PDA

View Full Version : kay. WHAT?!?(Spoilers on leaked AOT and unending)



Dr.Mckay
January 5th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Okay, so i obviously won't revel alot about the leaked AOT. but here
In a scene, the odyssey is surrounded by 4 Ori ships. all firing those big blaster thingies. in unending, odyssey barely survived 2 ori ships, let alone 4 ori ships, and they were almost wiped out in around 5 minutes. but in AOT, 4 ori ships, firing at the odyssey for around 10-20 minutes. and yes it looked around that time period, cause they had to do something with the ark. anyways, how could the odyssey surive 10-20 minutes of constant fire from 4 ori ships, and not last 5 minutes with 2 ori ships in unending?

Please reply. sorry for the spoilers. hope it wasnt tooooo much

Nikki
January 5th, 2008, 01:04 PM
HUGE MASSIVE PLOTHOLE! Along with others, which you can discuss here 'The Ark of Truth' General Discussion*Spoilers*-Unofficial Thread (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=49708&page=36)

Platschu
January 5th, 2008, 01:23 PM
They couldn't control their own ship, because of ... :D

SGFerrit
January 5th, 2008, 01:40 PM
In Unending, the Oddyssey was powering the shields, the wepons, and who knows what else. In Aot, only the shields were getting power. That would certainly help.

Serebii
January 5th, 2008, 01:45 PM
In Unending, the Oddyssey was powering the shields, the wepons, and who knows what else. In Aot, only the shields were getting power. That would certainly help.
Don't forget they have the Asgard Core and the ZPM powering the shields

Ladyinred
January 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
[mod edit - I know that this post has been responded to and I've left it in the responses, which have generally been sensible responses, but the post itself is edited so people reading it don't get the wrong idea about what GW considers acceptable.]

Dr.Mckay
January 5th, 2008, 02:03 PM
well. in AOT, an old "friend" uses the ships power, and the asgard core is turned on in AOT, so i think the power usage is about the same. and anyways, ZPM gives alot of power, and shields dont work harder just because more energy is pumped into it. it goes maximum capacity, but not over it, and in AOT, and unending, the shields were at max. so i guess its just a plot hole. a big one. lol

Nikki
January 5th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Could you please stop this "plotholes" crap? Think for a second if this isn't too difficult for you, that after Unending events Odyssey went to the Area 51 and got some upgrades which helped her later?

Oh so a few upgrades later, we can sustain continual hits from four Ori ships for 20 mins? Yeh sure. :rolleyes:


well. in AOT, an old "friend" uses the ships power, and the asgard core is turned on in AOT, so i think the power usage is about the same. and anyways, ZPM gives alot of power, and shields dont work harder just because more energy is pumped into it. it goes maximum capacity, but not over it, and in AOT, and unending, the shields were at max. so i guess its just a plot hole. a big one. lol

:indeed:

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 05:24 AM
Could you please stop this "plotholes" crap? Think for a second if this isn't too difficult for you, that after Unending events Odyssey went to the Area 51 and got some upgrades which helped her later?

Why? It is a plothole, one of many. I'm sorry but we got the most advanced Asgard upgrades in 'Unending', you telling me Area 51 could increase those upgrades 20 fold? I really am in an AU where me and Nikk are agreeing alot lol.

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 07:44 AM
Why? It is a plothole, one of many. I'm sorry but we got the most advanced Asgard upgrades in 'Unending', you telling me Area 51 could increase those upgrades 20 fold? I really am in an AU where me and Nikk are agreeing alot lol.

lol, true. :p

s09119
January 6th, 2008, 12:34 PM
Could you please stop this "plotholes" crap? Think for a second if this isn't too difficult for you, that after Unending events Odyssey went to the Area 51 and got some upgrades which helped her later?

A bunch of paranoid humans can improve the Asgard's best tech...? Riiiiiiight...


well. in AOT, an old "friend" uses the ships power, and the asgard core is turned on in AOT, so i think the power usage is about the same. and anyways, ZPM gives alot of power, and shields dont work harder just because more energy is pumped into it. it goes maximum capacity, but not over it, and in AOT, and unending, the shields were at max. so i guess its just a plot hole. a big one. lol

Exactly.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Why? It is a plothole, one of many. I'm sorry but we got the most advanced Asgard upgrades in 'Unending', you telling me Area 51 could increase those upgrades 20 fold? I really am in an AU where me and Nikk are agreeing alot lol.

Maybe the program McKay wrote to boost 304 shields while he was 'super-McKay' was implemented in between the events of Unending and The Ark Of Truth. And by the way, just because you can't explain something that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is a clear contradiction in the established plot.

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 03:04 PM
Maybe the program McKay wrote to boost 304 shields while he was 'super-McKay' was implemented in between the events of Unending and The Ark Of Truth. And by the way, just because you can't explain something that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is a clear contradiction in the established plot.

I doubt that scenario and even if he did I seriously doubt it would make the shield 20-30 times stronger. Oh so Ori taking down the Oddy's shields in 'Unending' with about 5 shots then it taking dozens upon dozens in AoT isn't a contradiction? :mckay:. TPTB change things to suit the situation, they've been doing it for years, it's just getting ridiculous now.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 03:19 PM
I doubt that scenario and even if he did I seriously doubt it would make the shield 20-30 times stronger. Oh so Ori taking down the Oddy's shields in 'Unending' with about 5 shots then it taking dozens upon dozens in AoT isn't a contradiction? :mckay:. TPTB change things to suit the situation, they've been doing it for years, it's just getting ridiculous now.

I've given you a possible explanation, it doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not. As long as there's a possible explanation then there's no plot hole.

