TUC: Collectors Edition Question

[Kegek]

snowman1701 said:


I'm sorry, I'm not laughing at any one post, but the whole thing is just amusing. No one is budging, no one is presenting a new arguement, we are all sitting here going around in circles and using the exact same scene as ammo against the other side. The only way this is gonna end is if everybody gets tired of posting the same thing. Ahh, this is fun.

Indeed it is. It boils down to two different camps who view the exact same evidence as having self-evident conclusions. When your evidence is incontrovertible, no further argument is necessary. Problem is, both sides are convinced they have incontrovertible evidence.

And yes, I don't have a life.

Do you honestly think we do? I sure don't.

 

[David cgc]

That won't help. The word "Nanclus" is missing in the special edition, completely covered up by the flashback to his face.

I'd like to note that, while I liked the extra closeups of Kirk and McCoy, I hated the addition of the flashbacks. They hurt the tension of the scene by breaking up that long single shot, they were stylistically inconsistent (Chang was in motion, Cartwright in a black and white still, and Nanclus in a color still), and that gong sound effect was ridiculous. It doesn't help that when I heard there'd be changes in the special edition, I'd hope it'd be stuff like the extended dinner scene, or the tour of the Enterprise, or other such things.

 

[Aldo]

David cgc said:

I'd like to note that, while I liked the extra closeups of Kirk and McCoy, I hated the addition of the flashbacks. They hurt the tension of the scene by breaking up that long single shot, they were stylistically inconsistent (Chang was in motion, Cartwright in a black and white still, and Nanclus in a color still), and that gong sound effect was ridiculous.

That's why to this day I refuse to buy the Special Edition of the film.

 

[cardinal biggles]

David cgc said:
I'd like to note that, while I liked the extra closeups of Kirk and McCoy, I hated the addition of the flashbacks. They hurt the tension of the scene by breaking up that long single shot, they were stylistically inconsistent (Chang was in motion, Cartwright in a black and white still, and Nanclus in a color still), and that gong sound effect was ridiculous.

Sadly, this was something Nick Meyer had originally intended when he wrote the screenplay.

 

[Kegek]

santa biggles said:

David cgc said:
I'd like to note that, while I liked the extra closeups of Kirk and McCoy, I hated the addition of the flashbacks. They hurt the tension of the scene by breaking up that long single shot, they were stylistically inconsistent (Chang was in motion, Cartwright in a black and white still, and Nanclus in a color still), and that gong sound effect was ridiculous.

Sadly, this was something Nick Meyer had originally intended when he wrote the screenplay.

Did he also intend the stylistic inconsistencies from the start?

 

[cardinal biggles]

No, he didn't. The script actually replayed their incriminating dialogue:

(this is from the earlier draft of the script that's floating around online, where Valeris was still Saavik, and Cartwright was "Admiral Donald")

LT. SAAVIK
Admiral Donald.
.
137G QICK FLASHBACK (TO SCENE 23)
.
ADMIRAL DONALD
... to offer Klingons a safe
haven within Federation space is
suicide.

137H BACK TO SCENE
.
CHEKOV
From Starfleet?
.
KIRK
Who else?
.
LT. SAAVIK
General Chang -
.
137J QUICK FLASHBACK (TO SCENE 43)
.
CHANG
... In space all warriors are cold
warriors...
.
137K BACK TO SCENE
.
UHURA
Gorkon's own man??
.
KIRK
Who else?
.
LT. SAAVIK
The Romulan Ambassador - Naclus...
.
137L QUICK FLASHBACK (TO SCENE 63)
.
NACLUS
Mr. President, they ARE vulnerable.

So this makes for a very interesting quandary... the flashbacks might have made sense as written, because they're just interrogating her. But it really does mess up the flow of the mind-meld, so you do have to wonder why Meyer would sabotage his own scene, stylistic inconsistencies aside.

 

[Kegek]

I think the decision to chuck all this exposition in favour of keeping the emphasis on the invasiveness of the mind-meld was a good call.

When it comes down to it, the only conspirator who matters a damn is Chang, and people probably knew he was the villain right from the beginning.

The way that reads above, is, well...

SPOCK: And what will be in the boquet?
VALERIS: Chrystanthemums.
UHURA: You mean a kind of flower?
KIRK: Flowers - in a boquet?
VALERIS: Also, I'm being mind-raped.
SPOCK: Who cares? Now, what shoes will Lady Azetbur be wearing with her stylish leather jacket?

 

[Oso Blanco]

ST-One said:
And, while certainly not useful for a direct comparison in general (they replaced all the Klingon dialogue in ST-III with German), the German dub supports the '... and others.'-line in this case.

And let's not forget the english subtitles on the original DVD, which also say "and others".

Good to see that I'm not the only one who can hear and see "and others". Neither their speech rhythm nor the movement of their mouths would fit "Nanclus", no way!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Oso Blanco said:
And let's not forget the english subtitles on the original DVD, which also say "and others".

According to the subtitles of Robert Wise's director's commentary on ST:TMP DVD DE, the premiere of that film was at the "Swiss Odeon", the closed-captions writer mis-hearing the elderly Wise's pronunciation of "Smithsonian".

 

[ST-One]

Oso Blanco said:

ST-One said:
And, while certainly not useful for a direct comparison in general (they replaced all the Klingon dialogue in ST-III with German), the German dub supports the '... and others.'-line in this case.

And let's not forget the english subtitles on the original DVD, which also say "and others".

Good to see that I'm not the only one who can hear and see "and others". Neither their speech rhythm nor the movement of their mouths would fit "Nanclus", no way!

