No, but it is apparently by design. I always find it amusing how people like to come across online.
Why do so many people think Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was good?
- Thread starter SSgt Burton
- Start date
- Status
No, but it is apparently by design. I always find it amusing how people like to come across online.
May I say...
As awesomely entertaining as TWOK is I think this thread is rivaling it. :lol
opcorn
As awesomely entertaining as TWOK is I think this thread is rivaling it. :lol
opcorn
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
JJ's next is "Kirk Prime: Return of the Shatner."
tictoc
Well-Known Member
I went through all the pages of this thread. Great fun!
I love it that your avatar is FROM Wrath of Khan and in your ST uniform, you look like you just stepped out of a Starfleet executive meeting!
Shyaporn
Well-Known Member
I am simply going to echo the "Because it is" sentiment.
At a certain point, art just has objective truisms. Michaelangelo's David is better than a Warhol Campbell's Soup Can. You can certainly make an infinite number of arguments for the soup can, but ultimately, you're wrong.
At a certain point, art just has objective truisms. Michaelangelo's David is better than a Warhol Campbell's Soup Can. You can certainly make an infinite number of arguments for the soup can, but ultimately, you're wrong.
Resurrecting this thread for a video I just saw that I think explains the difference quiet well on general terms.
Nostalgia Critic - Is it Right to Nitpick?
Nostalgia Critic - Is it Right to Nitpick?
SherpaJones
New Member
I found this thread while browsing Google, and thought I would chime in with some of my ideas. I agree for the most part with many of the inconsistencies pointed out in this thread. I do rank the film in question as my top favorite ST film, but I do not hesitate to accept that there are continuity flaws in this film. I will address some claims made in this thread that I disagree with, some that I agree with and wish to expand upon, and will present some of my own problems with the movie.
Not sure why you say this. The shuttle on approach is shown briefly climbing towards the torpedo bay, and the close up of the docking shows the same configuration of viewports as seen in the torpedo bay from the wide angle shot. There is nothing to explicitly suggest that the shuttle docked with the engineering section. And the interior set is clearly the same torpedo bay from the battle scenes and the funeral, not to mention Admiral Kirk tells Scotty he will begin inspection in main engineering, and Scotty says "I'll see you there Admiral, and everything is in order."
I always thought Kirk looked more nostalgic than nervous. Wanting to be in the chair himself. But this is subjective.
What about the Reliant's database? He had plenty of time waiting for Kirk to arrive.
I agree. Also, if I am not mistaken, the main energizer is that thing in the room that Spock went into and fixed to save the crew by restoring warp power. I always thought that they lost warp power because the main warp plasma conduit that ran down to the nacelle pylons was heavily damaged by Khan's first attack, and was sealed behind an emergency bulkhead as seen from engineering. When did they fix that? And if they did, why didn't they go to warp when Scotty restored partial main power just before bringing Kirk and party up from Regula? There is no warp available before the Mutara Nebula battle, the energizer goes down during the battle, Spock fixes the energizer, and they have warp back too?
Agreed. Scotty could have set up a 90 second crew rotation in full radiation suits to effect repairs, similar to what they did a Chernobyl, with McCoy monitoring exposure levels and ordering crew rotations. Spock realizes it won't be enough, and goes in and does the dangerous repair, not being safe and meticulous as the cadets were. He stays in longer and saves the ship.
My impression of the genesis torpedo is that it did not create planets, but terraformed them. When released on a dead world, it would reorganize the top layer of materials to form a living world. It did not contain in itself sufficient energy and materials to form a new planet, nor was that the purpose. When the genesis device exploded aboard the Reliant, the detonation ignited all the stellar gasses in the Mutara Nebula, causing them to condense into a new planet, which became a life supporting world thanks to the genesis matrix. So if genesis could have been beamed away to the maximum transporter range, it may not have ignited the nebula at all. But if it still did ignite the nebula, the Enterprise would still be in danger.
But to expand further on the idea of transporting the genesis device on an active buildup; The genesis was on a buildup to detonation, and produced an energy signature that was unfamiliar to even Spock. There would be procedures and protocols for transporting unstable devices, and any captain would know what is safe and unsafe for transport. Beaming something like Nomad off the ship is something to do when you have nothing to lose. If the transport fails, well you were dead anyway. But locking on to genesis is dangerous because if something goes wrong, it is in the enterprises pattern buffers and could potentially materialize on the transporter pad, bringing the danger close to home. Also, being unfamiliar with the device, it's energy source, and inner workings, the risk of causing instant detonation upon dematerialization is unknown. This option was possibly dismissed immediately in the minds of anyone who considered it.
