• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Non-fans of TWoK....

Personally, I never understood how they calculated that. When TVH came out in 1986, ticket prices were about $4.50. When FC came out 10 years later, the price was doubled as was the films' budget. Do they take inflation into account when they do this math?
Yes, most reliable sources (like official film registries) take that into account when factoring how much money a film made relative to another. :)

Yeah, but there is a TON of play that can influence those numbers. It used to be that film rentals, not box office grosses, were the numbers to look at, at least in the 70s/80s. You could extrapolate a box office gross by using a 2.5x or 3x multiplier on the rental figure ... for example, TMP did 39 or 40 of its 55 mil in rentals in 79, the rest in 80. So its total domestic box office should have been in the 120-150 range, PLUS worldwide takes. And in the early 80s, the figures that kept turning up were that TMP did 175 mil worldwide in box office, so that matched. But for the last 10 or 15 years, TMP's numbers keep getting knocked down, to 139 I think, and I think they're saying that is worldwide, which is a huge discrepancy.

I wish I could find the system that calculated in the 80s that if you adjusted for all factors, that THUNDERBALL was the 4th highest grossing movie of all time ... I have a feeling that whatever calculations went into that, it was probably dead right, given the scale of worldwide Bondmania ... for Trek to have tapped that, the film would have had to come out in 1976, and if it had ... no matter what script they rode ... it would have cashed in like crazy (and possibly saved us from some things or most everything Lucas's wealth has inflicted on storytelling and technology in the industry since SW came out in 77.)
 
On the subject of which Trek flicks feel like movies and not just glorified TV episodes...

I would submit that the much maligned TFF, for all its flaws, is one of the only films in the series that's actually directed and shot like a feature film. Now, of course, the visual effects are horrendous, but I'm talking about everything else. Andrew Laszlo's cinematography is excellent.

And say what you want about Shatner, but he actually directs the thing like a movie. He actually does things with the camera, rather than just having the standard TV over the shoulder shots of talking heads. Very few of the other directors have been as cinematic in their directing style.
 
Gene Roddenberry said that during TOS, he wanted the crew to be role-models, examples that "Moms could tell their kids, 'Be like Captain Kirk' or "Be like Mr. Spock.'" The TOS characters, although 100% human, were also ideals to look up to - TOS Kirk is my hero to this day. In the movies, especially TWOK, they went with the "flawed" garbage, stripping the characters of their admirable traits and beating them down to a pale shadow of what Gene envisioned them to be. TOS Kirk wouldn't cheat on a test - heck, in WNMHGB we learn that he was quite a strict stick-in-the-mud at the Academy. TOS Kirk wouldn't have bastard children. TOS Kirk was a hero, not the weirdo who was in the movies. When you get right down to it, the movies are a mockery of TOS - a pale, grotesque shadow of what was ground-breaking science fiction which inspired thousands of people to better their lives and reach forward to their goals.
I'm sorry but you're saying that portraying characters WITHOUT flaws is a good thing? No I'm sorry, but that neither makes good television nor good characterisation.

The audience needs to identify or connect with these characters in some way, and portraying them as flawless ubermen is not just disconnecting as a viewer, but unrealistic.

For me, Spock and McCoy are the stronger characters of TOS. Spock largely because he presents the logical, but still has an inner conflict between emotion and logic churning inside him. His reaction to situations is ofter very interesting, especially when it conflicts with McCoy. McCoy is an emotionalist, humanist to the point where it can blind rational judgement and Spock is cold and logical to the point where it stops him from dealing with situations appropriately - see "The Galileo Seven".

Kirk does a good job of connecting these two characters well, and providing a reasoned middle ground, which I find interesting, but TOS Kirk is too much of a hero. He never puts a foot wrong and always has the right solution to a problem. I know he is supposed to be cream of Starfleet's captain crop, but that still doesn't make him a realistic or human character.

If anything, I find Christopher Pike a much more believeable and engaging portrayal of a starfleet captain (from the brief glimpse we saw in "The Cage"). He presents the realistic stresses and issues of command and appears to be a fallible man.

The Kirk we started to see in TMP, and then TWOK was a flawed individual, and this endears him to the audience, and he is fallible.

