Nick Meyer's trek movies are the most fun to watch, but contain troubling inconsistencies because they are very plot and scenery driven.

If they need to forget to count planets to forward the plot, they will.

If all of the energy in the ship is funneled through one carefully placed radiation chamber to satisfy a story requirement, it will be .

If it takes a dozen guys to ungrate the torpedo track because it looks cool, even though no function can be divined for said grates.

If a turbolift from engineering, in the secondary hull, needs to stop at the bridge (on deck 1) to get to sickbay (on deck 7) so that everyone can see what happened to poor Peter, so be it

If phasers usually disintegrate people or just short out their nervous systems until dead, thats fine.. but all of a sudden, they will cause bloody messes for a cool SFX sequence

I do wonder if Starfleet officers really remember every planet they have been to. I mean, typical military personnel go through far fewer garrisons or practice grounds in their careers than Chekov did planets during a five-year (or for him, seemingly two-year) mission, and still they manage to get them confused when recounting their pasts.

Chekov wouldn't find the Ceti Alpha system memory-joggingly familiar visually, either - it would have the wrong number of planets! And Kirk didn't always tell the crew where the ship was going, so perhaps Kyle didn't even know. (If Chekov was the navigator of the night shift back then, he would have *had* to know, of course...)

Quote:
that "Reliant" sensors cannot tell when a planet is the planet they think it is; that those "gun" tricorders are crap; among other beliefs that do not normally have to be suspened.

Come on, a couple little technical issues. That's Star Trek standard fare. It just wouldn't be the same if everything added up

Quote:
All of this to use Khan

Who would you suggest over Khan? Who could be better? Here we have this vicious and vindictive superman with superior strength, intelligence and ambition unleashed on a naked earth to start a new civilization. Which he does, trying to play by the new rules (I remember thinking after seeing the ep but before the movie that it'd be neat to see how they fared, Aban). So here's this old-school facist superman, bruised pride and all, trying to fit into the new era, to choose life. Then by some tragic twist of fate six months later Ceti Alpha 6 explodes throwing Ceti Alpha 5 out of its orbit and laying everything to waste. Suddenly, Khan's paradise is lost, and he has Kirk to blame. For twenty-years Khan stews in his hatred. This genious mind in this body politic of �bermen tested by this most inhospitable environment. His beautiful wife driven mad and dying because of a parasite knawing on her brain just as Khan's contempt for Kirk knaws at his own. His hatred becomes razor sharp. Who else could embody that? Some unchronicled anonymous yo-yo from Kirk's checkered past? Someone else suggested Harvey Mudd. Garth? C'mon. Khan was scary because he was so close to Kirk. You believe his vengeance. His hatred was utterly tangible, and his character terrifying.

I'm starting to think you're just trying to get a rise out of us by attacking a classic. Granted, it is my opinion that STII is hands down the best of the series. (It is, in fact, my favorite movie of all time. No I'm completely serious. I'm not joking. Yes, better than Citizen Kane and Star Wars put together.) It had so much to say and it said it so well. I can overlook some little flaws. I can't remember the last time I went to a movie and got so swept up in the themes and story and characters that I wasn't paying attention to the details. So many films these days would have you focus on the SFX and the hotness of the lead actors without paying hardly any attention to the story whatsoever. Are you gonna sit there and ignore a good story for what are ultimately inconsequential details? I guess that's your choice, but I'll take great story over little details any day.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]

I must grant that the exact same story cannot be used without Khan. Might I submit that an equally epic and sweeping story, still touching on the "not dependent on Khan" themes, like ageing, could be accomplished if the villain were stealing the Genesis device because they were threatened by it? I know, you say, "that was 'Star Trek III,' and look how bad that was." However, if done correctly, such a movie could be a great battle of wits among equals, complete with a cat-and-mouse space battle, a la "Balance of Terror."

P.S. To whomever said the director is more interested in story than detail: he was interested in some detail. I remember reading an interview where he said after touring the sets, he ordered a bunch of meaningless blinky lights added to the bridge, because he did not think there were enough for a space vessel (talk about a late '70's, early '80's science fiction movie cliche; witness "Star Wars," "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind," "Moonraker," and, perhaps the worst offender, that computer room in "Alien").

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]

If they need to forget to count planets to forward the plot, they will."

I should point out that this is EXACTLY what Braga means in his oft-misquoted "Continuity is for gays and lesbians" quote.

That said:

"If phasers usually disintegrate people or just short out their nervous systems until dead, thats fine.. but all of a sudden, they will cause bloody messes for a cool SFX sequence"

The novelisation makes a stab at this one, by saying that the assasians are using "burning phasers", and illegal weaping that makes cool SFX sequences.

The other problem with "Ceti Alpha" blah, which even ruins Tim's option, is that the miscounting of planets is bad enough, but exactly how feasible is it that the explosion of Ceti Alpha VI would knock Ceti Alpha V into EXACTLY the same orbit as Ceti Alpha VI? Or even vaguaely close. For starters, VI is surely further out. And, if it explodes, surely it would knock CA V inwards if anything. And, even then, what are the odds that

1/ The world would still be habitable.

2/ That the orbit would look even remotely like CA VI?