Dr.Mckay
January 6th, 2008, 03:32 PM
Maybe the program McKay wrote to boost 304 shields while he was 'super-McKay' was implemented in between the events of Unending and The Ark Of Truth. And by the way, just because you can't explain something that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is a clear contradiction in the established plot.

okay, mckay couldn't even understand his program. remember when he created those new stuff, after he became normal, he couldn;t even understand them, and if they gave it to the asgard, and they didn't understand before their death, i doubt area 51 or any earth guys would uderstand it because they couldnt even complete the anti replicator whole planet blaster thing that the asgard completed in less than an hour.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 03:44 PM
okay, mckay couldn't even understand his program. remember when he created those new stuff, after he became normal, he couldn;t even understand them, and if they gave it to the asgard, and they didn't understand before their death, i doubt area 51 or any earth guys would uderstand it because they couldnt even complete the anti replicator whole planet blaster thing that the asgard completed in less than an hour.

What like the hyper drive for the puddle jumper? Oh wait...

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 03:44 PM
I've given you a possible explanation, it doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not. As long as there's a possible explanation then there's no plot hole.

Mckay said boost the shields a little, wouldn't you say 20-30 times is a hell of alot more than a little? Therefore that explanation which really would be the only explanation isn't viable, so goes into the plothole category.

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 03:47 PM
Maybe the program McKay wrote to boost 304 shields while he was 'super-McKay' was implemented in between the events of Unending and The Ark Of Truth. And by the way, just because you can't explain something that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is a clear contradiction in the established plot.

A plot hole is a clear contradiction in the established plot as no explanation is given for a change in aforementioned established plot.

So this still remains a plot hole as no explanation was given for this rather dramatic change, a viewer should not have to find it, especially from another show.

Oh and do you have part of the transcript where Rodney said he did this because I can't remember or find it? :o

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Mckay said boost the shields a little, wouldn't you say 20-30 times is a hell of alot more than a little? Therefore that explanation which really would be the only explanation isn't viable, so goes into the plothole category.

What I would say doesn't matter, and 20-30 times? How the hell do you work that out? The shields work like a buffer, they drain. Only a small upgrade would make a huge difference. Sorry, the explanation still stands. Despite that, there's probably a hundred and one different reasons for the difference in shield strength the writers could think of, it's impossible for us to prove this is a plot hole.

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 03:58 PM
What I would say doesn't matter, and 20-30 times? How the hell do you work that out? The shields work like a buffer, they drain. Only a small upgrade would make a huge difference. Sorry, the explanation still stands. Despite that, there's probably a hundred and one different reasons for the difference in shield strength the writers could think of, it's impossible for us to prove this is a plot hole.

20-30 times, meaning it took what 3 seconds for the shields in 'Unending' to drop 23%, 2 more hits and it would've been a goner. AoT it's sitting there for what ovr 20 minutes taking dozens upon dozens of shots, maybe 20-30 times is a bit over the top but they definately would've had to increased significantly to take so many shots. 101 different explanations that could probably be countered aswell, it's likely impossible for them to give us a viable answer, so it would be a plothole.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 04:03 PM
20-30 times, meaning it took what 3 seconds for the shields in 'Unending' to drop 23%, 2 more hits and it would've been a goner. AoT it's sitting there for what ovr 20 minutes taking dozens upon dozens of shots, maybe 20-30 times is a bit over the top but they definately would've had to increased significantly to take so many shots. 101 different explanations that could probably be countered aswell, it's likely impossible for them to give us a viable answer, so it would be a plothole.

If by countered you mean someone giving a little explanation of why they don't think it could have happened, that doesn't count. Unless there's blatant contradiction, what the writers say goes. If the writers say that the shield were enhanced by McKay's program then that's what happened etc...

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM
If by countered you mean someone giving a little explanation of why they don't think it could have happened, that doesn't count. Unless there's blatant contradiction, what the writers say goes. If the writers say that the shield were enhanced by McKay's program then that's what happened etc...

By countered I mean ways that wouldn't work or would be a further contradiction. For example like I said with Mckay's upgrade, writer says that's the reason, I tell him mckay said it would be a little upgrade not several times the current shield strength, writer has no answer.

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 04:14 PM
If by countered you mean someone giving a little explanation of why they don't think it could have happened, that doesn't count. Unless there's blatant contradiction, what the writers say goes. If the writers say that the shield were enhanced by McKay's program then that's what happened etc...

But aren't we forgetting the fact that this wasn't said (even if it is viable, which I'm not sure it is) - no explanation was given so this is a plot hole.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 04:15 PM
By countered I mean ways that wouldn't work or would be a further contradiction. For example like I said with Mckay's upgrade, writer says that's the reason, I tell him mckay said it would be a little upgrade not several times the current shield strength, writer has no answer.

You don't know what McKay meant by a little. Not to mention the fact that what is canon is that McKay said that the upgrade would be little, but it's not canon that the upgrade is little.

s09119
January 6th, 2008, 04:16 PM
If by countered you mean someone giving a little explanation of why they don't think it could have happened, that doesn't count. Unless there's blatant contradiction, what the writers say goes. If the writers say that the shield were enhanced by McKay's program then that's what happened etc...

They didn't say that, though, and what we saw in AOT directly contradicted a canon scenario; it's a plothole.

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 04:18 PM
You don't know what McKay meant by a little. Not to mention the fact that what is canon is that McKay said that the upgrade would be little, but it's not canon that the upgrade is little.

Lol so now we have to assume with all his smarts got it wrong and it was actually a massive upgrade?

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 04:19 PM
You don't know what McKay meant by a little. Not to mention the fact that what is canon is that McKay said that the upgrade would be little, but it's not canon that the upgrade is little.

