III is my favorite

[F. King Daniel]

Having rewatched a week ago, I'll admit it did look a bit smaller than the entire Baku village (doesn't that mean they're screwed if people wander too far from the centre?), but still big enough to count as a starship. And isn't it called "Federation Holoship" in the script? You can believe what you want, but IMO Insurrection was definitely the first time Starfleet hid a starship from natives underwater.

It is the last truly serious classic Trek film, honestly. TVH was a comedy, TFF just as many jokes as its immediate predecessor and something about TUC was extremely silly: the drama was blunted by some heavy handed humor

interesting observation..quite true Treks1-3 were deadly serious with just the odd bit of banter...with the success of IV its as if they thought trek films must be boarderline comedies!... The same can be applied to the TNG films as well as the JJ films...

I'd say III was the first Trek movie to use a lot of humour, and hit the serious/funny sweet spot which the later movies emulate. "How many fingers am I holding up?", "Don't call me 'Tiny'!", "Get in the closet!", "Nice of you to tell me in advance" etc

 

[publiusr]

Now assembling something in space should be the way to go. I had an idea of how to hoist a very heavy object in orbit--an asteroid bola tied to a significant tether--a backspun flyby rotovator.

Imagine an asteroid fragment swinging down like a pendulum, hazy against the sky until it gets nearer as it splashes down in an enclosed atoll many miles across to limit tsunami. The tether disengages. Monster rockets fire as a saucer rides up on the jettisonable hydrofoils, the tether grabs on and yanks upward like a skyhook--the rockets doing more to ease the strain than to actually lift the mass. The saucer activates its impulse above a certain point, releases, then glides to spacedock.

Lenticular craft make sense after all: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/lenicles.htm http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18148

And some (highly notional) concepts were huge: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bonaucer.htm
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NPP-48001-British-Rail-Model.gif
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=23599

STIII really made Starfleet more formidable. The Spacedock, the new ships-finally they addressed the scale and scope of Star Wars. Better eye candy than ST II even.

I agree with most of your posts, but not this one.

I respect that--and you aren't alone as it turns out:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/19/3169364/dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-uss-enterprise

Torpedoes that carry all the oomph of bowling ball, a self-destruct that makes the VALLEY FORGE in SILENT RUNNING and the titular DARK STAR seem like megabombs, & a dock that looks like a terrestrial blimp hangar airlifted to orbit. The ILM-ification of TREK, yeah, but that's hardly formidable or eye candy.

I know where you are coming from in that regard. Ships in TOS looked more powerful, exchanges between ships farther apart...the phasers even seemed hotter, to steal a quote from Shane Johnson's book http://www.amazon.com/Blueprinting-science-fiction-universes-Johnson/dp/B00071PY1W

Yet up close in a nebula you might want a dial-a-yield so you won't go up in your own fireball.

Assuming there is a fireball, that is. More on that in a moment.

Some of the expanding sphere blasts we saw in Space 1999 are visually remarkable.

Ironically, they aren't all that accurate either, depending upon who you talk to.

In the non-fiction book PROJECT ORION: THE TRUE STORY OF THE ATMOIC SPACESHIP we see this quote from chapter 13, page 121:

In space, with no atmosphere to produce a fireball, the explosion would appear quite different..."The debris goes out from the bomb essentially invisibly," explains Freeman Dyson. "You don't see anything until the stuff is stopped...you get a millisecond or so of intense white flash..and very little else.

Then too, the starfish shot on page 117 was considered spectacular--but it wasn't shaped charge like a bomblet or a casaba howitzer. On page 71 we learn of the iron balls that survived 150,000 degrees Kelvin in self protection through ablation (thermocoat that was lacking in TMP?)

More on a scenario here http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=23757
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18971

Sorry to get off topic but this book makes for nice reading--

As it turns out urea was great at being radio-opaque (124) a 1,650 ton continent buster nuke was considered, along with an idea to use anti-matter to reduce populations (201-202). Ted Taylor even had a dream of a new form of nuclear weapon. "And I'm really scared of it." (286)

Back on topic.

Star Wars demanded more detail, more size, and a closeness of the ships. You want thing more intimate.

TOS is rather like the Honorverse in that ships aren't all "on screen" together, though weapons can be followed as we saw with the torpedo hits in Way of the Warrior.

Or maybe I just like ILM

Everyone has their own tastes.

Oh well, if the refit is the B-2, the TOS Enterprise is the B-52.

 

[trevanian]

A terrific reply, I gotta admit. I first read about project ORION as a teenager in a science column in an SF mag (IF or GALAXY), something Richard Hoagland wrote, and I've always been fascinated by it, will have to look for that book.

I like your b52/b2 analogy; and it is even sort of in keeping with Doohan's original unfavorable take on the -d, likening it to a stealth jet.

