Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 5:10 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

You don't remember TURNABOUT INTRUDER?
Yep. And it wasn't Kirk they were turning against.

There's more to loyalty than merely following someone blindingly. Loyalty isn't just something one gives to a person, it's something that has to be earned. Kirk 'earned' his crew's loyalty throughout all their years of service together. They trust him.


The crew was wigged out by Kirk's behavior in TURNABOUT INTRUDER. They quite rightly lost trust and would have mutinied whether Spock did a mind meld with Dr. Lester (Kirk's consciousness) or not. They also started to lose trust with Kirk's similar nutty behavior in ENTERPRISE INCIDENT, and he was finally relieved in DEADLY YEARS. It wouldn't make sense to act on loyalty alone if your leader is acting crazy or is too old.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 5:17 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

Deeper and deeper. The Enemy Within could very well be the rubber stamp for Brundle-Fly? "My teleporter became a gene-splicer." You could argue it was also an Id Monster maker, so there is a reference to Forbidden Planet in Trek where all this hullabaloo is sort of enshrined.

By the way, why is VI actually referred to as The Undiscovered Country? I forget so many things.


The Klingon ambassador says the movie title in a toast to future, better relations, and Spock identifies it from Hamlet. But I've read that's not what is meant in the play.

Matter transporters can always have similar technical problems. The original "The Fly"(1958) predated TREK. In "Curse of the Fly"(1965) they have several disasters like what happens in ST:TMP.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 5:23 PM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

- It wouldn't make sense to act on loyalty alone if your leader is acting crazy.

Kirk wasn't acting crazy in Star Trek III and... can't believe I'm saying this, nor was he in V either.

- Clearly something weird happened to the crew to make them so lackadaisical about their duty, let alone mutiny.

Screenplay by
David Loughery

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 5:41 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

- It wouldn't make sense to act on loyalty alone if your leader is acting crazy.

Kirk wasn't acting crazy in Star Trek III and... can't believe I'm saying this, nor was he in V either.


There was no mutiny in ST:III, so your comment about Kirk doesn't make sense.
You originally brought up that movie to show how loyal the crew were in contrast to their mutiny in ST.V. I said they had mutinied before for whatever reasons so ST:V is not new in that respect.

I said the crew didn't go along in ST:III just out of loyalty, but because they too wanted to save Spock. But you're saying that even if Kirk had some really crazy goal in ST:III, or merely acted crazy, they would still go along out of loyalty. That doesn't make sense. They would have tried to stop him for his own good, just as they'd done in the past.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 5:41 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

From what I vaguely remember, it is Sybok's disarming charisma and 'lawyer leading the witnesses on' enticing the crew to see his point of view. Kirk knows he's somewhat out on a limb and seems to go into 'observation' mode, letting each crew member 'snap out of it' in something like the way he did when deliberately angering himself in that flower garden.

A bad case of Stockholm syndrome is from The Island, when Caine's screen son (Justin) is given over to Warner's pirate guardian. There's the scene where Caine is made to hold up some object his son has been ordered by Nau to fire at, which he does when his father (Caine) steadfastly holds out the object while indicating confidence his son's aim will be true and he'll be left uninjured. The kid takes the shot and blows the thing in his father's hands away without sustaining injury to his dad. After that, the kid says to his father, "I could have hit you . . . if I wanted to." Normally, that kind of arrogant petulance would engender a hard swipe across the face, but Caine is under duress and he has to let the sarky remark from his son go by with utmost cool. Later, when the tide turns, he gets his boy back when the power of intimidation from the pirate no longer holds any sway over himself and the boy.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 6:00 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

From what I vaguely remember, it is Sybok's disarming charisma and 'lawyer leading the witnesses on' enticing the crew to see his point of view. Kirk knows he's somewhat out on a limb and seems to go into 'observation' mode, letting each crew member 'snap out of it' in something like the way he did when deliberately angering himself in that flower garden.

A bad case of Stockholm syndrome is from The Island, when Caine's screen son is given over the Warner's pirate guardian.


Wow, that is one generous tangent inre THE ISLAND. That sounds more like family relations than Stockholm syndrome. In THE HITCH-HIKER (1953), the same situation is set up between two friends by their captor, and it's pretty unpleasant to both of them.