So by your logic Mckay claimed he created upgrades...the fact that those upgrades worked, is not canon.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 04:53 PM
But aren't we forgetting the fact that this wasn't said (even if it is viable, which I'm not sure it is) - no explanation was given so this is a plot hole.

Wrong. It doesn't work like that, you can't claim plot hole every time something happens that you can't understand.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 04:54 PM
They didn't say that, though, and what we saw in AOT directly contradicted a canon scenario; it's a plothole.

No we never. We saw the Odyssey take more of a beating than it did in Unending, that is all.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 04:54 PM
So by your logic Mckay claimed he created upgrades...the fact that those upgrades worked, is not canon.

I agree, but so what? That doesn't explain anything.

s09119
January 6th, 2008, 04:59 PM
No we never. We saw the Odyssey take more of a beating than it did in Unending, that is all.

Which is a contradiction, as it was never mentioned that it was upgraded anymore, nor that its shields had been improved.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 05:04 PM
Which is a contradiction, as it was never mentioned that it was upgraded anymore, nor that its shields had been improved.

Well then it's not a contradiction is it? For it to be a contradiction we would have to know there had been no upgrade, the lack of an explanation doesn't make it a contradiction.

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 05:04 PM
I agree, but so what? That doesn't explain anything.

By your logic I can say Mckay's upgrades didn't work just like you say they did (as you said just because Mckay says something doesn't make it true) - so then we're back to plot holes.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 05:06 PM
By your logic I can say Mckay's upgrades didn't work just like you say they did (as you said just because Mckay says something doesn't make it true) - so then we're back to plot holes.

Of course you can, but you can't prove it. As long as you can't prove it's a plot hole, it's not. I'm not saying what I said is the truth, I'm just saying it's a possible scenario, and while there's room for an explanation, you can't write it off as a plot hole.

s09119
January 6th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Well then it's not a contradiction is it? For it to be a contradiction we would have to know there had been no upgrade, the lack of an explanation doesn't make it a contradiction.

You're just being rediculous now. Had the shields been upgraded, we would've been informed, that's how it has always worked in Stargate. It's a contradiction/plothole, I'm sorry.

Nikki
January 6th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Well then it's not a contradiction is it? For it to be a contradiction we would have to know there had been no upgrade, the lack of an explanation doesn't make it a contradiction.

Well for it not to be a contradiction we would have to know there had been upgrade, otherwise we're left with plot hole.


You're just being rediculous now. Had the shields been upgraded, we would've been informed, that's how it has always worked in Stargate. It's a contradiction/plothole, I'm sorry.

:indeed: - We are always told the important stuff, it's just good writing.

kirmit
January 6th, 2008, 05:11 PM
A plot hole is essentially an unanswered question that is essential to the outcome. IMO the Oddy suddenly being able to survive dozens upon dozens shots from the ori beam was essential to the outcome.

MEANING:
A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome. Plot holes are usually seen as weaknesses or flaws in a story, and writers usually try to avoid them to make their stories seem as realistic as possible.

jenks
January 6th, 2008, 05:11 PM
You're just being rediculous now. Had the shields been upgraded, we would've been informed, that's how it has always worked in Stargate. It's a contradiction/plothole, I'm sorry.

You're being ridiculous, how many times have we noticed a flaw in the script like this and it's been explained later?

fellip_nectar
January 7th, 2008, 12:42 AM
Let us not forget that the Odyssey had Replicators onboard, which have quite a reputation for upgrading the ships they infest.

SmallTimePerson
January 7th, 2008, 12:53 AM
didn't The odyssey had drained shield in unending from the planet blowing up?

Battera
January 7th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Not completely, in knocked them down to 50%. I agree the the... 'friend' on the ship were likely the cause of the enhancement.

Dr.Mckay
January 7th, 2008, 04:01 AM
Not completely, in knocked them down to 50%. I agree the the... 'friend' on the ship were likely the cause of the enhancement.

replicators are known to enhance ships, yes. but the fact is, they hadn't taken complete control of the ship. heres abit for spoiler.
Sam had taken control of hyperdrive, shield, breathing and someother systems, because she was in the asgard core. the replictors were just repliacting at that time, because a few wouldn't stand a chance. and in the episode where the replictors enhanced the hyperdrive on that goauld mother ship, cant remember which episode, their queen replictor was HUGE. this queen replicator was pretty small. and their numbers werent whole lot. also the fact is, when sam, cam, and some other guys destroyed the replictors, ori ships WERE STILL FIRING. for like another few minutes, until the ark worked.

s09119
January 7th, 2008, 11:32 AM
Not completely, in knocked them down to 50%. I agree the the... 'friend' on the ship were likely the cause of the enhancement.

They never said the shields were knocked down to 50% by the explosion, did they? And besides, the shield generator would have (probably) recharged somewhat during the flight in hyperspace, but that can't be proven.

And no, the "friends" aren't the cause. Unless it's said onscreen that they're responsible, it's pure speculation.

jhkplaya888
January 8th, 2008, 02:57 PM
what i dont get is that we hard cloaking tech, did the asgard give us that?

jenks
January 8th, 2008, 03:37 PM
what i dont get is that we hard cloaking tech, did the asgard give us that?

Daniel turned the shield into a cloak using the ZPM when he still had Merlin's consciousness in his head.

Nefertiti
January 9th, 2008, 04:11 AM
To Nikki

This is Where Rodney stated that he had upgrades for the ships.

TAO OF RODNEY Season 3 Episode 14
A small portion of the transcript to that episode.

"WEIR: I donít know. I donít think that ascension necessarily means the end.

McKAY: Yeah, see? Never been big on leaps of faith, either. I mean, sure, there was a part of me that from the beginning knew that this was too good to be true. Nothing this great could ever happen to me without really, really bad consequences. Anyways, now I have come to terms with that and I just wanna get as much done in the time I have left and not waste my time on a bunch of mumbo jumbo Iím not gonna understand anyways.

