RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,714
Posts: 5,432,159
Members: 24,835
Currently online: 546
Newest member: SB118_T'Mar


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 21 2014, 04:35 PM   #91
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
It doesn't make a lot of sense there either, but makes a bit more sense if we assume, not unreasonably, that Scotty's in shock at the time.
But that's contrary to the character of Scotty as presented before, who was an experienced, cool and level-headed old hand. Scotty leaving his post to carry a casualty himself, rather than assigning some of his personnel to assist the injured, or calling for a medical aid party from sickbay, is enough of a stretch. But for him to then not have the presence of mind to take the injured boy to sickbay and going clear out of his way to the bridge instead... stupid. Dramatic, but bears no scrutiny.
I only said it makes a bit more sense; that's a far cry from saying it makes sense.

Anyway, it was never Scotty's nephew before, and never in a situation where he theoretically should have been safe. The ship was on a training cruise, and I don't think anyone expected the ship to wander into the situation it did.

For Scotty: one second the ship's fine, the next they're at yellow alert...and then his section of the ship is being blown to hell and his nephew's practically been killed.

But again, I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just nudging it a little more in the direction of making sense.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 04:40 PM   #92
Clark Terrell
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: USS Reliant
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
But that's contrary to the character of Scotty as presented before, who was an experienced, cool and level-headed old hand.
Because he'd never been in that position before, having a family member critically injured on his watch.

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Scotty leaving his post to carry a casualty himself, rather than assigning some of his personnel to assist the injured, or calling for a medical aid party from sickbay, is enough of a stretch. But for him to then not have the presence of mind to take the injured boy to sickbay and going clear out of his way to the bridge instead... stupid. Dramatic, but bears no scrutiny.
When people are in shock--as Scotty almost certainly was--they often do things that don't make sense. Mrs. Kennedy tried putting pieces of her husband's skull and brain back into place after he was shot, as though it would make a difference. No one would do something like that under normal circumstance, but when faced with a trauma of significant magnitude--such as the death of a family member--it's entirely plausible that something like that could happen. That's what Meyer was trying to depict with that scene.
Clark Terrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 04:41 PM   #93
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
There is absolutely no science or logic in STAR TREK II, at all.
...and yet is the most celebrated ST production of all, post TOS.

It is clear the audience felt this was the true heir-apparent to TOS in being truly "Star Trek."

Furthermore ... etc., etc., etc.,
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 05:13 PM   #94
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
When people are in shock--as Scotty almost certainly was--they often do things that don't make sense. Mrs. Kennedy tried putting pieces of her husband's skull and brain back into place after he was shot, as though it would make a difference. No one would do something like that under normal circumstance, but when faced with a trauma of significant magnitude--such as the death of a family member--it's entirely plausible that something like that could happen. That's what Meyer was trying to depict with that scene.
Not comparable. Mrs. Kennedy did not have a duty station with defined authority and responsibility, she was just a passenger in a car. Mrs. Kennedy had not been trained her entire adult life in what to do in that stressful situation, as Scotty had with battle drills, casualty drills, damage control drills and so on. Scotty not only had those years of training behind him, but had himself commanded Enterprise in battle conditions and done very well. It's just not in his character to fall to pieces. At best it's a disservice to that character. You want to believe that Scotty, instead of doing what was best for the life of his nephew as well as the lives of the rest of the crew, simply lost his mind in that situation? I don't.
J.T.B. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 05:15 PM   #95
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
When people are in shock--as Scotty almost certainly was--they often do things that don't make sense. Mrs. Kennedy tried putting pieces of her husband's skull and brain back into place after he was shot, as though it would make a difference. No one would do something like that under normal circumstance, but when faced with a trauma of significant magnitude--such as the death of a family member--it's entirely plausible that something like that could happen. That's what Meyer was trying to depict with that scene.
Not comparable. Mrs. Kennedy did not have a duty station with defined authority and responsibility, she was just a passenger in a car. Mrs. Kennedy had not been trained her entire adult life in what to do in that stressful situation, as Scotty had with battle drills, casualty drills, damage control drills and so on. Scotty not only had those years of training behind him, but had himself commanded Enterprise in battle conditions and done very well. It's just not in his character to fall to pieces. At best it's a disservice to that character. You want to believe that Scotty, instead of doing what was best for the life of his nephew as well as the lives of the rest of the crew, simply lost his mind in that situation? I don't.
Yes.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 05:26 PM   #96
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

It's not called shock because you behave normally while you're experiencing it.

On a side-note I'm vaguely amused that my weak attempt at rationalizing something that even I said doesn't make much sense has raised a ruckus.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 05:45 PM   #97
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

What this comes down to is some can excuse certain logic flaws and others cannot. One can enjoy a film even while acknowledging its failings.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 05:55 PM   #98
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

DonIago wrote: View Post
It's not called shock because you behave normally while you're experiencing it.
Nobody knows this better than military organizations. That's why they train, train and train some more, so people aren't reacting in complete shock when it hits the fan. For an officer of Scotty's experience and accomplishments, it should be second nature.

