Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

That doesn't excuse him leaving his post in a crises situation and disrupting bridge operations. And later we see Preston still alive in Sickbay. Maybe the time he wasted going to the bridge could have been used better by taking Preston right to Sickbay.

 

Yep, as he's dying.

 

Sorry, again you're just waving this away.

 

If McCoy had said something like, "If only I'd gotten to him sooner," there'd actually be something to wave away.

By the way, a goner is someone who's death is certain, but who's still alive for the moment. So, it's not like my position has changed from my first post on the subject.

 

I seem to recall Scotty saying in the novelization that the turbolift shaft's been damaged and he can't get through to Sickbay, implying he's therefore brought Peter to the bridge to beg for help getting there. Could be misremembering, it's been thirty-plus years.

ETA, to address a couple of points: Ironically, some of the probably-nonsense science can be explained away by later stuff. At the time, I figured Genesis was some combination of miniaturized self-multiplying transporter technology; today I'd just call it a nanotech bomb. Either way, the whole magic-protomatter element of the following film would seem to blow that out of the water, alas. As to Ceti Alpha VI blowing up, one could rationalize that was Section 31 trying to eliminate a threat with a "natural" disaster, but deciding that directly destroying CA *Five* would be a little too obvious. Obviously, none of this would have been part of Meyer/Bennett/Soward's thinking, of course.

 

^You're basically recalling correctly...or I'm also recalling incorrectly. 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.

I miss this thread's original subject.

As for the planet exploding, given the number of planet menaces we saw in TOS, I don't see what's so amazingly far-fetched about it. Anyway, we only have the word of an insane augment for what actually happened.

Greg Cox handled it well enough by suggesting a rogue black hole could have been the cause.

 

Considering the Bridge is further away than Sickbay it still doesn't make sense. When you break it down it flat out doesn't make sense.

Now if this had been but just one logic flaw in an otherwise perfect film then you could excuse it. But when it's just one of many logic flaws it becomes too much.

 

...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, science? This is fiction, not an episode of NOVA. This is the same franchise that is home to never-going-to-happen time travel, mind melds, crew turned into insects, giant planet killing machines, Starfleet officers taken over by bugs, etc. Not to mention a host of other inventions or ideas designed to move the story that are about as scientifically plausible as cannibalistic corpses attacking the living.

It is the STORY and CHARACTERS--their motives and journey that matters, not a minor detail that does not undermine that story.

 

It doesn't matter whether Preston was going to live or die, the point is, carrying him to the bridge is just stupid. I understand why it was done; as I said above, it's borrowing imagery from sailing ship battles in classic movies, where the dramatic impact of damage and casualties on deck are easily visible. But it's getting that impact at the expense of making no sense at all.

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.

And while I'm at it... The "it must have a tail pipe" Eureka! moment in TUC was pretty bad. After all the years of experience with cloaked vessels, we're to believe the experts of the Federation had never considered looking for engine emissions before? Look at all different the ways of detecting submarines that were devised and tried in the World Wars and after.

 

Recently I've been listening to podcast discussions of the TOS and TAS episodes. In those discussions they often point out logic flaws (or apparent flaws) in a somewhat irreveerant manner. Sometimes they have a point and sometimes they're just milking something they haven't really thought through. Every story has such flaws, but it's a question of whether it's one of many or just one that doesn't really stand out that much.

TWOK (like countless action films) follows the textbook example of papering over many logic flaws with exciting action and special f/x. Throw in some decent writing and good character moments and you likely have a hit. But not everyone is going to be blinded by that. TWOK set a pattern (for Trek films) that has been followed all the way to STID. Abrams didn't invent a new way to do Trek. He just built on what came before and really layered it on heavy.

This comes back to me comparing TMP and TWOK as well as the films that followed. TMP has its own flubs, but it's most apparent one is lacking an extra measure of passion and character. That misstep doesn't destroy the film, but (in some eyes) it keeps it from being seen as a great film. TWOK has buckets of energy, passion and character, but also completely sacrifices any measure of intelligence. In an effort to "fix" the mistakes of TMP they rejected everything including the parts that weren't broken.

 

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.

 

Because he'd never been in that position before, having a family member critically injured on his watch.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

No ruckus intended. I understand where you are coming from, but it still doesn't work for me.

 

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.