(He walks over to a desk and picks up a memory stick.)

McKAY: Oh, Iíve come up with a way for increasing the Daedalusí shield power. (He gives the stick to Elizabeth.) Tell Hermiod to give me a call if he needs any help understanding the base code."

Property of MGM Studios.



Now as for the shields its not far fetch to believe that Rodney has increased their power. Just because it isn't stated in Stargate SG1 universe doesn't mean that they did not use the program Rodney created and BTW for those who stated that Rodney forgotten all the information that is true but the program to increase shields was already done and if you watch that episode he handed her what looked like a USB drive. Also he never stated what percentage that program may increase the power to the shields. So on a whole not so much of a plot hole to me. Of course those that want it to be explained will always find plot holes in the story. So thatís my two cent worth , have a great day.

To jhkplaya888

Daniel Jackson turned the ships shield to a cloak in THE SHROUD season 10 episode 14. Using a ZPM, and in AOT they stated that the ship has a ZPM on board. Also seeing how Rodney used the shielding technology on a puddlejumper as a Anti-rep shield I don't see it being a plot hole. I would say that with Sam's hair being longer in the movie than in the show that that would mean some time had past between the two (show and movie) so it could very well have been upgraded by the program from Rodney or Something that lead from Sam in Unending.....Maybe she added a little more that just the one program to turn off the asgard core, or something created after. What ever the reason I just enjoyed the movie.

Nikki
January 9th, 2008, 01:39 PM
<snip>
Now as for the shields its not far fetch to believe that Rodney has increased their power. Just because it isn't stated in Stargate SG1 universe doesn't mean that they did not use the program Rodney created and BTW for those who stated that Rodney forgotten all the information that is true but the program to increase shields was already done and if you watch that episode he handed her what looked like a USB drive. Also he never stated what percentage that program may increase the power to the shields. So on a whole not so much of a plot hole to me. Of course those that want it to be explained will always find plot holes in the story. So thatís my two cent worth , have a great day.
<snip>

Thanks for that Nefertiti. :)

I don't think people said that Rodney forgot but just didn't understand what he'd written. And seeing as he was super smart (and thought Hermiod may have problems understanding some of it) it also isn't a stretch of the imagination to say that no one understood how to integrate those shield enhancements into the Daedalus, like some have said. And the only reason, people have these doubts and call them plot holes is because such important details should have and need to be explained. It's just good writing. Most of the Stargate audience isnít part of the online fandom and arenít going to make threads and have discussions so that other viewers can come up with explanations that the writers should have given them.

Nefertiti
January 10th, 2008, 03:19 AM
Thanks for that Nefertiti. :)

I don't think people said that Rodney forgot but just didn't understand what he'd written. And seeing as he was super smart (and thought Hermiod may have problems understanding some of it) it also isn't a stretch of the imagination to say that no one understood how to integrate those shield enhancements into the Daedalus, like some have said. And the only reason, people have these doubts and call them plot holes is because such important details should have and need to be explained. It's just good writing. Most of the Stargate audience isnít part of the online fandom and arenít going to make threads and have discussions so that other viewers can come up with explanations that the writers should have given them.

I stand corrected, but even so he was referring to the new Math he created, stating

McKAY: No-no-no-no-no. Physically I am fine, but, but, but this doesnít make any sense. I canít figure out any of these, of these equations. I mean, the algorithms are complete gibberish. I mean, this is torture! I can clearly remember exactly how important this all is, but I cannot figure out why, or how.

Property of MGM

This is what he entered into the database while writing on the white-boards. I am supremly sure that the Asgards (Hermiod) would be able to enter the program of Rodney with out any trouble onto the Daedalus and all the other like ships. I do however understand that people do not watch both shows and therefore need to be told that the upgrades took effect. A very simple comment like Cam stating while being hit by the Ori ships that the shield increase that Rodney applied is really working out. Or some variation along the way would have been nice but Plot hole I doubt, there is a logical reason that the shields were able to hold and so there is no plot hole but the writers should have been more aware of the viewers intelligence and state the reason why instead of assumming that they would know.


And as always nice to hear from you Nikki, Take care and TTYL
Nef.

BloomGate
January 10th, 2008, 03:48 AM
And the only reason, people have these doubts and call them plot holes is because such important details should have and need to be explained. It's just good writing. Most of the Stargate audience isnít part of the online fandom and arenít going to make threads and have discussions so that other viewers can come up with explanations that the writers should have given them.

I think the argument is ridiculous.

At what point has anyone seen the final cut of AoT?

As for the alleged plot holes, it all just cracks me up. I think the key word is contradiction.

A hypothetical example:

Laser blasts have always been blue. A new episode has them as red. Because it's never been explained specifically why the color of a laser blast has changed color, it is therefore a plothole.

The problem I see with that line of thinking is that although a specifically stated contradiction does not exist, an extremely liberal interpretation is being applied and it is then defined as a plot hole because some seem to take great delight in identifying them and pointing them out to others. Does someone give folks a cookie for finding one?

Now in this specific case, I'm not sure that an early cut sent to the SFX guys to finish up the fx qualifies as canon. Therefore, it's really pointless to argue about right now.

As for the general existence of plotholes, I count them as a neccesary evil in any 42 minute production. Quite often there is a need to balance the relative consistency of tech in a fictional universe with actually telling a story.

Madeleine
January 10th, 2008, 10:11 AM
Quick note to any newbie who might be unaware: The traditional method for filling in a plothole is to begin - "how about..." or "here's an idea..." or "perhaps..."