On a side-note I'm vaguely amused that my weak attempt at rationalizing something that even I said doesn't make much sense has raised a ruckus.
No ruckus intended. I understand where you are coming from, but it still doesn't work for me.
J.T.B. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 07:56 PM   #99
Clark Terrell
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: USS Reliant
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Not comparable. Mrs. Kennedy did not have a duty station with defined authority and responsibility, she was just a passenger in a car. Mrs. Kennedy had not been trained her entire adult life in what to do in that stressful situation, as Scotty had with battle drills, casualty drills, damage control drills and so on. Scotty not only had those years of training behind him, but had himself commanded Enterprise in battle conditions and done very well. It's just not in his character to fall to pieces. At best it's a disservice to that character. You want to believe that Scotty, instead of doing what was best for the life of his nephew as well as the lives of the rest of the crew, simply lost his mind in that situation? I don't.
And Scotty had never been prepared for the possibility that his nephew would be fatally injured during an attack. That it happened in spite of his military training makes it all the more tragic--which happens to be the point of the entire movie. Meyer was trying to put the characters in positions they'd never faced before--no-win situations--to see how they would deal with them.

Scotty panicked and went to the bridge instead of sickbay.

Clark Terrell turned his phaser on himself rather than kill another Starfleet officer.

Spock chose to sacrifice himself to repair a damaged power conduit.

Kirk was prepared to rush headlong into a radiation-filled chamber to get to his friend until McCoy and Scotty held him back.

What Meyer was trying to demonstrate is that even the strongest individual, when faced with a situation that he believes is untenable, may react in a manner completely different than how he has reacted before--or he may act exactly as he's supposed to. It would seem that Spock's choice was appropriate but tragic.

One could argue that Terrell's choice was also appropriate given the circumstances--I don't understand why McCoy didn't take both he and Chekov back to the Enterprise as soon as Chekov mentioned what Khan had done to them--but neither Scotty or Kirk seemed to behave in a manner that was appropriate, which only underscores the deep sense of grief and loss each was feeling.
Clark Terrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 08:32 PM   #100
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Not comparable. Mrs. Kennedy did not have a duty station with defined authority and responsibility, she was just a passenger in a car. Mrs. Kennedy had not been trained her entire adult life in what to do in that stressful situation, as Scotty had with battle drills, casualty drills, damage control drills and so on. Scotty not only had those years of training behind him, but had himself commanded Enterprise in battle conditions and done very well. It's just not in his character to fall to pieces. At best it's a disservice to that character. You want to believe that Scotty, instead of doing what was best for the life of his nephew as well as the lives of the rest of the crew, simply lost his mind in that situation? I don't.
And Scotty had never been prepared for the possibility that his nephew would be fatally injured during an attack. That it happened in spite of his military training makes it all the more tragic--which happens to be the point of the entire movie. Meyer was trying to put the characters in positions they'd never faced before--no-win situations--to see how they would deal with them.

Scotty panicked and went to the bridge instead of sickbay.

Clark Terrell turned his phaser on himself rather than kill another Starfleet officer.

Spock chose to sacrifice himself to repair a damaged power conduit.

Kirk was prepared to rush headlong into a radiation-filled chamber to get to his friend until McCoy and Scotty held him back.

What Meyer was trying to demonstrate is that even the strongest individual, when faced with a situation that he believes is untenable, may react in a manner completely different than how he has reacted before--or he may act exactly as he's supposed to. It would seem that Spock's choice was appropriate but tragic.

One could argue that Terrell's choice was also appropriate given the circumstances--I don't understand why McCoy didn't take both he and Chekov back to the Enterprise as soon as Chekov mentioned what Khan had done to them--but neither Scotty or Kirk seemed to behave in a manner that was appropriate, which only underscores the deep sense of grief and loss each was feeling.
All you're doing is supporting his argument. The film is rife with logic flaws.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 08:36 PM   #101
Clark Terrell
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: USS Reliant
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
All you're doing is supporting his argument. The film is rife with logic flaws.
I don't think the film was meant to be logical. That's my point. Not everything that happens in life makes sense or may be dealt with based on a person's past experiences--the exact point Meyer was trying to make with the film in the first place. That some people don't understand that should in no way diminish the quality of the film.
Clark Terrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 08:59 PM   #102
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Clark Terrell wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
All you're doing is supporting his argument. The film is rife with logic flaws.
I don't think the film was meant to be logical. That's my point. Not everything that happens in life makes sense or may be dealt with based on a person's past experiences--the exact point Meyer was trying to make with the film in the first place. That some people don't understand that should in no way diminish the quality of the film.
This is like saying, "We could have done better, but we chose not to."

C'mon. All it would have taken was a little common sense to fix most of the problems and still deliver the drama wnated. All your argument does is support lazy and ignorant (if not outright stupid) writing.

Look, love the film if you want, but it has indefensible logic flaws.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 09:27 PM   #103
Clark Terrell
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: USS Reliant
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
C'mon. All it would have taken was a little common sense to fix most of the problems and still deliver the drama wnated. All your argument does is support lazy and ignorant (if not outright stupid) writing.

Look, love the film if you want, but it has indefensible logic flaws.
As does every other Star Trek film. No movie is perfect. Singling out The Wrath of Khan when there are worse films out there doesn't make sense. As I said when I started this thread, there are things about Meyer's depiction of the franchise that I don't like and would do differently in his place, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying what he helped make.
Clark Terrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 10:07 PM   #104
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

re Scotty, I'd just have had Kirk "Let's see how badly we've been hurt," into the turbolift and cut to the the turbolift doors opening on the engineering deck and THERE we see Scotty holding Preston, trying to get him to sickbay, and a line of the injured behind him.

Easy.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 10:16 PM   #105
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Maurice wrote: View Post
re Scotty, I'd just have had Kirk "Let's see how badly we've been hurt," into the turbolift and cut to the the turbolift doors opening on the engineering deck and THERE we see Scotty holding Preston, trying to get him to sickbay, and a line of the injured behind him.

Easy.
There you go.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.