RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,536
Posts: 5,512,906
Members: 25,139
Currently online: 590
Newest member: Pammijo

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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, 01:35 PM   #76
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Alright, maybe a case could be made for the planet blowing up.

But you've still got the absurdity of the Earth-like Ceti Alpha V transforming - in 15 years, no less - into an exact copy of that toxic hell-hole, Ceti Alpha VI, of an entirely different composition, just from having taken its parking spot. Put another way: if Earth and Venus switched places, it would take a lot longer than 15 years for every trace of life having existed to just ... dissolve away. To say nothing of the oceans. And the air and clouds would not magically become Venus-like, from having made a do-si-do.

Now, I understand and get that this "is only a movie," but the premise is completely absurd, here. It couldn't happen. And nobody would be confused as to which planet they were looking at. That's the absolute worst about the whole thing - how it makes everyone on RELIANT grossly incompetent, at best. Because it is a movie, though, it's better to just accept it and move on, if there's any hope of being entertained, here. And there is. But it's pretty obvious that if they did have a scientific advisor for the script on STAR TREK II, he was most decidedly kept out of the loop.
__________________
"― And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 01:43 PM   #77
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

^^ One hardly needs a science advisor to understand that what's proposed in this film is bullshit.

One could make a case for a chunk of one planet slamming into another and thoroughly disrupting the environment (although you still have to explain why/how a planet could explode). A good sized meteor would serve the same purpose. But whichever you use it still isn't going to shift a planet's orbit so drastically. And thus the crew of Reliant still look like complete idiots.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 01:58 PM   #78
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

There is absolutely no science or logic in STAR TREK II, at all. It's just moving from plot point to plot point. Don't think about anything, don't question anything, just do it because it's dramatic. Or because it looks cool. Or because, no matter how unlikely, it will get us to the part of the movie we really want to get to, in a hurry. An example would be Scotty taking his bloodied-up half-dead nephew to the bridge, instead of Sick Bay. And why? To provoke an emotional response out of the Vulcans to show how deeply wounded the ENTERPRISE is and, thusly, how EEEEEEVIL Khan is.

Someone apparently reminded him, though, "Scotty ... shouldn't you be taking him to, uh ... you know ... to Sick Bay?" "Aye, lad?" "You know ... where the Doctor is. Nurses. Medicine. It's called Sick Bay." So, we end up back there and the corpse of this kid is now used for more emotional manipulation to underscore, once again, how Khan is EEEEEEEEEVIL, which we get from Kirk, Scott and Bone's discussion. And it leaves a red stain over Kirk's chest like a wound, to remind us eternally, of what Khan has done. All of these are reminders we simply did not need and are only there to eat up time, and for soap-operatic drama designed to manipulate the audience, emotionally. Not one damn bit of it makes any sense on its own. Change your shirt Kirk! Damn ... is that too much to ask? Put a clean shirt on, man ...
__________________
"― And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:21 PM   #79
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
There is absolutely no science or logic in STAR TREK II, at all. It's just moving from plot point to plot point. Don't think about anything, don't question anything, just do it because it's dramatic. Or because it looks cool. Or because, no matter how unlikely, it will get us to the part of the movie we really want to get to, in a hurry. An example would be Scotty taking his bloodied-up half-dead nephew to the bridge, instead of Sick Bay. And why? To provoke an emotional response out of the Vulcans to show how deeply wounded the ENTERPRISE is and, thusly, how EEEEEEVIL Khan is.

Someone apparently reminded him, though, "Scotty ... shouldn't you be taking him to, uh ... you know ... to Sick Bay?" "Aye, lad?" "You know ... where the Doctor is. Nurses. Medicine. It's called Sick Bay." So, we end up back there and the corpse of this kid is now used for more emotional manipulation to underscore, once again, how Khan is EEEEEEEEEVIL, which we get from Kirk, Scott and Bone's discussion. And it leaves a red stain over Kirk's chest like a wound, to remind us eternally, of what Khan has done. All of these are reminders we simply did not need and are only there to eat up time, and for soap-operatic drama designed to manipulate the audience, emotionally. Not one damn bit of it makes any sense on its own. Change your shirt Kirk! Damn ... is that too much to ask? Put a clean shirt on, man ...
I've been saying things like this for years only to have it waved away.

I don't deny TWOK has energy, good pacing and decent character moments, but it doesn't bear one sniff of scrutiny. You can get away with one or two small logic missteps, but if you keep piling them one atop another---bang, bang, bang, bang---it gets impossible to ignore.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:25 PM   #80
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Obviously, Scotty knew Peter Preston was a goner.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:37 PM   #81
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Obviously, Scotty knew Peter Preston was a goner.
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.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:38 PM   #82
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
And later we see Preston still alive in Sickbay.
Yep, as he's dying.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:39 PM   #83
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
And later we see Preston still alive in Sickbay.
Yep, as he's dying.
Sorry, again you're just waving this away.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 02:48 PM   #84
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Warped9 wrote: View Post
And later we see Preston still alive in 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.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Obviously, Scotty knew Peter Preston was a goner.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 03:38 PM   #85
FredH
Captain
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

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.
FredH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 03:44 PM   #86
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

^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.
__________________
--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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 03:45 PM   #87
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

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.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 04:03 PM   #88
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

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, 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.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 04:12 PM   #89
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Obviously, Scotty knew Peter Preston was a goner.
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.

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.

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.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21 2014, 04:28 PM   #90
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

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.
__________________
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 11:56 PM.

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