Hostage Situation in TFF

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Vger23, Jun 27, 2019.

  1. Vger23

    Vger23 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    Some discussion on another thread about TMP and the Enterprise being the "only starship in interception range" made me want to poke at another related element of Star Trek V (see quotes below).

    I do find it odd how Kirk chooses to deal with the hostage situation on Nimbus III.

    Consider the following:

    1. Admiral Bob sends Kirk for his experience and wisdom in these matters. That said, his directions to Kirk are explicit. "Your orders are to proceed to Nimbus III, assess the situation, and avoid a confrontation if possible."
    2. The hostage tape indicates that the prisoners have been treated fairly and have not been harmed. The request is for a Federation starship to come to Nimbus to negotiate for the release of the hostages. There's no indication of explicit violence being used to apprehend Paradise City (in fact, the Galactic Army of Light took the city without firing a shot)
    3. Spock indicates that he likely knows and has a connection with the Vulcan who is responsible for the situation.

    And, despite all this, Kirk's plan is to achieve orbit of Nimbus, deceive the Vulcan leader under false pretenses, and send down an armed assault team to raid the city, defeat the occupying forces, and free the delegates.

    I know (and love) that Kirk is a man of action, and I get it...but it seems to me like this was an entirely unnecessary (not to mention unsanctioned) action by the Enterprise. I also realize there was tension here in that the transporters aren't working and the Klingons would arrive in under 2 hours...but Starfleet would have known of those issues as well I'd think.

    I say all this as an out-of-the-closet huge TFF fan....but upon examination...it seems more than a little crazy for Kirk to have raided the planet under these circumstances, without even a thought of an alternate path.

    Thoughts??


     
  2. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    The whole movie is structured in such a way as to make Kirk look like a badass (or even the dreaded ‘Mary Sue’) while at the same time making all the other characters look like incompetent idiots. It makes no logical sense and probably shouldn’t be super-over-analyzed. :)
     
    Qonundrum likes this.
  3. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Other than being mind raped of course.
    I believe that was avoid a confrontation with the Klingon and/or the Romulan forces, not with the hostage takers.

    They would neither deserve nor be extended any consideration.
    Basically send in a Navy SEAL team.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    Galileo7 likes this.
  4. Maurice

    Maurice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    One ferry ride from Starfleet HQ
    Which Kirk doesn't yet know about.
     
  5. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    if a hostage appears and delivers a message that they are being well treated, it would probably be safe to assume they're not in full control of their choice of words.
     
  6. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    There's a difference between being coerced to say something against your will, and being brainwashed into thinking that what you're saying is the truth.

    Huh? What Klingon and Romulan forces? And why would Kirk have a confrontation with them, or vice versa? The problem was the hostage takers, not Klingons and Romulans. The empires, if they even sent ships at all, would only be interested in rescuing their ambassadors. The only reason why Klaa was a problem was because he decided to take it upon himself to fight Kirk.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
  7. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Not to be obtuse, but what would that difference be? In both cases the victim is being forced/compelled to speak a captors message.
     
  8. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    The difference is that if the victims are speaking what they believe to be the truth, then there is a possibility that they will fight alongside their captors against any possible retaliation or rescue, just like what happened in the movie.
     
  9. Galileo7

    Galileo7 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    usa
    I wonder if Kirk could have just used the "stun" option on the Nimbus III location before departing the Enterprise on the shuttlecraft to retrieve the unconscious hostages. :shrug:
     
  10. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Never have been clear on how long the stun effect lasts, but my impression is it's fairly short length of time.

    Stunning the small town after the ground party is at the town's edge might be a better option, and even then you could run into people regaining consciousness in the middle of your rescue.
     
  11. Pauln6

    Pauln6 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    I would actually have enjoyed a more nuanced approach to Nimbus III as well. More time spent on the planet instead of travelling to the apocryphal centre of the universe, and the story might have held up better. The God Trap could have been a dimensional trap on Nimbus itself. We could have had some interaction between the ambassadors and the supporting cast.

