The final scene of the excellent Balance of Terror tells you, wordlessly, how Kirk deals with pain. TWoK too. He does indeed suppress it and uses gallows humour to deflect it.
Don't forget that Bennett would've watched all 79 episodes of TOS in 1981 or 82 while they were developing what became TWOK. TFF would've been written in 1988. Kirk's brother was referred to in a grand total of two episodes and we see Sam Kirk as a corpse for less than two seconds in "Operation -- Annihilate!" I don't think it's unreasonable that Bennett forgot about Sam after 6-7 years and Shatner forgot about him after 20+ years. Until he became an actual character in SNW, Sam Kirk was a footnote at best in Star Trek.
"Operation -- Annihilate!" is about Aurelan and Peter Kirk, if anybody. They're the ones with speaking parts. Sam Kirk has no onscreen dialogue, and is less developed than most of the redshirts killed off on the show. He's only notable because he's Kirk's brother and because Shatner played his corpse in a blink & you miss it cameo/in-joke.
Regarding the Uhura fan dance in STV, it's dumb because it's totally weird that THAT'S first option they went with to distract the guards. Does Uhura just carry those palm fronds around with her in case she has to strip down and sing at a moment's notice?
The Carol Marcus in her underwear scene in STID is dumb both because it's totally gratuitous (It has nothing to do with anything. They obviously just wanted a shot of Alice Eve in her underwear to put in the trailer), and because they bend over backwards to make it happen. Why does Carol just say "Turn around" to Kirk instead of "Turn around, I need to change" like a sensible person? Because if she doesn't, then Kirk doesn't sneak a peek to see what she was doing behind him.
I enjoy seeing Alice Eve in states of undress as much as most heterosexual men, but that just made me feel bad for her for being so transparently exploited.
The Carol Marcus in her underwear scene in STID is dumb both because it's totally gratuitous (It has nothing to do with anything. They obviously just wanted a shot of Alice Eve in her underwear to put in the trailer), and because they bend over backwards to make it happen. Why does Carol just say "Turn around" to Kirk instead of "Turn around, I need to change" like a sensible person? Because if she doesn't, then Kirk doesn't sneak a peek to see what she was doing behind him.
I enjoy seeing Alice Eve in states of undress as much as most heterosexual men, but that just made me feel bad for her for being so transparently exploited.
Bennett is actually on record several times as saying that he watched every single episode of TOS at least once as part of his prep work when he got assigned to make TWOK. In fact, he's talked about his impression of the series as a whole, saying that he found the episodes to be about 1/3 brilliant, 1/3 okay, and 1/3 very bad. Which I think is probably a fair assessment, honestly.
I think the more likely explanation regarding the Sam KIrk thing is that (a) by the time TFF Bennett would not have been thinking about a relatively minor plot point from one single episode of TOS and (b) even if he had been, the general audience wouldn't remember it. Also, having Kirk say something like, "I lost two brothers, but I was lucky I got one back" is just clunky and would confuse a portion of the audience.
Losing "a" brother doesn't preclude the possibility of having others, not lost. And it's the way he lost Spock - having to experience everything in real time. Sam was already dead when Kirk arrived - no long, drawn-out vigil.
I wondered that, too, but you see the same fronds around the idiot guards before they are lured by her siren song. Was there another oasis conveniently on the other side of the sand dune?
I appreciate your responses, and I guess my point was not coming across in written form because I was worried that I might sound accusatory to the makers of the 2009 film, and I did not want to make this thread be about that movie when it is supposed to be about Star Trek V.
I'll restate things a bit more directly. Years ago, I read on a different website, a discussion thread, in which, someone confronted one of the producers of the 2009 film about certain details or lines of dialogue in that movie which could be considered "wrong" in terms of technical or historical details about Starfleet and the Federation. These were details that the "alternate universe" theory could not explain away.
(I am intentionally not using the word "canon" in this discussion because I don't think it applies.)
If I recall correctly, that producer, who as I understand it was already a members of that particular fan site before that movie was even being made, commented that the reason for these small but obvious details not being correct was the writer's strike.
The claim was that, if a line of dialogue had some detail in it that was not working in this way, neither he nor the director could change that line once the strike had started, because they had also written the movie and would be breaking the strike. This producer/writer was expressly a fan of the show prior to making the movie, and would know if those detailed needed fixed, but claimed that he could not if he detected them after the strike started. My "fan-as-a-writer." example was not a hypothetical WGA situation, but the one that producer claimed to have actually experience.
I therefore asked if anyone knew if that was true, since it seems itself a rather odd thing to claim.
Since fact-checking these types of stories is a big part of what you do, that makes your clarifications on this thread particularly worthwhile. I just really don't want to name the others site, or the producer, or get more particular about the details, because I don't want to seem to accuse that person when I don't know the whole story. It was years ago anyway.
