One thing I will say that bugged me was during the climactic space battle, Uhura mentions that the Enterprise is "carrying all that equipment to catalogue gracious spacial anomalies". This feels like a cheat. A cold, bold face cheat and I cannot for the life of me believe that Nicholas Meyer allowed this screw up to happen.
Let me break it down. The film opens with this line by Captain Sulu.
Sulu: After three years I've concluded my first assignment as master of this vessel, cataloguing gaseous planetary anomalies in the Beta Quadrant.
But later in the film, and with zero explanation...
Uhura: Well, what about all that equipment we're carrying to catalogue gaseous anomalies?
I mean, there are climaxes that pull stuff out of their butts like Raiders of the Lost Ark, but than there's a complete switcheroo with the Enterprise and the Excelsior where you set up one thing to have the plot saving device and give it to something else with no set up or explanation. Why would the Enterprise-A, a ship who's very class has been on the chopping block since Star Trek III all of a sudden have this equipment?
Theory: Originally, the Excelsior was meant to expose Chang's Bird of Prey. That's why it comes in on the battle when it did. But instead of doing that, she does nothing but get shot at. So what happened? Someone who had higher authority probably didn't like the idea of the Enterprise getting rescued during the final battle, so they did some quick turn around to change it but never changed Sulu's opening log as a result. I don't know. Maybe Shatner hated the idea of George Takei saving the day and objected to it on the grounds that he hates George Takei. That would make sense since Shatner wrote Sulu getting lost in the woods, getting blasted off his horse, crashing the shuttle, mutiny against Kirk and get his face blasted by Spock's rocket boots. At least Chris Pine doesn't mind it when Kirk gets saved by Sulu.
Come to think of it, the first time with VI, the sort of thing that kept overriding everything else was its line-up of TV 'luminaries.' I remember thinking things like, "that's John Schuck," under all that crusty, forehead-projecting, knobly barnacle hugging, thick skulled armor. How about that? Only thing is, I can't actually remember which show it was he frequented the most, such is the flight of years.
Come to think of it, the first time with VI, the sort of thing that kept overriding everything else was its line-up of TV 'luminaries.' I remember thinking things like, "that's John Schuck," under all that crusty, forehead-projecting, knobly barnacle hugging, thick skulled armor. How about that? Only thing is, I can't actually remember which show it was he frequented the most, such is the flight of years.
Yeah, but Schuck and Rene Auberjonois (Trek VI, Deep Space Nine) were part of Robert Altman's stock company first – appearing in movies like MASH and McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Brock Peters (Admiral Cartwright) was Tom Robinson in To Kill A Mockingbird (not to mention roles in Sidney Lumet's The Pawnbroker, plus Soylent Green). So while they may have had TV careers in the interim, they were highly accomplished film and stage actors with absolutely killer credits.
One thing I will say that bugged me was during the climactic space battle, Uhura mentions that the Enterprise is "carrying all that equipment to catalogue gracious spacial anomalies". This feels like a cheat. A cold, bold face cheat and I cannot for the life of me believe that Nicholas Meyer allowed this screw up to happen.
Let me break it down. The film opens with this line by Captain Sulu.
Sulu: After three years I've concluded my first assignment as master of this vessel, cataloguing gaseous planetary anomalies in the Beta Quadrant.
But later in the film, and with zero explanation...
Uhura: Well, what about all that equipment we're carrying to catalogue gaseous anomalies?
I mean, there are climaxes that pull stuff out of their butts like Raiders of the Lost Ark, but than there's a complete switcheroo with the Enterprise and the Excelsior where you set up one thing to have the plot saving device and give it to something else with no set up or explanation. Why would the Enterprise-A, a ship who's very class has been on the chopping block since Star Trek III all of a sudden have this equipment?
Theory: Originally, the Excelsior was meant to expose Chang's Bird of Prey. That's why it comes in on the battle when it did. But instead of doing that, she does nothing but get shot at. So what happened? Someone who had higher authority probably didn't like the idea of the Enterprise getting rescued during the final battle, so they did some quick turn around to change it but never changed Sulu's opening log as a result. I don't know. Maybe Shatner hated the idea of George Takei saving the day and objected to it on the grounds that he hates George Takei. That would make sense since Shatner wrote Sulu getting lost in the woods, getting blasted off his horse, crashing the shuttle, mutiny against Kirk and get his face blasted by Spock's rocket boots. At least Chris Pine doesn't mind it when Kirk gets saved by Sulu.
I will absolutely agree that Shatner would have had Meyer change the script so the Enterprise saves the day. I won’t go so far as to say Shatner hates Takei – but Takei does seem to hate Shatner. Shatner probably doesn’t give a shit either way, or he didn’t until Takei made it his personal mission in life to trash Shatner out of petty jealousy. Until all of that, Takei was just another actor. They were work acquaintances who didn’t even see each other every day when they were working, but for whatever reason, the Gang of Four seem to think they should have all been best pals. However, even Shatner's worst critic, Doohan, admitted Shatner was "a joy" as a director. Probably because he didn't have to worry about his authority.