    It has to be said that Nimbus would have been the perfect place to explore Saavik's dual heritage. It's a shame that the character didn't get a bit more respect.
     
    Phoenix219 likes this.
  12. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    I really wish someone would have told Shatner that his "god' idea really wasn't all that good of a premise. Something more like a political thriller would have worked much better.
     
    Qonundrum, Cold Spot and Pauln6 like this.
  13. Vger23

    Vger23 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    Disagree. Nothing bores me more than "Star Trek as political thriller".

    If I'm watching Star Trek, I'd rather see stories that can't be done in just about every other genre in existence. Political thrillers are the worst offenders. Probably why I'm so ambivalent about Star Trek VI.
     
    Qonundrum likes this.
  14. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Yeah, because "the search for God" was such a better premise.
     
  15. Vger23

    Vger23 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    I'll take a unique and risky premise over mundane and pedestrian any day, thanks!

    ;)

    But, as I sure you know, discussing the merits of the premise of the film was not the point of the thread.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
  16. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    I take it you've never read any Tom Clancy books. His political thrillers are far from mundane and pedestrian.
     
  17. Pauln6

    Pauln6 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    The problem with STVI is that it is so hammy, rather than its premise and to some extent, that is also STV's problem, although I also find Shatner's performance without the guidance of a director to be a bit too full on.

    I don't think that the premise of STV needs be changed too much but the story would become more like the Return of the Archons rather than a political thriller, with more focus on characterisation. You could also drip feed in the God concept on the planet itself while Sybok researches where to find his prison and maybe use Solaris style Visions instead of or in addition to Sybok's mind meld, giving each character a little something.

    In terms of the hostage situation, an infiltration would have been better,which could have been thwarted when Sybok recognised Spock. Sybok might have been more interesting if he was struggling with strong emotions having cast logic aside. This would have been a great opportunity for Saavik to share her perspective on her struggle. And maybe Sybok does not attempt a mind meld with Spock because he's afraid of what Spock might see.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
  18. Vger23

    Vger23 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    New England
    You're making my point for me. If I want a political thriller, I'll watch a Tom Clancy movie. I watch Star Trek for exciting science fiction. Not for political intrigue.

    Tom Clancy doesn't write Star Trek movies. Star Trek is mundane and pedestrian when it tries to do "political thrillers" because it's common and not a fitting theme for fantastic science fiction. Just my opinion. One I'm not going to change ever, no matter how hard you argue, so this is a wasted engagement.

    This is way off the topic I was hoping to discuss, which was about Kirk's choice of how to deal with the hostages. If I wanted to discuss the merits of the premise of the film, I could have re-engaged in any of the countless threads that already exist where that topic is primary.
     
  19. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Welcome to the TrekBBS, where original OP topic premises change all the time.

    And I’m not telling you what to watch. I’m telling you that a political-themed movie would have worked better than a meaningless search for God movie. Because, you know, a movie with hostages in it kinda sets the seeds for a political thriller. In my opinion.
     
  20. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Aug 10, 1999
    In TFF, the hostage situation was more a plot mechanism than anything else. Sybok needed a Starship. There was no way he was going to get anywhere near one. So he had to do something that would draw Starfleet out. Taking hostages did that.

    I'm guessing some freighter wouldn't get Sybok to Sha'ka'Ree. Not fast enough, sheilds aren't as good if they have them at all, and who knows who might be after them. Sybok wanted the best ship he could get to embark on his journey and he didn't care how he got it.

    And I think going from The Voyage Home to something like The Hunt for Red October would've been too drastic of a shift in tone from one film to the next. An adventure is a good way to transition out of a fish-out-of-water comedy. Before someone asks, "What about the drastic shift TVH made after TWOK and TSFS?" That was just to lighten up the mood after two heavy entries.
     
    Qonundrum likes this.