Stand by for evasive!

[Grant]

In the script, right before the "stand by for evasive", line he says---"red alert, raise shields!"---but those lines are cut out.

The next shot of the Grissom bridge shows in fact the bridge bathed in the red lighting of the red alert mode.

So the writers intent was to show all he did all he could in the few seconds he had. We know that it takes a few seconds to raise shields as we saw in TWOK.

So he immediately signaled intent to take evasive, ordered red alert, started the process of raising the shields.

BUT

Nimoy WANTED him to appear incompetent so he cut that part out.

Nimoy's entire intent in TSFS was to show everyone else in Starfleet as incompetent and insensitive, rude and arrogant.

He even mentions in the TSFS commentary that he picked PICK as the color for the Grissom chairs as an insult to Esteban. Listen for yourself--it is in the solo commentary he did for the 2-disc DVD.

Because it's better drama when your adversaries are fools, losers and straw men! Right?





COMM OFFICER

Sir... Something's jamming our

transmission. An energy surge.



ESTEBAN

Locate.



COMM OFFICER

Surge from astern, sir. Aft

quarter!



ESTEBAN

On screen.



On MONITOR, a starfield aappears, with some kind of

energy interference. A heat-like distortion of one

area of the picture is evident. Then, suddenly, by

means of the de-cloaking effect, the Bird of Prey is

dead on a at close range in attack configuration.



ESTEBAN

Oh, my God!



91 INT. BRIDGE - BIRD OF PREY - FAVORING KRUGE 91

& &

91A 91A



KRUGE

(Tube one, target, engine section

only!)



GUNNER

(Ready!)



91B SPACE - BIRD OF PREY STALKS GRISSOM - (ILM) 91B



92 BACK TO BRIDGE - GRISSSOM (INTERCUT WITH PLANET & BIRD 92

OF PREY)



ESTEBAN

Red alert! Raise shields!



SAAVIK (V.O.)

Captain, what's happening?!



ESTEBAN

We are under attack! Stand by for

evasive -- stand by for --



93 INT. BIRD OF PREY 93



KRUGE

(Fire!)

 

[Timo]

23rd century shield technology does not exist, thus there's no parallel.

You're being absurdly picky. Armor exists, and behaves rather exactly like shields - which isn't surprising, as that's how you write science fiction. The audience is completely familiar with the concept of some things being armored and heavily armed, others being unarmored and lightly armed, and a "science vessel" being in the latter category. That's the moviegoer or newswatcher expectation, minor variations (rayguns rather than Uzis etc.) notwithstanding.

Why aren't you familiar with this real-world concept?

Moreover, the 20th and 21st centuries rely on money and concerns of budgets which do not exist in the fictional 23rd century, so the entire dilemma of "budget concerns" in the Grissom matter is utterly false...unless you have a secret TSFS script the rest of us do not know about.

I'm not talking about ST3, but of Star Trek. It's patently silly to accuse a single episode or movie of an "error" when the show in its entirety covers that ground quite nicely. We have seen time and again (and you admit to having seen it, too) that Starfleet is a realistic organization, focusing its resources to achieve its aims. Just like all real-world military organizations, it wisely concentrates armor and firepower and other such investments, and the Grissom is a splendid exercise in verisimilitude in this respect.

So, you reject those who actually serve and experience the deficiencies (effectively making them experts), but believe---who--exactly? You?

You don't seem to have much idea of how a military organization works... When was the last time a general of the United States armed forces was wounded in action? Grunts in the front line want to stay alive - but that's not how one wins wars, and the generals know it. If the wars were run by the grunts, they would achieve none of their supposed goals, and would probably be bloodfests surpassing WWI in their aimlessness.

It's the generals and their civilian superiors who have the expertise in their fingertips for deciding how to allocate the necessarily limited resources. And they don't buy personal tanks for everybody.

You would need one if the ship sent into a region was equipped to handle know dangers--the entire point of the failed plot gimmick of the Grissom.