I could go on, but to say having flawless characters is a GOOD thing is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in regards to Star Trek.

Although, given your name is TOS Purist, I doubt I will change your mind on this. :(
 
The Kirk we started to see in TMP, and then TWOK was a flawed individual, and this endears him to the audience
"Endears"? Is that really the word you mean to use?

Humanity endears me to a character; flaws are understandable if presented well.;)
 
The Kirk we started to see in TMP, and then TWOK was a flawed individual, and this endears him to the audience
"Endears"? Is that really the word you mean to use?

Humanity endears me to a character; flaws are understandable if presented well.;)

Endearing (from Dictionary.com because the real dictionary is harder to find):

To make beloved or very sympathetic
adj. Inspiring affection or warm sympathy


So yes, that is definitely the word I intend to use. A character who has flaws, recognises them and attempts to still be the best person they can be is much more realistic, and much more like-able (to an audience) than someone who is 100% perfect.

Humans are imperfect beings, and it's alienating to see them portrayed contrary to this.
 
Humans are imperfect beings, and it's alienating to see them portrayed contrary to this.
ENNNH, wrong answer Hans.
Kirk is not a human being- he's a fictional character, and as such, he deserves some slack for the times when he's "better than the average bear.":lol:
 
Humans are imperfect beings, and it's alienating to see them portrayed contrary to this.
ENNNH, wrong answer Hans.
Kirk is not a human being- he's a fictional character, and as such, he deserves some slack for the times when he's "better than the average bear.":lol:
Okay, sure, if we're going to split hairs.

I guess it depends on whether you see Kirk as a man or a superhero. I do not see him as the latter.

Although, even superheroes make mistakes. A character that makes never mistakes is a boring one.
 
Starfleet is for EXPLORATION!! It is NOT a military!! :lol:

How do you figure? The former and the latter are not mutually exclusive, by the way.

Everyone in TOS had military titles, along with a chain of command. There were things and terms like brig, arrest, mutiny, court martial, etc. There was even the death penalty under one circumstance (going to Talos IV). Starships were armed to the teeth and were known to go on peace keeping missions. Wars happened and Starfleet ships and personnel were deployed. If that's not military, then what is?

Some Trek fans love ST:TMP. No one else much ever has, because they expect entertainment for their time and money and have no prior emotional attachment to the faces or places.

I loved ST: TMP when I first saw it broadcast on TV sometime in the early to mid '80s (I would have been probably between 8 and 10 years old). I'd seen some reruns of TOS before and I liked the show (like most people of the time), but I thought the movie was so much better. Everything seemed so much bigger, grander, more epic; and the ship, props, and sets looked real and convincing.

In addition to that, I was fascinated by the mystery of V'ger, and as such, I was never bored during the movie. The V'ger probe in the form of Lieutenant Ilia was also interesting to me, and even comical at times (e.g., her protestations when Kirk denied her the "required information").

I loved the ending and thought about it for a long time after the movie was over. It was such an intriguing concept to me; a Voyager probe launched around our time that becomes this massive and powerful sentient being hundreds of years later because it was following its programming. It also seemed original to me because I'd never seen The Changeling episode from TOS. I only watched it for the first time recently and it pales in comparison to ST: TMP in my opinion.

If someone is not interested in the mystery of V'ger and does not find the reveal to be an awesome concept to think about, then I can see why they wouldn't like the movie. However, it doesn't take a Star Trek fan to enjoy this movie. In fact, I think Star Trek fans are its biggest detractors; after all, they are the only ones who know it "ripped off" The Changeling episode of TOS.

I was disappointed with II (which I also saw broadcast on TV as a kid). I found it boring. There was no fascinating concepts like in TMP. I liked III even less, due to its general lack of Spock. I liked IV because of its humor and time travel (I've always liked the concept of time travel). I didn't care for V and VI, though I like them better than II and III. TMP and TVH are still my favorites to this day.
 
