Just ask to Nerys Myk to photoshop this!
III is my favorite
- Thread starter Shat Happens
- Start date
Doesn't matter, there are still rules in fiction and Jim Kirk doesn't exist. He can do anything anyone wants with a touch of a keyboard, whether or not it makes sense. But that doesn't make it "logical." So, if the Enterprise turns into a Mack truck like Otpimus Prime for no apparent reason in the next movie, it's cool because it's "magic?" Dude, there's a difference between magic and fictional-science, but I'm dorking out enough as it is.
Enjoy.
I confess that I'm unable to remember where it was established that starships are wonderful things but you must never ever get them wet.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Or a larger version of one of those pellets you put into toy subs to make them dive in your bathtub, which is presumably the sophisticated principle powering things in the ID universe.
The INSURRECTION example isn't terribly relevant, since it is a one-off ship, one whose specifics are devised to fit the plot and which hasn't been invested with specific properties for decades like the ENTERPRISE, specifics that indicate clearly
a: IT WAS BUILT IN SPACE
and
b: it isn't using for pearl-diving.
The ship from Insurrection was Federation-built, had warp and impulse engines and was the size of a village. Seems perfectly relevant to me. I'm sure it's launch was similarly spectacular to the Enterprise's (such a shame they never bothered to show it)
The Enterprise, as with all sci-fi ships, sprouts abilities as and when the script calls for it. Shuttles? Didn't exist in "The Enemy Within" when they'd have been really useful. Photon torpedoes were a late addition too - originally phasers fulfilled their role. Then, according to "The Making of Star Trek", those photon torpedoes were energy weapons. Along comes STII, and they're physical missiles.
Then there's the USS Defiant from Deep Space Nine, which sprouted an entire shuttlebay when they suddenly decided they needed one for "The Sound of her Voice"...
I re-watched The Search for Spock today. My opinion of this movie hasn't changed recently. Growing up, it was my favorite, today it is watchable (production value, good writing, etc.), but I don't like it all. It is a rather dark movie. It establishes the honor among Klingons. It is a continuation of the two very different friends, Kirk and Spock, and how they approach no-win scenarios (or death). This is Kirk's response to Spock's sacrifice--to abandon Starfleet protocol regarding Genesis, to steal the Enterprise, to kill all the Klingons he can, and destroys the Enterprise as an act of self-preservation. It is not my favorite movie because the message is, essentially, the ends justify the means. As long as Spock is alive, Kirk feels it is worth it. It is a wonderful love story--they sacrificed everything to bring Spock back--but I think the lack of consequences for Kirk and crew in IV clouds how I feel about III.
I've known love and I have known loss. I would be willing to sacrifice my career, maybe not my freedom, to bring my loved ones back to life, but that's not possible. Kirk never accepts losses. He is trying to control the universe, and the fact that he could bring Spock is beside the point. Kirk isn't someone I would want to know (because of this movie). He, essentially, from here to VII, does whatever he wants to do at the expense of things like responsibility and duty. He isn't sure he's wrong in VI until he's sitting in prison talking about his bigotry. It isn't until the Nexus becomes "fake" that he wants to help Picard. He's just looking to "have fun."
It's also had an effect on the New version of Kirk in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. In those movies, Kirk is just acting on raw talent and instinct. He doesn't have the training to be Captain. Without III, I doubt that would be his character.
I've known love and I have known loss. I would be willing to sacrifice my career, maybe not my freedom, to bring my loved ones back to life, but that's not possible. Kirk never accepts losses. He is trying to control the universe, and the fact that he could bring Spock is beside the point. Kirk isn't someone I would want to know (because of this movie). He, essentially, from here to VII, does whatever he wants to do at the expense of things like responsibility and duty. He isn't sure he's wrong in VI until he's sitting in prison talking about his bigotry. It isn't until the Nexus becomes "fake" that he wants to help Picard. He's just looking to "have fun."
It's also had an effect on the New version of Kirk in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. In those movies, Kirk is just acting on raw talent and instinct. He doesn't have the training to be Captain. Without III, I doubt that would be his character.
III gets some flak for essentially undoing all that was done in the great movie that was II. All those deep themes about death and ageing and what Kirk learned with Spock's death, and (re)discovering his son, compared to the TV Kirk.
But III is awesome, and awesomeness has to be considered. And the plot did a really good job of undestroying the franchise, while moving the story forward by turning the heroes into renegades and -gasp!- killing the Enterprise.
If this didn't make sense, lemme put in fewer words: I hate the reset button.
btw HaventGotALife, thanks for putting the thread back on topic.
But III is awesome, and awesomeness has to be considered. And the plot did a really good job of undestroying the franchise, while moving the story forward by turning the heroes into renegades and -gasp!- killing the Enterprise.
If this didn't make sense, lemme put in fewer words: I hate the reset button.
btw HaventGotALife, thanks for putting the thread back on topic.
Perhaps a better analogy would be Spock. He's established as a touch telepath with greater-than-human norm strength early on. Some of us would wrinkle our noses if he were, however, to boast Charles Xavier-level telepathic abilities (mind-melding with machines--Nomad and Vejur--pushes things pretty far, since Spock's telepathy supposedly involves manipulating blood flow and nerves, at least it did in "Dagger of the Mind") or started throwing shuttles around like a Kryptonian. No doubt, others would say "He's a magical being with magical powers that arise as the script requires." To some extent, this is true. Spock was not telepathic in WNMHGB, obviously, or else his eyes would have gone all silver and Gary Mitchell would have been his god-bitch (of course, we can rathionalize/retcon this by saying that Spock's "esper" abilities are of a different nature than those in humans and thus he was unaffected).