 

[Nebusj]

I know where you are coming from in that regard. Ships in TOS looked more powerful, exchanges between ships farther apart…

They only looked farther apart because the show couldn't usually spring for footage of two ships on-screen at once. The couple times they could, they'd put four Connies sitting on one another's noses.

 

[Mytran]

What's interesting is that the dialogue about range doesn't really change from TOS-movies-TNG. It is still measured in x-thousands of kilometers, even though the visuals presented in the later shows show the attacking ships and targets to much, much closer.
Be it from budgetary restrictions or original intent, TOS matches the dialogue more accurately.

 

[Ssosmcin]

While TSFS does backtrack on Kirk’s renewed sense of youth and energy, I do give them a lot of credit for making the third film completely about getting Spock and restoring him. AND for leaving him only beginning to get his memory back. The theories over Spock’s return at the time included his being used as a specter, fading in and out like Obi-Wan Kenobi. In a franchise that restores people to peak physical condition via transporter and such, they could have easily returned Nimoy to the series in the first 20 minutes and gone on to a totally different adventure. Instead, the crew mutinies, commits assaults and theft, Kirk’s son is offed and everything is left murky at the end. If they ended the series there, we would still be asking “whatever happened to the crew of the Enterprise?” That all of this was swept under the rug very easily is the fault of the next movie, not this one.

I also liked how the Bird of Prey is treated as something sort of new and very scary. The cloaking device is apparently different or has a new energy signature. The ship is also hugely formidable and a “lucky shot” blows the Grissom to atoms. Just the reaction of Captain Estaban tells the story: “oh my gwahd!” The BoP also seems larger in this film than in later appearances.

The “Spock Trilogy” is very much like the original Star Wars series for me. TWOK is the one that hit huge with audiences and is the one that set the new tone. The second continued the story, added more emotional stakes and faded out on an open ending. The third wrap up failed to follow up adequately on the situations and questions presented previously, giving us a cute, feel good story that too cleanly wrapped everything up. But, that’s just me. I know TSFS is the red-headed stepchild of the early Trek movies, but even red-headed stepchildren deserve love.

 

[Shat Happens]

One other thing III had was balls.

If it wasn't comercially successfull, the studio wouldn't order IV. The saga would end most awkwardly, with the Enterprise destroyed, Spock questionably well and Kirk and all the rest of the heroes, outlaws refugees.

 

[Khan 2.0]

While TSFS does backtrack on Kirk’s renewed sense of youth and energy, I do give them a lot of credit for making the third film completely about getting Spock and restoring him. AND for leaving him only beginning to get his memory back. The theories over Spock’s return at the time included his being used as a specter, fading in and out like Obi-Wan Kenobi. In a franchise that restores people to peak physical condition via transporter and such, they could have easily returned Nimoy to the series in the first 20 minutes and gone on to a totally different adventure. Instead, the crew mutinies, commits assaults and theft, Kirk’s son is offed and everything is left murky at the end. If they ended the series there, we would still be asking “whatever happened to the crew of the Enterprise?” That all of this was swept under the rug very easily is the fault of the next movie, not this one.

I also liked how the Bird of Prey is treated as something sort of new and very scary. The cloaking device is apparently different or has a new energy signature. The ship is also hugely formidable and a “lucky shot” blows the Grissom to atoms. Just the reaction of Captain Estaban tells the story: “oh my gwahd!” The BoP also seems larger in this film than in later appearances.

The “Spock Trilogy” is very much like the original Star Wars series for me. TWOK is the one that hit huge with audiences and is the one that set the new tone. The second continued the story, added more emotional stakes and faded out on an open ending. The third wrap up failed to follow up adequately on the situations and questions presented previously, giving us a cute, feel good story that too cleanly wrapped everything up. But, that’s just me. I know TSFS is the red-headed stepchild of the early Trek movies, but even red-headed stepchildren deserve love.

yes I agree ive always thought III is very Empire like.

-as you say its the 2nd part in a trilogy (Genesis Trilogy of II, III, IV) thats very dark in tone, following a classic original (Wrath of Khan/Star Wars) and followed by a much lighter in tone conclusion (Voyage Home/Return of Jedi)

- bad things happen (Kirks son is killed, NCC 1701 destroyed, crew become renegades....Solo captured, Lukes hand, Vader is revealed to be his father)

- crews split into 2 before converging at the conclusion (Kirk and Co on Earth/Enterprise - David, Savvik and Spock on Grissom/Genesis....Luke on X wing/Dagobah - Solo, Leia etc on Falcon/Cloud city)​

- Members are caputured by the villian and held to ransom (David, Savvik, Spock.......Solo, Leia) before the main guy (Kirk/Luke)comes to the rescue

- Climatic fight between the main character (Kirk/Luke)and villian (Kruge/Vader)

- Mysticism thats only believed in by main character (Kirk - Vulcans with the body transference...Luke - Yoda with the force)

