Sybok makes a grand entrance ...
If only Starfleet Chief of Staff was logical in TFF?
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
Chief of Staff: The Klingon and Romulan Empires are sending fleets into the Neutral Zone to take back Nimbus III, they'll be there in four days. Starfleet can have a task force in the system in three. The President has ordered us to cross the border, secure the hostages and keep this from becoming all out war. I know the Enterprise may not be at peak efficiency, but we need her to lead our forces into the Zone.
Kirk: How many ships?
Chief of Staff: Eight in the initial group, with eighteen more less than twenty-four hours away from Nimbus once you arrive.
Kirk: What about the Klingons and Romulans?
Chief of Staff: Given their cloaking technology we can't say for sure, though suspect each empire to be sending at least thirty ships. If you can't defuse the situation by the time they get there, we will most likely be at war within a week.
Kirk: How many ships?
Chief of Staff: Eight in the initial group, with eighteen more less than twenty-four hours away from Nimbus once you arrive.
Kirk: What about the Klingons and Romulans?
Chief of Staff: Given their cloaking technology we can't say for sure, though suspect each empire to be sending at least thirty ships. If you can't defuse the situation by the time they get there, we will most likely be at war within a week.
Starfleet Chief of Staff: "Now, I know the Enterprise isn't exactly up to specs..."
Kirk: "With all due respect, the Enterprise is a disaster! There must be other ships in the quadrant."
Starfleet Chief of Staff: "Other ships, yes. But no experienced commanders. Captain... I need Jim Kirk."
That teaser, in 1989, had me quick to notice the reused effects and sound. It definitely is a teaser as most of the scenes they used they removed the punchlines from to increase dramatic effect. Of course, we all know they couldn't get ILM in time - not a showkiller in of itself - but the movie also relies on a few too many comedic musical cues, though why they couldn't take Jerry Goldsmith's serious scene cues and mix those in instead... it might have been worse, if they had no teaser showing anything from the movie apart from the crew waving at the camera.
Being late-23rd century, there could have been ways other than the oft-used "you're the only ship in the area" - so be glad the Klingons weren't picking up that transmission... I like the idea there are individual Klingons wanting Kirk's head on a platter, and VI does suggest rising tensions between the empires so V arguably could have kept the serialized nature and build up on the animosity more, keeping the movie from feeling out of place compared to the arc of II-IV, VI. Especially as the ending has everyone in happy harmony together - like "Day of the Dove", but that's the thing: Apocryphal or not, V does capture the feel of 60s TOS and does it with some style. Shatner's direction has some very positive moments, starting with Sybok's revelation of laughter with only the backlit lighting and lens flare - which works at face value or even if (humor me) that Sybok was a Romulan incognito...
A rewrite to take out the comedy, comedy that Paramount wanted because the previous movie - a fishy whale tale - brought success with it, might have been enough to actually save it. And the movie does get more serious as it goes along, thankfully. Most of the ideas in the movie in of themselves are certainly sound if not interesting (though a means of barrier other than "the center of the galaxy", though it's easy to understand why the center of the galaxy would be the hip place to go to, assuming the Milky Way is in the precise middle of the universe and there's no way to prove that, much less to make inferences from such a face either, right now...)
Ent. Flight Deck.
Spock picks up weapon, shoots Sybok in both knees.
Spock grabs the back of Sybok collar and drags Sybok towards sickbay with McCoy following. Leaving green smear trail on deck.
Cut To Corridor.
Two of Sybok men are seen running down a Enterprise corridor, skinny yeoman hiding in cross-corridor trips them, picks up one of their weapons and club the two of them repeatedly into unconsciousness.
Because she's Starfleet and has received military training.
Cut To Bridge.
Everyone but Spock is laughing. Kirk asks Uhura to notify both the Romulan and the Klingon governments that their ambassadors are safe. Kirk then orders Sulu to set course for the closest Federation penal colony.
Roll Credits.
I've seen fan edits of STV that have removed the comedic elements and it really made me realize that underneath it all could've been a really deep, solid adventure story in TOS tradition. In his memoirs Shatner does note that the comedy was very much mandated from above, as TVH had been so well recieved by a casual audience and it basically played up the screwball comedy moments which was attributed to be a reason for it's popularity.
