Spoilers TOS: The Captain's Oath by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread

[Damian]

I initially thought that as well, but I've changed my mind. Starfleet vessels are able to handle huge forces and accelerations, to reach high percentages of the speed of light in minutes, to survive impact by antimatter weapons and high-energy particle beams, and to withstand the stresses of a warp field (which is a spatial distortion of the same order of magnitude as a small black hole or wormhole).

Yeah, I didn't have much of an issue on the 'could' they end. I'm sure it's not ideal for a starship to do what the Enterprise did, but I figured it could be done. I just thought it was a bit drastic. I can't help but feel there had to be less drastic means to achieve their ends. But I guess that's Star Trek. If they were able to simply drop the cold fusion device in from a shuttle above the volcano (I'm not exactly clear on why they needed someone to physically be in the volcano) then we probably wouldn't have had Pike dressing down Kirk and the narrative would have been quite a bit different.

The Prime Directive has never been exclusively about first contact. 24th-century Trek repeatedly made it clear that the Directive prohibits interfering in the political and social order of warp-capable societies as well. In TNG, Picard invoked the PD as the reason for not doing anything about the oppressive situations in "Symbiosis," "The Outcast," and "The Perfect Mate," all involving post-contact societies. In both TNG: "Redemption" and DS9 season 2's opening 3-parter, the PD prohibited Starfleet from intervening in the Klingon and Bajoran civil wars until they got proof that the uprisings were being backed by outside powers (respectively the Romulans and Cardassians). In "Captive Pursuit," the PD kept Sisko from interfering in the Hunters' pursuit of the Tosk. In VGR, the PD is why Janeway wouldn't share Starfleet technology with the Kazon, and why she objected to Torres giving the androids in "Prototype" the ability to reproduce. In "Counterpoint," Kashyk pointed out that Janeway had broken the PD by helping the telepaths escape persecution by the Devore. And Tuvok said in "Homestead" that it would violate the PD for him to lead the Talaxian colonists instead of Neelix.

All excellent examples of the PD in force. Now we may debate the merits of the policy in specific situations but it goes back to what Janeway said in "The Garden" that we basically can't know everything. Just because something seems unjust doesn't mean the action we take would be just. Or what Picard said in TNG that the PD was also there to 'protect us'. It prevents Starfleet officers from taking rash action in the name of justice. Sometimes people and civilizations learn best from the mistakes they make. There are situations where interference may be necessary. But it shouldn't be a situation to 'right' what we 'perceive' as a wrong. Trip learned that lesson the hard way in "Cogenitor". He applied human standards to a situation and took action that resulted in the cogenitor committing suicide. He didn't take the time to learn about their society and arrogantly thought he was coming in to 'rescue' someone. He wanted instant change. Now perhaps with sustained contact with the society and learning their ways and their culture and history humanity may have had a positive influence on that society and eventually cogenitors may gain equal rights just by virtue of their contact with other equal societies. It takes longer and you have to be patient, and not push your values on another society. But you can still affect positive change just by being your values on another society. But you can still affect positive change just by being who you are. It reminds me of something I read about Christians, that basically a Christian person may be the only copy of the Gospels another Christian ever sees. Of course meaning how a Christian leads conducts and lives their life is the best example of what it means to be a Christian. (sorry for the religious analogy but I always thought that was a pretty powerful statement and this sort of reminded me of that).

 

[Christopher]

I can't help but feel there had to be less drastic means to achieve their ends. But I guess that's Star Trek. If they were able to simply drop the cold fusion device in from a shuttle above the volcano (I'm not exactly clear on why they needed someone to physically be in the volcano) then we probably wouldn't have had Pike dressing down Kirk and the narrative would have been quite a bit different.

I find it ironic that the least physically absurd part of that sequence, the Enterprise being underwater, is the part people complain about. That whole "cold fusion" idea was utter nonsense. First of all, "cold fusion" does NOT mean a freeze ray; it means nuclear fusion at something more achievable than the center-of-the-sun temperatures and pressures it usually requires. Second, solidifying the lava at the top of an imminently exploding volcano would NOT stop the eruption; in fact, it would make the explosion much, much worse by sealing in the pressure and letting it build up even more before it finally burst free.