- Down beat film with a hopeful (though unresolved) ending leading directly into the next film​

​

​

- the gag of the USS Excelsior's that has to jump in Hyperspace/warp and sput-sput-sputted = 'Millenium Falcon’​

​

theres a Spielberg/Lucas feel to Star Trek III - it was obviously influenced by those big movies coming out in the early 80s - the cantina scene, alien microbes, opening up the ST universe with ships/spacestations etc, crew becoming rebels, the end fight on Genesis feels like something out of Temple of Doom with all the lava etc...i know it was more of a homage to Kirks TOS fistfights but it had that Indy feel to it too​

 

[mos6507]

I hear you about fan complaints back in the day and that's fine. But here, on the BBS, the STID crowd was all "shaddap, it looks great!" Something that never held water (so to speak) for the classic films. I just smelled me some double standard.

Is this an attempt to equate the Enterprise underwater in STID to the Enterprise self-destruct being underpowered in Trek III? Not sure what your take on this is, but here's mine.

While it's true that both creative decisions were probably motivated for the visuals, in STID, it is only a gimmick. It carries no weight other than "gee isn't that cool-lookin! It's stupid but cool! And Scotty joked about it. So it gets a pass." In Trek III, they were trying to create a greater emotional response from the audience by having the hull literally fizzle away, and ILM worked really hard to achieve that. You don't just have a beloved icon go "boom" in a bright supernova.

And the Enterprise destruct is one of the best moments in all Trek history, finished off by some of Horner's best music (albeit lifted from Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet).

That's also why Spock got himself a juicy death scene in Khan. It's motivated by the heart of the story in order to get you in the pit of your stomach. That's what movies are supposed to be about, not just bubblegum thrill-rides. Spock sacrificed himself in Khan, and Kirk sacrificed the Enterprise to bring him back. The Enterprise's death and how it was visualized was the most important moment in the whole film.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I also think Scott and Kirk were fooling themselves if they really thought they could damage Vger with a 'regular' destruct sequence in TMP.

TMP and backward have always indicated that the self destruction of the starship would be a cataclysmic event, though.

Presumably there are several types of destruct sequences. For example, in STIII, the sequence is:

Kirk: Destruct sequence 1, code 1: 1A
Scotty: Destruct sequence 2, code 1: 1A, 2B
Chekov: Destruct sequence 3, code 1: B, 2B, 3

One can surmise that "code 1" refers to, say, "near planet destruct." And maybe "code 0" or "code 2" is matter-antimatter boom.

Anyway, since they were orbiting Earth in TMP, the M/AM explosion would presumably have taken a chunk out of the planet too. And the disruption of the magnetic containment tanks in III would have had similar effect.

Verdict: bad science.

 

[gottacook]

Presumably there are several types of destruct sequences. For example, in STIII, the sequence is:

Kirk: Destruct sequence 1, code 1: 1A
Scotty: Destruct sequence 2, code 1: 1A, 2B
Chekov: Destruct sequence 3, code 1: B, 2B, 3

One can surmise that "code 1" refers to, say, "near planet destruct." And maybe "code 0" or "code 2" is matter-antimatter boom.

Huh? I doubt that any such thought was given to the meaning of these codes. After all, they're copied verbatim from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (when no planet was nearby).

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Presumably there are several types of destruct sequences. For example, in STIII, the sequence is:

Kirk: Destruct sequence 1, code 1: 1A
Scotty: Destruct sequence 2, code 1: 1A, 2B
Chekov: Destruct sequence 3, code 1: B, 2B, 3

One can surmise that "code 1" refers to, say, "near planet destruct." And maybe "code 0" or "code 2" is matter-antimatter boom.

Huh? I doubt that any such thought was given to the meaning of these codes. After all, they're copied verbatim from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (when no planet was nearby).

How long have you been a fan? You should know the rule is to take script lines by unsuspecting writers and fit them to whatever theory sounds good.

 

[dub]

Semi-off topic...I was just watching the episode of "The Cosby Show" in which Theo had his ear pierced, when I noticed a TSFS poster on the wall in his bedroom!

 

[gottacook]

Presumably there are several types of destruct sequences. For example, in STIII, the sequence is:

Kirk: Destruct sequence 1, code 1: 1A
Scotty: Destruct sequence 2, code 1: 1A, 2B
Chekov: Destruct sequence 3, code 1: B, 2B, 3

One can surmise that "code 1" refers to, say, "near planet destruct." And maybe "code 0" or "code 2" is matter-antimatter boom.

Huh? I doubt that any such thought was given to the meaning of these codes. After all, they're copied verbatim from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (when no planet was nearby).

How long have you been a fan? You should know the rule is to take script lines by unsuspecting writers and fit them to whatever theory sounds good.

Well, bust me back to ensign then… I'm so ashamed...