Star Trek

All in fun...........

Quote (ServalanFan @ Dec. 03 2009, 5:57 am)

Here's some off the top off my head: 1. Why is Kirk still a desk bound Admiral. Shouldn't he have got his command back after V'ger?

Most logical answer is that starfleet command placed him back at headquarters.

That of He was promoted again.Afterall TWOK took place over 10 years after the V-Ger event.

Quote

3. Why does Kirk give command over to Saavik all the time in critical situations when Uhura and Sulu are on the bridge?

Critical situations???

I think thats debatable.

But leaving her in command was in part to train her.

Quote

4. Why didn't Chekov and his captain beam up from the planet?

Most likely with the atmospheric disturbances they needed to get back to the beem down site.

Quote (TrekFan1701E @ Dec. 03 2009, 10:40 pm)

Quote (TheChronicOne @ Dec. 02 2009, 11:05 am) I wanted a seperate thread dedicated to the reasons why TWOK is a BAD Trek film. ST 2,4,6 best of the TOS Trek movies.

What a steaming pile of dog manure that one was. I can't believe you think that's a good movie.

Yeah ST2 as a bad movie isn't that great a topic, but I'll pitch in with my own take on why it's not one of my faves to watch.

1. Watching it as an adult now, IMO, it covers much of the same thematic ground as ST1, but with less maturity, and for me (I know many disagree) with less interesting/complex characters.

2. It's basically a remake of "Balance of Terror" but as a straight up action movie. That's Ok, but it just doesn't do much for me.

3. The Ent. crew getting 2 planets confused - if I have that right - just seems ridiculous.

4. It seems to erase ST1, and that's my favorite of the films, despite its flaws. The new uniforms were nice, but if people equate a lot of melodrama & explosions with improving or progressing a series - I find that disappointing.

That's my .02c, knowing full well that ST2 is now second only to ST11 in popularity.

Now ST6...that's a pretty bad movie lol...

Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 04 2009, 4:38 pm)

4. It seems to erase ST1, and that's my favorite of the films, despite its flaws. The new uniforms were nice, but if people equate a lot of melodrama & explosions with improving or progressing a series - I find that disappointing.

TMP is my favourite film too (so far anyway). I'm not sure I agree that TWOK erases it, but it certainly does feel like 'dumbing down' compared to the deeper and more intelligent approach taken with TMP.

I did thoroughly enjoy TWOK, but it in no way made the same lasting kind of impression that TMP has made on me.

Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 04 2009, 4:38 pm)

1. Watching it as an adult now, IMO, it covers much of the same thematic ground as ST1, but with less maturity, and for me (I know many disagree) with less interesting/complex characters.

I can never understand why people criticise TMP for ignoring the characters, because I think it has some of the most engaging character journeys of all the films...particularly for Spock.

It's the film where Spock comes full circle, and sets the precedent for how he behaves in the movies that came after IMO.

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 03 2009, 1:46 pm)

Quote (Ali88 @ Dec. 02 2009, 5:09 pm) The explanation for why Khan recongises Checkov in TWOK is this: sometime during "Space Seed", Checkov was using the public bathroom on the enterprise and Khan was outisde waiting in the corridor. Checkov comes out and Khan goes in and sees there is no toilet paper left and says "I never forget a face Mr Checkov" Actually, as Walter Koenig himself started telling the story about 25 years ago: There was a case of Montezuma's Revenge running through the Enterprise and Chekov was in sickbay the same time as Khan... Chekov had to answer the call of nature and was in the single-stall Sick Bay head...suddenly someone starts pounding on the door and yelling "Get out! Get out!" and finally the door was yanked open. A furious Khan stared at Chekov, who was trying to recover his dignity and bellowed "You! Who are you??" Chekov stammered "I-I'm P-Pavel Chekov..." As Khan pulled Chekov out of the toilet stall, he says "I will NEVER forget you, Mister Chekov!!" and slammed the door to the toilet shut.

Y'know, this whole thing with Chekov always comes up around here and I still don't understand what the big deal is.  

There were 430 people on the original Enterprise.  Did we ever see 430 different crewmen over the course of those 89 episodes?

Why couldn't Chekov been on that ship at that time, assigned to another area, say, phaser crew or something?  