It also boggles my mind that they named the planet Nibiru, after a planet from a lunatic-fringe apocalyptic conspiracy theory.

 

[Damian]

I find it ironic that the least physically absurd part of that sequence, the Enterprise being underwater, is the part people complain about. That whole "cold fusion" idea was utter nonsense. First of all, "cold fusion" does NOT mean a freeze ray; it means nuclear fusion at something more achievable than the center-of-the-sun temperatures and pressures it usually requires. Second, solidifying the lava at the top of an imminently exploding volcano would NOT stop the eruption; in fact, it would make the explosion much, much worse by sealing in the pressure and letting it build up even more before it finally burst free.

It also boggles my mind that they named the planet Nibiru, after a planet from a lunatic-fringe apocalyptic conspiracy theory.

Yes, well, the part about the Enterprise physically being underwater wasn't the part that bothered me. Just the why's. I figured it was possible. We've seen starships enter strange environments, nebulas, gas giants, and so forth. Water shouldn't be a big deal, though I guess the salt water could cause issues after a while if they stayed too long.

Cold fusion, red matter, magic blood. Yeah, they played a bit fast and loose with the tech. I'd like to say that's an Abrams movies issue but in their defense it's come up as an issue in prior Trek as well. Sometimes the needs of the plot outweigh the needs of the science .

As far as the name of the planet based on a conspiracy theory, can't say I'm surprised about that. Bob Orci is a self professed conspiracy theorist. I'm not at all surprised he put such a reference in the film.

 

[Christopher]

Cold fusion, red matter, magic blood. Yeah, they played a bit fast and loose with the tech. I'd like to say that's an Abrams movies issue but in their defense it's come up as an issue in prior Trek as well.

No more fanciful than Genesis, "protomatter," Sha Ka Ree, FTL Praxis shockwaves, FTL supernova shockwaves, the Nexus, fountain-of-youth ring radiation, thalaron radiation, or lapel-pin transporters. Terrible science is an endemic problem of Trek movies in general. TMP actually had scientific consultants and strove for intelligence (though it certainly had fanciful elements like the '70s New Agey "higher levels of existence" stuff), but from TWOK onward, it was decided to take Trek movies in a more lowbrow and sensational direction.

 

[Vger23]

Reading it now...burned 110 pages in two sittings while I'm on vacation. Great so far....avoiding spoilers until I'm done though!

 

[Damian]

No more fanciful than Genesis, "protomatter," Sha Ka Ree, FTL Praxis shockwaves, FTL supernova shockwaves, the Nexus, fountain-of-youth ring radiation, thalaron radiation, or lapel-pin transporters. Terrible science is an endemic problem of Trek movies in general. TMP actually had scientific consultants and strove for intelligence (though it certainly had fanciful elements like the '70s New Agey "higher levels of existence" stuff), but from TWOK onward, it was decided to take Trek movies in a more lowbrow and sensational direction.

Yes, that's probably the best reason Star Trek is best on TV. That's not to say they didn't take liberties of course, but they were able to keep it more intelligent sci-fi.

The issue with the movies is probably due to the cost they want to appeal to a wider audience, and the studio seems to feel action is more important than science in movies. Now I don't always agree with that philosophy, but it's probably the reason the Star Trek films are less interested in science. And it's one reason TMP has perpetually been my favorite Trek film. I consider it the most 'pure' Star Trek film. As much as I liked TWOK, TVH, TUC, First Contact, Beyond, etc. they never overtook TMP for me. I would say maybe TVH comes close to a pretty good, intelligent story. It uses humor in an appropriate and amusing way that actually manages not to overwhelm the intelligent elements of the film.

The only thing I will say is Star Trek films due still lean somewhat more intelligent. Some of the tech is dubious at best, but they try to throw in a 'wink-nod' towards science. And, well, most of the Star Trek movies were fun in their own way. The drama and the stories were at least engaging and entertaining.

You know, though, I kind of disagree about the Nexus. I actually thought that was a pretty ingenious plot device. Now it's completely made up, yes, but I thought it was a pretty intelligent made up plot device. It was one of the things I really liked about Generations.

