justice, but instead revenge.
Back to coincidences, it's a fairly big one that Kirk happens to be randomly jumped up to a high enough position that he can take command of the ship on his first actual assignment, instead of earning it or at least having all the higher ranked people killed somehow.
Kirk was a cadet, he wasn't even an ensign, he had no rank.
Pike though made him first officer even though he was a mere cadet for he thought he would be a good influence on Spock. Kirk was a smart boy, but furthermore he was passioned and aggressive. Spock who was acting captain was the very opposite. Pike thought by making Kirk first officer he could be a good influence on Spock and together they would make a better team.
Of course this logic failed though for Spock was way too conservative and wasn't willing to take chances, and due to the circumstances his plan would yielded failure. Kirk failed at convincing Spock to be more bold and willing to take chances to save Earth, getting thrown onto the Hoth planet. Thus Kirk with Spock Prime's council did a little mutiny.
While it was rash and against protocol, I am not surprised by this course of action. The Enterprise was not ready to be launched and thus did not have a normal command crew but instead was full of cadets.
1) If the captain is leaving the ship
2) The first officer becomes acting captain, you now have no first officer
3) If you only have cadets on this ship, then it is little surprise he picked Kirk out of all the cadets, consider these four points
a) Kirk had shown brilliant test scores and was considered genius level intelligence according to pike
b) Kirk is willing to think outside the box as well as on his feet, hell he almost got suspended for he wouldn't follow the rules with the Kobayashi Maru. He is also willing to say what he thinks is neccessary to save the ship (as evident by getting pike to dropping out of warp early)
c) Kirk is willing to do daring things as evident via his actions.
d) Kirk is naturally Spock's opposite so he will present a different pov to Spock
Khan is IN (but Benicio Del Toro is OUT) as Star Trek 2's villain
- 06/12/2011 02:58:08 PM
1046 Views
ST2
- 06/12/2011 04:34:40 PM
584 Views
Wha?!?
- 07/12/2011 12:06:49 AM
486 Views
Yes and no.
- 07/12/2011 05:42:43 PM
560 Views
I am curious, what aspects of the movie were poor story telling? *NM*
- 07/12/2011 06:23:35 PM
190 Views
Well.
- 07/12/2011 08:00:20 PM
492 Views
My responses
- 08/12/2011 05:38:26 AM
455 Views
Re: My responses
- 08/12/2011 03:37:18 PM
528 Views
*NM*
Wait a minute! Could Khan possibly be...
- 06/12/2011 06:45:07 PM
623 Views
The only thing I liked Del Toro in was "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", so no big loss.
- 06/12/2011 06:54:38 PM
434 Views
I liked him in The Usual Suspects
- 06/12/2011 11:57:27 PM
494 Views
I don't even usually remember he was in that. He just didn't stand out. *NM*
- 07/12/2011 02:20:12 AM
183 Views
*NM*