It's too bad there wasn't more exposition about the Sybok Effect. Therapies like EST, Primal screaming, transcendental meditation, and John Bradshaw workshops did change people. They were probably the basis for Sybok, even to his name as a kind of anagram, like PsyPop from Pop Psychology.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 6:15 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

But that is more like social conditioning, which again is impressed under circumstances in which the subject knows they are a prisoner and that if they don't comply with the orders they've been given will illicit some kind of pain response. This does not appear to be the way Sybok does things. He genuinely appears, at least initially, to appeal to some sense of logical perspective shared by both himself and the person he is attempting to win over. He does it by simply imparting the impression of being wholeheartedly reasonable and open with his subject. In the movie so far as I remember, it is as though he has recruited a handful of disciples who are willing to go along with him under his tutelage of their own free will at least until things turn pear shaped.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 6:52 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

But that is more like social conditioning, which again is impressed under circumstances in which the subject knows they are a prisoner and that if they don't comply with the orders they've been given will illicit some kind of pain response. This does not appear to be the way Sybok does things. He genuinely appears, at least initially, to appeal to some sense of logical perspective shared by both himself and the person he is attempting to win over. He does it by simply imparting the impression of being wholeheartedly reasonable and open with his subject. In the movie so far as I remember, it is as though he has recruited a handful of disciples who are willing to go along with him under his tutelage of their own free will at least until things turn pear shaped.

If you mean EST, I've heard they were locked in a room, but I didn't hear of any punishment. I'm thinking of John Bradshaw or transcendental meditation gurus who would liberate your mind from old shackles. But EST encourages members to recruit (probably to raise money) so it resembles a cult. In that respect, Sybok is similar since he has followers...but why? If they were truly made whole or happy, they wouldn't need to follow anyone.
I forgot, he needed their help so he could liberate God from the center of the galaxy.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 7:50 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Never bought into the idea, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov would ruin their entire careers and risk jail time to help Kirk steal the Enterprise to save Spock. Spock was Kirks friend. And McCoy was Kirks friend. Those three were interchangeable. But the rest? No sorry don't buy it.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 7:53 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Another thing I don't like about Star Trek VI is the subtitle. "Undiscovered Country". What the hell was that supposed to mean in context of the story? Worse yet, that subtitle was an unused title for Star Trek II. So again Myer was just lifting old ideas for VI which really didn't work in context of the film.

 
 Posted:   Sep 16, 2020 - 8:29 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Because I haven't seen V for such a long time I had to view the Wikiwand entry for it. Sybok is described as a Vulcan renegade, and was involved in the Nimbus III kidnappings meant to lure a starship there as bait. A green-eared Klingon out for glory has a Kirk fixation and ended up pretty much a throwaway story gimmick because by this stage Trek needed a Klingon in every bite.

I guess that since both Kirk and Spock were the skeptics out of all his crew subsequently made beholden to Sybok, there's no way the renegade has an ounce of legitimacy to be going to the centre of the galaxy on a pressed Federation starship. So, there's the answer. I'm not going to say what the inspiration for Sha-Ka-Ree was because I got it spectacularly wrong. eek For years I thought Sha-Ka-Ree and Shangri-La were synonimous with each other because they do sound so alike and both represent the same objective - namely the promise of some kind of an oasis paradise. La-di-da.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 3:45 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

Another thing I don't like about Star Trek VI is the subtitle. "Undiscovered Country". What the hell was that supposed to mean in context of the story? Worse yet, that subtitle was an unused title for Star Trek II. So again Myer was just lifting old ideas for VI which really didn't work in context of the film.

Check my bottom post on Page 4.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 6:28 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Another thing I don't like about Star Trek VI is the subtitle. "Undiscovered Country". What the hell was that supposed to mean in context of the story? Worse yet, that subtitle was an unused title for Star Trek II. So again Myer was just lifting old ideas for VI which really didn't work in context of the film.

Check my bottom post on Page 4.


Thanks for the explanation. The metaphor escaped me. This goes back to my earlier criticism that Myer wanted to make a no-science fiction science fiction film. The wording is to old fashion.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it:

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 11:24 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

- If it isn't broke, don't fix it:

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!


Tell that to Gene.

Captain's log. Using the lightspeed breakaway factor, the Enterprise has moved back through time to the twentieth century. We are now in extended orbit around Earth, using our ship's deflector shields to remain unobserved. Our mission, historical research. We are monitoring Earth communications to find out how our planet survived desperate problems in the year 1968.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 1:57 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

I just watched TUC again and loved it as usual, I don't have any problems with it, it's one of my favorite films.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 3:39 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 10:25 PM   
 By:   Chang's for the Memories   (Member)

For all it's faults (and they really don't bother me), I do love the message of this movie. How does one cope with change in such drastic ways that it goes against your character? For Kirk, peace with the Klingons is absolutely unacceptable. Not only did Commander Kruge murder Kirk's son for no reason, but the Empire itself stood by Kruge's actions and labeled Kirk a conspiring terrorist. Wow. It's not hard to understand why Kirk would be ticked off about this.