It's poor form to fill plotholes by swearing at people and implying that they know not how to think.

Now,
As you were

:)

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 10:49 AM
A plothole is an unanswered question that is essential to the story, right? The Oddy taking that many shots means that it survives and SG-1 is able to go home. If it was at the standard shown in 'Unending' then it would've no way survived and so SG-1 would've been stuck in the Ori galaxy and our galaxy would've still been under threat from the current ships/followers there, so it was essential for the Oddy to survive. Now we got no answer why the ships shields were so powerful all of a sudden therefore it is plothole :).

jenks
January 10th, 2008, 11:07 AM
A plothole is an unanswered question that is essential to the story, right? The Oddy taking that many shots means that it survives and SG-1 is able to go home. If it was at the standard shown in 'Unending' then it would've no way survived and so SG-1 would've been stuck in the Ori galaxy and our galaxy would've still been under threat from the current ships/followers there, so it was essential for the Oddy to survive. Now we got no answer why the ships shields were so powerful all of a sudden therefore it is plothole :).

No, it's a clear contradiction in the plot.

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 11:13 AM
No, it's a clear contradiction in the plot.

Go back a page and look at my post with the meaning a plot hole, that is it's definition http://www.reference.com/search?q=plot%20hole.

jenks
January 10th, 2008, 11:45 AM
Go back a page and look at my post with the meaning a plot hole, that is it's definition http://www.reference.com/search?q=plot%20hole.

Excuse me if I don't consider wikipedia a reliable resource.

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 11:49 AM
Excuse me if I don't consider wikipedia a reliable resource.

Knew you'd say something like that lol. Can I ask what and where you got your definition from?

jenks
January 10th, 2008, 12:06 PM
Knew you'd say something like that lol. Can I ask what and where you got your definition from?

I just use the definition I always have, and writers seem to. There is no real definition, I suppose as a common term it's relatively new.

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I just use the definition I always have, and writers seem to. There is no real definition, I suppose as a common term it's relatively new.

So really it's your own personal definition if there is no real definition, where's what I wrote is my definition, so for me and lots of other people it is a plot hole.

jamesgilfoyle
January 10th, 2008, 12:44 PM
A plothole is an unanswered question that is essential to the story, right? The Oddy taking that many shots means that it survives and SG-1 is able to go home. If it was at the standard shown in 'Unending' then it would've no way survived and so SG-1 would've been stuck in the Ori galaxy and our galaxy would've still been under threat from the current ships/followers there, so it was essential for the Oddy to survive. Now we got no answer why the ships shields were so powerful all of a sudden therefore it is plothole :).

No it isnt. Not at all.

Look here. It has been explained.



This is Where Rodney stated that he had upgrades for the ships.

TAO OF RODNEY Season 3 Episode 14
A small portion of the transcript to that episode.

"WEIR: I donít know. I donít think that ascension necessarily means the end.

McKAY: Yeah, see? Never been big on leaps of faith, either. I mean, sure, there was a part of me that from the beginning knew that this was too good to be true. Nothing this great could ever happen to me without really, really bad consequences. Anyways, now I have come to terms with that and I just wanna get as much done in the time I have left and not waste my time on a bunch of mumbo jumbo Iím not gonna understand anyways.

(He walks over to a desk and picks up a memory stick.)

McKAY: Oh, Iíve come up with a way for increasing the Daedalusí shield power. (He gives the stick to Elizabeth.) Tell Hermiod to give me a call if he needs any help understanding the base code."

Property of MGM Studios.


Now - between then and the movie, or even between then and SG1 - quite an amount of time had obviously passed.

McKay loosing his knowledge is irrelevent. He wouldnt have handed it too Weir - on a Memory stick of all things - if he hadnt accounted for installation. Otherwise the writers would have just mentioned it - as opposed to displaying it as something which is very much so plug and play; like a USB memory stick.

I think the fact that a ZPM, normal power systems and the Asgard Core were all online and present on the ship also has to be taken into consideration.

I see no plothole. But hey - if you guys want to say there is one... thats your business.

jenks
January 10th, 2008, 12:44 PM
And for me and lots of other people it's not, so the point is moot.

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 01:10 PM
No it isnt. Not at all.

Look here. It has been explained.



Now - between then and the movie, or even between then and SG1 - quite an amount of time had obviously passed.

McKay loosing his knowledge is irrelevent. He wouldnt have handed it too Weir - on a Memory stick of all things - if he hadnt accounted for installation. Otherwise the writers would have just mentioned it - as opposed to displaying it as something which is very much so plug and play; like a USB memory stick.

I think the fact that a ZPM, normal power systems and the Asgard Core were all online and present on the ship also has to be taken into consideration.

I see no plothole. But hey - if you guys want to say there is one... thats your business.

Lol you've missed the point, by my definition it is a plothole. It is NEVER said in the movie the reason for the shield upgrades, you can assume the reasons but it is never specifically said in the movie, therefore goes into the unanswered question category. Now my definition says an unanswered question that's essential to the plot is a plot hole, oddy not being wiped out because of the ridiculously powerful shields is essential and therefore would be a plot hole by me definition.


And for me and lots of other people it's not, so the point is moot.

Well it isn't moot because you're saying people are wrong when it doesn't fit your own personal definition, yet yours is not the only definition. So we want to call it a plot hole because it fits in with our definition you can't say we're wrong as you yourself said there is no real definition to compare it to.

jenks
January 10th, 2008, 01:12 PM
If we're both using our own definition then I can say it's something is not a plot hole when you say it is, and vice versa. So yes, the point it moot.

jamesgilfoyle
January 10th, 2008, 01:18 PM
Lol you've missed the point, by my definition it is a plothole. It is NEVER said in the movie the reason for the shield upgrades, you can assume the reasons but it is never specifically said in the movie, therefore goes into the unanswered question category. Now my definition says an unanswered question that's essential to the plot is a plot hole, oddy not being wiped out because of the ridiculously powerful shields is essential and therefore would be a plot hole by me definition.


