Hostage Situation in TFF

[Pauln6]

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.

It's interesting that you decry Trek's political credentials though because a fair chunk of TOS, TNG, DS9, Enterprise, and Discovery has a political dimension. Plus, seeking a negotiated solution is clearly an obvious option for an alternative approach to the hostages situation.

I agree that the full frontal assault was badly implemented. It's a Federation outpost so they should have plans of the layout. They could easily beam down a camera drone or three to scout enemy positions to beam people inside the compound safely or to just beam out the hostages or to stun everyone outside a building from orbit. The tech level of the terrorists seems pretty basic.

The assault clearly put the hostages at greater risk and was not really fitting with previous behaviour by Kirk. The exchange where he orders Spock to shoot Sybok rings a bum note on so may levels.

A political discourse was also still a possibility. I suppose the question for you is what alternative approach that still fulfills my idea of 'exciting' sci fi could the characters have taken.

If the planet itself is Sybok's destination then he doesn't need a starship but... God needs a starship. Maybe only a powerful phaser blast or anti-matter explosion can sunder the dimensional prison. The need to attend the planet is dictated by the hostage situation. Sybok's need for it is purely plot driven.

 

[Vger23]

It's interesting that you decry Trek's political credentials though because a fair chunk of TOS, TNG, DS9, Enterprise, and Discovery has a political dimension. Plus, seeking a negotiated solution is clearly an obvious option for an alternative approach to the hostages situation.

It's a big, diverse franchise. These just happen to be the stories that are least-engaging from my point of view. I've already explained why: You can do these kinds of stories in virtually any genre. My preference is for Star Trek to swing for the fences. If they fail, that's better than putting out yet another "Klingons and Cardassians are aligned with the Breen against the Xindi, Pakleds and Horta...and the Federation needs to play a role for the sake of the future of the galaxy" story. Sorry, I just find it boring compared to concepts like TFF. Like I said, not gonna change my mind on that one. I don't hate those things...but I also don't really care about them. DS9 was a great show, but my faviorite episodes were always the ones that took a break from the Dominion War arc for more explicit sci-fi tales, for example.

The assault clearly put the hostages at greater risk and was not really fitting with previous behaviour by Kirk.

This is precisely my point. After all the data Kirk has in hand about the situation, not to mention his orders and the fact that the transporter is not an option (making an extraction even more difficult), his first instinct is to deceive the terrorist forces and go for an all-out armed assault. He doesn't even try to talk to them ("Respond with static"), which seems completely odd.

The exchange where he orders Spock to shoot Sybok rings a bum note on so may levels.

This I don't agree with. The Enterprise is one of the most advanced and powerful ships in known space. It would be an unbelievable instrument of terror in the hands of a madman whose purpose and capabilities had not yet been ascertained. He also knows the ship is significantly undermanned, so any hope of regaining control is probably very low as a result if they let Sybok and his followers out of that bay.

In fact, Kirk was most likely correct in his ultimate fear, because if things had gone a little differently, and Sybok had not gone down to the planet with Kirk, it's very possible he would have fallen for the deception ("It will be your chariot!!!" would not have been followed with the classic "What does God need with a starship" line) and that frigging evil thing would have been out laying waste to the galaxy.

I can see how he'd want/need to put him down right there. Also, you have to keep in mind that because of Sybok, they very nearly killed themslves (crash) or could have ended up destroying the entire ship (Klingon attack with shields down). Then, Kirk got his ass absolutely handed to him by Sybok in a fight, and was on the verge (as far as he knows) of being choked to death. I'm sure Kirk's adrenaline and nerves are at a max-out at this point.

A political discourse was also still a possibility. I suppose the question for you is what alternative approach that still fulfills my idea of 'exciting' sci fi could the characters have taken.

I'm not so sure I'm arguing what would have been better for the movie. For the record, I like Star Trek V and I like the assault on Paradise City as a sequence...and I'm very pleased that they didn't go for a Jean-Luc Picard 45 min negotiation solution. I'm more thinking that in-story, for the characters and the situation as presented, the action Kirk takes is not logical. If they had presented different or additional facts that would have made it pressing for an armed solution, that would have made more sense, I guess.