 

[Damian]

And I've long railed against the repeated TWOK redux we saw in the movies. I loved the TWOK (even if it does fall in the more low brow column), but the Star Trek movies ended up being a victim of that films success in a way as a number of the follow up films tried to redo TWOK in some fashion.

In particular I considered Nemesis-Star Trek (2009)-STID as a trilogy of TWOK redux films that borrowed a bit too heavily from TWOK. Villains bent on vengeance. Villains can have other motivations. And do characters really need to sacrifice themselves to save the ship like Data and Kirk did in their respective films?

Now I liked all 3 films, but it was an unfortunate element of all 3 that they borrowed heavily from TWOK. I understand movies with villains are more entertaining to the general public usually. But I wish they separated themselves out just a bit. And it's one reason I really liked Beyond a lot as it broke that pattern, at least IMO. That was the first Star Trek film in years that didn't feel like it was some homage to TWOK (sure it had a few elements you could argue were lifted from TWOK--but it really didn't feel like it was trying to be another TWOK style movie)----that and for once Earth was barely mentioned---the whole Earth is in jeopardy plot device was getting a bit old also.

 

[Christopher]

You know, though, I kind of disagree about the Nexus. I actually thought that was a pretty ingenious plot device. Now it's completely made up, yes, but I thought it was a pretty intelligent made up plot device. It was one of the things I really liked about Generations.

Maybe, but the concept has major problems. If it "orbits the galaxy" in only 78 years, that would mean it was traveling about 2000 times the speed of light (assuming a roughly circular orbital path that comes near Sol system) -- which means there's no way you could stand there and watch it slowly approach until it engulfed you.

 

[Damian]

Maybe, but the concept has major problems. If it "orbits the galaxy" in only 78 years, that would mean it was traveling about 2000 times the speed of light (assuming a roughly circular orbital path that comes near Sol system) -- which means there's no way you could stand there and watch it slowly approach until it engulfed you.

Yeah, that was a case of lazy writing probably. They probably should have said something like travels that sector every 78 years, or at least leave it a bit vague.

The same thing with the Enterprise-A travelling to the center of the galaxy in what, 2 or 3 days, something that should have taken years (at least Dillard's novelization tried to put in some explanation, however imperfect, of how that was achieved).

But I liked the device of the Nexus itself. And the idea that time has no meaning there. And the whole idea of how Guinan's echo is still there since time doesn't exist there (and how difficult it can be to wrap your head around that--I thought that was a pretty good bit of writing in that case--I like things that are difficult to get your head around--it makes sense, yet it's hard to imagine at the same time)

 

[Christopher]

The same thing with the Enterprise-A travelling to the center of the galaxy in what, 2 or 3 days, something that should have taken years

According to Sulu's dialogue, it takes 6.7 hours -- but the action in the film runs continuously from that moment until their arrival, with no room for any sizeable breaks, so it's actually more like 20 minutes.

(at least Dillard's novelization tried to put in some explanation, however imperfect, of how that was achieved).

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It does say that the God Entity showed Sybok how to alter the Enterprise's shields to let it pass through the supposedly impassable Great Barrier, but I distinctly remember being frustrated that it offered no explanation for how the ship got to the center of the galaxy so quickly.

 

[Damian]

According to Sulu's dialogue, it takes 6.7 hours -- but the action in the film runs continuously from that moment until their arrival, with no room for any sizeable breaks, so it's actually more like 20 minutes.

So it's even worse than I recalled. I don't hate TFF, there were things I liked about it, but it definitely has more than it's fair share of problems.

but I distinctly remember being frustrated that it offered no explanation for how the ship got to the center of the galaxy so quickly.

Hmm, I thought it included an explanation for the quick travel time as well (and how the Klingons tapped into the same program). But I haven't read the novel since I got it a few days before the movie came out so I guess I misremembered that part.

Perhaps Dillard couldn't come up with a way to explain it--some things just defy explanation. And it was still several years before Voyager and maybe she just didn't think of that. I liked her books and I'd hate to think she didn't think of that, but sometimes we all miss things, even the obvious.

