Would be with a "whodunit"? A freakin Agatha Christie adventure? THAT'S the way to close it out?
Thank God nobody thought of this as the first pilot, or we'd all be hanging out at the Star Wars boards.
I'm trying to get in the habit of prooofreading.
[deleted]
Well, it was a "whodunit" woven into probably the single biggest event to affect the Star Trek universe up until that point. The stakes were peace or war for the entire quadrant. The victim was the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, and the almost-next-victim was the President of the Federation.
This wasn't exactly "Who killed Ensign Joe Blogg, the Romulan with the phaser in the mess hall or the Klingon with the bat'leth in the Jeffries Tube?"
There's a plan in everything, kid. And I love it when a plan comes together!
The OP is prob bait but still I thought it was the perfect way for them to go out, one more mission, one that has repercussions throughout the entire galaxy, and a movie that does a pretty good job of gettting all the characters involved.
shareWhoever thought of it should have been promoted, since Star Trek VI was one of the best in the series.
shareI really wish I felt that way, but this movie has way too many WTF? moments for me to call it a great movie.
shareI really wish I felt that way, but this movie has way too many WTF? moments for me to call it a great movie.
Same here. There's good stuff in it and I enjoy watching it, but about every ten minutes I find myself saying What were they thinking?
I think it's on the whole even whatthefeckier than ST5, which I actually enjoy on balance more than ST6.
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.
I agree with you that it has some "WTF? moments", but I really like the overall film regardless of these moments. I said in another thread that I think the laundry scenes, the kitchen scenes, and the Earthly trial on an alien planet were oddball...and I would like to add the convenient ship alarm plot that goes off when an unauthorized phaser is fired. But these moments do not distract me from a great story about a plot to stop peace, the neat analogy to Chernobyl, the adventurous plot of Kirk being sent to a prison planet, the great performances of most all of the cast, etc. There are some weird moments, but there is lots to love here as well...at least for me!
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
There are other issues I have. I thought that the Klingons were in danger of dying out as a race? So why are they dictating terms to the Federation?
"Any attempts to rescue Kirk would be considered an act of war."
"Fine...good luck with that Praxis thing. make sure Kirk and McCoy get to shower and shave before you return them when you're ready to start negotiating again."
I think there are plenty of enjoyable moments in the film, but I still think that overall if just doesn't feel right. Maybe its the sense that they're trying to recapture TWOK instead of Star Trek.
Since they basically are dependent on the Federation to survive, you'd think even Klingons would think twice about putting one of the Federation's heros on trial.
"We must do it to save the peace."
LET them die!
havingtroublewiththespacebar...
Pride. They would rather go out in a blaze of glory that succumb and be dependent on the enemy. That was pretty well spelled out for you in the film and makes perfect sense in light of how the Klingons have always been depicted in Trek. You guys are just going out of the way to nitpick now, but whatever floats your boat.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Would you mind explaining how this film is trying to recapture TWOK? The two films are nothing alike in my opinion, other than having the same director. Is that why you say that? I don't see themes of getting old and worn out in Trek VI. I don't see themes of revenge or an analogy to Moby Dick in Trek VI either. I don't see Kirk's old love his being united with his son in Trek VI. I also don't see the death of a main character in Trek VI. I don't see an analogy to a real life disaster in Trek II. I don't see a story about peace and those who are threatened by it in Trek II either. I don't see Klingons in Trek II either, unless you count a simulation. I don't see themes of racism in Trek II either, an issue I think was interesting to tackle. Let us not pretend it doesn't exist in the 23rd century, as Balance of terror was quick to demonstrate. Also, Trek II doesn't have the few weird or odd moments in it that I suppose will always make Trek VI a few points short of Trek II when all is said and done. Sorry, but I am really struggling to see any comparisons at all other than they both have the Enterprise and the regular crew in them.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
If they would rather go out in a blaze of glory than submit to the Federation, why did they sue for peace at all?
Maybe these renegades are trying to undercut the peace, but the trial would only happen with the approval of the government, and they would not do that -- particularly a "show" trtial where the defendants have no chance -- while seeking a peace treaty and the gift of a planet for them to settle on. That just gives everyone in the Federation who opposes the peace an excuse to call them barbaric and incapable of functioning according to Federation standards. And assuminmg the Federation is OM kind of democraxcy, irt could not go forward without the general approval of the public. Kirk is a herop. The Klingopns would have had him die in their prison within a week. yet the people will welcome them with open arms?
The Klingons may be savage, but their leaders aren't stupid.
Trek VI fans like to compare it to the cold war. Fine. Say Chernobyl actually made Russia uninhabitable, so they asked us if they could have Wyoming. In the midst of these negotiations would they try and execute Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would we still give them Wyoming if they did?
havingtroublewiththespacebar...
If Kirk had been handed right back to the Feds after killing the Chancellor of the Klingon Empire (as the Klingons believed he had), it would have been seen as the Klingon government caving to the Federation. Given how many Klingons were already pissed off at the peace initiative, that could've inflamed enough people to overthrow Azetbur's government or force her to pull out of the peace talks.
It was actually very smart politics for Azetbur. Kirk was an icon of the Federation and Starfleet, and one of the worst enemies of the Klingon Empire (remember how pissed off they were in Star Trek IV). If her government had him arrested, tried in a kangaroo court and sent to the gulag, no one could accuse her of being soft on the Federation anymore. She comes out looking strong, like someone who's willing to negotiate with the Feds but not going to take any $h!t from them.
