The destruction of both ships had impact for me, as the D was the ship I pretty much got started on. But the 1701...that was hard.
Destruction of NCC-1701
- Thread starter PhoenixIreland
- Start date
ENT. No bloody A.
Agreed. With its stubby nacelles and giant saucer, it always looked like a midget to me.
Or...
Oh, I'm not arguing why he blew up the Enterprise. That much is evident. Heck, I think the writing implies that could the ship get her shields up, she would've easily beaten Kruge.
It's just that, had I been placed in Kirk's situation, I doubt I would've had the foresight (or, heck, the improvisational ability) to ultimately get myself and my friends onto the Bird of Prey and escape certain death. If I blew up the Enterprise and landed on a planet that I knew was going to explode, and that the only way out was an enemy ship that could easily warp out of the system whenever the helm wanted in a heartbeat, I think I'd cry my eyes out in sheer despair.
Then again, not all men are as fortified as Kirk.
I think the fact that the Enterprise was nearly destroyed (several times) in the previous movie, plus the fact that there were only five crewmen driving a ship designed for 400 people would have, would be perfectly valid reasons for the Enterprise to lose to a much smaller ship. The dialogue outright states that the Enterprise outgunned the Bird of Prey 12-to-1. The battle could've been more spectacular, sure, but then this movie's supposed to be a direct continuation of TWOK.
I've got two possible explanations for this:
1. This was before the Klingons were realized/developed into the version we have now. In TOS, the Klingons were bullies, and bullies tend to be cowards. Maltz would fit in that mold. Had this movie been made around Star Trek VI, we'd probably have an entirely different enemy crew.
Or...
2. Kruge and his band weren't exactly the model Klingon crew to begin with. If I recall correctly, they were somewhat of a rogue crew.
I don't ecpect to have Die hard style action but why not take advantadge of the action opportunites the story gives you??
Hey, but folks wanted Spock back and they got him and they were pretty much hapy.
Different Trek era altogether, I'd say. TWOK is regarded by many as the finest Trek movie ever, with some of the finest battle scenes in Sci-Fi ever, but it has less action than most Trek movies. TWOK and TSFS were more character-driven than action-driven, unlike the TNG movies. Whether or not they succeeded in their own right is something else entirely, but I doubt TSFS was meant to be a purely action movie. After all, the primary theme of the movie is about rebirth and examination, not death and destruction.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
A lot of it isn't the action quotient, but how well the action is executed. The best way I know to compare twok and sfs is this: watch SNEAK ATTACK from TWOK (reliant & ent, midmovie), then watch Bennett/Nimoy's feeble retread of this in SFS (only diff plotwise is that ENT shoots first.)
TWOK is edited in a dynamic fashion, with lots of good angles and insert shots, so the visuals match the intensity of the score. Whereas SFS you have the score telling you what to feel, but the visuals (very basic coverage, practically no inserts) make it seem like any other scene. No snap.
I think that just about sums up a lot of reasonable arguments for TOS movie battle scenes, honestly.
Have I mentioned this is my all-time fave Trek film (by REAL coincidence it's on the DVD player with comment as we speak). The grey lady had to die and she knew it. And it was okay. It was her time. Remember...Kirk was told early on she was over 20 years old (a definite underestimate) and ready to be mothballed.
Seriously...I watch this one the most because (and ONLY BECAUSE) the non-logic which comes down to the needs of the few or the ONE outweigh the needs of the many.
That's what Star Trek MEANS TO ME in the big picture. They tried to make it about Starfleet, but it was always about Jim Kirk and the people he trusted, and, ultimately cared for.
HE WENT BACK. He went back to a hellish place to bring his closest friend to redemption. THAT has always been the most "STAR TREK" thing I've ever seen or experienced in my life.
He was the Tim Russert of Starfleet. (Take that how you like.)
Seriously...I watch this one the most because (and ONLY BECAUSE) the non-logic which comes down to the needs of the few or the ONE outweigh the needs of the many.
That's what Star Trek MEANS TO ME in the big picture. They tried to make it about Starfleet, but it was always about Jim Kirk and the people he trusted, and, ultimately cared for.
HE WENT BACK. He went back to a hellish place to bring his closest friend to redemption. THAT has always been the most "STAR TREK" thing I've ever seen or experienced in my life.