They needed one of the 7 actors to be there to fill the audience in on who Khan was (for the non-trekkies) and that meant, since you couldn't torture Uhura, that it was Sulu or Chekov.  Was Sulu even in Space Seed.  Well, say he was.  That may have made him a better choice in that regard, since you actually see him and Khan together.  That said, I like Koenig's Chekov more than Takei's Sulu.   I think he was a better character and a better actor too and he screams a lot better.  I wouldn't be surprised if that's why Harve Bennett put Chekov down there on Ceti Alpha V to find Khan.

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 03 2009, 1:56 pm)

5. Some fanon suggests they are children of Khan's original followers.

There was either a reference in the original script, or it was filmed, that Joachim was Khan's son, just as David was Kirk's and Saavik as, in a way, Spock's.

I think it's unfortunate that this background information for Joachim and Saavik ended up either on the cutting-room floor or never filmed at all. ¿

I know the fact that Saavik was half-Romulan was filmed. ¿Spock mentioned it to Kirk in their discussion right after the test. ¿I've seen that scene on youtube.

As for Joachim, why didn't they just have him refer to Khan as "father" instead of "lord?" ¿I dunno, maybe they changed their mind about him being Khan's son. ¿There was a character named Joachim in Space Seed, I recall. ¿Maybe the Joachim in TWOK was his son or named after him. ¿

Whatever the case, I think it's clear that Khan's original followers did have progeny.  It would only make sense, seeing as they were colonizing a hostile world.

Look out a d@mn window! LOL

Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Dec. 05 2009, 10:58 am)

Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 04 2009, 4:38 pm) 4. It seems to erase ST1, and that's my favorite of the films, despite its flaws. The new uniforms were nice, but if people equate a lot of melodrama & explosions with improving or progressing a series - I find that disappointing. TMP is my favourite film too (so far anyway). I'm not sure I agree that TWOK erases it, but it certainly does feel like 'dumbing down' compared to the deeper and more intelligent approach taken with TMP. I did thoroughly enjoy TWOK, but it in no way made the same lasting kind of impression that TMP has made on me.

I don't think it's possible to not enjoy ST2 - it's fun & funny & has that great death scene. Maybe if you have zero tolerance for genre movies it's possible.

But I'm glad to see other people who appreciate ST1. I like the slower pacing, time taken to show environments, moments that let the score & images tell story instead of explanatory dialogue etc.

I'm still hoping we'll get another old-skool SF flic like that one day, maybe a ST film if that's not too much to ask lol.

Anyone see 'Moon' this summer? Really a throwback to more intelligent SF films.

Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 05 2009, 1:36 pm)

Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Dec. 05 2009, 10:58 am) Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 04 2009, 4:38 pm) 4. It seems to erase ST1, and that's my favorite of the films, despite its flaws. The new uniforms were nice, but if people equate a lot of melodrama & explosions with improving or progressing a series - I find that disappointing. TMP is my favourite film too (so far anyway). I'm not sure I agree that TWOK erases it, but it certainly does feel like 'dumbing down' compared to the deeper and more intelligent approach taken with TMP. I did thoroughly enjoy TWOK, but it in no way made the same lasting kind of impression that TMP has made on me. I don't think it's possible to not enjoy ST2 - it's fun & funny & has that great death scene. Maybe if you have zero tolerance for genre movies it's possible. But I'm glad to see other people who appreciate ST1. I like the slower pacing, time taken to show environments, moments that let the score & images tell story instead of explanatory dialogue etc. I'm still hoping we'll get another old-skool SF flic like that one day, maybe a ST film if that's not too much to ask lol. Anyone see 'Moon' this summer? Really a throwback to more intelligent SF films.

I like TMP quite a bit.  SF-wise, I think it's the best of the ST films.  I certainly can see why some people do love it.  Saying that, TWOK's still my favorite.  TMP is very different from all the other ST films, and, in that regard I really do appreciate it, but it isn't my favorite.

And, yeah, Moon was great!