As for why the Feds went along with it? Probably because they preferred the second outcome to the first - better to guarantee the peace at the expense of a couple of Starfleet officers, than to risk inflaming the Klingons enough to end the peace talks and start a war. Big picture, etc.
There's a plan in everything, kid. And I love it when a plan comes together!
If they would rather go out in a blaze of glory than submit to the Federation, why did they sue for peace at all?
Trek VI fans like to compare it to the cold war. Fine. Say Chernobyl actually made Russia uninhabitable, so they asked us if they could have Wyoming. In the midst of these negotiations would they try and execute Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would we still give them Wyoming if they did?
There are other issues I have. I thought that the Klingons were in danger of dying out as a race? So why are they dictating terms to the Federation?Good post. I agree. This actually used to be one of my favorites of the films, but a recent re-watch(along with Nick Meyers commentary) has brought it down a notch for me.
"Any attempts to rescue Kirk would be considered an act of war."
"Fine...good luck with that Praxis thing. make sure Kirk and McCoy get to shower and shave before you return them when you're ready to start negotiating again."
I think there are plenty of enjoyable moments in the film, but I still think that overall if just doesn't feel right. Maybe its the sense that they're trying to recapture TWOK instead of Star Trek.
Part of the reason it feels off is because some of the scenes and dialog clearly indicate that Sulu/Excelsior were originally written to save the day. And it must have been changed later, and not very well, to give that (back) to Kirk.
shareWell, Nicholas Meyer is nothing if not unoriginal. That's not a bad thing, necessarily: after all, "Good writers borrow, great writers steal". He just needs to learn to hide his influences a little better so that his movies don't become pastiches.
I actually think the "whodunit" on the Enterprise was slightly more interesting than watching Kirk and McCoy hang around a Klingon gulag. The fact that it's actually called a gulag in dialogue -- and that it's named after a place in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" -- and that the prison warden's dialogue is lifted directly from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" -- doesn't help.
In Trek II he really captured the souls of the characters. I couldn't believe he wasn't a Trek fan all his life. I was thrilled to hear he'd direct VI.
To me -- and I know many disagree -- Trek VI feels like he never saw Trek in his life. The characters didn't feel right, the central concept was inappropriate and, as you point out, most of the elements were "borrowed" from non-Trek sources.
One could reasonably argue he's made a career of "Borrowing." The book that started his career, and the next one, borrowed Sherlock Holmes.
"Time After Time" borrowed H. G. Welles and his Time Machine.
His greatest triumph borrowed Trek, and even a villain from the series.
Yet I wouldn't have minded all that if Trek VI had also borrowed fronm Trek, instead of Agatha Christie, 20,000 Leagues and Kwai.
G o t r i d o f t h e c o m p u t e r w i t h t h e f a u l t y s p a c e b a r
More of a "political intrigue" story IMHO then a "whodunit". Which was certainly a common story genre in the Star Trek universe.
shareWhat's wrong with a whodunit?
shareThe various Star Trek series and movies are full of contemporary analogies from the time periods of which they were written. In 1991, the fall of the Soviet Union and what would come of the post-Cold War world was on the top of our minds.
I have mixed feelings about this movie but the general plot of the politics of the military industrial complex, fear of the unknown, détente after prolonged conflict, and the collapse of an empire was very ambitious.
I don't know what you're problem is. Along with III this one is actually my favourite original crew Star Trek movie.
share
oh. I stand corrected by flawless logic.
"After years of fighting with reality, I am pleased to say that I have finally won out over it."
That may or may not have been meant as sarcasm. But really, if the Soviet Union were in that kind of predicament, don't you think they would make that kind of a threat if it meant their survival or not? Would they really take "no" for an answer, and calmly go out of existence?
Leaving aside that someplace like China would be a lot easier to relocate to, and so it might make more sense for them to threaten China - or maybe India, etc - instead of the US.
I'm not seeing how this follows, but I'll address it anyway.
Wars of conquest are usually started when one country needs resources, and starts looking at their neighbors for an answer. That's how Japan entred wwIi, and why they attacked Pearl Harbor. They had been making aggressive inroads in china, and we helped the Chinese.
But the cold war was a different animal. Not a powerful nation exploiting a weaker one, but two powers feeling threatened by what the other might do.
"After years of fighting with reality, I am pleased to say that I have finally won out over it."
Okay but Trek VI *was* about resources: the Klingons needing literal air to breathe.
shareExactly my point -- one more reason it doesn't really parallel, or illuminate, the end of the cold war.
Although in their defense, at the time, Russia desperately needed many simple commodities... So at the time, the need to open trade with other nations may have been a good reason to end the cold war. It didn't really work out that way in the long run, but at the time...
"After years of fighting with reality, I am pleased to say that I have finally won out over it."
Exactly my point -- one more reason it doesn't really parallel, or illuminate, the end of the cold war.
Although in their defense, at the time, Russia desperately needed many simple commodities... So at the time, the need to open trade with other nations may have been a good reason to end the cold war. It didn't really work out that way in the long run, but at the time...
Then again, if Meyer really had any insight to offer, any true understanding of the complex politics of the cold war, he might have done better. Instead he seemed content just to make references... Just like the title itself is a reference to Shakespeare, but because he insisted on changing its meaning, the quote hardly explores or illuminates the themes of the story.
Shakespeare had a few things to say about wars ending as well, not to mention old enemies becoming friends.
"After years of fighting with reality, I am pleased to say that I have finally won out over it."