Well it isn't moot because you're saying people are wrong when it doesn't fit your own personal definition, yet yours is not the only definition. So we want to call it a plot hole because it fits in with our definition you can't say we're wrong as you yourself said there is no real definition to compare it to.

So? Why would they complicate the movie and give sceentime to something which doesnt need to be explained to a mass market when the answer is already available in the stargate series for existing fans.


And disputing that there isnt a plot hole because somebody uses their definition, and a widely available one, as opposed to yours is awfully rhetoric when your saying things like "by my definition"... hmmm? ;)

MOOT :)

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 01:30 PM
So? Why would they complicate the movie and give sceentime to something which doesnt need to be explained to a mass market when the answer is already available in the stargate series for existing fans.


And disputing that there isnt a plot hole because somebody uses their definition, and a widely available one, as opposed to yours is awfully rhetoric when your saying things like "by my definition"... hmmm? ;)

MOOT :)

Look it is never said in the movie nor implied it was Mckays upgrades, that is just a guess by fans without any support, so it is an unanswered question.

Lol again missing the point, what jenks is saying isn't a widely available one, I searched various site for a definition and didn't find one like his, if it was widely available don't you think that would've come up first? Jenks has his own personal definition, I have mine, there is no real definition to compare to.

The point is you can't say we're wrong for saying it's a plot hole, this thing started when LIR said Nikki was wrong for calling it a plot hole whereas neither LIR or anyone can say Nikki and me and the many others are wrong because there is no set definition. Yes likewise we can't say you're wrong either but this started with someone telling someone else they're wrong when they didn't really have the right to.

jamesgilfoyle
January 10th, 2008, 01:38 PM
Look it is never said in the movie nor implied it was Mckays upgrades, that is just a guess by fans without any support, so it is an unanswered question.

Lol again missing the point, what jenks is saying isn't a widely available one, I searched various site for a definition and didn't find one like his, if it was widely available don't you think that would've come up first? Jenks has his own personal definition, I have mine, there is no real definition to compare to.

The point is you can't say we're wrong for saying it's a plot hole, this thing started when LIR said Nikki was wrong for calling it a plot hole whereas neither LIR or anyone can say Nikki and me and the many others are wrong because there is no set definition. Yes likewise we can't say you're wrong either but this started with someone telling someone else they're wrong when they didn't really have the right to.

How is it speculation when the show -STARGATE ATLANTIS- which im pretty sure is classed as stargate cannon these days? clearly has the shielding upgrade - why is it not logical for this upgrade to have been simply installed -- without explaining it so as not to complicate the movie even more for any new viewers?

You got it in one!
Its an unanswered question. Explain... why is that a plothole? :)

Does that mean that...

(SGA S4 Spoilers)
the weir situation on SGA is a plot hole as its currently an unanswered question?

Think it through ;)

But instead of battling about it here - why not take the question to a writers blog perhaps? You never know, one of them might respond :)

Ladyinred
January 10th, 2008, 01:47 PM
OK... I have a question to everybody. Why do you think that the casual viewer, and particularly the NEW one, who isn't familiar with the series, neither SG-1 nor Atlantis needs to know whose upgrades to the ship made it survive the Ori ship's fire? I don't watch Atlantis and I have no idea about McKay's upgrades and for me it doesn't matter. The ship's shields are strong enough to survive the fire and that's OK. I don't need technical explanation to this why they survived. The movie is not about it.

jamesgilfoyle
January 10th, 2008, 01:48 PM
Exactly.

kirmit
January 10th, 2008, 01:51 PM
How is it speculation when the show -STARGATE ATLANTIS- which im pretty sure is classed as stargate cannon these days? clearly has the shielding upgrade - why is it not logical for this upgrade to have been simply installed -- without explaining it so as not to complicate the movie even more for any new viewers?

You got it in one! Explain... why is that a plothole? :)

Does that mean that...

(SGA S4 Spoilers)
the weir situation on SGA is a plot hole as its currently an unanswered question?

Think it through ;)

But instead of battling about it here - why not take the question to a writers blog perhaps? You never know, one of them might respond :)

Ok you want to point out to me the point in AoT where it says the Oddy got Mckays upgrades? Or point out where in any show it says the upgrade would increase the shields 20 fold? Infact from BAMSR we can assume the upgrades are no where near that as the Apollo's shields draining fast after a few minutes of enemy fire, unless you think a couple of minutes fire from an Aurora equals the same as 20 minutes fire from the Ori beam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole here, read what that says a plothole is, even give examples of their definition by that definition it would be a plot hole.

Think of it this way, you're an SG-1 fan, just an SG-1 fan, one episode the best upgrades Earth has allows them to take 5 Ori beam shots, in the movie they can take dozens and dozens, what would you think?

BTW the Weir thing, bad example, the definition that I showed says an unanswered question that's essential to the plot, how is the Weir thing essential to the plot?

LIR that can't work because even though the movie is for non fans it's also aimed at current fans aswell, unless they're ignoring the Sg-1 fans.

BloomGate
January 10th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Ok you want to point out to me the point in AoT where it says the Oddy got Mckays upgrades? Or point out where in any show it says the upgrade would increase the shields 20 fold?