Last edited:
I think V'Ger was an interesting idea for the concepts of evolution that the producers wanted to explore; I'm just not convinced their execution was as good as it could have been. I like "The Changeling" better in that respect. I think TMP would have been a more outstanding movie if it had a better balance between story and characters and SFX. It leaned a little too heavily on the latter IMO. One reason I enjoy TWOK, despite some of its significant flaws, is that I think it handled the characters a lot better. Most of them anyway. :D
 
Starfleet is for EXPLORATION!! It is NOT a military!! :lol:

"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat."

Starfleet obviously served more than one function on Star Trek. Not only did they seek out new life forms and new civilizations, but they ferried diplomatic envoys, undwerwent covert actions against the Romulans and the Klingons, engaged in military exercises, aided Federation colonists in distress, etc. during the three seasons of the series. Hell, pick just one season and you'll witness the crew of the Enterprise undergoing all kinds of missions.

The mission statement represents an ideal, but the series portrayed a reality in which that ideal was sometimes set aside to serve other needs.

I'm probably stating what has already been said, as I haven't closely followed this thread for a while, but there's my two cents.
 
Ironically, I was planning to bump this thread myself. Earlier today, I wrote a long rant about the film. Actually, it was less of a rant, more a deconstruction, but it ended up being so long, so ornate, that there were two problems: 1) it was taking too long to say too little, and 2) if posted, it would have obscured the idea that I actually have *some* admiration for the film. Still, maybe I'll rewrite and condense what I was planning to say.

The problem with trying to talk about TWOK is that, for me, at the least, it's basically a cluster-fuck of failings, from the set (re)design, to the costumes, to the editing, to the writing, to the whatever. It's all such a tangled mess of shit. On the other hand, I now risk derailing myself again, since, as I've said, I don't consider it all bad, and the good, in some sense, emerges directly from the bad; is tied to it, bound to it, shackled by it, almost. In the most contrite terms possible, TWOK is what it is. But that's not very helpful.

One thing I *did* notice on my recent viewings, and I'm not sure this has been talked about before, is the staggering set of similarities between the space battle scenes (Ent vs. Reliant) in TWOK and the space battle scene (Ent Vs Cloaked Bird of Prey) in TUC. Let me go into some detail . . .

The first, and perhaps most conspicuous, detail, is that they both feature an antagonist with a fondness for literature, vainly reflecting Meyer's own antagonistic attitude (from a certain point-of-view) for ST itself. I mean, everyone sees that one. But it may have escaped attention that Meyer basically uses the same tropes and theatrics in both.

For example, the "Red Alert" graphic is deployed in BOTH of TWOK's big face-off scenes (first encounter with Khan and right before going into the nebula), rather clumsily, I must say -- especially in the latter, where the Enterprise is clearly at Red Alert, as seen in lighting choices and set displays, before Meyer pointlessly cuts to the Red Alert graphic to bridge two shots of people running down a corridor. In TUC, he doesn't technically cut to the graphic in isolation as in TWOK, but he has Scotty (for no in-narrative reason whatsoever) looking -- and not just looking, but damn-near clutching -- at a monitor displaying the animation.

Another example is of a ship being hit and people on the Bridge flying from left to right (from the camera's POV). In TWOK, it's the Enterprise; in TUC, the Excelsior. It seems tacky and ripe for spoofing (and I believe I've seen such spoofs before). Of course, you've also got the requisite explosions and smoke, which Meyer does almost to death in TWOK, since he has the Enterprise and a pulverised Reliant to play with, but TUC still receives more than its share.

What else? In TWOK, Kirk orders Scotty to "try auxiliary power", and in TUC, we get a line from Spock, "auxiliary circuits destroyed, Captain". I mean, this link could almost be cute, but I don't see it that way. It makes the Enterprise A look feebler than its predecessor, although the difference might be academic, not least because auxiliary power is too feeble to survive the Reliant with when it is activated (supposedly) in TWOK.

As if that weren't bad enough, both films then use a lame deus-ex-machina to get the Enterprise out of trouble. In TWOK, Kirk relies on the extreme stupidity of Khan to transmit a convenient "prefix code" (which, in the 23rd Century, is nothing more than a five-digit integer), taking advantage of Khan's lust for Genesis. In TUC, Spock posits that the cloaked Bird-of-Prey emits ionised gas and can therefore be traced, and Uhura gives Spock the idea that he can perform "surgery" on a torpedo because the Enterprise has the proper instrumentation (evidence suggests that this was a mistake and that she meant the Excelsior), and we see that the torpedo is stashed with printed circuit boards (!!), and can be modified in seconds.