The ships defensive, offensive & engine systems are in good nick, so they are good to go. The "I need Jim Kirk." is based on his reputation as a "big name" in the galaxy which by conventional logic will help intimidate these hicks into giving up the diplomats in negotiations as well as keeping the Klingon's off balance. We don't know what the other vessels are like; they could be lightly armed science vessels captained by anybody. Transporters are basically repairable but I presume if Sybok is worth his salt he'd be able to inhibit transporter traffic if only in the immediate vicinity. So -- if that is the case -- whether by shuttle or by transporter a guerrilla assault would probably still need to happen.
Starfleet Chief of Staff: "Now, I know the Enterprise isn't exactly up to specs..."
Kirk: "With all due respect, the Enterprise is a disaster! There must be other ships in the quadrant."
Starfleet Chief of Staff: "Other ships, yes. But no experienced commanders. Captain... I need Jim Kirk."
Yeah but sure, it's wobbly seat-of-the-pants writing. And they could've restricted the slap stick. TUC had a bit of that as well with Uhura trying to read Klingon. Anyways......
I always took it that most of the crew didn't know what was going on, That if Sulu/Chekov was game, it must have been good. The assumption being that these are just aliens that the ship might ally with to pursue some objective or other.
I don't find the jokes at all bothersome. Could do without Data befriending that kid though. And the cloying "perfect moment in time stuff." The TV quality production design for the enemy ship interiors, the Michael Westmore generic-alien-of-the-week style make-up, and the TV quality post-production work. All of that can go.
Or just start over completely. We didn't really need a TV two-parter on the big screen. Or another pointlessly arbitrary Prime Directive story of the Berman era.
The irony is that Insurrection had a huge movie budget compared to First Contact ... because of that movie's success, and because that movie was produced on a relative shoestring mostly on the soundstages at Paramount... which led to luxuries like extensive location shooting (a *lot* of location shooting) being possible for Insurrection because it had the money to schlep everyone out to beautiful remote locations in the countryside... but ironically, it ended up looking like it was shot in one of the two of the places a few hours drive away from LA they habitually shot any location footage needed for the TNG series, so the end result was a movie with a bigger budget than its immediate predecessor, and which spent that budget going to pretty mountainscapes they could never have afforded to on TV, but which looked ten times cheaper than even some of the TV episodes, lol... curiously, The Final Frontier 's budget was pitiful by comparison, but Insurrection looked about as cheap as it
But I digress. As @DonIago says, this is maybe a topic for another thread.
While there were aspects of the movie I didn't like, I found the quality of the story to of had more depth than other Trek movies. It raised some important ethical issues.
To be honest, there are a greater number of good stories in the Trek TV series, than in the Trek movies. The movies (perhaps understandably) expend a a lot of effort being large and "epic" visually, and lose in characterization. Personally I'd rather see the familiar actors and excellent writing, over special effects and pew-pew.
It's common that the subject of a thread expands.
One reason Star Trek is better suited for TV, where they can better tackle deeper issues. Unfortunately, at least in the world of Star Trek, the movies that do tackle bigger issues don't do as well. I loved TMP but most movie fans vastly prefer TWOK. I liked TWOK as well but it wasn't a deep movie by any means.
I didn't hate any Star Trek movie but when it comes to Insurrection, I just thought it was a bit of a miss. It has depth in the sense that do we have the right to displace 600 people for something that may benefit billions. The problem is there are a lot of people that would probably say yes. It doesn't help that the Ba'ku weren't native to the planet. I actually think had they been natives there then it would have presented a stronger argument for the Ba'ku. You root for the Ba'ku because they're the 'good' guys and you're supposed to root for them. But when you get past the movie you start to wonder were you really rooting for the right side? Now personally, I love Hitchcock movies and those sorts of twists that make you wonder. But the general moviegoing public when it comes to Star Trek, probably not so much.
The humor in Insurrection, I can take it or leave it. It's dopey at times but I'm used to it in Trek films now. After seeing Scotty knock himself in TFF nothing surprises me anymore.
2 things I did really like about Insurrection. The cinematography on the planet. They did film some beautiful scenes there, like the sunrise Geordi was observing, the lake and the mountains. They really set up some nice shots. And the music score by Goldsmith was top notch, as we have come to expect from one of the master composers.
