Why is it that the Enterprise couldn’t have been on a similar mission? you think only one ship gets that kind of assignment?
Oh, sure.
That’s why Sulu made a point to describe his mission in the movie.
:smack:
Well, it was his captain’s log and what he was doing at that time - at no point after that scene is the Enterprise on it’s normal mission, so there was no reason for it to be mentioned.
Two words:
Chekhov’s gun.
And, I don’t mean Pavel.
whatever - really - I don’t see it as a plot hole or a mistake or even a good example of “Chekov’s Gun” - since the item in question was no weapon, just a way of establishing something that would make sense later in the movie when recalled - and it would have still worked had Sulu’s log never mentioned it.
There were obviously ships out doing that mission - when we first encounter the Excelsior and Sulu, it was more a statement of “just another day…” then Praxis exploded. We are not privvy to what the Enterprise and crew were doing at that time - but it’s not unreasonable that they were doing similar studies since things were ‘peaceful’.
You enjoy your view - I’ll enjoy mine.
“Chekov’s Gun” doesn’t have to refer specifically to a weapon.
I get that - I missed the edit window or I would have added that it - the reference to “mapping gaseuous anomolies” - did not refer to a specific item or anything - it was, IMHO, meant to establish that things were relatively peaceful such that mundane missions were being done.
For it to be an instance of Chekov’s Gun - the later scene would have to completely rely on the first - and it doesn’t - the log mention from sulu could have been left out and the comment by Uhura would have still made sense. (and no one would have complained about it being a plot hole, since again, we’re not privvy to every mission the enterprise is sent on). Similarly, had Uhura said “don’t we have equipment that can detect gaseous anomalies, thing has to have a tailpipe” - no one would have cared either.
Referring back to an event or time does not always equal ‘Chekov’s Gun’ or even ‘foreshadowing’ -
Kirk’s Glasses in ST 3 is a better reference to Chekov’s Gun - and they were inserted into the narrative a whole movie before.
But the Klingons we saw weren’t even doing that. They were just floating helplessly around. Pitiful.
It’s not a view thing. You are mentioning something that was not stated in the movie. You are fanwanking. That’s fine, but you need to realize that you are covering up a plot hole, not resolving one.
In other words, you would have no reason to come up with an explanation if there wasn’t a plot hole to begin with.
NB: The name of the Russian playwright is spelled “Chekhov.”
Chekov is a character on Star Trek. I started learning Russian when I was 16, and have never seen the name spelled this way anywhere else.
It’s not a plot hole. If Sulu mentions a car jack that the Excelsior has in case it blows a tire, it’s not a plot hole if Kirk uses the Enterprise’s jack later in the film.
That’s my point. If you’re floating helplessly, it doesn’t matter how highly trained you are, unless you’ve got something to throw. You can’t train to ignore the first law of motion.
What is a plot hole?
Why does everything have to be stated ? The implication of Sulu’s ‘mission’ is clear enough - that the Enterprise would have similar missions isn’t a big stretch of the imagination.
Or really - exactly this .
[spocked it up a bit]
I read that in a Spock from ST-IV:TVH voice and it worked surprisingly well.
Esp since, in Roddenberry’s vision at least, Starfleet is supposed to be primarily exploration, gunboating is just a sideline.
[Start a different thread to address this point. Trust me, we’ve spent decades on that question, and so many threads on it exist it could be its own forum]
Yeah, I’m not so much seeing that as a plot hole either.
Take the same line of reasoning and make it about something else: the photon torpedo. At some point in TOS, the Enterprise fires one.
Is it then a “plot hole” when another ship from the same fleet shows up and also fires a photon torpedo?
There’s the understanding that those things are standard issue fleetwide; and, during peacetime, Kirk’s ship would very, very likely have the same standard issue equipment available to him.
In a sense, it is Chekhov’s Gun, because we have mention of some equipment early on that will come into crucial play in Act III. But more than that, it seems like the screenwriter wanted to establish this detection equipment in Act I to avoid a deus ex machina ending in introducing a holy-moly-never-before-mentioned widget at the climax.
Yeah, look at it another way…
Star Trek (and thus, Starfleet) stars NCC-1701
But, other ships are supporting cast.
Hypothetical example: In a cop show, near the beginning, a supporting actor’s character asks about the new guns being issued to everybody. In the climatic scene, the star’s cop character uses a feature of the new weapon to vanquish his enemy.
.
Truith be told, I don’t get why some people rate this movie highly, sometimes even higher than Wrath of Khan. It’s sloppy with plot holes well beyond what the OP notes.
Plus the difficulty of a murder mystery is starkly reduced when among your characters who have dialog are six who couldn’t possibly have done it (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Checkov, Scott and Uhura)and one newbie (Valeris). Duh, it’s the newbie.
The rapey mindmeld is the only scene I found even slightly compelling.
Following “The Search for God” makes just about anything look better.