If the planet itself is Sybok's destination then he doesn't need a starship but... God needs a starship. Maybe only a powerful phaser blast or anti-matter explosion can sunder the dimensional prison. The need to attend the planet is dictated by the hostage situation. Sybok's need for it is purely plot driven.

I've always assumed that the being at the galactic center reached out to Sybok's mind in much the same way that V'Ger touched Spock's mind, except it was able to manipulate him into believing certain things. It probably helped that Sybok was already a believer in some presence and concept (Sha Ka Ree was an ancient Vulcan concept, for example, that was already within Sybok's belief system) that somewhat matched the being's situation. In fact, you could argue that the being has been trying to reach the Vulcans (who may have been particularly sensitive to contact for whatever reason) and created the whole "religion" of Sha Ka Ree thousands and thousands of years ago in their collective minds as a long-game to lure them to the planet-prison. Sybok just happened to be the first person with the means (and the mental / psychic power) to see it through.

I also assume that the energy the being is made out of cannot traverse the barrier, so it needs to merge itself with a physical vessel with minimal capabilities (in this case, a Federation Starship), in order to get into normal, open space...where its power will multiply and it can do all kinds of devious and treacherous things to everyone.

 

[Timo]

It's pretty hopeless to wring meaningful political excitement out of a fictional universe where the audience knows basically nothing about what's going on except for the things on screen at that very moment. The next movie would spoon-feed us fictional facts copy-pasted from the real world to set up the scene; the previous two built on the premise of the one preceding them. Sure, TFF could have erected a political framework out of whole cloth like TUC did. But in the end, this just doesn't work all that well: either it's alien and thus meaningless (unless you steal from Philip K. Dick), or then familiar and thus derivative (especially if you steal from Tom Clancy).

As for the assault itself, it rather flows from what has been established in Trek: stun doesn't work through walls, sensors can only do so much even when working well, and transportation is always a problem if the catchall solution of transporters suddenly becomes unavailable. In turn, those bulletproof riot shields impress the sto-vo-kor out of me...

But is proceeding with the assault a bad move? Kirk isn't given orders to proceed gently or peacefully (except for the "avoid confrotation" bit, which I agree refers to the Klingons and the Romulans). OTOH, en route he learns that the villains want to negotiate - a very good reason not to! Clearly, they expect to benefit from that, and Kirk thus has no reason to put himself at the implied disadvantage, especially not when he's on the clock with the Klingon threat. If anything, Sybok has just made a losing move by revealing he's not all that keen on hurting the hostages even when Captain Chekov refuses to negotiate in any meaningful fashion.

Kirk isn't much of a negotiator to begin with: in TOS, he generally opposes diplomacy (and turns out to be right when the opponents use force against UFP negotiators), and prefers to gain leverage first (which often takes him the whole episode, after which he can start speaking softly while the end credits already roll). Kirk can be counted upon to pull surprise moves, too. Which of these aspects of Kirk makes Starfleet choose him as their champion? And is Kirk's approach a surprise to Sybok and thus a tactical coup? Certainly seems so... Apprently the villain expected a stock response from Starfleet, one enabling him to abduct and convert the Captain. Did Starfleet plan it this way?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

It's a big, diverse franchise. These just happen to be the stories that are least-engaging from my point of view. I've already explained why: You can do these kinds of stories in virtually any genre. My preference is for Star Trek to swing for the fences. If they fail, that's better than putting out yet another "Klingons and Cardassians are aligned with the Breen against the Xindi, Pakleds and Horta...and the Federation needs to play a role for the sake of the future of the galaxy" story. Sorry, I just find it boring compared to concepts like TFF. Like I said, not gonna change my mind on that one. I don't hate those things...but I also don't really care about them. DS9 was a great show, but my faviorite episodes were always the ones that took a break from the Dominion War arc for more explicit sci-fi tales, for example.



This is precisely my point. After all the data Kirk has in hand about the situation, not to mention his orders and the fact that the transporter is not an option (making an extraction even more difficult), his first instinct is to deceive the terrorist forces and go for an all-out armed assault. He doesn't even try to talk to them ("Respond with static"), which seems completely odd.