What known dangers? The Regula system was deemed safe enough that the super-secret, astronomically important Genesis device was being developed there with zero military protection. Are you seriously arguing this was because Starfleet had put the Regula lab right under Klingon noses, gambling that they wouldn't look that close for such secrets? The more realistic scenario is that Regula is deep within secure UFP space and cannot readily be attacked by Klingons.

You are off on some tangent.

I'm pointing out your most fundamental error. The Grissom isn't the center of the universe, isn't being flown by the President or his favorite nephew, and thus warrants no special treatment.

What it gets is regular treatment. And that means resources are not perverted to turn a science vessel into a super-battleship.

Again, your entire premise is false: there's no budget concerns stated or suggested in TSFS.

Yes, there are - in ST3, in every other TOS movie, and in every episode of Star Trek ever filmed. They are all based on the concept of resources being limited, even in the era of replicators, and the heroes thus having to make do with realistically limited shares thereof.

None. Why you insist on creating false dilemmas in order to defend a poorly constructed, ST-contradicting plot gimmick is anyone's guess.

The only thing poor here seems to be your basic premise. A science vessel doesn't behave like a battleship - and you find fault in this, even when it's what happens in every other instance of ST as well? Let's just have the films:

- In ST:TMP, there's one heavy cruiser available, not fifty. Her firepower doesn't match that of V'Ger, even though a decade earlier she encountered like threats (space amoebae, doomsday machines, antimatter cloud creatures) and demonstrated her insufficiency in fighting those with her armaments.

- In ST2, Kirk's starship cannot raise shields in the split second that would have saved her from Khan's surprise attack, despite Kirk's timely command. Starfleet has failed to improve shield reaction time regardless of TOS experiences.

- In ST4, Starfleet cannot muster enough ships to inconvenience the Whale Probe, nor to evacuate Earth when the need becomes acute. It cannot defeat the Probe's jamming, despite having faced similar threats in TOS.

- In ST5, only a single starship is sent to deal with hostage-taking terrorists, and she launches just a single shuttle, while the troops deploying from there are not invulnerable to bullets. Why haven't things moved forward from how they were in TOS?

- In ST6,

It is all to convenient that the one time a relevant real world example is presented--which supports how poor the "budget / no protection" plot was, you attempt to reject it. You cannot cherry-pick reality in order to support something that never existed in the film.

Hear, hear. All of ST stands proof that our heroes are not omnipotent and their resources are limited. Live with it.

Who said they "obviously" needed hundreds?

Well, me. If it isn't obvious to you, I'm very, very sorry.

No one on TOS, TAS, TMP, TWOK or TSFS.

So realism for you would be characters moaning "If only we had more ships, better shields, stronger phasers!" as if such things were possible and some mysterious factor X prevented them from reaching our heroes?

As noted, lots of lives in TOS and the movies would have been saved if the starship response had been more timely. This calls for either more ships or faster ships. And there is nothing wrong with Starfleet being unable to provide either improvement. That's how things are in the real world, so naturally that's how writers describe them in Star Trek, too.

Nowhere to be found, otherwise, you would have posted the hard evidence, instead of going on and on with your false dilemma.

You are blind and deaf to it anyway, so why bother?

Honestly. Doesn't it bother you at all that you are the only one in the universe who finds fault in a science vessel failing to defeat a dedicated warship in combat?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

23rd century shield technology does not exist, thus there's no parallel.

You're being absurdly picky. Armor exists, and behaves rather exactly like shields - which isn't surprising, as that's how you write science fiction

There is no being picky: either you are specific or vague. The former does not lead to tangents, but getting to the point.

1.There's no handbook on writing sci-fi, as each writer and story serves its own needs..unless you are an advocate of recyled , which takes this back to...

