Help Me Understand TWOK!!! PLEASE!!!!

[KingOfPop]

I have often heard that TWOK is the best Star Trek Film. I have watched Star Trek for about the past 20 years. However, I don't share the opinion that TWOK is the best film...and there is one main reason for this. I hope some one can give me a reasonable explanation, then I can let TWOK become one of my favorite films. Here it is:
After Spock dies, why did they shoot his body out of the ship so quickly?? The reason this bothers me is because it seems like they were all ready setting up the sequel and not putting much thought into it (like "B4"). They could have quarantined his body (radiation and all) and taken him back to earth. why not a larger memorial service/funeral?? It just seems a bit contrived and unoriginal to me. It ruins the whole film. Can anyone explain it?

 

[SeerSGB]

It's a homage, again, to the Naval tradition and burial at sea. At this point no one in the crew knew anything about the katra or the need for the body, so there would be no reason to take it back to Earth. As for a larger service: Spock's life and family was the Enterprise and her crew, the people that mattered most to him were there.

 

[RyuRoots]

I think TWOK has problems, but this is not one of them. It's a simple parallel to burial at sea on seagoing ships. Simple as that.

 

[KingOfPop]

i understand the points that both of you are making aabout naval tradition. it just seems odd to me that they wouldn't contact vulcan or wait until they got back to earth to speak with starfleet. why shoot his body onto a planet that they know nothing about unless it was just to set up a sequel?

 

[SeerSGB]

i understand the points that both of you are making aabout naval tradition. it just seems odd to me that they wouldn't contact vulcan or wait until they got back to earth to speak with starfleet. why shoot his body onto a planet that they know nothing about unless it was just to set up a sequel?

The idea was for his body to burn up on reentry, but thanks to Genesis's funky gravity well, the coffin landed instead of burning to a cinder. And why wait to talk to Starfleet or Vulcan? Spock being Spock probably left a will or disposal instructions for his body, seeing as it was 99% likely he would die in the line of duty.

 

[Christopher]

why shoot his body onto a planet that they know nothing about unless it was just to set up a sequel?

Well, keep in mind that normally it would've burned up in the atmosphere. The scenes of the torpedo tube intact on the surface were shot after the initial test screenings, because audiences found the ending too downbeat. And then in TSFS they had to insert a handwave about the gravity fields being in flux to justify that scene which was added as an afterthought (and clearly not thought through very carefully).

So the funeral wasn't put in the script to set up a sequel. As the scene was originally written and filmed, it was essentially a combination of burial at sea and cremation -- the torpedo tube burns up in the atmosphere of the Genesis Planet, and Spock's remains become part of the new life that was created simultaneously with his death. It's all symbolic 'n' stuff.

 

[Shatmandu]

It ruins the whole film.

If that coda is enough to ruin the whole film for you, I would suggest you never, ever watch it again as long as you live.

Or the films that came after it, since the ruiner set them up and made them possible.

Joe, anti-ruiner

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

And if the internet was around in 1982, Star Trek would have died.

 

[Destructor]

I agree with the OP- even if a film is awesome, if it has one thing that doesn't make sense, it's automatically a waste of time. What confuses me is: This being so, how have we been watching Trek for 20 years?

 

[Gorn Captain]

For me the movie was ruined when Kirk poured himself a drink and then didn't drink it. That bastard! Can someone explain to me why on Earth he would do this?!?!?

And earlier, he ate an apple, and I don't think he washed it! Oh my God! Now I can never watch Star Trek again!!!

 

[trevanian]

For me the movie was ruined when Kirk poured himself a drink and then didn't drink it. That bastard! Can someone explain to me why on Earth he would do this?!?!?

And earlier, he ate an apple, and I don't think he washed it! Oh my God! Now I can never watch Star Trek again!!!

It was a genesis-created apple, which suggest his whole digestive system should age rapidly, meaning Kirk should have a colostomy bag on the side of his uniform in later films.

 

[Destructor]

And what about that scene at the start where everyone dies, and then Kirk comes in and they all get up like nothing happened! It strained credulity!

 

[Ward Fowler]

Nah. It was Easter.

 

[BrownShatner]

Well, keep in mind that normally it would've burned up in the atmosphere. The scenes of the torpedo tube intact on the surface were shot after the initial test screenings, because audiences found the ending too downbeat. And then in TSFS they had to insert a handwave about the gravity fields being in flux to justify that scene which was added as an afterthought (and clearly not thought through very carefully).

So the funeral wasn't put in the script to set up a sequel. As the scene was originally written and filmed, it was essentially a combination of burial at sea and cremation -- the torpedo tube burns up in the atmosphere of the Genesis Planet, and Spock's remains become part of the new life that was created simultaneously with his death. It's all symbolic 'n' stuff.

Interesting, because when I walked out of the theater as a kid, I thought it was obvious they were setting it up for a sequel. (However, I thought the same thing about the end of "Flash Gordon".) I wonder how many people really thought Spock was dead and would never return?

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, keep in mind that normally it would've burned up in the atmosphere. The scenes of the torpedo tube intact on the surface were shot after the initial test screenings, because audiences found the ending too downbeat. And then in TSFS they had to insert a handwave about the gravity fields being in flux to justify that scene which was added as an afterthought (and clearly not thought through very carefully).

So the funeral wasn't put in the script to set up a sequel. As the scene was originally written and filmed, it was essentially a combination of burial at sea and cremation -- the torpedo tube burns up in the atmosphere of the Genesis Planet, and Spock's remains become part of the new life that was created simultaneously with his death. It's all symbolic 'n' stuff.