Exactly.

BTW: To anyone who hears 'Nanclus': Why would the Romulan Ambassador's name be cut from the SE-version of this movie? Could it be that they never said his name in that scene?

 

[Maurice]

Okay, but if Valeris didn't finger Nanclus specifically, why would the Enterprise team put a phaser in his face when they stormed the conference? Bingo.

 

[ST-One]

DS9Sega said:
Okay, but if Valeris didn't finger Nanclus specifically, why would the Enterprise team put a phaser in his face when they stormed the conference? Bingo.

Because Spock has seen him in Valeris's mind.

 

[ST-One]

DS9Sega said:
Okay, but if Valeris didn't finger Nanclus specifically, why would the Enterprise team put a phaser in his face when they stormed the conference? Bingo.

BTW: Why do you think they felt comfortable with cutting away Nanclus's name in the first place? Because it was never said? Or did they suddenly think his name is not that important?

 

[archeryguy1701]

ST-One said:

DS9Sega said:
Okay, but if Valeris didn't finger Nanclus specifically, why would the Enterprise team put a phaser in his face when they stormed the conference? Bingo.

BTW: Why do you think they felt comfortable with cutting away Nanclus's name in the first place? Because it was never said? Or did they suddenly think his name is not that important?

Not that his name wasn't important, but that no one would recognize it. It was only briefly brought up earlier in the movie, and unless folks were really paying attention, or were detail-oriented geeks such as us, Nanclus would mean very little to someone.

However, I will again bring up a point I originally had, and then was rehashed later in thread: Kirk wanted specific names. The hell kinda good would "And others" do him? Surely, Spock assumed Kirk was smart enough to figure out that Valeris and 3 other people weren't going to be able to pull a conspiracy of that magnitude off. So, I ask you, why was "and others" included?

 

[ST-One]

snowman1701 said:

ST-One said:

DS9Sega said:
Okay, but if Valeris didn't finger Nanclus specifically, why would the Enterprise team put a phaser in his face when they stormed the conference? Bingo.

BTW: Why do you think they felt comfortable with cutting away Nanclus's name in the first place? Because it was never said? Or did they suddenly think his name is not that important?

Not that his name wasn't important, but that no one would recognize it. It was only briefly brought up earlier in the movie, and unless folks were really paying attention, or were detail-oriented geeks such as us, Nanclus would mean very little to someone.

However, I will again bring up a point I originally had, and then was rehashed later in thread: Kirk wanted specific names. The hell kinda good would "And others" do him? Surely, Spock assumed Kirk was smart enough to figure out that Valeris and 3 other people weren't going to be able to pull a conspiracy of that magnitude off. So, I ask you, why was "and others" included?

To show that there were indeed 'others' involved.

So, Kirk wanted specific names, true. Why then why was the Romulan Ambassadors specific name cut?
The only logical reason is: He wasn't named in that scene (although earlier in the movie he was).

IMO, the '... and others.' should have been kept in the SE. That sentence could have been completed right after the flashback...

 

[Oso Blanco]

They didn't say "the Human Admiral Cartwright" or "the Klingon General Chang", so why should they say "the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus"?

I think the producers used "the Romulan Ambassador" INSTEAD of "Ambassador Nanclus", because they realised that the audience wouldn't recognise him by his name.

 

[ST-One]

Oso Blanco said:
They didn't say "the Human Admiral Cartwright" or "the Klingon General Chang", so why should they say "the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus"?

I think the producers used "the Romulan Ambassador" INSTEAD of "Ambassador Nanclus", because they realised that the audience wouldn't recognise him by his name.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[David cgc]

ST-One said:
So, Kirk wanted specific names, true. Why then why was the Romulan Ambassadors specific name cut?
The only logical reason is: He wasn't named in that scene (although earlier in the movie he was).

Or, and this is going to shock you, the pronunciation was muffled and the name was only mentioned once earlier in the film, so they cut it out because people either didn't understand what "Nanclus" meant or invented bizarre interpretations of it.

 

[Kegek]

Oso Blanco said:
They didn't say "the Human Admiral Cartwright" or "the Klingon General Chang", so why should they say "the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus"?

Because nobody would remember who the hell he was. Chang, definitely. Cartwright maybe. But Nanclus? He's in around one scene and has barely any dialogue.

Calling him the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus both satisfies the need for the conspirators to be named, while also cluing the audience in on who this guy is.

Of course, he's a complete red herring. To the extent the film is about a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy of Starfleet and Klingon officers to keep the Cold War going. While Nanclus' motives are obvious (Federation/Klingon Cold War is good for Romulus), he serves no dramatic purpose whatsoever, so they cut his name in the SE as to not distract from the main thrust of the plot.

 

[ST-One]

Kegek Kringle said:

Oso Blanco said:
They didn't say "the Human Admiral Cartwright" or "the Klingon General Chang", so why should they say "the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus"?

Because nobody would remember who the hell he was. Chang, definitely. Cartwright maybe. But Nanclus? He's in around one scene and has barely any dialogue.

Calling him the Romulan Ambassador Nanclus both satisfies the need for the conspirators to be named, while also cluing the audience in on who this guy is.

Of course, he's a complete red herring. To the extent the film is about a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy of Starfleet and Klingon officers to keep the Cold War going. While Nanclus' motives are obvious (Federation/Klingon Cold War is good for Romulus), he serves no dramatic purpose whatsoever, so they cut his name in the SE as to not distract from the main thrust of the plot.

Yeah, right. They cut his name so as to not distract but show his picture... Sure!

His name was never mentioned in that scene in the first place...