at the time VI was considered better than II

[EnriqueH]

But not not Perim or Daniels or Curtis or Adislo or Foster or Styles or Morrow...

So the two options are:

Any new character will have something major happen to them.
Any new character won't have something major happen to them.

Is it really "a thing" when both options happen?

Fair points, so let me modify my comment:

In star trek movies, if a character joins the enterprise crew as a character of note, the odds are that the plot will somehow revolve around them , often resulting In Their death

TMP: decker and Ilia (both "die", if you will)
TWOK: saavik (lives) , Scotty's nephew (dies)
Tsfs: saavik (lives but is transformed into another actress. )
Tvh : no character added
Tff: no character added
Tuc: valeris (villain)

And I don't recall tng movies that well to comment off the top of my head. So, 4 out of 5 added characters are either killed or used as plot points.

Ok, to be fair, Scotty's nephew was a MINOR character...but I can cheat and add him to support my hypothesis for no apparent reason other thanit supports my hypothesis.

Let the debate continue.....

You forgot David: introduced in II, killed in III.

 

[arch101]

I know most fans won't agree, but, TUC really is a better film than TWOK. Maybe the battle isn't as good, but the overall story is better. The regular characters are much better used as well.
And, it proved that Nick Meyer could get a subtle and decent performance out of Shatner by repeating Shatner's career-best TWOK performance. (of course, this was LONG before Denny Crane)

Loved that Neil McDonough Caddy commercial.

 

[Vger23]

I know most fans won't agree, but, TUC really is a better film than TWOK. Maybe the battle isn't as good, but the overall story is better. The regular characters are much better used as well.
And, it proved that Nick Meyer could get a subtle and decent performance out of Shatner by repeating Shatner's career-best TWOK performance. (of course, this was LONG before Denny Crane)

Loved that Neil McDonough Caddy commercial.

It's really not a better movie. It may appeal to you personally more than TWOK does, which is absolutely fine, but TWOK is a much tighter, more poignant and emotional film.

TUC is sloppy, cheap, and pretentious in parts. The logic of the plot falls completely apart under any moderate scrutiny. I think it gets a ton of "nostalgia points" with fans because it was the last TOS adventure and it was reasonably good, but it was much too flawed and sloppy to be considered a classic like TWOK.

 

[EnriqueH]

I know most fans won't agree, but, TUC really is a better film than TWOK. Maybe the battle isn't as good, but the overall story is better. The regular characters are much better used as well.
And, it proved that Nick Meyer could get a subtle and decent performance out of Shatner by repeating Shatner's career-best TWOK performance. (of course, this was LONG before Denny Crane)

Loved that Neil McDonough Caddy commercial.

It's really not a better movie. It may appeal to you personally more than TWOK does, which is absolutely fine, but TWOK is a much tighter, more poignant and emotional film.

TUC is sloppy, cheap, and pretentious in parts. The logic of the plot falls completely apart under any moderate scrutiny. I think it gets a ton of "nostalgia points" with fans because it was the last TOS adventure and it was reasonably good, but it was much too flawed and sloppy to be considered a classic like TWOK.

I agree.

 

[Tosk]

Yeah, y'all tell him why his opinion is wrong!

 

[mos6507]

Although it was probably said so that McCoy could give his line, which was classic McCoy. So I guess it was a good tradeoff. Chang overdoing it so we can get another classic Bones quote.

And that Bones quote was one of this best ever zingers.

 

[Vger23]

Yeah, y'all tell him why his opinion is wrong!

Isn't that what a fan message board is for? Debating opinions?

 

[Franklin]

I could see the initial reaction to TUC being stronger than it would become over time. There was a sense of sentimentality in TUC. How many sci-fi action-adventure movies feature seven lead characters in their 50s and 60s? I think it was Roger Ebert (maybe Siskel, I can't remember, but it was one of them) who said he allowed himself to be nostalgic during the film, wondering what the actors might have been thinking every day as they drove to the studio to become the characters one more time. (Both did give it a thumbs up.) In his review, Ebert said he thought the movie worked because the actors seemed to convey real affection for their characters and for each other (at least in character).