"that was 'Star Trek III,' and look how bad that was..."

quote:

---

...contain troubling [story]inconsistencies because they are very plot and scenery driven

---

quote:

---

To whomever said the director is more interested in story than detail: he was interested in some detail... he ordered a bunch of meaningless blinky lights

---

What I meant:
The writing staffs of other Trek productions might sit around and plan the story
Writer A: Well I feel it important that we have a big zero-G blood scene
Writer B: Well phasers dont leave bodys with holes in them.. should we explain why they do all of a sudden?
Writer C: We could just say they are contraband burning phasers
Writer A: OK, ill write that line in
We hear about stuff like this all the time. Okuda, Sternbach, the art department, the science advisor, whomever all approach the writers with their concerns before the shooting script is there.

Quote:
...However, poke through the surface, and I think you find that the movie is based on a hollow premise....

That little vein in my forehead is standing out and it's twitching my eye. Ok, not really. Dude, RawCadet. Back this up. I dare you. Think about it for a minute. You are talking about a surface. A surface like the themes of Sacrifice, Courage, Fate, Vengeance, Obsolescence and Pride. You've got it backwards, chi. "Hollow premise"? Perhaps you mean that the make-believe spaceman's make-believe mortal foe's make-believe planet couldn't have blown up like that. Or perhaps, that said make-believe foe would be able to survive. It's a pretext. That's the surface here.

I'm sorry for jumping down your throat, Raw Cadet. There are plenty of flaws in the film to go around. It's just that the film has so much that is so good in it. Not just the age thing, but the Mother and Son dynamic, the Father and Son dynamic. The Teacher and Student. Men, women. Human, alien. Monster, man. You have the Biblical forces of creation and in the very same moment: destruction. The Epic struggles with vengeance, justice, pride, pain, abandonment and power. Life vs. Death. Horror vs. beauty. Levity vs. gravitas. That's not even mentioning the self-sacrifice of a truly heroic icon, not for glory, not out of obligation, but simply beacuse it was the logical thing to do. That's amazing. It's all in there. And it's SO good. I'm trying real hard not to lauch into a diatribe on each of these (though trust me I could). But there's so many things that the other films have never even come close to touching. (That chilling, haunting and empty "No." Shatner falteringly delivers at Spock's death is so evocative it must certainly be his finest Trek performance.) So there are things which may defy easy explanation (ie. How does Khan remember Chekov when Chekov wasn't even in the 'Space Seed' Episode?) but I am SO much more willing to make excuses for these things than I am to make excuses for bad writing.

If you are going bag on my favorite movie, I want to make sure you are being critical for the right reasons. So far, you seem to be making vague arguments that Khan could be swapped out for another villian so as to smooth out some rough spots in the back-story (and we keep all the aging and stuff in there.) I obviously feel otherwise. So far you haven't really said much to convice me a) Why this would be a good idea b) How it could be done without lessening the impact of the film.

Quote:
No, for a "truly" great movie would avoid the plot problems, yet still convey the great story.

Can I back my challenge, at least adequately enough for you? Perhaps not. We may have to agree to disagree. Determining what makes a movie great is, essentially, a subjective process. If you believe the greatness of a story and its themes can "excuse" flaws of a movie, you are entitled to your opinion. More often than not I would agree with you. However, I do not share (my perception of your) opinion that a "flawed" movie can be considered "great." Perhaps you agree with me on that. In that case, the disagreement here is on how "flawed" "Star Trek II" is. I offer that the flaws "hollow" the premise; you (and most others) disagree.

As I said before, I may not be able to adequately defend my position (to you). I am intentionally vague because I am often annoyed by the notion "we could do it better than they do." Very few of us, if any, are professional motion picture/television directors/producers/writers, and have no real experience in what it takes to turn out high quality entertainment. "Why are you even arguing (complaining/bitching), then?" Well, in this case, I think the "flaws" I find should have been apparent to the creators (perhaps they were, and the creators would respectfully disagree that the flaws diminish the movie).

In a vague defense, let me once again submit that the essential themes of the movie could have been retained with a different antagonist. Themes are themes. The themes of "Star Trek II" are present in many movies because they are not dependent on Khan being present. And if they absolutely had to have Khan, just a few changes to the exposition would have made his discovery and situation much more plausible (I refer here to the planet problems, etc.)

Finally, since my motivation is to "knock" the status of "Star Trek II" down a peg or two (certainly not trash the movie), I took a cheap shot at the director, because he is often credited for making the movie great. In my opinion, he is a significant part of the problem(s I find in the movie). Yes, he was good with the story material and themes. However, the devil is often in the details, and I disagree with how he handled them. More blinky lights because they look cool? Come on. A half-dozen guys to load a torpedo? The 50's era submarine I give tours on could do it with one or two. Should one let details prevent them from enjoying a movie or appreciating its deeper meaning. No, and I do not. I do feel that a "truly great" movie gets both the story and the details "right."

P.S. I hesitate to offer an example of what I think is a "truly great" movie, for the Star Trek universe is difficult to compare to, and some (not Balaam, though; this is not an accusation), who may think my purpose here is to trash what I grant is a very good movie, might be inclined to trash the movie I submit.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]