2. Once again, you created a false dilemma based on a non-existent parallel. Armor is armor--which is not the comparison you tried to make. The issue is a futuristic defense force field, entirely different than the nature and purpose of hull plating. If you started this shaky voyage by referencing the armor of Grissom, you would have something in the neighborhood of a valid comparison....but it would remain a detail designed to support a problem that is not in the film.

I'm not talking about ST3, but of Star Trek. It's patently silly to accuse a single episode or movie of an "error" when the show in its entirety covers that ground quite nicely. We have seen time and again (and you admit to having seen it, too) that Starfleet is a realistic organization, focusing its resources to achieve its aims.

Wrong.

3. What is the subject discussed: The Grissom and the reasons behind its all too easy destruction.

4. What claim are you making: That nonexistent parallels to real world military / budget have any bearing on a poor plot gimmick which makes no sense within the established, recognized dangers posed by Federation adversaries.

5. The point you miss: For the last time, there is no rational thought behind sending a weak vessel to investigate a project so volatile, so controversial in nature, that it was--perhaps--the most guarded secret in Federation history. Any sensible mind concludes the secrecy was a concern that enemies would appropriate the technology, using it in the exact manner explored by Dr. McCoy in The Wrath of Khan.

Project Genesis was of the highest priority / risk to the Federation. Since you are so into referencing the real world, can you name one situation where a project as important to national security was so exposed--or to the point, having a weak group or organization performing an investigation of the project without similarly inadequate protection?

You don't seem to have much idea of how a military organization works

That's rich. You are the one who dismissed real service people without an ounce of experience:

And? What do wounded soldiers know about equipping an army? If they had that sort of expertise, they'd be writing the budget or sitting in Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Yes, that was you, so unless you were/are in the service with the requisite experience necessary to make your claims, you have no position of authority granting an authoritative opinion. Certainly, if you were experienced, you would have offered that experience from the start, lest your arguments would be seen as having no force of truth--the actual case.

What known dangers? The Regula system was deemed safe enough that the super-secret, astronomically important Genesis device was being developed there with zero military protection. Are you seriously arguing this was because Starfleet had put the Regula lab right under Klingon noses, gambling that they wouldn't look that close for such secrets? The more realistic scenario is that Regula is deep within secure UFP space and cannot readily be attacked by Klingons.

Secure? Funny. Valkris had no trouble stealing the super secret Genesis file, while her boyfriend--a representative of the very known danger you deny--had no trouble entering the Regula system and proceeding to commit mass murder.

..what were you saying about that zero military protection?

Makes so much sense.

I'm pointing out your most fundamental error. The Grissom isn't the center of the universe, isn't being flown by the President or his favorite nephew, and thus warrants no special treatment.

See point #5.

Yes, there are - in ST3, in every other TOS movie, and in every episode of Star Trek ever filmed. They are all based on the concept of resources being limited, even in the era of replicators, and the heroes thus having to make do with realistically limited shares thereof.

You insist on saying this, but when pressed to find a specif reference in the film we are discussion...you come up empty handed. A theme with too many sequels, Timo.

In ST2, Kirk's starship cannot raise shields in the split second that would have saved her from Khan's surprise attack, despite Kirk's timely command. Starfleet has failed to improve shield reaction time regardless of TOS experiences.

- In ST4, Starfleet cannot muster enough ships to inconvenience the Whale Probe, nor to evacuate Earth when the need becomes acute. It cannot defeat the Probe's jamming, despite having faced similar threats in TOS.

You must be joking, as your examples are wholly inapplicable. The Genesis planet was not the surprise, emergency situations of the V'Ger, Khan's attack or whale probe. The Genesis planet was created, reported, and a planned response initiated, so once again--in full consideration of the secrecy and potential for misuse, there is no reason to send a weak vessel to that system.

]So realism for you would be characters moaning "If only we had more ships, better shields, stronger phasers!" as if such things were possible and some mysterious factor X prevented them from reaching our heroes?

It would sell better than the ridiculous gimmick of sending a pigeon to an eagle's work.