Obviously it says neither or you wouldn't be asking the question. Could you possibly explain your reasoning of why the upgrade would need to be 20 fold? In Unending, the Oddy took quite a few hits before time was slowed. Can you give me a definitive explanation of shield regeneration rates? So like how many hits can a ship take before the shields stop regenerating quickly? Is it exponential? Is it geometric? Is it arithmetic? How does it work? At one point, shields were at roughly over 50% and then a few shots later they were at 23% and then gone. So, how many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Or how many shots until the shields completely fail? Are there any other factors that could come into play? Maybe because the systems had just been installed and not fully tested they weren't at peak efficiency? If you truly mean to state a case that this is a plot hole, you need some factual evidence to back your position up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole here, read what that says a plothole is, even give examples of their definition by that definition it would be a plot hole.

I'm LMAO that anyone would intentionally use wikipedia as support for anything. In case you didn't know, wikipedia isn't written by one person or set of persons working together. That is why it is not only possible, but common, for many entries to contradict each other. It's inconsistent and unreliable as a general rule.

As for the examples they give, I need go no further than the first one. College football players are NOT household names NOR recognizable by sight. In America, football players wear helmets and their face is obscured 100% of the time while they are on the field. Even 'star' footaball players that are professional aren't always recognizable by sight to the fans of the city they play in. So, in the case of Crockett, the idea that he would be recognizable YEARS after a key play in 1 college game is laughable at best. Your source has no credibility right off the bat.


Think of it this way, you're an SG-1 fan, just an SG-1 fan, one episode the best upgrades Earth has allows them to take 5 Ori beam shots, in the movie they can take dozens and dozens, what would you think?


I think most fans don't sit there and count the shots that a spaceship takes. They simply enjoy the story being told.

I really don't get this fixation by so many about alleged plot holes - and it's not just here. One web page I read in looking up this phenomena was debunking alleged plot holes in the Harry Potter series. Most of them were debunked because the people declaring the plot holes hadn't apparently read the books or recalled the portions of the books that had explained them.

Again, I ask the question: Who's giving out cookies for finding plot holes in things?

kymeric
January 10th, 2008, 04:57 PM
Not to troll but why would you watch something u hate? Moreso why would you talk about watching something you hate? I mean i hate bsg but but u dont see me in the bsg folder posting about how so and so sucks or how this or that is a plothole. Find a new hobby.

Nefertiti
January 11th, 2008, 04:09 AM
Obviously we here have many deferent opinions on what is and isnít a plot hole. So can we agree to disagree, that is the beauty of discussions. We can not always have everyone see eye to eye but we can have everyone state their reasons and move on. Maybe even opening minds to new possibilities along the way. I personally enjoyed the movie (it could use more Daniel, Vala ship-ness but hey Iím a DV Shipper LOL) but in the over all scheme of things I believe we all here that enjoy or had enjoyed SG1 for tens years can come together and say that this movie was better than no movie at all!

At least that is my opinion.

As always,
Nef

Here's to the hope that Stargate SG-1 is truly Unending!

s09119
January 11th, 2008, 04:47 PM
OK... I have a question to everybody. Why do you think that the casual viewer, and particularly the NEW one, who isn't familiar with the series, neither SG-1 nor Atlantis needs to know whose upgrades to the ship made it survive the Ori ship's fire? I don't watch Atlantis and I have no idea about McKay's upgrades and for me it doesn't matter. The ship's shields are strong enough to survive the fire and that's OK. I don't need technical explanation to this why they survived. The movie is not about it.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree here. To me, the writers can't just make ships invincible whenever they feel like it; it completely ruins any feeling of suspense for me. The next time I see the Odyssey, I won't care if it's in danger or not, because TPTB have made it clear that they'll just magically make the shields invulnerable every time it's threatened.

It would be like you're reading this really great novel, and the good guys are just about to catch the bad guys... but then the bad guy's wearing a bulletproof vest that can magically abosrb two full clips of bullets to the same area. You'd be scratching your head going "okay, what!?"

BloomGate
January 11th, 2008, 06:28 PM
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree here. To me, the writers can't just make ships invincible whenever they feel like it; it completely ruins any feeling of suspense for me. The next time I see the Odyssey, I won't care if it's in danger or not, because TPTB have made it clear that they'll just magically make the shields invulnerable every time it's threatened.

It would be like you're reading this really great novel, and the good guys are just about to catch the bad guys... but then the bad guy's wearing a bulletproof vest that can magically abosrb two full clips of bullets to the same area. You'd be scratching your head going "okay, what!?"

I agree with your point 100%. However, that being said, I think there are 2 mitigating factors in this specific instance.

1. We haven't seen anything but a work in progess. It's not the final version. I would equate it to someone getting a pre-release version of a video game prior to final QA (testing), and complaining that on level 23 if you do something or other, your player dies for no reason. Chances are that the final testing would make that problem go away.

2. Because it's NOT final version, the writers can't comment on it if it was an editing issue. I could see that if it were something in the script, but edited out, it might be in the outtakes to explain it. It could be that it returns in the director's cut after being left out of the editors cut. It could be that it was edited out, didn't make the outtakes, but they explain that point later in a blog on gateworld or Joe's blog.

Also, beyond that, I went back and watched Unending again and noticed a couple things. One was that the new systems were just installed. The weapons hadn't even been tested yet. It's reasonable to think that the new shields weren't operating at 100% efficiency.

Either way, there's probably a good explanation for the apparent discrepency and we won't know until the final version is released.

Lord You
January 14th, 2008, 12:03 AM
Okay, so i obviously won't revel alot about the leaked AOT. but here
In a scene, the odyssey is surrounded by 4 Ori ships. all firing those big blaster thingies. in unending, odyssey barely survived 2 ori ships, let alone 4 ori ships, and they were almost wiped out in around 5 minutes. but in AOT, 4 ori ships, firing at the odyssey for around 10-20 minutes. and yes it looked around that time period, cause they had to do something with the ark. anyways, how could the odyssey surive 10-20 minutes of constant fire from 4 ori ships, and not last 5 minutes with 2 ori ships in unending?