And hats off to Nicholas Meyer for not recycling the same old story from The Wrath of Khan. Usually when you bring back talent to save your franchise, the standard order is to do the same thing that you did originally. That's not what we got with VI and I cannot wait to see what he's going to contribute to Star Trek: Discovery.

Back on VI, I simply love the theme of the movie. How do seasoned characters go through drastic changes that they feel are against their character? It's something that we're all too familiar with in this world since it's an ever changing one. And like Star Trek VI, real people oppose real world changes even when it's clearly a sign of positive progress. Using the phrase "The Undiscovered Country" is appropriate especially when you look at more of the quote.

The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?



And isn't that what the bad guys in this film are doing? These characters have been in conflict with each other for so long that they've let it define who they are. Just look at how Chang relishes in his warrior status. To him, a warrior with no enemies is a person with no purpose. That's a pretty unique character motivation, especially for Star Trek.


You neglect to mention that the above is from "Hamlet", Act III, sc. 1, and Shakespeare's "undiscovered country" refers to nothing less than life, itself, as no human knows what the life into whch he or she is dropped holds for him or her, and that once that life is over and one is, presumably, finally granted the omnicience denied in life, no one can, or has, come back to explain it.

It should also be moentioned that "The Unknown Country" was originally to be the subtitle of "Star Trek II," referring to Spock's death (and, somewhat ironically, giving the lie to Shakespeare by Spock's implanting his katra in McCoy's mind), but the studio wanted something they thought was less esoteric and more marketable, so Meyer re-used it four films on.

 
 Posted:   Sep 17, 2020 - 11:07 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Is "the undiscovered country" a bit oblique for star trekkers to assimilate given it now seems to pertain to Shakesperean literature, or is it simply a restating of "the continuing human adventure is, well . . . sort of continuing . . ." because you can't quote the final line from TMP, "the human adventure is about to begin" with every outing thereafter?

It very much looks like the title is exhaustively, yet desperately saying, "here be new blood, after the old," when there really isn't any "new blood" after all. Just the next blip in the franchise. The problem of injecting new blood is the problem.

 
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2020 - 7:36 AM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

Is "the undiscovered country" a bit oblique for star trekkers to assimilate given it now seems to pertain to Shakesperean literature, or is it simply a restating of "the continuing human adventure is, well . . . sort of continuing . . ." because you can't quote the final line from TMP, "the human adventure is about to begin" with every outing thereafter?

It very much looks like the title is exhaustively, yet desperately saying, "here be new blood, after the old," when there really isn't any "new blood" after all. Just the next blip in the franchise. The problem of injecting new blood is the problem.


I don't recall what I or people thought at the time of the ST:VI release. Did people think this would involve a younger crew? Or that it was the final film with the original cast? I doubt a trailer or movie poster would have implied a young crew since there wasn't any, so you might be putting too much power in a title. And Next Gen was on TV, so there already was "young blood" in the franchise.


I just watched TUC again and loved it as usual, I don't have any problems with it, it's one of my favorite films.

I guess you mean ST:VI. Hopefully not medicated Tucks. I wonder if anyone knows what they meant when they revisit an old post with abbreviations. The only one that sticks with me is WTF because like "hope" it springs eternal.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 18, 2020 - 2:35 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

Is "the undiscovered country" a bit oblique for star trekkers to assimilate given it now seems to pertain to Shakesperean literature, or is it simply a restating of "the continuing human adventure is, well . . . sort of continuing . . ." because you can't quote the final line from TMP, "the human adventure is about to begin" with every outing thereafter?

It very much looks like the title is exhaustively, yet desperately saying, "here be new blood, after the old," when there really isn't any "new blood" after all. Just the next blip in the franchise. The problem of injecting new blood is the problem.


I don't recall what I or people thought at the time of the ST:VI release. Did people think this would involve a younger crew? Or that it was the final film with the original cast? I doubt a trailer or movie poster would have implied a young crew since there wasn't any, so you might be putting too much power in a title. And Next Gen was on TV, so there already was "young blood" in the franchise.


I just watched TUC again and loved it as usual, I don't have any problems with it, it's one of my favorite films.

I guess you mean ST:VI. Hopefully not medicated Tucks. I wonder if anyone knows what they meant when they revisit an old post with abbreviations. The only one that sticks with me is WTF because like "hope" it springs eternal.


I hear you Last Child!smile Yes, I meant The Undiscovered Country. Actually I like it more and more the more I see it.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2020 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved...