Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter T Chattaway

Star Trek: the first ten movies (1979-2002)

121 posts in this topic

Star Trek: Generations is now up at Hulu.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phlox wrote:

: "Generations" is my favorite of the films (so far!) . . .

:blink:

Wow. There are details that I appreciate in the film, too, but I can never watch that film without thinking of all the missed opportunities and storytelling shortcuts (and it's not just the writing that takes some pretty bad shortcuts; think also of the recycled special effects, e.g. the exploding Klingon Bird of Prey, which is the exact same shot that was used at the climax of the previous film, The Undiscovered Country; see the clip below, starting at the 8:46 mark).

I'm certainly not trying to say that this film SHOULDN'T be your favorite. But it's such an ... unusual ... choice. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phlox wrote:

: I thought the saucer crash landing on the planet’s surface was one of its best visual effects.

Oh, absolutely. It boggles the mind that they initially wanted to do this in an episode of the series. How would they have shot it on a TV budget!?

: Apparently on the special edition DVD you can see 5 alternate endings. . . .

I don't remember seeing THAT many alternate endings, but yeah, I reviewed the special-edition DVD earlier in this thread, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phlox wrote:

: Liked your analysis of the ST VII bridge scene—saying you were “rather moved by Kirk's refusal to sit in the Enterprise-B's captain's chair.”

Thanks! BTW, did you know that there are some extra deleted scenes from that film that did NOT make it onto the DVD, but were posted on YouTube? Here's one of them:

: Someone suggested the next Trek film should bring back the Gorn (“Gorn with the Wind” ?)

Heh. I believe J.J. Abrams' team did re-invent the Gorn for the most recent movie, but the Gorn's cameo was cut. The Gorn was also digitally re-invented for an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were yet another version of the Gorn in the "remastered" version of the original Star Trek episode that introduced the creature.

The original Gorn:

180px-Gorn.jpg

The Mirror Universe Gorn from Star Trek: Enterprise:

180px-Slar.jpg

The Gorn that was deleted from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek:

180px-Barney_Burman%27s_Gorn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found out about this. All six original cast Star Trek films are going to be presented in 70mmm at midnight screenings at the Laemmle Theatre in Santa Monica. I'm a week late, as Star Trek The Motion Picture played last Saturday night (the only film in this event that was shown in 35mm), but I'm going to try to attend tonight, as director Nicholas Meyer will be giving a short presentation before the film.

Peter is probably the expert here, but these films weren't originally shot in 70mm, were they? I thought maybe 35 blown up to 70, but not 70 itself.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:

: Peter is probably the expert here, but these films weren't originally shot in 70mm, were they? I thought maybe 35 blown up to 70, but not 70 itself.

I honestly don't know. I can remember making a point of seeing them at the theatres that had 70mm and 6-track Dolby sound, but whether they were SHOT in that format, I couldn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:

: Peter is probably the expert here, but these films weren't originally shot in 70mm, were they? I thought maybe 35 blown up to 70, but not 70 itself.

I honestly don't know. I can remember making a point of seeing them at the theatres that had 70mm and 6-track Dolby sound, but whether they were SHOT in that format, I couldn't say.

I looked it up. They were shot on 35mm, then blown up to 70mm for theatres that could show 70mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Star Trek II last night. Good and bad results. The good being an entertaining talk given by Nicholas Meyer (I hope one of the many folks who were recording this last night will post the interview on YouTube). The bad... well, it was the last existing 70mm print of this film in existence, but the quality was underwhelming. The print has aged to the point where you get that washed out pink look throughout. Couple that with the fact that the screen was hardly larger than the shoebox mall theatre screen that I originally saw this film on in 1982. I was hoping that this was going to be shown on a much larger screen.

Supposedly the prints for the next four films are much better, but I'm not sure if I'm going to go out of my way to see any more of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:

: The good being an entertaining talk given by Nicholas Meyer (I hope one of the many folks who were recording this last night will post the interview on YouTube).