This I don't agree with. The Enterprise is one of the most advanced and powerful ships in known space. It would be an unbelievable instrument of terror in the hands of a madman whose purpose and capabilities had not yet been ascertained. He also knows the ship is significantly undermanned, so any hope of regaining control is probably very low as a result if they let Sybok and his followers out of that bay.

In fact, Kirk was most likely correct in his ultimate fear, because if things had gone a little differently, and Sybok had not gone down to the planet with Kirk, it's very possible he would have fallen for the deception ("It will be your chariot!!!" would not have been followed with the classic "What does God need with a starship" line) and that frigging evil thing would have been out laying waste to the galaxy.

I can see how he'd want/need to put him down right there. Also, you have to keep in mind that because of Sybok, they very nearly killed themslves (crash) or could have ended up destroying the entire ship (Klingon attack with shields down). Then, Kirk got his ass absolutely handed to him by Sybok in a fight, and was on the verge (as far as he knows) of being choked to death. I'm sure Kirk's adrenaline and nerves are at a max-out at this point.



I'm not so sure I'm arguing what would have been better for the movie. For the record, I like Star Trek V and I like the assault on Paradise City as a sequence...and I'm very pleased that they didn't go for a Jean-Luc Picard 45 min negotiation solution. I'm more thinking that in-story, for the characters and the situation as presented, the action Kirk takes is not logical. If they had presented different or additional facts that would have made it pressing for an armed solution, that would have made more sense, I guess.



I've always assumed that the being at the galactic center reached out to Sybok's mind in much the same way that V'Ger touched Spock's mind, except it was able to manipulate him into believing certain things. It probably helped that Sybok was already a believer in some presence and concept (Sha Ka Ree was an ancient Vulcan concept, for example, that was already within Sybok's belief system) that somewhat matched the being's situation. In fact, you could argue that the being has been trying to reach the Vulcans (who may have been particularly sensitive to contact for whatever reason) and created the whole "religion" of Sha Ka Ree thousands and thousands of years ago in their collective minds as a long-game to lure them to the planet-prison. Sybok just happened to be the first person with the means (and the mental / psychic power) to see it through.

I also assume that the energy the being is made out of cannot traverse the barrier, so it needs to merge itself with a physical vessel with minimal capabilities (in this case, a Federation Starship), in order to get into normal, open space...where its power will multiply and it can do all kinds of devious and treacherous things to everyone.

Spock could have wounded Sybok. Still, at this point they didn't know that the crew could be turned so easily. The ship's security should have been able to deal with an incursion - unless they've learned nothing from losing the ship to hippies in TOS.

I think more shout outs to previous movies could have been effective, such as Spock and Sybok having a conversation about V'Ger, although Spock's demeanour is strongly suggestive that he is not really fit for duty per STIV. He should have been on board as a provisional crewman or civilian advisor rather than a senior officer. He's clearly still struggling. Still, exploring that dynamic outside the troika might have been interesting.

I suppose in a movie format, you have to keep the plot moving forward at speed. I would not have been averse to a bit more character development in place of the trip to the barrier.

 

[Tenacity]

Tom Clancy doesn't write Star Trek movies

Pity, it would have been awesome.

Spock could have wounded Sybok.

Yes, Spock could have wounded him on the flight deck, McCoy was right there, sick bay was a minutes travel away.

Shoot Sybok in both knees Spock.

It's pretty hopeless to wring meaningful political excitement out of a fictional universe where the audience knows basically nothing about what's going on

There are good guys and bad guys, what's hard about that?

 

[Vger23]

Pity, it would have been awesome.

No it would have been a Tom Clancy movie.....in space.

Which I've now said 3 times I don't give a shit about. Because if I want to watch a Tom Clancy movie, I'll, you know, whatch a Tom Clancy movie.

 

[Tenacity]

/\ and a simplistic pew pew, running around, girls in their underwear movie doesn't interest me,

to each their own.

 

[Vger23]

/\ and a simplistic pew pew, running around, girls in their underwear movie doesn't interest me,

to each their own.