Nowhere to be found, otherwise, you would have posted the hard evidence, instead of going on and on with your false dilemma.

You are blind and deaf to it anyway, so why bother?

Translation: if you had the hard evidence, you would have posted it, instead of going on and on with your false dilemma.

Clearly, you have no evidence, nor can you rewrite the history of The Search for Spock to fit into a horribly false dilemma of your own making.

 

[Timo]

An entire post consisting of nothing but moving the goalposts, putting words in my mouth, pretentiously narrowing down definitions, and ignoring valid responses? You simply aren't a worthy partner in this game - which actually isn't too bad since there is no real matter to be discussed. You invented this funny idea that the science ship has to withstand pummeling from a warship, and you stand alone in pretending the invention has merit.

Oh, well. Mine is the default position, requiring no proof. Yours is the fabrication diverging from all precedent, real or fictional, thus calling for specific proof. So far, you have not even attempted to provide any. But I'll make it easy for you. Please provide the piece of dialogue that states the Grissom should have had shielding capable of defeating Kruge's attack.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trimm]

An entire post consisting of nothing but moving the goalposts, putting words in my mouth, pretentiously narrowing down definitions, and ignoring valid responses? You simply aren't a worthy partner in this game - which actually isn't too bad since there is no real matter to be discussed. You invented this funny idea that the science ship has to withstand pummeling from a warship, and you stand alone in pretending the invention has merit.

Oh, well. Mine is the default position, requiring no proof. Yours is the fabrication diverging from all precedent, real or fictional, thus calling for specific proof. So far, you have not even attempted to provide any. But I'll make it easy for you. Please provide the piece of dialogue that states the Grissom should have had shielding capable of defeating Kruge's attack.

Timo Saloniemi

Let me preface this by saying that I am in total agreement with you here Timo. (Ain't that something?)

To play devil's advocate briefly in regards to your final point there, there is at least one thing that indicates that Grissom could have survived the BoP's attack, namely Kruge's reaction to the results of that attack. Kruge's angry "I wanted prisoners!" points to the idea that he at least expected Grissom to survive his assault. "A lucky shot, sir." from the soon to be ex-gunner could indicate either that he went for a kill shot against Grissom over the disabling shot his succesor took against Enterprise. Or, it could indicate that the destruction of Grissom was a fluke, a one in a million shot akin to a critical hit in a video game. Either way, Kruge at least intended for Estaban and his command to live, which might point to it at least being possible.

All that said, it is pretty obvious that Kruge's command is a warship, and Estaban is skipper of what is described explicitly as a science vessel. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the Bird of Prey had, and should have had, Grissom outclassed straight up on that point alone.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

An entire post consisting of nothing but moving the goalposts, putting words in my mouth,

Now you resort to lies.

1. You accuse me of not knowing much about the military, yet you have no experience, which only sinks to a new low when I quoted you dismissing soldiers' complaints.

Rather hypocritical.

2. Your entire reason to be in this thread was to present an utterly false dilemma never even hinted in the film, with wildly off-topic voyages into Federation budget concerns never expressed.

3. In some manner, you pretend the Federation is not aware and/or prepare for well known threats, when TOS proved this point ad infinitum. How is anyone unable to grasp how although the Enterprise was tasked--primarily to "explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life, and new civilizations" (a mission of exploration)yet the ship was well equipped for full military engagement? That means the Federation did not shortchange vessels simply due its mission status,and was aware of known dangers (i.e. Klingons, Romulans, et al) and the potential for the unexpected, thus any defense of the Grissom plot gimmick falls apart quickly.

Oh, well. Mine is the default position, requiring no proof.

Yours is arguing for the sake of it--based on whatever need you have to create problems or situations that do not exist in the film. It is irrational to breathlessly argue about--nothing.

That was and remains your position, which was pockmarked with failure from the start

Now, unless you will finally refer to details from the film, you will be cited for having no point time and again.