Over time, it becomes obvious that the movie was sloppy in many ways and the plot could've stood some strengthening, but it was a satisfying end, anyway. I'd liken it to going to see your favorite baseball player play in his last game before retirement. He doesn't hit a home run or do anything heroic to mark the moment, but he hits the ball hard and slaps out two solid singles, so you're still glad you were there to see it.

I could never dislike TUC.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I've always thought it was sloppy in places (e.g. the Marta doubling as Kirk scene has a very obvious 'line' in the middle of the screen that the effect isn't really special). Not too mention the masks for many of the aliens in the Rua Penthe scene look like, well, masks. Furthermore, when Spock stands in front of the viewscreen to talk about the torpedo supposedly shot from the Enterprise, it looks as if Nimoy is standing in front of an effect.

Overall, the effects weren't as 'effective' in the sixth film.

And yes, I also knew Valeris was one of the co-conspirators due to many tie-in magazines giving the plot away and leaving nothing to surprise. (Remember this was before the internet as we know it, and since fans were looking forward to a new Trek film - especially after that fiasco that was The Final Frontier - naturally some of us would look to see what the new film would offer).

With all that said, the final sendoff with the signatures onscreen is a bit iffy since three of the main characters actually come back for the next film. It's like someone giving their two weeks notice for a job, the office has a party, everyone says their goodbyes....then that someone comes back to work some additional time.

 

[JarodRussell]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzgf9-ezRXE[/yt]

And here for comparison, the review of the final TNG outing:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdC11voxrEY[/yt]
Funny how times have changed.

 

[EnriqueH]

Man, I remember VI getting positive notices, but I don't remember anyone claiming it was the best except for Cinefantastique.

I just saw it again recently. I like it, don't get me wrong, but the lack of energy and predictability of the conspiracy really take something out of the film.

I think the climactic battle between Kirk and Chang was a definite highlight.

Kirk's, "FIRE!" is one of my favorite lines from Kirk in the films.

But overall, the film is weakest during the conspiracy and the investigation. It doesn't hold up to repeat viewings as well as earlier films.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I liked TUC when it was released, but over the years it keeps on slipping in my estimation. Now I consider it the worst of the original series movies, and only marginally better than Nemesis. It's just a 2 hour exercise in character assassination. McCoy not knowing Klingon anatomy, Uhura's antics trying to speak Klingon, rifling through books to quickly learn...

The perfect example of what's wrong with this film is Chekov asking Valeris why a phaser couldn't be used to "waporise" the boots. This is the same Chekov who was Chief of Security in TMP. Nowadays I spend to much time spitting tacks at the writing to even enjoy the fun moments in the film.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

I never considered TUC better than TWOK, but I still like this movie very much.

 

[EnriqueH]

McCoy not knowing Klingon anatomy, Uhura's antics trying to speak Klingon, rifling through books to quickly learn...

Don't EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THIS.

It's bad enough that Uhura never took the conn, but now she has the indignation of having to struggle through a pathetically written scene where she doesn't even know the language of the Federation's greatest enemy at that point. Here she is, a 25 year veteran, serving aboard the Federation flagship, and she doesn't even speak the language despite being 4th in Comand and in charge of the COMMUNICATIONS division in all the adventures of years past.

Pisses me off...

The perfect example of what's wrong with this film is Chekov asking Valeris why a phaser couldn't be used to "waporise" the boots. This is the same Chekov who was Chief of Security in TMP.

Ugh!

Horrible. Damn you, Laughing Vulcan. Now I gotta think of THIS TOO whenever I see the movie.

This totally should've been reversed to have Valeris ask the question and Chekov correcting her.

People give ST5 all kinds of shit for making our Enterprise 7 look like fools, but ST6 did a good job of it too.