To any extent this is true. You brought this up in a TSFS tread for crying out loud.
Yes, to any extent in objective termes and if Spock were to literally transform into "an over-grown jackrabbit" as a newly revealed ability, the same thing could be said. It would not stop the alteration from seeming really, really stupid. Mind meld with a rock or a robot? Kinda dumb but only after I think about it. Pick up a shuttle and throw it like an empty refrigerator box? Obviously, shockingly dumb. Need I discuss the rabbit? But yes, he's a magical being, etc. It's all about where individual fans draw the line and thus it is to some extent in subjective terms. We're debating entertainment. Few things are more subjective.
For crying out loud.
For crying out loud.
Can you remember which episode said the 1701 was built in space?
I thought it was established that maybe the 1701 could survive in liquid or (anti-liquid) in the Space Amoeba episode. Or at best it wasn't established that the 1701 couldn't go through water or sand or the heart of a sun.
Yes and thats probably the same reason Kirk and Sulu jumped onto a platform in ST09, Kirk stole the Enterprise in TSFS and barely escaped the 'doors', the glass cracked in Starfleet Headquarters in TVH , the Enterprise collided with the Simitar in NEM (as believable as the underwater thing in STID), the evacuation away from medical in GEN, the space walk in TMP and FC, Data jumped ship in NEM and Kirk did the same in STID.
Because it was cool or coolish.
I don't care how any other episodes or movies described a self-destruct unless we actually saw it. We saw it in TSFS in a patched-together ship. TSFS establishes what happens in self-destruct in a Constitution Class ship thats damaged.
I also think Scott and Kirk were fooling themselves if they really thought they could damage Vger with a 'regular' destruct sequence in TMP.
TMP and backward have always indicated that the self destruction of the starship would be a cataclysmic event, though.
Except as described in the Director's Edition of ST:TMP, the form of self-destruction planned by Kirk as a contingency against V'Ger would've involved a total matter/antimatter mass-conversion, which then would have consumed most or all of the intruder in the process.
The detonation seen in TSFS was merely one propelled by conventional explosive charges planted in the upper Enterprise hull; powerful enough to incinerate the primary hull, but moderate enough to leave the secondary/engineering hull and a nearby Klingon Bird-of-Prey almost fully intact.
(While not an onscreen source, in the book Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, the various self-destruct sequences are described in some detail -- it's mentioned that Admiral Kirk's final, "Destruct Zero" command in TSFS stipulated the conventional detonation, whereas the command "Destruct One" would've activated the matter/antimatter conversion, and likely would've taken part of the Genesis Planet along with it.)
Last edited:
This remains my favorite Trek movie, hands down. It is the last truly serious classic Trek film, honestly. TVH was a comedy, TFF just as many jokes as its immediate predecessor and something about TUC was extremely silly: the drama was blunted by some heavy handed humor. So I really enjoyed the overall maturity of this and the previous films.
This was kind of dark, I agree, but there were still moments of character humor and lots of warmth. The meaning of the story is actually in the dialog: “it’s about loyalty and sacrifice.” This film really hammered home that this just wasn’t a ship’s crew; they had become a family.
The score was amazing, and consider it the second half of James Horner’s best work (the first half being TWOK of course). Shatner turns in his finest performance in the movies as Kirk in his reaction to David’s death. It’s not a slam bag action film, and some of the plant sets were wonky even then, but meh. Who cares? The film had heart, Kruge was a right bastard and Kirk has the best hero quip in the franchise as he kicked his enemy off the cliff to his death.
85 out of 5 stars. For me, this film has never been topped.
This was kind of dark, I agree, but there were still moments of character humor and lots of warmth. The meaning of the story is actually in the dialog: “it’s about loyalty and sacrifice.” This film really hammered home that this just wasn’t a ship’s crew; they had become a family.
The score was amazing, and consider it the second half of James Horner’s best work (the first half being TWOK of course). Shatner turns in his finest performance in the movies as Kirk in his reaction to David’s death. It’s not a slam bag action film, and some of the plant sets were wonky even then, but meh. Who cares? The film had heart, Kruge was a right bastard and Kirk has the best hero quip in the franchise as he kicked his enemy off the cliff to his death.
85 out of 5 stars. For me, this film has never been topped.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I agree with most of your posts, but not this one. Torpedoes that carry all the oomph of bowling ball, a self-destruct that makes the VALLEY FORGE in SILENT RUNNING and the titular DARK STAR seem like megabombs, & a dock that looks like a terrestrial blimp hangar airlifted to orbit. The ILM-ification of TREK, yeah, but that's hardly formidable or eye candy.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
No ep did, but at least one of the writer's guides said it was assembled in space.
I got no idea what the amoeba was like in terms of liquidity, but it was not inside of a planetary gravity well, so the liquid aspect in a vacuum would be a whole lot less impactful (liquids in a vacuum tend to form into blobs anyway ... MAYbe there'd be more pressure at the center, maybe?)
And you really think vger could withstand an antimatter detonation taking place WITHIN it? Now THAT's magic tech.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Actually it isn't specified that the holoship is Fed-built at all, just that they are using it and presumably own it (if you can own such things in that time.) The rejected designs for it all reflected a very specific Starfleet look, but since those were rejected you have to go by what is on screen or stated elsewhere. It's also nowhere near the size of a village, more like a football field or two, i think.
Similar threads
