6. Her legs reminded me of my mom's. Not that I don't admire her AND Nichelle, but I'll leave it at that.
This. Who in the audience would have even remembered that Kirk had a dead brother from one episode of TOS other than raging hardcore Trekkies like us?
What many people don't seem to realize is that these characters are fictitious and are at the whims of whoever is writing them. Whoever wrote the 'I had a brother once. I was lucky, I got him back' line was not referring to Sam, because Sam had nothing to do with this movie. It was clearly about Spock losing his half-brother, and Kirk remembering that Spock died and came back to life. So Kirk was comparing Spock to Sybok in that line. I doubt the writer even knew Kirk had an actual brother.
You are probably right, but was what was claimed in the interview was that a director/writer who changed a line would be seen as a writer making a change. Hopefully, you or others could clarify how such a claim could be made, if what you say is true.
I'm late to the thread, but I love the STV story. And I think with a little editing and modernized special effects, I think it could definitely be salvaged.
These YouTube videos came across my feed recently, and I think they prove the point. These scenes are significantly improved over the originals -- in my opinion, of course.
More on BL Creative's playlist:
These YouTube videos came across my feed recently, and I think they prove the point. These scenes are significantly improved over the originals -- in my opinion, of course.
More on BL Creative's playlist:
A very stylish goat.
What can't happen during a strike is for any member of the WGA to make revisions or change pages. Even if the director and actors aren't also WGA members, this does tend to tie the hands of producers because of broader WGA-related industry agreements. Cutting lines and so forth is acceptable, as is not reading dialog verbatim, as that often happens, anyway. Changing the structure of the story, scenes, etc., crosses the line. Generally, no one wants to test the boundaries.
Last edited:
Since you seem to want to die on this hill, fine. If you think the writer was talking about Sam, more power to you. But he clearly wasn’t. He was clearly comparing Spock losing Sybok to Kirk losing Spock in TWOK, and getting him back in TSFS. I mean, it’s literally right there in the dialogue:
SPOCK: I was thinking of Sybok. I have lost a brother.
KIRK: Yes. ...I lost a brother once. But I was lucky, I got him back.
Last edited:
How did Kirk get Sam back?
Evil transporter clone.
Thanks, that clears it up a bit. In that case, if a director or producer wrote the movie, I assume that he would be also an SGA member, but based on your explanation, it seems like such a director/producer/writer who is also a Star Trek fan, would be taking things very literally to insist that what was written be read, even if it contained what were essentially typos regard the technology and history of Starfleet.
This line of thinking started because someone referenced the 2009 movie and I recalled reading that the scenario i just wrote was what happened on that film. In regards to Star Trek V, Shatner has been known to say that he does not like to watch shows he is in because he sees what he considers to be acting errors that cannot be fixed, so Shatner likely would not have watched enough Star Trek for that to matter on that movie.
Oh gosh, you know I never actually thought about that before!
That's not what typo means. A typo would be an obviously misspelled word in the script and the actor would be obliged to not read it as written but as it was presumably intended.
What? That has nothing to do with my explanation about a WGA strike. Non-sequitur.
On the topic of Sam Kirk, I think it works perfectly fine that Jim literally forgot about him and his horrible space jellyfish death, or just plain blocked it out. We don't get the impression at all that they're close even in SNW honestly. Sam is not even mentioned once in any of the Kelvin movies despite canon indicating that he has to exist.
There's a similar indication where Worf coldly says that he "has no family" after Bashir mindwipes Kurn at his request (I'd love to see Bashir justifying that before the Starfleet medical board honestly). Ronald Moore I believe said that, while unintended at the time, it can now be read to read that Worf is so far removed from Alexander emotionally that he literally doesn't consider him family on a subconscious level, leading to his statement.
I think the "error" actually adds to Kirk's character unintentionally even. Taken at face value, we could realistically conclude that Kirk was outright lying to Sybok about his pain making him who he is and him needing his pain, and that the truth is that Kirk just mentally blocks out painful memories like Sam's death to function.
That Kirk happens to be correct in declining Sybok's offer to face his pain because it would lead to his own brainwashing by Sybok is a fortunate coincidence that wouldn't change that Kirk would be blocking out his pain and therefore would be lying to Sybok that he doesn't need to confont it. It isn't until 2 movies later when the Nexus offers Kirk the ability to seemingly undo the various pains in his life that he is finally forced to confront it in light of Picard's plea for help.
Was any of this intended by Shatner or the other writers of Trek 5 or Generations? Of course not. But as the works stand I think these are valid character interpretations that retroactively make 5 a deeper film than it appears at face value.
There's a similar indication where Worf coldly says that he "has no family" after Bashir mindwipes Kurn at his request (I'd love to see Bashir justifying that before the Starfleet medical board honestly). Ronald Moore I believe said that, while unintended at the time, it can now be read to read that Worf is so far removed from Alexander emotionally that he literally doesn't consider him family on a subconscious level, leading to his statement.
I think the "error" actually adds to Kirk's character unintentionally even. Taken at face value, we could realistically conclude that Kirk was outright lying to Sybok about his pain making him who he is and him needing his pain, and that the truth is that Kirk just mentally blocks out painful memories like Sam's death to function.
That Kirk happens to be correct in declining Sybok's offer to face his pain because it would lead to his own brainwashing by Sybok is a fortunate coincidence that wouldn't change that Kirk would be blocking out his pain and therefore would be lying to Sybok that he doesn't need to confont it. It isn't until 2 movies later when the Nexus offers Kirk the ability to seemingly undo the various pains in his life that he is finally forced to confront it in light of Picard's plea for help.
Was any of this intended by Shatner or the other writers of Trek 5 or Generations? Of course not. But as the works stand I think these are valid character interpretations that retroactively make 5 a deeper film than it appears at face value.
I never said it was.
George Lucas and Alec Guinness weren't thinking about Vader either when Obi-Wan gives his speech waxing poetic about Luke's father.
I know you didn't.
So TUC should have been about Kirk making it clear that he's been feeling pain over Sam's death all this time, all to make an ambiguous line from the previous movie more clear?
Similar threads
- Poll