 

[FormerLurker]

McCoy being a doctor for so long has no bearing on whether he knows Klingon anatomy. Tell me, beyond the basics obvious from cursory examination, what does an MD know about the anatomy of a dog? McCoy looks at a Klingon, he knows they're bipedal and about the same size and configuration as a human, on the outside. If Starfleet has never had access to Klingon medical information*, there's no way for McCoy to know what's on the inside, let alone how it's laid out.

As far as making Chekov look bad, this could have been easily remedied, without changing a word of dialog, or who says it. Just have Chekov looking smugly at Valeris when he asks about "waporizing" the boots, and smiling when she provides her answer. His not knowing Crewman Dax's pedal anatomy is my sticking point, which itself can be passed off as Chekov doesn't know Crewman Dax, Crewman Dax is new.


*And assumptions aside, this has always been the case, or they would have said so. Starfleet doesn't have information on the internal structure of Klingons. Maltz doesn't count, as he was never seen or mentioned again.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

McCoy being a doctor for so long has no bearing on whether he knows Klingon anatomy. Tell me, beyond the basics obvious from cursory examination, what does an MD know about the anatomy of a dog? McCoy looks at a Klingon, he knows they're bipedal and about the same size and configuration as a human, on the outside. If Starfleet has never had access to Klingon medical information*, there's no way for McCoy to know what's on the inside, let alone how it's laid out.

"By golly, Jim, I'm beginning to think I can cure a rainy day."

That after treating a phaser wound on a silicon based life form, a few hours after exclaiming that such a life form simply cannot exist!

 

[FormerLurker]

So? What does that have to do with whether a much older McCoy, in a stressful environment, and with a hangover, can fairly estimate his ability to treat a patient he has no idea what the patient looks like on the inside?

Tell you what. Don't tell me I'm wrong because you feel like it. Cite where McCoy knows Klingon anatomy, from the series, to show that I don't know what I'm talking about. And don't use Arne Darvin. That was just McCoy assuming he was Klingon because 1)he wasn't human, and 2)what other human looking species did the Tribbles not like? I mean McCoy examining what he knew was a Klingon from the get go.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And don't use Arne Darvin. That was just McCoy assuming he was Klingon because 1)he wasn't human, and 2)what other human looking species did the Tribbles not like? I mean McCoy examining what he knew was a Klingon from the get go.

No, that was McCoy determining that Darvin was a Klingon based on what he scanned, which included at least heartbeat and body temperature.

 

[EnriqueH]

McCoy hasn't always been able to revive patients in the series. I quick line about: "Jim, we've never had access to Klingon anatomy." or something like that would've been acceptable.

The one that bugs me is Uhura's lack of understanding Klingon. Surely, Starfleet should've had Klingon linguistic experts, and Uhura should've been front and center in that.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: at the time VI was considered better than II?

I think lot of fans considered VI so good at the time it bested II. I know I did. II was 10 years old and felt abit old hat (obviously it was considered a great movie and the best Trek film but it hadn't really got that 'classic' status it now has, I might be wrong though) whereas VI felt new, fresh, almost like a WOK for the 90s. a true continuation and conclusion to Treks II/III/IV (like a belated 4th movie) and totally made up for V. in fact V being like it was made VI feel even more of a treat! it was as if all the stars had aligned (Meyer, Nimoy. ILM) for this final one - the ultimate Star Trek movie (even crossing over with TNG and vice versa like Marvel is doing now)

I walked out the theater thinking TUC was a solid finale to the OS films, but not superior to TWOK--or the overall II/III/IV trilogy. About Cinefantastique--that magazine suffered from numerous opinions coming from left field, often I believed that was intentional, just for the sake of being pointlessly) contrarian. Rating TUC over TWOK seems like an attempt to shut down the then-never ending praise / bar-setting enjoyed by TWOK. Amusingly, TWOK remains the ST film all others are compared to when seeking the that which made the series work.