Interesting, because when I walked out of the theater as a kid, I thought it was obvious they were setting it up for a sequel. (However, I thought the same thing about the end of "Flash Gordon".) I wonder how many people really thought Spock was dead and would never return?

I was -3 at the time, so I had no thoughts about it one way or the other.

The biggest problem I had with this film is the explanation for Khan. As I said, I wasn't even born yet when this film came out, so I sure as hell hadn't seen "The Space Seed." But then Khan goes on to explain that on Earth, in 1996, he was a prince...that whole scene got nothing but WTF reactions from me until I was about 18 and finally managed to see "The Space Seed" for the first time.

 

[Basill]

i understand the points that both of you are making aabout naval tradition. it just seems odd to me that they wouldn't contact vulcan or wait until they got back to earth to speak with starfleet. why shoot his body onto a planet that they know nothing about unless it was just to set up a sequel?

The idea was for his body to burn up on reentry, but thanks to Genesis's funky gravity well, the coffin landed instead of burning to a cinder. And why wait to talk to Starfleet or Vulcan? Spock being Spock probably left a will or disposal instructions for his body, seeing as it was 99% likely he would die in the line of duty.

Heck, he was probably Jell-O by the time Scotty was playing the bagpipes. Of course as Christopher said, it's all symbolic.

Does anyone know if they had any similar ceremonies for the crispy cadets or did they just bring them all home? That might have made the context more credible for the opening poster, but naturally it would have ruined the pace of the film.

 

[Seven of Five]

Interesting, because when I walked out of the theater as a kid, I thought it was obvious they were setting it up for a sequel. (However, I thought the same thing about the end of "Flash Gordon".) I wonder how many people really thought Spock was dead and would never return?

I first saw TWOK when I was six or seven, I can't remember. The only Star Trek I'd seen were a few TOS episodes. I knew there were a few films, but watching Spock die made me think it was the last one and that he was dead forever. I remember how sad I felt even though I hadn't really seen many films or episodes up to that point.

 

[nx1701g]

And if the internet was around in 1982, Star Trek would have died.

If the internet were around in 1982 I think half of the shows of the 80s and 90s wouldn't exist.

 

[Christopher]

So the funeral wasn't put in the script to set up a sequel. As the scene was originally written and filmed, it was essentially a combination of burial at sea and cremation -- the torpedo tube burns up in the atmosphere of the Genesis Planet, and Spock's remains become part of the new life that was created simultaneously with his death. It's all symbolic 'n' stuff.

Interesting, because when I walked out of the theater as a kid, I thought it was obvious they were setting it up for a sequel. (However, I thought the same thing about the end of "Flash Gordon".) I wonder how many people really thought Spock was dead and would never return?

Well, yes, of course -- the version of the film you saw, unless you were in those preview audiences, was the one that added the shots of the intact torpedo tube on the surface, which were pretty clearly intended to set up a sequel. What I'm saying is that the original version as scripted and shot, the one without the final shots of the tube on the surface, had a different intent. Very few people have ever seen that version. The original poster's comments were about the funeral itself and why it was written the way it was. I'm saying that although the final version changed the meaning of the film's ending by adding the intact tube, the original reasons why the funeral scene was written in the first place did not include setup for a sequel.

Does anyone know if they had any similar ceremonies for the crispy cadets or did they just bring them all home? That might have made the context more credible for the opening poster, but naturally it would have ruined the pace of the film.

Most likely it would depend on the wishes of the individual crewmembers as specified in their wills. Some might prefer burial in space, others might prefer interment back home. Though I would expect burial in space to be the default, since it's more practical and sanitary than keeping a dead body on your ship for possibly weeks or months until you can get back to port. True, starships presumably have stasis units, but those use up power and sometimes fail. Spock was probably satisfied with the default arrangement for the disposition of his remains, finding it efficient and logical.

 

[SeerSGB]

So the funeral wasn't put in the script to set up a sequel. As the scene was originally written and filmed, it was essentially a combination of burial at sea and cremation -- the torpedo tube burns up in the atmosphere of the Genesis Planet, and Spock's remains become part of the new life that was created simultaneously with his death. It's all symbolic 'n' stuff.

Interesting, because when I walked out of the theater as a kid, I thought it was obvious they were setting it up for a sequel. (However, I thought the same thing about the end of "Flash Gordon".) I wonder how many people really thought Spock was dead and would never return?

Well, yes, of course -- the version of the film you saw, unless you were in those preview audiences, was the one that added the shots of the intact torpedo tube on the surface, which were pretty clearly intended to set up a sequel. What I'm saying is that the original version as scripted and shot, the one without the final shots of the tube on the surface, had a different intent. Very few people have ever seen that version. The original poster's comments were about the funeral itself and why it was written the way it was. I'm saying that although the final version changed the meaning of the film's ending by adding the intact tube, the original reasons why the funeral scene was written in the first place did not include setup for a sequel.

Does anyone know if they had any similar ceremonies for the crispy cadets or did they just bring them all home? That might have made the context more credible for the opening poster, but naturally it would have ruined the pace of the film.

Most likely it would depend on the wishes of the individual crewmembers as specified in their wills. Some might prefer burial in space, others might prefer interment back home. Though I would expect burial in space to be the default, since it's more practical and sanitary than keeping a dead body on your ship for possibly weeks or months until you can get back to port. True, starships presumably have stasis units, but those use up power and sometimes fail. Spock was probably satisfied with the default arrangement for the disposition of his remains, finding it efficient and logical.

And with transporter tech and phasers that can disintergrate virtually anything, there's a couple more options for people that don't care one way or the other.