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Dec. 02 2009, 11:24 am)

Mistakes and Errors It is unclear exactly how Saavik can be both a Starfleet cadet and hold the rank of lieutenant, unless she was had already graduated from the Academy and was now attending command college. ¿ The most publicized mistake of the movie is, of course, why Khan recognizes Chekov when the character wasn't introduced until the second season of the classic series. Several theorizes range from Chekov leading a security team to Engineering in "Space Seed" in a failed attempt to retake the Enterprise, to Walter Koenig's theory which claims that Chekov made Khan wait to use a restroom and depleted the stall's supply of toilet paper, at which point Khan exclaimed "I'll never forget your face!" ¿ It is not explained exactly why Scotty brings Preston's charred body to the bridge following the battle with Khan. He may have lived had Scotty gone directly to sick-bay. ¿ Kirstie Alley (Saavik) is visibly startled when William Shatner (Kirk) punches through the glass cover of the storage container aboard Regula I. ¿ While Chekov is laying unconscious in the corridor adjacent to the Genesis cave prior to the landing party beaming up to the Enterprise, when the team materializes in the transporter room, Chekov has suddenly joined the group. ¿ When the Reliant fires the torpedo at the Enterprise to prevent them from entering the Mutara Nebula, David is seen walking around Dr. McCoy's office, only to step off the turbolift onto the bridge mere moments later. ¿ When the Enterprise jumps to warp to escape the detonation of the Genesis Device, the warp effect is different than in the scene where Sulu says "So much for the little training cruise." This is the result of the use of stock footage from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" being used in the latter scene.

1.Cadet Lieutenant was a common rank in civil war times. I would assume that she was a Command College attendee, however. I doubt Spock would train a common cadet as his replacement for the Enterprise.

2.I would assume Khan saw the crew manifest? Maybe Chekov was a cleaning-boy in season 1?

3.I doubt Preston would have lived. BUT. Maybe Scotty hit the wrong button. It seemed as though Refit's turbo lifts were not voice activated?

4.Saavik is part Vulcan yes, but still a jumpy, stressed irrational woman.

5.*I have no explanation for this...LOL.

6. A minor glitch. We saw how fast the turbo lifts were in Trek XI:)

7. That's a smalll budget:) Trumbell warp verses ILM warp:)

Quote (rocketscientist @ Dec. 05 2009, 5:37 pm)

Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 05 2009, 1:36 pm) Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Dec. 05 2009, 10:58 am) Quote (Thyla @ Dec. 04 2009, 4:38 pm) 4. It seems to erase ST1, and that's my favorite of the films, despite its flaws. The new uniforms were nice, but if people equate a lot of melodrama & explosions with improving or progressing a series - I find that disappointing. TMP is my favourite film too (so far anyway). I'm not sure I agree that TWOK erases it, but it certainly does feel like 'dumbing down' compared to the deeper and more intelligent approach taken with TMP. I did thoroughly enjoy TWOK, but it in no way made the same lasting kind of impression that TMP has made on me. I don't think it's possible to not enjoy ST2 - it's fun & funny & has that great death scene. Maybe if you have zero tolerance for genre movies it's possible. But I'm glad to see other people who appreciate ST1. I like the slower pacing, time taken to show environments, moments that let the score & images tell story instead of explanatory dialogue etc. I'm still hoping we'll get another old-skool SF flic like that one day, maybe a ST film if that's not too much to ask lol. Anyone see 'Moon' this summer? Really a throwback to more intelligent SF films. I like TMP quite a bit. ¿SF-wise, I think it's the best of the ST films. ¿I certainly can see why some people do love it. ¿Saying that, TWOK's still my favorite. ¿TMP is very different from all the other ST films, and, in that regard I really do appreciate it, but it isn't my favorite. And, yeah, Moon was great!

Star Trek II is just classic. It's a novel come to life.

It *says* it takes place in the 23rd Century, but it *feels* like it takes place in the late 18th/early 19th Century.

Extraordinary story, acting, directing and effects. The only Trek movie (so far) that has *everything.*

The only reason "Wrath of Khan" could be a bad film is that, despite whatever budget it might have had, it was filmed like a TV show. Meyer doesn't have much of a sense for visuals, and the movie isn't really interesting to look at, IMO. The camera doesn't move, the lighting is flat, and most of the story is conveyed through dialogue. That doesn't stop it being an exciting and entertaining movie, probably the most satisfying to come out under the "Trek" title.

But there are more convincing reasons for it being a bad Star Trek film. That's different from being a bad film, which it isn't.

