I like the so-called Scooby-Doo ending of TUC, I think it makes more sense that a renegade Starfleet officer would try to kill the president while/and impersonating, trying to blame the Klingons then that a Klingon would come that close to succeeding with that, the Worf ancestor noting "This is not Klingon blood"/someone else discovering and oting It's Colonel West! was sure a bit cheesy but I think still nice to include that another officer had been part of the corrupt conspiracy and effective transition to the two sides getting along more, of course at the same time Chang being the big villain and attacking the Enterprise showed well it wasn't only Starfleet renegades who were/had been the obstacles.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I liked that ending too.
There was also a lot more to the state dinner that was filmed that we wound up seeing in the Final Cut, or even the extended version or deleted scenes on the DVD/BRD. You can see some of it from a behind the scenes documentary they released around the same time.
The scene with Valeris sliding down the fireman’s pole (and bumping into the cardboard set wall) and Scotty’s “Klingon bitch” line was a bit much, and I was glad it was kept out.
There was also a lot more to the state dinner that was filmed that we wound up seeing in the Final Cut, or even the extended version or deleted scenes on the DVD/BRD. You can see some of it from a behind the scenes documentary they released around the same time.
The scene with Valeris sliding down the fireman’s pole (and bumping into the cardboard set wall) and Scotty’s “Klingon bitch” line was a bit much, and I was glad it was kept out.
Especially given Spock's line that Klingons don't have tear ducts, clearly contradicted by an earlier film (TSFS) in which the main Klingon villain gets teary-eyed over the death of his pet.
Yeah there were lots of things off about that scene. I get that they wanted to “visually inspect” the torpedo magazine and verify that all of them were accounted for, but the whole thing seemed really rushed and hackneyed together.
As a kid, I first saw TUC on the VHS release, so for me things like Colonel West briefing the President, as well as West being the actual assassin disguised as a Klingon are the version of the movie I'm most familiar with. I never even saw the theatrical cut of the movie until the Blu-ray release. As a result, that version just feels weird and wrong to me, even if it is the original version of the movie.
The no tear duct thing originated with John M. Ford's Trek novel The Final Reflection.
Yeah, but that sort of contradiction happens all the time. Consider Kirk stating in TWOK that the Klingons don’t take prisoners, despite the fact that he himself has been a prisoner of the Klingons multiple times.
Oh, Kirk just likes to flex. And never confess he's been held prisoner by the Klingons. Because reputation. 
It doesn't make sense anyway. Any animal with eyeballs needs to keep them moist to keep them funcioning. I take the line to mean that the tubing from the tear glands to the eyesockets isn't what is considered ductwork, as in our anatomy.
Maybe Klingon tear ducts aren't just like human or Vulcan tear ducts, BUT THEY HAVE TEAR DUCTS. Their eyes are wet and produce tear fluid.
Hitch movies are full of crap process screens.The airplanes in Casablanca are crap. Barely worth watching. Don't even get me started on the rear projection in North by Northwest.
"Suggestions, Admiral?" "Prayer, Mr. Saavik. The Klingons don't take prisoners."
Next movie: "Who is this? How DARE you take prisoners?"
If factions of both the Klingons and the Federation are in cahoots to sabotage the peace process then why have it be a FAKE Klingon? Are they not good snipers? The only way this works is if West (not North, cleeeeever) is SEEN but not CAUGHT. Why is it West himself and not a lackey?
Next movie: "Who is this? How DARE you take prisoners?"
If factions of both the Klingons and the Federation are in cahoots to sabotage the peace process then why have it be a FAKE Klingon? Are they not good snipers? The only way this works is if West (not North, cleeeeever) is SEEN but not CAUGHT. Why is it West himself and not a lackey?
I know it's hyperbole, but professional film sets are not made of cardboard. Thin plywood wobbles too.
And tear ducts have nothing to do with the ability to cry, anyway. They shunt tears into your nasal cavity so you get all snotty when you're bawling. Star Trek is reliably awful at medical details.
Does it? I am searching that book's text right now, and I see no mention of tears or crying or even eyeballs.
I tend to hear a dog whistle at the slightest reference to Ford's Klingons and that didn't come to mind. Although Margaret Wander Bonanno's Dwellers in the Crucible relied a bit on his lore and added that Klingons have three testicles. (What do I not know because I have that stuck in my head?)
It does. It describes the Klingon equivalent of crying as making an involuntary smirk. In their final scene together, Tagore is crying while Krenn is doing the Klingon equivalent.
I need to re-read this. Again.
West was doing it himself likely because this way it guarantees a 'Klingon' kills Azetbur, and that the deed was done for real this time. Probably didn't trust Klingons himself to do the job.
Similar threads
