Star Trek IV kills me

[Tina Lawton]

Wait, wait, and he said:

"Glasses?! We don' need no stinkin' glasses!"

 

[Maurice]

People really do overthink the whole "glasses" thing. Kirk's making a joke because they're in the past and by that reckoning Bones hasn't given him the glasses, yet. For all we know those glasses were destroyed in a house fire three weeks later. It. Don't. Matter.

 

[Tiberius]

We're trekkies! We must obsess over these things!!! Stop spoiling the game!!!

 

[Mr_Homn]

Star Trek IV is fine. It's no more idiotic or illogical than II or III, it's just easier to dismiss as cotton candy because it's not so melodramatic. Yes, the message is too on-the-nose, but that's what makes it so like many of the original episodes. If anything, the film is hurt by rather lackluster direction and uninteresting camera work.

Are you aware that Star Trek IV was nominated for an academy award (and other awards) for cinematography? And that it's the only star trek movie to hold such a distinction?

 

[RyanKCR]

Star Trek IV is fine. It's no more idiotic or illogical than II or III, it's just easier to dismiss as cotton candy because it's not so melodramatic. Yes, the message is too on-the-nose, but that's what makes it so like many of the original episodes. If anything, the film is hurt by rather lackluster direction and uninteresting camera work.

Are you aware that Star Trek IV was nominated for an academy award (and other awards) for cinematography? And that it's the only star trek movie to hold such a distinction?

Actually Star Trek The Motion Picture was nominated for 3 Oscars.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Yes, but not for cinematography. It was nominated for original score, visual effects, and art direction. (And, BTW, the fact that Goldsmith did not win the original score Oscar proves to me that the Oscars have no relation to reality.)

 

[Mr_Homn]

^ Yes, but not for cinematography.

Thank you. I just meant for cinematography.

 

[RyanKCR]

Oops, sorry. Didn't catch that part.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Oops, sorry. Didn't catch that part.

No problem RyanKCR! There's no way that someone valiantly defending TMP's awards would upset me in any way! I should have phrased it more clearly, my phrasing was a bit ambiguous.

I just was puzzled and surprised that someone would criticize the only Trek film with an oscar in cinematography for its camera work. Not that the opinion is invalid or anything, of course, I just don't understand the basis of the criticism. When I think of Trek IV, some of the first things I think of are how beautiful some of the shots are.

This probably seems random, but this shot always stood out to me as one of my favorites in the franchise:

Other great shots:

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/9/92/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65),_1986.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/1/19/Kirk_and_Spock_in_San_Francisco.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vny7EXd-BOQ/TtBVJjq-t2I/AAAAAAAAVVc/h9McJmlu9RI/s1600/backintime.png

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2009/6/tvhcap2.jpg (I'll admit this one is just instantly humorous to me)

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2009/6/tvhcap3.jpg

there's plenty more but we've all seen the movies i'm sure


now I feel like a dickhead for calling out someone's passing comment. But I felt compelled to defend this movie because I love it!

 

[DonIago]

DVDActive doesn't allow direct links, FWIW.

 

[Jedi Marso]

And Kirk's glasses were never created, they just go round and round in a time loop.

Now there's a question...

1. McCoy gives Kirk some glasses.
2. Kirk and co travel back in time.
3. Kirk sells glasses to shopkeeper to get some money.
4. Shopkeeper puts glasses for sale.
5. Glasses pass through many owners (presumably).
6. Glasses eventually purchased by one Leonard H McCoy.
7. McCoy gives glasses to Kirk as birthday present.
8. Kirk and co travel back in time.
9. Repeat ad nauseum.

So where the hell did those damn glasses come from?

The exact same paradox as with the pocket watch in 'Somewhere in Time' with Jane Seymour and Chris Reeve. It's a closed loop- uncreated.

Although in this case there is no way to say for sure that the spectacles purchased by MCoy was the set Kirk sold, at least in the sense of a paradox.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

And what happened to the earth of the timeline that they left from.

It was destroyed by the probe after Kirk & co vanished, never to be seen again.

But they saved the new timeline they created, so who cares about the old one?

