ST II vs ST III Battle Damage

[lexington1709a]

I've always wondered why there was more damage on the Enterprise in Star Trek III than was shown in Star Trek II. Clearly, there's more damage shown in ST III where Khan & Reliant didn't even touch her so I'm wondering how that happened.

 

[LAFR]

AAA???

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've always wondered why there was more damage on the Enterprise in Star Trek III than was shown in Star Trek II. Clearly, there's more damage shown in ST III where Khan & Reliant didn't even touch her so I'm wondering how that happened.

It's meant to be the same battle damage. Artistic license, like Kylo Ren's scar moving an inch between movies.

 

[FredH]

Amusingly, if the old DC Comics from that time positing a whole epic range of adventures taking place between II & III could be taken as canon (it isn’t), that’s explained by it being from an entirely different later incident, where a pon farr-maddened Saavik attacked the Enterprise with a small ship.

 

[Cicero]

Strangely, I think the pre-reboot movies make more sense if you skip all of the odd-numbered ones. (TVH even conveniently lets the audience know that David was killed by the Klingons).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Pictures showing what differences are in mind would be nice.

 

[BillJ]

Amusingly, if the old DC Comics from that time positing a whole epic range of adventures taking place between II & III could be taken as canon (it isn’t), that’s explained by it being from an entirely different later incident, where a pon farr-maddened Saavik attacked the Enterprise with a small ship.

DC Comics explanation works for me.

 

[Firebird]

I've always wondered why there was more damage on the Enterprise in Star Trek III than was shown in Star Trek II. Clearly, there's more damage shown in ST III where Khan & Reliant didn't even touch her so I'm wondering how that happened.

Forgetful ILM artists not working from accurate continuity polaroids.