I wonder, in Greg Cox' Q trilogy he featured that same entity. I don't recall but did he bring that up at all in his novel. I mean it wasn't really important to his story but I'm trying to think back and wonder if he mentioned how the Enterprise got there so quickly

 

[Damian]

I found this on Memory Alpha on the article for the novelization:

"The novel also explained how the Enterprise was able to reach the center of the galaxy so easily (a frequent plot error associated with the film, especially after the broadcast of Star Trek: Voyager). The reason, so described the novel, was that Sybok had spent years on a modified engine and shield design which made the journey past the galactic barrier possible."

So it does seem she tried to address both issues, at least as much as possible.

 

[Christopher]

I found this on Memory Alpha on the article for the novelization:

"The novel also explained how the Enterprise was able to reach the center of the galaxy so easily (a frequent plot error associated with the film, especially after the broadcast of Star Trek: Voyager). The reason, so described the novel, was that Sybok had spent years on a modified engine and shield design which made the journey past the galactic barrier possible."

So it does seem she tried to address both issues, at least as much as possible.

That only says that it helped them get past the barrier, which tracks with what I remember. That's a different question from how it got to the barrier so quickly in the first place, which I distinctly remember being disappointed that the novelization didn't explain. I think the Memory Alpha writer was erroneously conflating the two issues. Unless someone can quote the relevant text from the actual novelization, I remain unconvinced.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

On travel times, I vaguely recall that there was an article in an issue of the short-lived Star Trek Giant Poster Book (anybody else here remember that magazine?), that dealt with that, and specifically with travel times that simply didn't jibe with the "Warp factor cubed * C" standard formula of the TOS era. (Ye vish, we don't have subscripts or superscripts here? Fountain Pen Network has them!)

 

[Damian]

That only says that it helped them get past the barrier, which tracks with what I remember. That's a different question from how it got to the barrier so quickly in the first place, which I distinctly remember being disappointed that the novelization didn't explain. I think the Memory Alpha writer was erroneously conflating the two issues. Unless someone can quote the relevant text from the actual novelization, I remain unconvinced.

I don't recall specifically, only that I had a hazy memory that it maybe was dealt with and then the article above.

I'll take a look at my novel tonight though to see if I can find any references that might answer it. Now I'm curious

Maybe I'll even add that book to my list of re-reads while waiting for The Enterprise War to be released. I enjoyed that novel and always felt it was actually superior to the film and it might be worth a re-read . Since it was released a few days before the movie I ended up reading it before seeing the film--unfortunately the film didn't quite match the expectations after reading the book---sigh

I'd love to see if Greg Cox brought it up at all, but that'd be a lot harder to find since it wouldn't have been a major plot point and could have showed up anywhere, if at all...and I honestly can't remember that being brought up there.

As an aside I always wondered if the god-like alien in TFF was a renegade Cytherian as seen in TNG "The Nth Degree". I don't think I'm the only one that ever wondered that but center of the galaxy, how the alien appeared and manifested itself reminded me a bit of the malevolent being in TFF. And at least "The Nth Degree" gives us an explanation of how the Enterprise reached the center of the galaxy so quick (you know, I wonder if the alien in TFF could have planted something like that in Sybok's mind to get the Enterprise-A to the center of the galaxy so quickly, hmm)

 

[Damian]

That only says that it helped them get past the barrier, which tracks with what I remember.

You appear to be correct. I checked the novel and it only references the shield modifications that I could find. There is no reference to enhancing the engines (unless it's hidden somewhere else but I doubt it)

In fact, in the sections I read no one seems concerned at the distance, only the danger of the barrier itself. The distance involved doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the writers, movie or novel. Now it was before DS9 and Voyager came out, and TNG was pretty much in its infancy when they started making TFF. My guess is they just didn't give much thought to how long it would take the Enterprise to get there under normal circumstances.

I imagine if the movie was made a few years later (once DS9 and Voyager established how long it would take to get to the other side of the galaxy) they probably would have made some account for that.

Should they have considered it? Probably. But previous to those shows I don't think too many people gave too much thought to how long it would take to travel the galaxy, even at warp.

As an aside when I was glancing at the novel Dillard does include a pretty interesting discussion between Kirk, Spock and McCoy about the center of the galaxy, including the surrounding accretion disc, whether there was a gigantic singularity at the center of the galaxy, a black hole, or even some theories of a white hole where creation sprang (Spock was doubtful of that theory). At the time the movie came out I'm not sure how wide spread the theory of a black hole in the center of the galaxy was, but it was interesting to re-read that segment.

As lowbrow as the movies could be, at least many of the novelizations tried to return some science to the stories. And I did like Dillard's novelizations of the movies she did (and McIntyre's as well, though it's been even longer since I read the 3 she did).

 

[Christopher]

The distance involved doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the writers, movie or novel. Now it was before DS9 and Voyager came out, and TNG was pretty much in its infancy when they started making TFF. My guess is they just didn't give much thought to how long it would take the Enterprise to get there under normal circumstances.

Even at the time it first came out, though, the quick trip to the center of the galaxy was implausible. In TOS/TAS, interstellar travel was shown to take time. Even in "That Which Survives," a trip of nearly 1000 light-years was said to take about 12 hours, which is ridiculously fast by DS9/VGR standards and a stretch by normal TOS standards, but even at that improbable speed, it'd take more than 12 days to get to the center of the galaxy, not 20 minutes. And "The Magicks of Megas-tu" established that the Enterprise was the first Federation ship to reach the center of the galaxy, which tells us it must've been a pretty fair hike if nobody had done it sooner.

Even by the "Corrected Warp Speeds" chart in 1980's Star Trek Maps (which was based on the warp factor cubed formula times a variable "Cochrane's factor" dependent on the local density of matter and energy, to account for varying portrayals of warp speed), the average travel time per parsec at warp 10 (the highest listed speed) would be 1 minute, 19 seconds, so to travel the roughly 25,000 ly/7670 parsecs to the galactic center would take about a week. At warp 7 in the STM chart, it would take 3 weeks.

So maybe the implausibility wasn't quite as extreme as it became once the 24th-century shows codified warp velocities more clearly, but it was always there. If you could reach the galactic center in 20 minutes, then Alpha Centauri would be a fifth of a second away. Even if you go by Sulu's 6.7 hours line, that's about one light-year per second -- extremely hard to reconcile with TOS's portrayal of travel between star systems typically taking days. So this isn't some plot hole that only emerged retroactively -- it was already a problem when the film first came out.

Should they have considered it? Probably. But previous to those shows I don't think too many people gave too much thought to how long it would take to travel the galaxy, even at warp.

That's what's so frustrating -- the lack of thought given to such basic things. There are so many TV/movie writers out there who don't even know what the word "galaxy" even means, let alone how big our galaxy is. It's not that hard to do a little research and find these things out, but so many screenwriters never bother to try.

As an aside when I was glancing at the novel Dillard does include a pretty interesting discussion between Kirk, Spock and McCoy about the center of the galaxy, including the surrounding accretion disc, whether there was a gigantic singularity at the center of the galaxy, a black hole, or even some theories of a white hole where creation sprang (Spock was doubtful of that theory).

Which is ironic, because "The Magicks of Megas-tu" was built around that very white hole/continous creation theory (which had already been largely discredited at the time in favor of Big Bang cosmology).

At the time the movie came out I'm not sure how wide spread the theory of a black hole in the center of the galaxy was, but it was interesting to re-read that segment.

Well, it's mentioned in my 1985 college astronomy textbook, which says it was theorized based on observations of Doppler shifts in the gas orbiting the galactic nucleus in the late '70s (the gas was heavily redshifted on one side and blueshifted on the other, indicating that it was spinning around something at high speed, so that something had to be really massive). Radio observations in 1983 supported the theory. But it took decades of observations of stellar orbits near the core to rule out alternative interpretations, so the discussion you mention in the novel sounds like it matches the state of the art for 1989, though it's highly dated today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

 

[Damian]

That's what's so frustrating -- the lack of thought given to such basic things. There are so many TV/movie writers out there who don't even know what the word "galaxy" even means, let alone how big our galaxy is. It's not that hard to do a little research and find these things out, but so many screenwriters never bother to try.

I do agree it would have been nice to put a bit of thought into it. I'm sure it was something they thought it would be 'cool' to do.

I'm a bit more forgiving. I guess partly because of the other genres I watch. I always point out I'm a fan of slasher films, hardly a genre known for plausibility. And even James Bond movies--I mean in Goldeneye he jumps off a cliff and somehow manages to fly into a moving airplane (ok, I'll admit that one even exceeded my own forgiving limits--that was stupidly ridiculous).

I too wish Dillard had explained that one. At least in "The Nth Degree" they put in an explanation of how they travelled to the center of the galaxy. Putting in some explanation, even if a bit implausible, at least helps. It just doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them. In fact, even the Memory Alpha article indicated that people, in general at least, pointed out the vast distance involved only after Voyager came out (if it takes almost 80 years to cross the galaxy I guess some people figured it should take at least 40 to get to the middle--using just a little simple math). Dillard's novels I thought were usually pretty good, intelligent books. I find it a bit odd she missed that point.

And "The Magicks of Megas-tu" established that the Enterprise was the first Federation ship to reach the center of the galaxy, which tells us it must've been a pretty fair hike if nobody had done it sooner.

Wasn't that about the time that the animated series was not allowed to be referenced (when it wasn't considered canon per Roddenberry's lawyer/rep or whatever he was)? Could that have something to do with why that was ignored?

But it took decades of observations of stellar orbits near the core to rule out alternative interpretations, so the discussion you mention in the novel sounds like it matches the state of the art for 1989, though it's highly dated today.

Hmm, very interesting. I know these days it's pretty commonly accepted a giant black hole, or singularity, resides at the center of many galaxies. I wasn't sure how common that theory was back in 1989. That does date the movie a bit since at the center of the galaxy they did not encounter any of that (though I guess maybe you could argue they weren't in the exact center of the galaxy, much like the argument that in WNMHGB the Enterprise didn't travel to the rim of the galaxy, but left above (or below I suppose) it.

The special effects left a lot to be desired in that sequence (well the whole movie save one or two scenes). I was quite underwhelmed to say the least. But I suppose that's for another board .

 

[Christopher]

I'm a bit more forgiving. I guess partly because of the other genres I watch. I always point out I'm a fan of slasher films, hardly a genre known for plausibility. And even James Bond movies--I mean in Goldeneye he jumps off a cliff and somehow manages to fly into a moving airplane (ok, I'll admit that one even exceeded my own forgiving limits--that was stupidly ridiculous).

Yeah, but it's a matter of degree. The kind of mistakes about astronomy that show up in a lot of SF film and TV are more along the lines of a James Bond film putting the Golden Gate Bridge in Moscow, or having him walk from London to New York, or saying he's at risk of drowning in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

Wasn't that about the time that the animated series was not allowed to be referenced (when it wasn't considered canon per Roddenberry's lawyer/rep or whatever he was)? Could that have something to do with why that was ignored?

That's really a myth. From what I understand, it was just Richard Arnold bossing around fandom and tie-in authors and passing it off as official policy. I used to think it was Roddenberry's will as well, but I was told recently (I'm not sure how reliably) that it was basically just Arnold pretending to speak for Roddenberry, who may have been too ill at that point to have much to say about it. But neither Roddenberry nor Arnold had any actual authority over onscreen productions by that time, certainly not the movies, on which Roddenberry was merely a consultant. In fact, TNG and DS9 did reference TAS during the time that the so-called "ban" was supposedly in effect.

At most, maybe the uncertainty about the ownership of TAS after Filmation's bankruptcy created some reluctance to reference TAS. But it was always optional, with some writers counting it and others ignoring it or not even being aware of it (since it wasn't aired in syndication very often, and some people didn't take animation seriously). It was always just a matter of individual preference whether or not to acknowledge it, not any formal restriction.

Besides, series continuity in film and TV has always been more optional than fans today tend to assume. Countless TV and film series have ignored or heavily retconned past installments in order to tell the stories they wanted to tell. There never had to be a special reason for ignoring or contradicting a prior installment, because it was never mandatory to maintain continuity in the first place. Continuity is just a storytelling device -- you use it if it serves your current story, but not if it doesn't.