How is that, in any way, related to what I said?

So, because I don't like Star Trek as second rate Tom Clancy knock-off, you equate that automatically to this? Forgive me, but that's bullshit and completely unfair. I said nothing of the sort. I said I prefer when Trek swings for the fences with concepts that couldn't be tackled in other genres. And I'm not sure why there's anything wrong with that preference, or why that automatically equates to pew pew and underwear.

 

[Pauln6]

How is that, in any way, related to what I said?

So, because I don't like Star Trek as second rate Tom Clancy knock-off, you equate that automatically to this? Forgive me, but that's bullshit and completely unfair. I said nothing of the sort. I said I prefer when Trek swings for the fences with concepts that couldn't be tackled in other genres. And I'm not sure why there's anything wrong with that preference, or why that automatically equates to pew pew and underwear.

If you haven't read the TMP novel Traitor Winds, give it a go. It's a really well written political thriller that never made me think of Tom Clancy once.

I think everyone has a preference, it's why some people, particularly fans that are relatively new to Trek, love Discovery, while many older fans think it's an affront to everything Trek has ever stood for.

For my part, I feel that there are no truly original ideas, the trick is to recycle ideas in ways that tell interesting, entertaining, and/or compelling stories to showcase your characters. That means a wide range of story ideas and genres. The Trouble with Tribbles and Bride of Chaotica are very silly comedy episodes, and Star Trek is not a comedy, even though it has a lot if humour, but I love them.

For me a tweaked STV would not be about politics, it would be about finding equilibrium and a sense of peace with your place in the multiverse. We've seen both Kirk and Spock go through this before, hence they are not really affected by Sybok, but there are so many characters in the movie whose pain and motivations are just glossed over. Their stories would have been more interesting to me.

For example while the Federation and Klingon ambassadors are there due to personal or political issues, Dar appears to be an idealist. Is she in favour of re-unification? What a missed opportunity for a Saavik story arc. The ambassadors are losers in a dead end job for different reasons. I would have liked to see more of what makes them tick.

What is Sulu's pain? He always seemed to be living his best life and loving it and yet he jumps on board with Sybok in a heartbeat.

Similarly, Uhura regrets what exactly? Unlike Scotty, I never got the impression that she gave up relationships for her career; the writers just never saw any reason to feature them. Is it that she's always carried a torch for Scotty because, bearing in mind this comes close on the heels of TWoK, there was absolutely no build up to it. Is it that she regrets not having children? Since this is just after STIV, we're less than 20 years after TOS, so she's only in her forties by this point (despite the grey hair). It's not as if she couldn't still do that.

The scene in STIII where they steal the Enterprise followed by their endeavours in STIV made them feel like a team and was such good fun but they throw all that away in this one, which was a bit disappointing. I think Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov deserved a scene where they are all subverted. Although Uhura gets a scene with Scotty, it's a bit of a joke at her expense.

So, I think a better way to deal with the crisis would have been to send in a team to infiltrate the compound perhaps featuring the supporting cast. Even the infamous fan dance could have been used to capture some men as part of the infiltration. Then use that to lure in Kirk and Spock and go from there.

 

[Tenacity]

I don't like Star Trek as second rate Tom Clancy knock-off

Why would it be second rate?

 

[Tenacity]

How is that, in any way, related to what I said?

My point is I would like something more complex than what we usually get. One of the reasons I like Insurrection (many don't) is that there was the surface level movie and there were things alluded to going on below the surface as well. The complexity was there, but it was subtle. At the end of the movie part of the audience were unsure if Picard did the right thing.

TUC could have been so much more with the same basic premise, but apparently the writers didn't want to put forward the effort. Give the conspirators in Starfleet a coherent reason for their actions, something that would make the audience go "hmm, you know they have a point."

Last few movies there was nothing but the obvious.

with concepts that couldn't be tackled in other genres

Ok, what?

Maybe part of my response was I don't completely understand what your meaning is, and it's something other than Abrams two point oh.

 

[Vger23]

One of the reasons I like Insurrection (many don't)

Here's where the realization hits that we simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything, as INS is, to me, the only film in the franchise I actively dislike.