I always assumed it was undergoing a refit with a standard Warp drive.
To be fair, there were other ships this time. The admiral even said we have other ships, but no Jim Kirk. At least here they seemed to be aware that the oft used no ships in the area was getting a big old and offered up a different excuse this time.
I've seen the same thing, that Shatner wanted to make a serious drama film. Paramount wanted to capitalize on TVH with the humor. The problem there was whereas the humor in TVH seemed natural and fit well there with the story, in TFF it felt forced and just goofy at times. I liked TVH because it was a needed break after 2 serious films. It was a good time to have a more light-hearted film. TFF should have been a return to more serious subject matter. Well placed humor is fine, but it was just too much, too ridiculous and too forced.
Agreed.
One thing that both movies in discussion here share in common is that they arguably represent the style of their series better than the other movies. I've long advocated that TFF is by far the most TOS-like of all the TOS movies, maybe only TMP matches it, and INS really feels more like TNG the TV show than either FC or NEM. And lest we forget it was written by Michael Piller, a man who was hardly unfamiliar with what makes a good piece of Next Generation, having written the show's single most epic two-parter. I also recall contemporary reviews that praised INS for it's maturity and tackling of interesting philosophical ideas... the backlash started, as often it does, when the movie failed to make coin and the fanbase turned opinion from predominantly positive to almost overwhelmingly negative. Group-think.
I sometimes wonder how much of that played into Insurrection and Nemesis. Are either one top notch Star Trek films, no. Each had potential but blew it in different ways. But I frankly never understood the hate and animosity both engender among fans.
It's popular to hate on both movies. I sometimes wonder if you sat a Star Trek fan down to watch both movies who had never heard anything about either film (they were in a coma since 1998 maybe) what would they think of the two? That'd be an interesting question.
I can tell you when I came out of Insurrection I sort of wish more was mentioned or made of the Dominion War that was going on (though it was in it's final year). I know that was more of a DS9 thing but I think more could have come from that without requiring DS9 knowledge. But I thought it was an ok movie. I was entertained.
When I came out of Nemesis, the same thing. I thought it was an ok movie. I didn't like the Kolarus scenes. I didn't care for B-4 but I was actually sort of relieve that maybe Data wasn't lost forever. I know that idea gets a lot of flak from fans, but that's what I thought coming out. I actually liked Schinzon and the whole clone-echo idea. I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't more made of the Romulans here but I didn't hate the film. So overall I came out, ok, not a bad film, I ranked it number 2 of the 4 TNG films. When I started reading the hate spewed at it, I was frankly surprised and mystified. I just thought, hmm, ok, it wasn't blockbuster material, but it was OK. So that's why I have my running joke that I'm one of the 10 people that liked Nemesis.
Beyond, too. I seen with my own eyes how the 'accepted opinion' about that movie changed as its box office failed to meet expectations, and fans who'd been perfectly fine with the movie suddenly decided it had been one of the failures and started turning on it. This is a phenomena I've rarely seen in any other fandom than ours and I don't totally understand it
FWIW I must be one of the other 10 who like Nemesis
FWIW I must be one of the other 10 who like Nemesis
Beyond, too. I seen with my own eyes how the 'accepted opinion' about that movie changed as its box office failed to meet expectations, and fans who'd been perfectly fine with the movie suddenly decided it had been one of the failures and started turning on it. This is a phenomena I've rarely seen in any other fandom than ours and I don't totally understand it
FWIW I must be one of the other 10 who like Nemesis
I liked Beyond myself. Trek fans are fickle.
That's not to say they don't have their faults. TMP was my favorite Trek film, but even there it's not perfect. I know it' has it's faults. But I still love it more than any other Trek film. And I accept that there are people that hate Nemesis, I just wonder how much group think plays into it for some. Hell, Star Trek (2009) was a huge hit but there are people out there that hate it.
I do have a tendency to like things other people don't though. I'm one of the 3 people on this planet that liked Exorcist II: The Heretic (I'm not sure I should admit that but what the Hell). Not as much as the original of course, but I never thought it was as bad as people said.
Similar threads
- Poll