He was the Tim Russert of Starfleet. (Take that how you like.)
I think the 1701's destruction was the first I ever saw of it, so I had no history with it at that point. Combined with the fact it looks completely different to the TOS ship (after an age where there was just the one Enterprise) it really has little impact for me.
On the other hand the D, I spent 7 or more years growing up with that. I was listening to the soundtrack just today. It brings more of lump to my throat than Kirk's death.
It was sad to see the D go.
I liked how they destroyed the Enterprise. It was more dramatic to see the saucer section explode then see the remains of the ship burn up in the Genesis planet's atmosphere than for there to just be one big ole explosion, vaporizing the ship.
What would have been gutsier would have been to make the new Enterprise a renamed Excelsior, or even another ship design. I understand they considered making Excelsior the new ship, albeit renamed.
Red Ranger
What would have been gutsier would have been to make the new Enterprise a renamed Excelsior, or even another ship design. I understand they considered making Excelsior the new ship, albeit renamed.
Red Ranger
You're right, they did consider making the Excelsior the "new Enterprise." At the last minute, they changed their minds. The rumor that I've heard, and I haven't heard anything to substantiate it, is that GR heard they were going to replace the Enterprise with the Excelsior and leaked this news to the fans, so Nimoy and Bennett decided to just use the original Enterprise model and make it the Ent-A. I don't recall hearing anything about this myself, although I pretty much expected the Excelsior to be the new ship to begin with. Seeing a renamed Enterprise was a bigger surprise. That said, after thinking about it, I think I would've been ok if they'd just renamed the Excelsior the Enterprise. That would've been a lesser surprise but I still think it would've worked for the end of TVH. Plus, seeing as the Excelsior is a different class of ship, it would've helped to underscore the loss of the original Enterprise more. Either way, it's not that big a deal. It may have just been better to see a ship that looked more like the original TV series ship for the last two ST movies.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The starboard side damage SHOULD have been there in TWOK, but ILM messed up. Go back and rewatch Khan's initial attack, he pumps a torpedo into her starboard side near the end of his run, and the damage control readouts Kirk and Spock consult clearly indicate starboard side damage.
...We can always rationalize it as there being major internal damage to starboard from what was essentially an invisible radiation blast through the hull - and this internal damage then leading to an internal explosion a few hours after the end of TWoK...
Or then we can postulate another adventure between ST2 and ST3. Some time does pass, and somehow the Marcuses and Saavik get off the ship and the Klingon spy captures Kirk's report. But if Kirk jeopardized the trainee crew a second time, I'd think he would be off the ship, too, in chains...
Timo Saloniemi
Or then we can postulate another adventure between ST2 and ST3. Some time does pass, and somehow the Marcuses and Saavik get off the ship and the Klingon spy captures Kirk's report. But if Kirk jeopardized the trainee crew a second time, I'd think he would be off the ship, too, in chains...
Timo Saloniemi
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
We don't need to rationalize anything Timo. We have Reliant's torpedo strike to Enterprise's starboard side. ILM fucked up in TWOK, but got it right in SFS...it's that simple.
Uh, that would be why we do need to rationalize. That is, if we are going to persuade ourselves that Trek is real, we can't allow for these "mistake" things. Real universes don't have mistakes!
(To be sure, we never see where Khan's final torpedo hit, or whether it hit at all. For all we know, the shaking came from the torpedo negating Scotty's and Sulu's last best attempt at raising the shields, and scored no hull damage. Later in the movie, torpedoes blast sections off starships when they hit, and nothing of the sort obviously happened to Kirk's ship in the first battle.)
Timo Saloniemi
As Timo pointed out, we don't see where Khan's torpedo impacted. The damage control displays show hits on both sides of the engineering hull, but that's only after the phaser attack.
ENT. No bloody A.
Agreed. With its stubby nacelles and giant saucer, it always looked like a midget to me.
Or...
*Humbly stands corrected in front of Beaker.*
Dang, you got me on that one. That's what I get for posting half-asleep...
Cheers,
-CM-
Not quite. We don't know where that torpedo hit. There was also a big, black scorch on the underside of the saucer in TWOK after that torpedo strike - it could very well have hit there. Kahn's phaser strike sure didn't land anywhere in the vicinity.
Similar threads