Hmm, very interesting. I know these days it's pretty commonly accepted a giant black hole, or singularity, resides at the center of many galaxies. I wasn't sure how common that theory was back in 1989.

It was pretty well-established by then, yes. Indeed, it was kind of the specialty of my college astronomy professor back in '86-7 (well, quasars and active galactic nuclei).

much like the argument that in WNMHGB the Enterprise didn't travel to the rim of the galaxy, but left above (or below I suppose) it.

First off, the word "rim" was only used once, by Rojan in "By Any Other Name"; otherwise it was called the edge of the galaxy. Second, it is perfectly acceptable to use the word "rim" to mean any edge or boundary, not only the outer circumference of a disk or wheel. That is one of its definitions, not the exclusive one.

The special effects left a lot to be desired in that sequence (well the whole movie save one or two scenes). I was quite underwhelmed to say the least. But I suppose that's for another board .

I've never understood the harshness of the complaints about TFF's visual effects. Sure, they fell short of the quality of ILM's work in the previous films, but they were pretty much average for the state of the art in 1989, not as terrible as people claimed. They weren't great, but they were perfectly adequate and had no glaring mistakes. It just seemed to me that fans had gotten spoiled.

 

[Damian]

The kind of mistakes about astronomy that show up in a lot of SF film and TV are more along the lines of a James Bond film putting the Golden Gate Bridge in Moscow, or having him walk from London to New York, or saying he's at risk of drowning in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

I guess because it's not as obvious to the common moviegoer. Probably a lot of the audience had no idea the center of the galaxy should take the Enterprise decades to get too. So they sort of 'get away' with it there. Whereas if they did something like but the Golden Gate Bridge in Moscow, most people know that is wrong. A lot of people probably don't realize the center of the galaxy should take so long to get to. Doesn't make it right--just means the writers get away with it when it comes to your average movie goer.

At most, maybe the uncertainty about the ownership of TAS after Filmation's bankruptcy created some reluctance to reference TAS. But it was always optional, with some writers counting it and others ignoring it or not even being aware of it (since it wasn't aired in syndication very often, and some people didn't take animation seriously). It was always just a matter of individual preference whether or not to acknowledge it, not any formal restriction.

Well, in all honesty, I doubt the writers of TFF even considered the animated series at all. They probably didn't even recall "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" had a center of the galaxy story.

I've never understood the harshness of the complaints about TFF's visual effects. Sure, they fell short of the quality of ILM's work in the previous films, but they were pretty much average for the state of the art in 1989, not as terrible as people claimed. They weren't great, but they were perfectly adequate and had no glaring mistakes. It just seemed to me that fans had gotten spoiled.

Well, there was have a case where you are more forgiving than I. I thought they were atrocious, even at the time. I was like, these special effects are awful. The original series in the 1960's were better IMO. Of the 13 movies I rank Insurrection 12th and TFF 13th (this is where is always place my caveat that I don't hate any Star Trek movie, so 13/13 doesn't mean I hate it, just that it's my 13th favorite Trek film ). And it's the special effects that make me place it in last place behind Insurrection. Both films have their good and bad elements. But Insurrection at least looks competently made. The special effects in Insurrection don't blow you away, but they're passable, they get the job done. TFF, ugh.

Yes, maybe TMP to TVH set the bar pretty high. They were all well done for the time. But TFF was a huge step down. I had heard Shatner had requested money to update the effects (a la the remastered original series) and was denied. THat was a few years ago. Honestly Paramount could probably update the effects nowadays for a minimal cost. And at least reading some comments here and elsewhere I actually think there might be a market for it. I know I would buy it. It seems at fans have a bit of a soft spot for TFF. Even myself. It was disappointing (esp. after reading the novel first). But there were things I liked about it. The Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic. Laurence Luckinbill. Jerry Goldsmith's score. And I really loved the forward observation room (I always wished Meyer reused that set in TUC--I really liked that set by Zimmerman). And Sybok was not your typical villain. TFF didn't try to redux TWOK, which was a positive for me. So if they updated the effects, that would be a huge plus--at least it would look like the other Star Trek films. It really sticks out like a sore thumb.