What's really funny about those ideas is how long the characters have to talk about them. In TWOK, Khan says he's giving Kirk "sixty seconds", but he actually gives him just over two minutes, even after stating, in typical cartoon character style, "time is a luxury you don't have" (!!). This scene has always struck me as especially unbelievable, since the characters actually talk openly about what they're planning to do while Khan has an open com-link to the Bridge! In TUC, it's a little less transparently silly, but Meyer still stops the action long enough to let the characters explain the solution, and the action conveniently (and somewhat comically) resumes the instant Spock and McCoy head off. I guess Khan and Chang are patient guys.

I've deliberately saved this one till last. In both films, it also looks like the Engineering section is being sealed, and both use lame sleight-of-hands (or shitty visuals) to depict this. In TWOK, a blast door descends and actually bisects (!!) the matter-antimatter piping (can someone explain THAT to me?), while in TUC, we're made to believe that a blast door is descending to the floor (not over the matter-antimatter piping this time, however), because of both the oblique camera angle and a slam sound that implies it has impacted the ground, but if you look carefully, you can clearly see it's actually come to a stand-still in mid-air before the scene cuts away. I love this one because cinema is a visual medium, yet the implementation of the same basic concept, executed in two different ways, is faulty in both. What's better than one fail? Two fails!

In my opinion, you have to laugh at this stuff. Unfortunately, it looks like I've turned this into another rant. Oh, well. I guess it's too easy.
 
Last edited:
Cryogenic said:
Earlier today, I wrote a long rant about the film. Actually, it was less of a rant, more a deconstruction, but it ended up being so long, so ornate, that there were two problems: 1) it was taking too long to say too little...
Exactly what you'd expect from a TMP fan.
 
In TUC, Spock posits that the cloaked Bird-of-Prey emits ionised gas and can therefore be traced, and Uhura gives Spock the idea that he can perform "surgery" on a torpedo because the Enterprise has the proper instrumentation (evidence suggests that this was a mistake and that she meant the Excelsior),
Well, basically a rewrite. The Excelsior in the prologue to the film was going to be the Enterprise. You're right, though, that continuity issue should have been dealt with one way or another (simplest solution: cut the reference. Hey, maybe the Enterprise always has this instrumentation onboard, exploration and all that jazz.)

Anyway, it's true that the little details and any interest in Treknology (and real-life science) tend to be very secondary in Meyer's films, and it's also true that the strategies are fairly simple (item: a genius from the 20th century may be more used to dealing in 2D terrain, but if he's actually a genius he could probably realise the whole 3D problem of space), but I'd still feel they're very entertaining and well-paced space opera yarns, with a rather deft touch for characterisation.

And it's really the big issues - is this film well paced? Is the story interesting? Are the characters interesting? - that tends to make or break a film for me. You can get all the fiddly bits right and come up with elaborate and inventive outer space strategems, but if your crew's a bunch of stiffs and your story's d.o.a. I'm not likely to be watching.
 
Couldn't it be argued, though, that perhaps the Enterprise and other ships carried standard equipment for scanning gaseous anomalies, just less than the Excelsior would have been carrying at the time? I can see where Uhura's dialogue might be seen as an error, but this is how I've usually interpreted it. I also tend to assume that whatever modifications were done to the cloak made it somewhat more vulnerable to detection than normal, and this is one reason the Klingons didn't just keep building them.
 
Cryogenic said:
Earlier today, I wrote a long rant about the film. Actually, it was less of a rant, more a deconstruction, but it ended up being so long, so ornate, that there were two problems: 1) it was taking too long to say too little...
Exactly what you'd expect from a TMP fan.


Well, that being the case- and I've never seen Cryogenic- he must look damned good doing it. ;)
 
What's wrong with the uniforms introduced in TWOK? I thought they were cool; much better than the TMP and early TNG uniforms.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top