I haven't watched 'em yet, but TrekMovie.com posted the interview in two parts:

I'm amused, BTW, by Meyer's remark that there comes a point where the artist lets go and the film belongs to the audience. Meyer is one of only two Star Trek directors -- the other being ST:TMP's Robert Wise -- who have made multiple changes to his Star Trek films for VHS and then for DVD. (I realize I'm probably using his metaphor slightly differently than he intended, but still.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite moment was Meyer's story about showing the film to Paramount CEO Barry Diller shortly before opening, and Diller's reaction. Meyer was looking pretty good for a guy about to turn 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caves offer new tour -- in Klingon

Staff at the Jenolan Caves west of Sydney have added a new out-of-this-world attraction -- a tour in the Star Trek language Klingon.

Currently a self-guided audio tour at the caves in the Blue Mountains is offered in eight languages, but staff came up with the idea of adding the fictional language Klingon as the caves did once feature in the popular TV series.

"In the Star Trek universe, Jenolan Caves was first immortalized in the Next Generation episode 'Relics,' through the naming of a 'Sydney Class' Starship - the USS Jenolan," the Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust said in a statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you click here, you'll find a 270-page .doc file which apparently contains Michael Piller's account of his work on the screenplay for Star Trek: Insurrection.

As it happens, that was one of the least consequential movies of the entire series -- none of the established characters died, no Enterprises were blown up, they didn't visit any Significant Moments In Federation History -- so I'm not sure who would even want to read such a book. Or maybe the whole point of the book is to show how the project started out as consequential and then, through all the rewrites, ended up becoming so easily dismissable. (Side note: Insurrection wasn't the lowest-grossing movie of the series -- that would be its follow-up, Nemesis -- but at least Nemesis killed a major character and saw the other crew members bidding farewell to one another. Nemesis, like it or not, Has To Be Dealt With, whereas Insurrection just feels like one of those run-of-the-mill episodes that you can ignore if you want to because there isn't really anything all that special about it.)

Anyway. I figured I'd pass it along. Whether I'll get around to reading it myself is an open question. (I may save the file to my cell phone and read it on boring bus rides.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I read it and thought it was very interesting. It helped me to better understand what the producers were going for in the film. I rented the film on iTunes this morning, and watched it twice. I think I appreciate it more this time around, knowing what I know now about the development of the film.

Whether Insurrection is a "consequential" Trek entry or not, it is a solid and watchable film. There is good humor in it, exciting action, and some poignant character moments. In his book, Piller calls Insurrection the most "chick flick" of the Star Trek films, and I can totally see that. I think my wife would like it, for one. Anyway, I guess our mileage may vary, but I liked the movie more after reading the book than I did before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. The sweater DOES kind of come out of nowhere, doesn't it? I mean, I don't recall seeing him wear it before that scene (though I might be forgetting something).

MP.StarTrekII.22.re-lettered.flattened.sm_.gif

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. My wife informs me that my daughter asked to see ST4:TVH today, by pointing to this box and saying she wanted to see "the one with the woman with the hair". The '80s hair!

Gillian_Taylor.jpg

Incidentally, I ordered that DVD-ROM -- the one that contains every single Star Trek comic produced between 1967 and 2002 -- about a month ago, when I discovered that Amazon.com had dropped the price down to a mere $6.99, and I finally picked it up from the post office in Blaine, Washington just over a week ago, and on Friday, January 7 at 10:53pm, I posted something at Facebook about how weird it was to see my two letters-to-the-editor from 1990 preserved for all time in digital form. I then discovered a little while later that Roger Ebert had tweeted the existence of this seven-dollar deal ALSO on Friday, January 7 ... at 8:47pm, just over two hours before I mentioned it at Facebook. Bizarre. If he had tweeted it just a few hours later, I might have assumed that he heard about it from my Facebook feed. But, I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you pointed it out on Facebook, I ordered it. Mine still has not arrived. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - made me cry when I was a kid watching it in the theater for the first time, and I cry still, EVERY time I see it. I've seen this movie 30-40 times, and it still gets me.

Took the words right out of my mouth. AFAIK, it's the only onscreen death that I tear up over. Heck, I get melancholy watching parodies of the funeral scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j6gi4cY5KY

Thanks for posting this! I hadn't seen it.

It's also a big reason why I assign each Star Trek movie a separate continuity in my private canon.

I'd love to discuss this. Maybe in the star trek movies thread?

I'll try, though my thoughts aren't really developed on this score.