The easiest fix would have deleted that line from Sulu’s log and change it to “cataloging nebula.” Or changing a few words in Uhura’s dialog to “what about that equipment the fleet has to catalogue gaseous anomalies.” Or something more imaginative. Either way, a few keystrokes could have fixed it.
Speaking of Shatner, Scott, I know you didn't like the line about him kissing himself. It breaks the 4th wall, even if it was a reference to Kirk always getting the girl. At least it's so obvious and stupid that you can get past it to the next comical bit ("which is the real Kirk" scene). The 4th wall break that bothers me is Spock's inferred ancestry to Sherlock Holmes when he quotes the famous "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." It's a more subtle, serious suggestion so you have to think if it makes any sense. Or like Shatner, was Nimoy < gulp > joking?
It's interesting how Star Trek II, III and IV were actually a continuing trilogy of films. And VI does reference events and characters from III and IV. Admiral Cartwright and the Klingon Ambassador both appear in IV and VI. The Final Frontier Star Trek V seems so out of place and disconnected.
It's interesting how Star Trek II, III and IV were actually a continuing trilogy of films. And VI does reference events and characters from III and IV. Admiral Cartwright and the Klingon Ambassador both appear in IV and VI. The Final Frontier Star Trek V seems so out of place and disconnected.
And yet the Earthbound bookending for our main characters (Shatner's getalife message to TREKKIES?) is so endearing.
Speaking of Shatner, Scott, I know you didn't like the line about him kissing himself. It breaks the 4th wall, even if it was a reference to Kirk always getting the girl. At least it's so obvious and stupid that you can get past it to the next comical bit ("which is the real Kirk" scene). The 4th wall break that bothers me is Spock's inferred ancestry to Sherlock Holmes when he quotes the famous "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." It's a more subtle, serious suggestion so you have to think if it makes any sense. Or like Shatner, was Nimoy < gulp > joking?
I took that as part of Nick Meyer's love affair with Holmes. The references in this film were a little "on the nose" for me. Star Trek worked best when it kinda made them subtle. This was all "Only Nixon could go to China" and "Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!" Usually, when a Trek character quoted a line or a historical figure, they would actually reference the source. Here, with no subtlety at all, references pulled and tossed into the dialog. Why did it have to be Spock's ancestor? Why couldn't he say "as my mother's favorite detective had said..."? Being half human would give Spock some grace with quotes form human history. This film was the most Human Centric adventure since the earliest episodes before they made the Federation less about earth than a collection of worlds.
Speaking of Shatner, Scott, I know you didn't like the line about him kissing himself. It breaks the 4th wall, even if it was a reference to Kirk always getting the girl. At least it's so obvious and stupid that you can get past it to the next comical bit ("which is the real Kirk" scene). The 4th wall break that bothers me is Spock's inferred ancestry to Sherlock Holmes when he quotes the famous "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." It's a more subtle, serious suggestion so you have to think if it makes any sense. Or like Shatner, was Nimoy < gulp > joking?
I took that as part of Nick Meyer's love affair with Holmes. The references in this film were a little "on the nose" for me. Star Trek worked best when it kinda made them subtle. This was all "Only Nixon could go to China" and "Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!" Usually, when a Trek character quoted a line or a historical figure, they would actually reference the source. Here, with no subtlety at all, references pulled and tossed into the dialog. Why did it have to be Spock's ancestor? Why couldn't he say "as my mother's favorite detective had said..."? Being half human would give Spock some grace with quotes form human history. This film was the most Human Centric adventure since the earliest episodes before they made the Federation less about earth than a collection of worlds.
I understand it's Meyers thing for Sherlock, but my problem is it crosses the line between history and literature. Noone said Hamlet was a real Klingon or human. The quotes and references had been separated or integrated (even the courtroom translation bit) consistently until then. On a tangent, I don't recall a movie with so many 'breaking 4th wall' quotes/references since POTA 1968. Anyway, Spock is admitting he's fictional by virtue of being related to another fictional character. Meyers' line has a nice impact with its brevity; maybe simplifying your dialog to just Spock's fav human author would have worked.
It's interesting how Star Trek II, III and IV were actually a continuing trilogy of films. And VI does reference events and characters from III and IV. Admiral Cartwright and the Klingon Ambassador both appear in IV and VI. The Final Frontier Star Trek V seems so out of place and disconnected.
Especially when you consider the Enterprise A herself. V wants us to believe that this is a brand new ship built just for Kirk and crew which is just ridiculous even though the previous movies had the Constitution Class starship being phased out and decommissioned.