Please reply. sorry for the spoilers. hope it wasnt tooooo much
From what I heard:

There are replicators on the Oddessy. Perhaps they augmented the shields of the ship? They have done so before.

Also in Unending, here are the shield strengths and impacts.

1. Ori beam
Power diverted to shields.
2. Ori beam
Shields down to 83%
3. Ori beam
Planet explodes
Shields down to 50%
4. Ori beam
Shields down to 28%
...
5. Ori beam
...
6. Ori beam
Shields down to 53%
7. Ori beam
...
Shields at maximum
8. Ori beam
Shields down to 23%
9. Ori beam
Shields down to 0%

So I would say that post-Asgard, the Oddessy can survive 9-10 Ori beam hits. More if the Replicators augment them.

s09119
January 14th, 2008, 02:33 PM
From what I heard:

There are replicators on the Oddessy. Perhaps they augmented the shields of the ship? They have done so before.

Also in Unending, here are the shield strengths and impacts.

1. Ori beam
Power diverted to shields.
2. Ori beam
Shields down to 83%
3. Ori beam
Planet explodes
Shields down to 50%
4. Ori beam
Shields down to 28%
...
5. Ori beam
...
6. Ori beam
Shields down to 53%
7. Ori beam
...
Shields at maximum
8. Ori beam
Shields down to 23%
9. Ori beam
Shields down to 0%

So I would say that post-Asgard, the Oddessy can survive 9-10 Ori beam hits. More if the Replicators augment them.

No one else finds that really odd, considering what's above it...?

But anyway, it's never even implied that the bugs were upping the shields. And the Odyssey took faaaaaaaaaaaaar more than 9-10 hits in "Ark of Truth". It took at least 2 dozen straight.

Lord You
January 15th, 2008, 12:21 AM
Well, the shields probably did not fully recharge between battles.

Ladyinred
January 15th, 2008, 12:35 AM
No one else finds that really odd, considering what's above it...?

But anyway, it's never even implied that the bugs were upping the shields.

Why are such really unimportant details important to you? It's really NOT what the movie is about!

from_orion
January 15th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Please stop talking about plot holes. I believe the reason for Odyssey's astonishing performance was due to the replicators improvements and/or they added power to the shields.

xSFx
January 17th, 2008, 10:09 PM
Oh so a few upgrades later, we can sustain continual hits from four Ori ships for 20 mins? Yeh sure.So the "creme de la creme" of Asgard technology + that sweet ZPM power concentrated on one ship is = to "a few upgades" ?

I disagree.

BloomGate
January 18th, 2008, 12:23 PM
But anyway, it's never even implied that the bugs were upping the shields. And the Odyssey took faaaaaaaaaaaaar more than 9-10 hits in "Ark of Truth". It took at least 2 dozen straight.

In addition to all the points I made above, I rewatched AoT again and there were only 11-12 hits onscreen including background "flash and booms" from the interior of the ship during Sam and Cam's stories.

I realize that you are *assuming* that the 3 stories of Sam, Cam, and Daniel/Vala/Teal'c/Tomin are running consecutively, but why? Why not assume they are running concurrently?

I also don't get why you insist that they were in battle for 20 minutes. They dropped out of hyperspace at 01:16:28 and took their first hit then. The battle was over at 01:30:26. In screen time, it's less than 14 minutes and it includes 3 stories that are all happening at the same time. It appears that they were only taking hits for about 5 minutes or less. I think it could be considered that we saw on screen every hit they actually took.

I'm just not seeing a plot hole even without any shield upgrades at any time.

FallenAngelII
January 20th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Why do people think they used Rodney's upgrade on the Odyssey inbetween "Unending" and "Ark of Truth"? After all, "Ark of Truth" is supposed to take place quite a short period of time after "Unending" and a lot of time passed inbetween "Tao of Rodney" and "Unending".

Why didn't they upgrade the shields 'til "Ark" when they had the means already in "Tao of..."? Is the explanation "Well, it just took them 'til after 'Unending' to figure out how to"?

Blistna
January 20th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Also...the Replicators probably had a hand in it.

Thunderbird 2
January 22nd, 2008, 09:06 AM
I have a simple yes no question:

SPOILER ALERT! Stargate SG1 Season 9

Considering the previous losses of the Prometheus in Ethon and Korolev in Camelot Part 1, does the Odyssey survive this story? I have noticed there is no reference to her so far in Atlantis's 4rth season.

Ebeneezer_Goode
January 22nd, 2008, 09:22 AM
Yes.

kymeric
January 22nd, 2008, 12:52 PM
OT why do i keep seeing the words PLOTHOLE in every thread lately? Is it a new fad? lol

xSFx
January 22nd, 2008, 12:53 PM
Plotholes are the new furlings.

Thunderbird 2
January 23rd, 2008, 05:22 AM
Yes.


Thank you! :beckett:

AscendedThor
January 24th, 2008, 11:38 PM
The Replicators were running loose on the ship. And we know from past episodes that the first thing they do after taking over a ship is make awsome upgrades to it.
Remember when they were on a Goauld Ship and Upgraded it so it reached the Milky Way Galaxy in a few hours instead of a 130 years? That was a massive upgrade.
So they probably made massive upgrades to the Odyssey as well.

We know that the Replicators can adapt and become resistant to any kind of energy weapon (like the Borg in star trek).. so they could also make the ship resistant to Ori weapons.

So Ironically the Replicators saved the ship from the Ori.

Crazy Tom
February 1st, 2008, 01:26 PM
i remember soemebody in the forum sying that the core was managing power usage or soemthing and making the shields more eficient.