Kirk (on viewscreen): Starfleet, if you can read me -- we're going to attempt time travel. We're computing our trajectory at this time.... <transmission cuts off>

Cartright: Well, I guess that's that! He's saving an alternate reality anyway. Let's all have some shrimp creole for our last meal!

Trek has never really followed through with many of the discoveries that they've made. If you can travel in time and "correct" the timeline in a creaky old BOP, why isn't it done more often? Go back to just after the discovery of the wormhole and tell Sisko about the Dominion.

Inform Picard of the Borg. Prevent Voyager from being taken to the Delta Quadrant by the Caretaker. Solve any number of life and death situations and save millions or billions of lives.

In JJTrek, why would't Spock slingshot around a star and stop Romulus from being destroyed when he realized he would be late?

That's how temporal cold wars start.

With regard to Kirk's glasses .. Kirk's comment that they would be a gift from McCoy again was really just a joke. Kirk has no way of knowing if the glasses he's selling to the dealer will eventually be purchased by McCoy for Kirk's birthday. McCoy buys the London pair, and always buys the London pair regardless of what happens. That pair will go back in time with Kirk on the BoP, leaving the LA/Sanfran pair as the only pair in existance (in the 23rd Century after Kirk and crew return to the 23rd Century in the BoP) with two pairs existing on Earth between the 20th and 23rd Century.

I suppose if the LA/SanFran pair survived the 300 years on Earth, McCoy can buy that pair for Kirk later on, commenting, "Very funny, Jim. I already paid for these the first time, so you owe me whatever that shopkeeper gave you." -- except now they've traveled through time with Jim Kirk, so they probably cost a lot more at the 23rd Century pawn shop -- I expect Kirk is gonna end up owing McCoy money in the end -- to get his own birthday present back -- but ---

It is not an "uncreated pair looping over and over."

Edit to add:

Also, the instant Kirk and Crew arrived with the BoP in the late 20th century, they were in an alternate reality and when they went back to the 23rd century, they were doing so in the new alternate reality (the one that branched off the instant they arrived in the 20th century). An alternate reality in which a Bird of Prey appeared in the 20th century, two whales are missing, a marine biologist disappeared, a lady grew a new kidney, and a whaling crew sold a story to the Weekly World News.

<Pane of glass explodes>
Sarek (pointing): Look!

Cartright: They're heading for the bridge! Whew! Glad we're not the prime reality! We'd have been fracked.

 

[Gojira]

Excellent thread! I do love TVH and I love time travel stories. TOS stuck to a pretty linear explanation of time travel. Although they did recognizes the existence of other universes. It wasn't until TNG and others expanded this concept and the Trek 09 was the first to suggest time travel actually caused the existence of parallel universes.

If you think about it too much you'll go insane.

 

[G2309]

They said the method of time travel wasnt that accurate which is how i think time travel should be handled rather than some reset option.

 

[Warped9]

Um, that would have destroyed the plot and tone of the entire movie?

Fine with me. TVH is my least favoured (or most disappointing) of the TOS based films.

 

[Tiberius]

Even worse than TFF?

 

[Maurice]

Star Trek IV is fine. It's no more idiotic or illogical than II or III, it's just easier to dismiss as cotton candy because it's not so melodramatic. Yes, the message is too on-the-nose, but that's what makes it so like many of the original episodes. If anything, the film is hurt by rather lackluster direction and uninteresting camera work.

Are you aware that Star Trek IV was nominated for an academy award (and other awards) for cinematography? And that it's the only star trek movie to hold such a distinction?

So? And lots of films that win Best Picture aren't.

I happen to like Star Trek IV, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend it for work it's not doing well.

Of the shots you posted most are ordinary medium two-shots and wide angles. What makes them interesting is the scenery, not the shot composition. I live in San Francisco, and it's actually easy to make pretty shots here because the place if to flipping picturesque! (And the Bird of Prey shot doesn't count because visual effects shots aren't what's being looked at when voting on cinematography.)

 

[Warped9]

Even worse than TFF?

As flawed as it is I can stomach TFF a lot more easily than TVH.