And I really only brought up these little details in that movie because it reminded me of the debate over whether the lack of mention of George Samuel Kirk in Star Trek V qualified as something like that
It is noteworthy how the odd numbered films, not as well-liked by some fans, actually have a number of similarities in themes to each other, that can make them stronger than they seem at first, if a fan wants to think about those concepts.
It's been ages since I watched STV, so I'll take your word for it.
The point was really about why Kirk did not make reference to Sam when he said his "I lost a brother once" line. People have mentioned that for years, as though Kirk forgot he had a real brother. There are ways you can attempt to explain that, but I think the simplest answer is that it just didn't make sense for them to try and insert a reference to Sam in a line in a movie about an episode that happened 20 years earlier.
Honestly, I think it makes more sense that Kirk simply forgot he had a brother. Because Shatner and Bennett obviously forgot.
Okay. But I don't see how the screenwriter being a fan or not is germane to the issue, which is about what the rules are during a strike and what can't be altered during shooting. What motivates any verboten changes is beside the point.
I guess the reason I mentioned being a fan was that this producer would have known and recognized these issues with the script(not noticeable to non-fans, but causing continuity issues, even in an alternate universe to fans), if he had given the chance to proofread it another time before shooting. I don't care to list examples of these script issues because that has been well-discussed in other places. I also wanted to mention it as relevant to the discussion on Star Trek V, of whether or not a writer well-versed in Star Trek's fictional history would know or care about George Samuel Kirk.
But actually, I think you are right that the motivation is not really important here. The rules, and how those rules affected the decisions of the 2009 film are. To my knowledge Star Trek V did not suffer from such a situation.
The 'Lost A Brother Once' line can be taken into account even with Sam Kirk. It could be taken as that is who McCoy and Spock believed he was referring too but then the reveal that he considers them his true brothers as that is the relationship that was built over many years - then the final campfire scene cements that. Sam was his true blood brother always, but Spock and McCoy are his 'life brothers'.
TFF did not need to be salvaged into a solid Trek film; its roots and motivations were classic, TOS-esque subjects handled by one of the few people who knew Star Trek intimately. As mentioned in the Controversial Star Trek Opinions thread...
TFF has some of the best character moments of any ST production, thanks in large part to Shatner's attention to detail and knowing the characters he's played off of for decades. The bond between the Big Three was both heartfelt and revealing in the film, successfully building off of all audiences came to know about their relationship across TOS, TAS and the four movies which preceded it. Moreover, Spock's "pain" sequence was a believable origin for the character, with Sarek's disappointment retroactively predicting his doubts, then expectation of Spock's racial/life choice as stated in "Yesteryear" and the continued tension between the two seen in "Journey to Babel".
McCoy's guilt & tragedy with his father were potent scenes, adding a level of depth to McCoy's motives and personality laid out in TOS. Kirk's pure brotherhood with Spock and McCoy were among franchise scenes that represent what Star Trek is about.
I do love Kirk's "What does God need with a Starship?" question, as it consistently built off of TOS Kirk, who is a believer in God (as stated in "Who Mourns for Adonais"), but never hesitated to deny, challenge and defeat those he considered false gods, whether it was Gary Mitchell, Apollo, or sentient A.I. posing as one (Landru, for one).
TFF's FX (and we know the well-covered story behind that) might need a 4K special edition do-over, but the best moments--the human moments / plotlines which took its essence from that which made TOS a global cultural phenomenon--were irreplaceable.
You are welcome to interpret the line that way, but there is zero indication that this was the intention of the writer.
The blood of the battlefield is thicker than the water of the womb.
Does anybody know, for sure, whose idea it was to make the Enterprise broken in the movie. I get them wanting to recreate the humor from Voyage Home using the characters but I don't see why or how the ship needed to be broken. The only item needed for the story was the transporter to be broken but they could have easily written around that by saying Sybok had a device that blocked the beam or that the transporter was they only system not working because it was being upgraded (or something).
I kind of understand them wanting the crew to continue to have funny moments but having the ship broken added zero.
I really want to know who thought that was a good idea -- Bennett, Loughery, Shatner??
If I had to guess I would say Bennett because I once read an interview before the movie came out where he was hinting at the new Enterprise's issues -- in a rather coy way, as if he thought it would amuse the fans.
I kind of understand them wanting the crew to continue to have funny moments but having the ship broken added zero.
I really want to know who thought that was a good idea -- Bennett, Loughery, Shatner??
If I had to guess I would say Bennett because I once read an interview before the movie came out where he was hinting at the new Enterprise's issues -- in a rather coy way, as if he thought it would amuse the fans.
Similar threads
- Poll