It's kind of a desperate attempt to maintain the integrity of TWOK; I'm fond of several of the later Trek films, but I always have the uneasy suspicion that Khan is somehow cheapened by the later movies bringing Spock back. There's so much in the movie that speaks to issues of friendship, of aging and letting go, that the later movies gloss over by resurrecting the character. Sure, the "Jim...your name is Jim" exchange is touching and all, but when re-watching TWOK the thing that is most moving is its finality, and the fact that Kirk has finally faced a situation where he could not cheat and win (of course, he already had, sort of, in "The City on the Edge of Forever," but let that pass). The fact that they killed Spock only to bring him back in the very next movie feels like a cheat to me; if they had to bring him back (and, let's face it, they kind of did) a gap of a single movie between TWOK and The Search for Spock would have been infinitely preferable to the bait-and-switch we're handed in the series as it stands.

And so...to maintain my own appreciation of Khan while still enjoying, say, The Voyage Home or The Undiscovered Country, I assign it a separate "space" in my mind. As far as TWOK is concerned, Spock dies and stays dead; the other movies are alternate futures where he doesn't die/is resurrected. (Not canon-canon, but private canon. As far as the series itself, of course, my approach is rubbish).

I do the same thing with the Indiana Jones movies, so perhaps this says more about my approach to "canon" than anything else.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: It's kind of a desperate attempt to maintain the integrity of TWOK; I'm fond of several of the later Trek films, but I always have the uneasy suspicion that Khan is somehow cheapened by the later movies bringing Spock back.

If ST2:TWOK hadn't ended with the shot of Spock's "coffin" intact on the planet surface, I might agree with you. But ST2:TWOK does, at least, set up an expectation that Spock will come back. (Yeah, I know, they added that against the director's wishes after test audiences reacted negatively to the downer ending. But the finished film is what it is.) (And yes, I say this knowing that there were different versions of the film: one in theatres, one on TV, one on DVD, etc. But all of them agree on the epilogue, at least.)

: . . . a gap of a single movie between TWOK and The Search for Spock would have been infinitely preferable to the bait-and-switch we're handed in the series as it stands.

I dunno, I can't imagine how they would have filled that gap, given all the complications involved (the near-destruction of the Enterprise, the detonation of the Genesis device, etc.). The death of Spock was only ONE of the loose threads that had to be picked up, there.

But I sympathize on some level. It always bothered me that ST3:TSFS seemed to REVERSE everything that ST2:TWOK had set out to do: one film killed Spock, the other film brought him back; one film gave Kirk a son, the other film killed him off; one film created a planet, the other film destroyed it. The only element that wasn't outright repudiated may have been the character of Saavik -- and in her case, they re-cast the actress, so there's a discontinuity even on THAT level. (And then the plot thread they implicitly set up -- of Saavik becoming pregnant with Spock's child -- was ignored by the subsequent sequels.)

: I do the same thing with the Indiana Jones movies, so perhaps this says more about my approach to "canon" than anything else.

Raiders of the Lost Ark almost belongs to the same category as The Terminator, for me, of being a film that was so awesome that I basically don't give any of the sequels or prequels any sort of "canonical" status in my mind. Interestingly, this means I have been free to enjoy shows like The Sarah Connor Chronicles as exercises in "what if?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno, I can't imagine how they would have filled that gap, given all the complications involved (the near-destruction of the Enterprise, the detonation of the Genesis device, etc.). The death of Spock was only ONE of the loose threads that had to be picked up, there.

You're correct, of course; I'm thinking that the audience needed time to grieve, for lack of a better term, and build enough of a connection to the new characters that anything that happened to them when Spock eventually returned actually mattered. It's very hard to care that David gets killed in Search, since he's such a new character (as it stands, he's in the position of any woman that James Bond actually falls in love with, except less important to the audience). But yeah, it's not as if the follow-up doesn't make sense in terms of the series; it just doesn't make emotional sense (to me).

Raiders of the Lost Ark almost belongs to the same category as The Terminator, for me, of being a film that was so awesome that I basically don't give any of the sequels or prequels any sort of "canonical" status in my mind. Interestingly, this means I have been free to enjoy shows like The Sarah Connor Chronicles as exercises in "what if?".