1. The multi-species exploration service has become an all-human military.

2. Space is no longer explored; it is now merely a setting for battles.

3. The climax of the film depends on photon torpedoes, rather than a conceptual breakthrough or any kind of intelligence.

5. The story is melodramatic and derivative. Basically: Horatio Hornblower in Space, quoting liberally from Moby Dick and Hamlet. Or was Hamlet the source of half the dialogue in Meyer's other Trek movie? I forget.

6. I'm not sure why this is a science fiction movie. Like someone above mentioned, it could be set in the 18th or 19th century just as easily. That's not a good thing, IMO.

Quote (Pooneil @ Dec. 06 2009, 8:12 am)

The only reason "Wrath of Khan" could be a bad film is that, despite whatever budget it might have had, it was filmed like a TV show. Meyer doesn't have much of a sense for visuals, and the movie isn't really interesting to look at, IMO. The camera doesn't move, the lighting is flat, and most of the story is conveyed through dialogue. That doesn't stop it being an exciting and entertaining movie, probably the most satisfying to come out under the "Trek" title. But there are more convincing reasons for it being a bad Star Trek film. That's different from being a bad film, which it isn't. 1. The multi-species exploration service has become an all-human military. 2. Space is no longer explored; it is now merely a setting for battles. 3. The climax of the film depends on photon torpedoes, rather than a conceptual breakthrough or any kind of intelligence. 5. The story is melodramatic and derivative. Basically: Horatio Hornblower in Space, quoting liberally from Moby Dick and Hamlet. Or was Hamlet the source of half the dialogue in Meyer's other Trek movie? I forget. 6. I'm not sure why this is a science fiction movie. Like someone above mentioned, it could be set in the 18th or 19th century just as easily. That's not a good thing, IMO.

I have to surpress a chuckle when people say that Trek II was a "dumbed down action flick / not real Star Trek (like anyone has the authority to declare what is REAL Trek)" or "not science fiction."

Really? REALLY??!

"Dumbed Down?"
-The idea of genetic engineering and it's inpact on individual egos or societies is explored
-The themes of aging and mortality are present through the entire film, and are expertly woven through the dialogue and the events of the plot.
-There is a very non-pretentious (unlike other Trek incarnations) presence of and nod to classic literature through the course of the film that harkens back to some of the best of the TOS episodes
-Key elements of the plot include family, the destructiveness of revenge, sacrifice, mid-age crisis, and being replaced by a "younger generation."

Not "Star Trek?"
-All the major cast is back, and the movie dares (unlike most other Treks) to actually be realistic about these characters and the fact that their lives are moving forward
-Character exploration of Kirk in this film is probably the most in-depth and poignant of any Trek installment otherwise (on par with TSFS, actually)
-Not every single Star Trek is about exploring new worlds and making contact with new alien races. That is extremely naiive. Go look at the plot of every single TOS episode. Only about 20% of those episodes featured TRUE "exploration" missions. The rest were humanitarian, diplomatic, or millitary missions. TNG had about the same ratio.
-High concept Trek ideas are explored, not the least of which is the moral dilemma surrounding the possibility of technology leading to universal armegeddon.

"Not Science Fiction?"
The Genesis Device, which really is the central piece to the whole movie (and ideed, the two movies that follow) is one of the most original and well-though-out sci-fi concepts ever. A device that can genetically transform an entire world from a lifeless body to a world capable of sustaining life. When you pile on the idea that that device, when used where life already exists, could also be the ultimate weapon in the universe, and that there are always those looking to pervert science and technology in this way, I think you have one of the MORE science-fiction rich stories in all the movie series.

"Could just as easily have been an 18th or 19th century sailing ship story"
Indeed, just like 75% of all other Trek adventures. The show was based on that concept. Roddenberry interviewed in 1988 (see TOS season 1 bluray extras) specifically referenced Horatio Hornblower as part of his inspiration and direction for the show. Also, if you have trouble remembering which movie had which dialogue in it...perhaps you should go back and review the films before commenting on what you think you know.


Now, I can understand people pointing out contrivances, plot holes, and other continuity problems with TWOK, because that is absolutely true. The movie is practically a mess from that standpoint. But, to claim that it is not good science fiction or good Trek is perposterous and not based in fact of any kind.