 

[Vger23]

Maybe part of my response was I don't completely understand what your meaning is, and it's something other than Abrams two point oh.

My point is to say I like Star Trek most when it does things that cant be duplicated in other genres. A search for meaning at the center of the Galaxy, a probe returing to Earth that has achieved consciousness...a device that can terraform the ecosystem of an entire planet at a genetic level.

Never once did I say anything about action or underwear.

It was just a bizarre leap to try and prove your point.

 

[Pauln6]

My point is to say I like Star Trek most when it does things that cant be duplicated in other genres. A search for meaning at the center of the Galaxy, a probe returing to Earth that has achieved consciousness...a device that can terraform the ecosystem of an entire planet at a genetic level.

Never once did I say anything about action or underwear.

It was just a bizarre leap to try and prove your point.

Ok then, if you don't want increased political intrigue, what would you have preferred Kirk's approach to have been and where would you have wanted the plot to end up?

 

[Tenacity]

My point is to say I like Star Trek most when it does things that cant be duplicated in other genres.

A political thriller between Humans and a aliens species couldn't (in that form) be done in Star Trek? Because it has multiple times. Cold war stories are many. TNG's The High Ground, Star Trek can address terrorism, and do a interesting job of it.

a device that can terraform the ecosystem of an entire planet at a genetic level

The Genesis device was just a mcguffin, the story was never about it. The core of the story was a confrontation between two enemies.

 

[Vger23]

Ok then, if you don't want increased political intrigue, what would you have preferred Kirk's approach to have been and where would you have wanted the plot to end up?

I don't think I would have "preferred" anything different. I gotta be honest, I'm not sure I could tell you what we are even talking about anymore.

A political thriller between Humans and a aliens species couldn't (in that form) be done in Star Trek? Because it has multiple times. Cold war stories are many. TNG's The High Ground, Star Trek can address terrorism, and do a interesting job of it.

I don't know why this is relevant to anything I've been saying, or to the topic at hand.

And I dislike The High Ground. Probably for the same reasons I've been listing over and over again without any effect.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't think I would have "preferred" anything different. I gotta be honest, I'm not sure I could tell you what we are even talking about anymore.

We’re talking about how incredibly silly STV’s premise was, and that if one were to make a movie with hostages in it, it would have benefitted more by being a political thriller than a meaningless search for god story. The aforementioned discussion having evolved from the original topic of why Kirk handled the hostage situation as poorly as he did (i.e. silly and unnecessary heroics to make Kirk look like a badass.)

 

[Pauln6]

We’re talking about how incredibly silly STV’s premise was, and that if one were to make a movie with hostages in it, it would have benefitted more by being a political thriller than a meaningless search for god story. The aforementioned discussion having evolved from the original topic of why Kirk handled the hostage situation as poorly as he did (i.e. silly and unnecessary heroics to make Kirk look like a badass.)

Increasing the political element was only one possible alternative. A mission impossible style rescue is another.

One of the weakest parts of STVI is that an inescapable Klingon prison would not take prisoners' clothes to check them for high tech contraband, or carry out simple checks for signalling devices. I think if you doing mission impossible in space the writers must have an understanding of the fictional tech and the nature of the technical arms race that would exist so that we aren't left scratching our heads about why the antagonists have no countermeasures to basic transporters.

 

[Tenacity]

What Spock placed on the back of Kirk's shoulder might not have been a device, but instead a unusual substance or rare element. Spock knew what planet Kirk was on of course, the "whatever" helped Spock locate where on the planet Kirk (and hopefully McCoy) were.

 

[Pauln6]

What Spock placed on the back of Kirk's shoulder might not have been a device, but instead a unusual substance or rare element. Spock knew what planet Kirk was on of course, the "whatever" helped Spock locate where on the planet Kirk (and hopefully McCoy) were.

But if, like most high security terrestrial prisons, the prisoners' personal effects are confiscated, Spock beams up a jacket in a locker. Luckily, Klingons are too mean to provide clothing for prisoners or comprehend the EBay sale price of a genuine Jim Kirk original jacket.