I don't usually agree with Gene Roddenberry on a lot of things Trek, but he came up with an explanation on how the Ent-A came to be. His idea was that the Yorktown, a Constitution Class starship that was disabled in Star Trek IV, was brought to Spacedock for repairs (And potential decommissioning) and was rechristened the Enterprise A in the wake of Kirk's trail. I find this scenario to be far more plausible since the idea of Starfleet building a new ship who's design is obsolete just to give Kirk nostalgia is silly even by Star Trek standards. It also shows that Starfleet is still serious about disciplining Kirk even though they gave him his Captain rank back. He's not given the brand new ship (Excelsior) or even the Federation flagship. Just an obsolete ship that still works. For Kirk and crew, it was certainly enough.
Anyway, Spock is admitting he's fictional by virtue of being related to another fictional character. Meyers' line has a nice impact with its brevity; maybe simplifying your dialog to just Spock's fav human author would have worked.
Are you sure? I always interpreted that line meant to mean that Spock was related to Sir Author Conan Doyle, not the actual Sherlock Holmes. You can't really have Sherlock Holmes exist in Star Trek while being treated as a fictional character in later Trek stories.
I don't usually agree with Gene Roddenberry on a lot of things Trek, but he came up with an explanation on how the Ent-A came to be. His idea was that the Yorktown, a Constitution Class starship that was disabled in Star Trek IV, was brought to Spacedock for repairs (And potential decommissioning) and was rechristened the Enterprise A in the wake of Kirk's trail. I find this scenario to be far more plausible since the idea of Starfleet building a new ship who's design is obsolete just to give Kirk nostalgia is silly even by Star Trek standards. It also shows that Starfleet is still serious about disciplining Kirk even though they gave him his Captain rank back. He's not given the brand new ship (Excelsior) or even the Federation flagship. Just an obsolete ship that still works. For Kirk and crew, it was certainly enough.
"Let's see what she's got!"
It would also keep the starfleet engineers from looking like total morons and screwing up the beuilding of a ship they had PLENTY of practice making. Having Scotty fiinsh up the repairs and customizing it for Kirk would have worked for me.
Anyway, Spock is admitting he's fictional by virtue of being related to another fictional character. Meyers' line has a nice impact with its brevity; maybe simplifying your dialog to just Spock's fav human author would have worked.
Are you sure? I always interpreted that line meant to mean that Spock was related to Sir Author Conan Doyle, not the actual Sherlock Holmes. You can't really have Sherlock Holmes exist in Star Trek while being treated as a fictional character in later Trek stories.
Well, you just repeated my whole problem with Spock claiming to be related to another fictional figure. And while I don't think Spock meant Conan Doyle, I can accept him as a loophole explanation. But I insist on seeing the genealogy.
Anyway, Spock is admitting he's fictional by virtue of being related to another fictional character. Meyers' line has a nice impact with its brevity; maybe simplifying your dialog to just Spock's fav human author would have worked.
Are you sure? I always interpreted that line meant to mean that Spock was related to Sir Author Conan Doyle, not the actual Sherlock Holmes. You can't really have Sherlock Holmes exist in Star Trek while being treated as a fictional character in later Trek stories.
Well, you just repeated my whole problem with Spock claiming to be related to another fictional figure. And while I don't think Spock meant Conan Doyle, I can accept him as a loophole explanation. But I insist on seeing the genealogy.
Apparently, at least according to Nicholas Meyer, Spock is a descendant of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. Check out this article, about 2/3 of the way through it: https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/mycroft-eudoria-enola-sherrinford-sherlock-fanfic-expands-holmes-family/ I don't know that this is considered canon or just what Nicholas Meyer believes. It may be about as accurate as Shakespear being originally written in Klingon. In the Abrams Star Trek, Spock also quotes Holmes, but doesn't bother to give the detective credit for the line. I always assumed that was a nod to Star Trek VI.
Apparently, at least according to Nicholas Meyer, Spock is a descendant of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. Check out this article, about 2/3 of the way through it: https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/mycroft-eudoria-enola-sherrinford-sherlock-fanfic-expands-holmes-family/ I don't know that this is considered canon or just what Nicholas Meyer believes. It may be about as accurate as Shakespear being originally written in Klingon. In the Abrams Star Trek, Spock also quotes Holmes, but doesn't bother to give the detective credit for the line. I always assumed that was a nod to Star Trek VI.
Hopefully not canon. It's pretty absurd. If you want to "keep it real," a character can only be related to real people, or fictional characters in the story's universe. For example, it's acceptable that Flint in "Requiem for Methuselah" is revealed to be da Vinci and Brahms. Or that Lincoln and Vulcan Surok appear in "Savage Curtain." I agree, the Abrams movie quote was only derivative from ST:VI, not conclusive.
Scott, you are right - the trailer is just terrific. Sort of hard to believe I was so excited to see a Star Trek movie again after the truly embarrassing Star Trek V. But that trailer did it, and I've always been delighted with the film (and even learned to love the final nadir).
But as someone who grew up with Star Trek (I was five when it premiered, and ate it up in syndication), the teaser trailer was perfect too. Because I knew this was to be the last voyage with the original crew. It still brings a little lump to my throat.
If ever there was a fandom that earned a fannish teaser trailer, it's Trekkies!