Yep. I tend to think of these things more as different ways of playing with a character or idea than trying to construct a cohesive portrait (FWIW, some of the Indiana Jones novels are every bit as good as any of the movies post-Raiders. Depending on ones view of the second and fourth movies, they're probably better).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of a desperate attempt to maintain the integrity of TWOK; I'm fond of several of the later Trek films, but I always have the uneasy suspicion that Khan is somehow cheapened by the later movies bringing Spock back. There's so much in the movie that speaks to issues of friendship, of aging and letting go, that the later movies gloss over by resurrecting the character. Sure, the "Jim...your name is Jim" exchange is touching and all, but when re-watching TWOK the thing that is most moving is its finality, and the fact that Kirk has finally faced a situation where he could not cheat and win (of course, he already had, sort of, in "The City on the Edge of Forever," but let that pass). The fact that they killed Spock only to bring him back in the very next movie feels like a cheat to me; if they had to bring him back (and, let's face it, they kind of did) a gap of a single movie between TWOK and The Search for Spock would have been infinitely preferable to the bait-and-switch we're handed in the series as it stands.

And so...to maintain my own appreciation of Khan while still enjoying, say, The Voyage Home or The Undiscovered Country, I assign it a separate "space" in my mind. As far as TWOK is concerned, Spock dies and stays dead; the other movies are alternate futures where he doesn't die/is resurrected. (Not canon-canon, but private canon. As far as the series itself, of course, my approach is rubbish).

Very interesting! Let me pose an alternate emotional schema for you. Throughout the Original Series, one constant characteristic of James T. Kirk was that he loved his ship. My son and I are watching through the first season right now, and I'm noticing it come up repeatedly. The Enterprise is his - what? His wife? His mistress? His master? In "The Naked Time," Kirk is infected with a virus that acts like alcohol, and under the influence, he says to Spock, "This vessel. I give, she takes. She won't permit me my life. I've got to live hers." Later, he gets control of himself and says to the ship, "Never lose you. Never." In "The Corbomite Maneuver," he tells Rand, "I've already got a female to worry about. Her name's the Enterprise." In "The Conscience of the King," Lenore Karidian almost implies that Kirk has a sexual relationship with the Enterprise, saying, "And this ship. All this power. Surging and throbbing, yet under control. Are you like that, captain?" And so on. Kirk loves his ship.

When she is refitted and is under the command of a new captain (Decker, in Star Trek: The Motion Picture), Kirk does everything he can to get her back, including betraying the young man he had mentored. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, he almost loses her, but she is saved by his best friend, who dies in the process. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is not so much about undoing the death of Spock, as it is about Kirk finally learning to place a higher priority on his friends than on his ship - finally treating the Enterprise not as a woman, but as a ship - a material object. He sacrifices the Enterprise to save his friends. "My God, Bones - what have I done?"

Chris Claremont touches on this in his graphic novel, Star Trek: Debt of Honor, in which Kirk, following the events of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, experiences survivor's guilt and nightmares about the destruction of the Enterprise. (Amazing art in that GN, by the way, though Claremont's psychologizing is heavy-handed in the extreme).

Kirk never shows the same passion for the Enterprise-A that he did for the original Enterprise. Not in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (where he even says, "I miss my old chair!"), and not in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. She's just a vehicle in those movies. His friendships (and hatreds) are completely focused on living people in those films.

Anyway, that's my alternate reading. If it resonates with you, it might give you a way of enjoying TSFS and TVH while keeping them in canon. I'm afraid I can't do anything to help you enjoy TUC. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is not so much about undoing the death of Spock, as it is about Kirk finally learning to place a higher priority on his friends than on his ship - finally treating the Enterprise not as a woman, but as a ship - a material object. He sacrifices the Enterprise to save his friends. "My God, Bones - what have I done?"

That's a fascinating reading. I think I like it. I'm certainly going to have to give the so-called "Spock Trilogy" a second viewing with it in mind.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: It's very hard to care that David gets killed in Search, since he's such a new character (as it stands, he's in the position of any woman that James Bond actually falls in love with, except less important to the audience).

Oh, I disagree. You never see Bond get choked up over a woman the way Kirk got choked up over David, with the possible exception of the woman that Bond actually married; her death is referred to or alluded to in later Bond movies, usually in conjunction with Bond's efforts to get revenge against Blofeld (especially in the prologues to Diamonds Are Forever and For Your Eyes Only), just as David's death is cited in ST6:TUC as the main thing that motivates Kirk's hatred for the Klingons in that film (though, strangely, he didn't seem to harbour any particular animus towards them in the in-between film ST5:TFF).

The fact that David actually RETURNS in ST3:TSFS, and is played by the same actor, gives him a stature that few if any other supporting characters have ever had in the Star Trek universe. I mean, ST3:TSFS doesn't even make any VERBAL references to Carol Marcus or Khan Noonian Singh, despite their incredible significance to ST2:TWOK and all the loose threads that ST3:TSFS had to pick up (it was Carol, not David, who led the team that created Genesis; and it was Khan who detonated the device and created the Genesis Planet); and Saavik, as I mentioned earlier, is played by a different actress this time around.

I can appreciate that David isn't necessarily all that compelling a figure in his own right, but his significance to KIRK has always seemed deeply felt, to me, and I remember being rather disappointed when David died and the potential -- the opportunity -- that David represented in Kirk's life was closed off like that. Which I guess is my way of praising William Shatner for doing a really good job of selling me on the notion that Kirk loves his son; I care about David because Kirk cares about David.

: (FWIW, some of the Indiana Jones novels are every bit as good as any of the movies post-Raiders. Depending on ones view of the second and fourth movies, they're probably better).

Actually, I have to say I've begun to find Temple of Doom interesting in ways that Last Crusade is not. I don't think either film is very good, but Temple of Doom is at least trying to be its own thing, and not a pale copy of Raiders like Last Crusade is.

CrimsonLine wrote:

: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is not so much about undoing the death of Spock, as it is about Kirk finally learning to place a higher priority on his friends than on his ship - finally treating the Enterprise not as a woman, but as a ship - a material object. He sacrifices the Enterprise to save his friends. "My God, Bones - what have I done?"

That's an interesting take on the film, though I think the point of the film is not so much the Enterprise itself as it is the life and career that Kirk sacrifices for the good of his friend; the Enterprise is a part of that sacrifice, and in some ways its loss is the perfect embodiment of that sacrifice, but I don't get the sense that Kirk's attitude towards the ship itself has changed all that much. I mean, he had threatened to destroy the ship BEFORE (most recently in ST:TMP, where he hoped that the ship's self-destruction would also destroy V'Ger; but also in one of the original episodes, using the exact same code that he uses to start the self-destruction sequence in ST3:TSFS -- though I guess you could say it was different in those cases, because Kirk and his crew would have died with the ship; it's not like what we see in ST3:TSFS, where Kirk has to kill the ship to save his own life, thus leaving the door open to a sort of survivor's guilt on his part).

: Kirk never shows the same passion for the Enterprise-A that he did for the original Enterprise. Not in . . . Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Hmmm. I'm trying to remember what Uhura's last words are before Spock suggests telling Starfleet to "go to hell." Did Starfleet indicate that it was going to decommission the ship itself, or did they simply remind everyone that it was time to retire? If a bit of both, then which of these things was Kirk responding to more than the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: It's very hard to care that David gets killed in Search, since he's such a new character (as it stands, he's in the position of any woman that James Bond actually falls in love with, except less important to the audience).

The fact that David actually RETURNS in ST3:TSFS, and is played by the same actor, gives him a stature that few if any other supporting characters have ever had in the Star Trek universe. I mean, ST3:TSFS doesn't even make any VERBAL references to Carol Marcus or Khan Noonian Singh, despite their incredible significance to ST2:TWOK and all the loose threads that ST3:TSFS had to pick up (it was Carol, not David, who led the team that created Genesis; and it was Khan who detonated the device and created the Genesis Planet); and Saavik, as I mentioned earlier, is played by a different actress this time around.

I can appreciate that David isn't necessarily all that compelling a figure in his own right, but his significance to KIRK has always seemed deeply felt, to me, and I remember being rather disappointed when David died and the potential -- the opportunity -- that David represented in Kirk's life was closed off like that. Which I guess is my way of praising William Shatner for doing a really good job of selling me on the notion that Kirk loves his son; I care about David because Kirk cares about David.

This discussion inspired me to start re-watching Trek III last night, BTW. Wow, the theft of the Enterprise sequence IS thrilling! And it's amazing how many new ships are introduced. What a movie!

I haven't gotten to that point in the movie yet, but Kirk's reaction to hearing of David's death - missing his command chair and falling to the floor - is among the most poignant pieces of physical acting that I've seen. It's an amazing moment. But I'm afraid I'll have to get all Peter T Chattaway on you, Peter - Carol Marcus IS mentioned verbally in Star Trek III and Star Trek IV, in the revised Genesis tape. Kirk says, "Genesis, as designed by Doctors David and Carol Marcus, literally is life from lifelessness."

CrimsonLine wrote:

: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is not so much about undoing the death of Spock, as it is about Kirk finally learning to place a higher priority on his friends than on his ship - finally treating the Enterprise not as a woman, but as a ship - a material object. He sacrifices the Enterprise to save his friends. "My God, Bones - what have I done?"

That's an interesting take on the film, though I think the point of the film is not so much the Enterprise itself as it is the life and career that Kirk sacrifices for the good of his friend; the Enterprise is a part of that sacrifice, and in some ways its loss is the perfect embodiment of that sacrifice, but I don't get the sense that Kirk's attitude towards the ship itself has changed all that much. I mean, he had threatened to destroy the ship BEFORE (most recently in ST:TMP, where he hoped that the ship's self-destruction would also destroy V'Ger; but also in one of the original episodes, using the exact same code that he uses to start the self-destruction sequence in ST3:TSFS -- though I guess you could say it was different in those cases, because Kirk and his crew would have died with the ship; it's not like what we see in ST3:TSFS, where Kirk has to kill the ship to save his own life, thus leaving the door open to a sort of survivor's guilt on his part).

: Kirk never shows the same passion for the Enterprise-A that he did for the original Enterprise. Not in . . . Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Hmmm. I'm trying to remember what Uhura's last words are before Spock suggests telling Starfleet to "go to hell." Did Starfleet indicate that it was going to decommission the ship itself, or did they simply remind everyone that it was time to retire? If a bit of both, then which of these things was Kirk responding to more than the other?

My quibble would be with the words "not so much the Enterprise itself..." because as you note, the Enterprise is the embodiment of Kirk's life and career. In Star Trek:Generations, Kirk acknowledges as much to Picard - don't ever leave that seat, because that's where your life means something. And I think the weight of the theme of Kirk loving his ship like she was a woman tips the scales in favor of my argument. Perhaps he loved the Enterprise less than winning? But he still loved the Enterprise, and I would say more even than his friends - though subconsciously.

On TUV's ending, according to Memory Alpha, the line is:

Uhura: "Captain, I have orders from Starfleet Command. We're to be put back into Spacedock immediately. To be decommissioned."

Spock: "If I were human, I believe my response would be: Go to hell! If I were human."

But Kirk's final line of the film starts with the observation that "This is the final voyage of the Enterprise under my command..." Which signals an acquiescence to that order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrimsonLine wrote:

: Wow, the theft of the Enterprise sequence IS thrilling!

Yeah, I get shivers every time I listen to that part of the soundtrack album.

: And it's amazing how many new ships are introduced. What a movie!

Are there THAT many new ships? The Excelsior, the Bird of Prey... any others? Though I guess those two are biggies right there -- especially the Bird of Prey, which I think appeared in all but two of the seven films that followed (not counting the reboot).

: But I'm afraid I'll have to get all Peter T Chattaway on you, Peter - Carol Marcus IS mentioned verbally in Star Trek III and Star Trek IV, in the revised Genesis tape. Kirk says, "Genesis, as designed by Doctors David and Carol Marcus, literally is life from lifelessness."

I stand corrected. (Or sit corrected, as the case may be.) Though if Kirk really does name David first, before Carol, then that does contribute to the sense that she has been eclipsed and all but forgotten in the subsequent films.

: My quibble would be with the words "not so much the Enterprise itself..." because as you note, the Enterprise is the embodiment of Kirk's life and career.

Right, but I meant "embodiment" in a dramatic-symbolism sort of way, there, more than anything else.

: In Star Trek:Generations, Kirk acknowledges as much to Picard - don't ever leave that seat, because that's where your life means something.

The seat and the ship are two different things, though. I actually get choked up sometimes, watching ST:G, during the scene where Kirk is about to take the captain's chair on the Enterprise-B, and you can see how tempted he is by it, and then he suddenly turns to the captain and volunteers to go downstairs and deal with the emergency himself because the captain's place is on his bridge. That is such an honourable, principled thing for Kirk to do -- and it results in his death -- but I cite it here as evidence that, at least as far as ST:G is concerned, Kirk was quite capable of being drawn to the centre chair even when he wasn't on the original Enterprise.

In fact, come to think of it, even in ST5:TFF (i.e. the film where Kirk misses his old chair), there is the obligatory scene in which Kirk gazes fondly at the Enterprise as he approaches it in a shuttlecraft (quoting that line "all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer by"). And in ST4:TVH, when Kirk saw the Enterprise-A for the first time, didn't he say "we've come home"? So his affections are certainly transferable, at least to some degree.

: But he still loved the Enterprise, and I would say more even than his friends - though subconsciously.

Hmmm, I'm trying to think if there were any episodes in the original series where Kirk had to choose between one or the other, but nothing comes to mind... yet.

: Uhura: "Captain, I have orders from Starfleet Command. We're to be put back into Spacedock immediately. To be decommissioned."

: Spock: "If I were human, I believe my response would be: Go to hell! If I were human."

: But Kirk's final line of the film starts with the observation that "This is the final voyage of the Enterprise under my command..." Which signals an acquiescence to that order.

Well, yes, an ultimate acquiescence to the decommissioning, sure. Though "second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning" is not an acquiescence to the order that they put back into Spacedock "immediately". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrimsonLine wrote:

: And it's amazing how many new ships are introduced. What a movie!

Are there THAT many new ships? The Excelsior, the Bird of Prey... any others? Though I guess those two are biggies right there -- especially the Bird of Prey, which I think appeared in all but two of the seven films that followed (not counting the reboot).

Excelsior, Bird of Prey, Spacedock, Grissom, and that small freighter from the beginning (which has shown up in many many contexts later, and became one of the workhorse models of the Trek world).

: But I'm afraid I'll have to get all Peter T Chattaway on you, Peter - Carol Marcus IS mentioned verbally in Star Trek III and Star Trek IV, in the revised Genesis tape. Kirk says, "Genesis, as designed by Doctors David and Carol Marcus, literally is life from lifelessness."

I stand corrected. (Or sit corrected, as the case may be.) Though if Kirk really does name David first, before Carol, then that does contribute to the sense that she has been eclipsed and all but forgotten in the subsequent films.

I could be wrong about the name order. I was working from memory.

: In Star Trek:Generations, Kirk acknowledges as much to Picard - don't ever leave that seat, because that's where your life means something.

The seat and the ship are two different things, though. I actually get choked up sometimes, watching ST:G, during the scene where Kirk is about to take the captain's chair on the Enterprise-B, and you can see how tempted he is by it, and then he suddenly turns to the captain and volunteers to go downstairs and deal with the emergency himself because the captain's place is on his bridge. That is such an honourable, principled thing for Kirk to do -- and it results in his death -- but I cite it here as evidence that, at least as far as ST:G is concerned, Kirk was quite capable of being drawn to the centre chair even when he wasn't on the original Enterprise.

In fact, come to think of it, even in ST5:TFF (i.e. the film where Kirk misses his old chair), there is the obligatory scene in which Kirk gazes fondly at the Enterprise as he approaches it in a shuttlecraft (quoting that line "all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer by"). And in ST4:TVH, when Kirk saw the Enterprise-A for the first time, didn't he say "we've come home"? So his affections are certainly transferable, at least to some degree.

Good points. Though not enough for me to overturn my general reading of the Kirk arc of Trek TOS through Generations.

: Uhura: "Captain, I have orders from Starfleet Command. We're to be put back into Spacedock immediately. To be decommissioned."

: Spock: "If I were human, I believe my response would be: Go to hell! If I were human."

: But Kirk's final line of the film starts with the observation that "This is the final voyage of the Enterprise under my command..." Which signals an acquiescence to that order.

Well, yes, an ultimate acquiescence to the decommissioning, sure. Though "second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning" is not an acquiescence to the order that they put back into Spacedock "immediately". :)

True dat. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0