I have some further issues to explore with regards to the creation of Genesis from the ignition and condensation of the Mutara Nebula. We know that Regula was nearby, because they travelled from it to the nebula under full impulse. In the time it took to get there, it could be assumed that the nebula was a close neighbour to the solar system that Regula was in with its parent star. But, how did the planet achieve enough tangential velocity to form a stable orbit? How did it form angular momentum to spin on an axis? Day and night are observed on the planet. How did Genesis end up in the "goldilocks zone" around the parent star? Nebulas are massive; often many hundreds of light years across. How was the focal point of the detonation and center of mass where the planet condensed within the solar system? Does anyone see the problems I am getting at here?
Not sure why you say this. The shuttle on approach is shown briefly climbing towards the torpedo bay, and the close up of the docking shows the same configuration of viewports as seen in the torpedo bay from the wide angle shot. There is nothing to explicitly suggest that the shuttle docked with the engineering section. And the interior set is clearly the same torpedo bay from the battle scenes and the funeral, not to mention Admiral Kirk tells Scotty he will begin inspection in main engineering, and Scotty says "I'll see you there Admiral, and everything is in order."
I always thought Kirk looked more nostalgic than nervous. Wanting to be in the chair himself. But this is subjective.
What about the Reliant's database? He had plenty of time waiting for Kirk to arrive.
I agree. Also, if I am not mistaken, the main energizer is that thing in the room that Spock went into and fixed to save the crew by restoring warp power. I always thought that they lost warp power because the main warp plasma conduit that ran down to the nacelle pylons was heavily damaged by Khan's first attack, and was sealed behind an emergency bulkhead as seen from engineering. When did they fix that? And if they did, why didn't they go to warp when Scotty restored partial main power just before bringing Kirk and party up from Regula? There is no warp available before the Mutara Nebula battle, the energizer goes down during the battle, Spock fixes the energizer, and they have warp back too?
Agreed. Scotty could have set up a 90 second crew rotation in full radiation suits to effect repairs, similar to what they did a Chernobyl, with McCoy monitoring exposure levels and ordering crew rotations. Spock realizes it won't be enough, and goes in and does the dangerous repair, not being safe and meticulous as the cadets were. He stays in longer and saves the ship.
My impression of the genesis torpedo is that it did not create planets, but terraformed them. When released on a dead world, it would reorganize the top layer of materials to form a living world. It did not contain in itself sufficient energy and materials to form a new planet, nor was that the purpose. When the genesis device exploded aboard the Reliant, the detonation ignited all the stellar gasses in the Mutara Nebula, causing them to condense into a new planet, which became a life supporting world thanks to the genesis matrix. So if genesis could have been beamed away to the maximum transporter range, it may not have ignited the nebula at all. But if it still did ignite the nebula, the Enterprise would still be in danger.
But to expand further on the idea of transporting the genesis device on an active buildup; The genesis was on a buildup to detonation, and produced an energy signature that was unfamiliar to even Spock. There would be procedures and protocols for transporting unstable devices, and any captain would know what is safe and unsafe for transport. Beaming something like Nomad off the ship is something to do when you have nothing to lose. If the transport fails, well you were dead anyway. But locking on to genesis is dangerous because if something goes wrong, it is in the enterprises pattern buffers and could potentially materialize on the transporter pad, bringing the danger close to home. Also, being unfamiliar with the device, it's energy source, and inner workings, the risk of causing instant detonation upon dematerialization is unknown. This option was possibly dismissed immediately in the minds of anyone who considered it.
I have some further issues to explore with regards to the creation of Genesis from the ignition and condensation of the Mutara Nebula. We know that Regula was nearby, because they travelled from it to the nebula under full impulse. In the time it took to get there, it could be assumed that the nebula was a close neighbour to the solar system that Regula was in with its parent star. But, how did the planet achieve enough tangential velocity to form a stable orbit? How did it form angular momentum to spin on an axis? Day and night are observed on the planet. How did Genesis end up in the "goldilocks zone" around the parent star? Nebulas are massive; often many hundreds of light years across. How was the focal point of the detonation and center of mass where the planet condensed within the solar system? Does anyone see the problems I am getting at here?
Last edited:
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Okay you have to appreciate why I started this thread (and I'll probably add what I'm about to say to the initial post to prevent any further confusion from future readers):
1- Star Trek II is not only my favourite Star Trek film, it is my favourite film of all. I've probably watched it over 1000 times since first seeing it as a twelve year old in 1982.
2- At the time this thread was created, there was a thread titled "Why do so many people think Star Trek Into Darkness was bad?." That thread was created by someone who watched ST:ID, liked it, and couldn't understand why there were so many people complaining about how bad it was.
3- The complaints generally circled around nitpicks about technology being incorrect (for the ST universe), changed premises from the first film, characters acting out of character, on and on and on and on and on (you get the idea)...
However these nitpicks were nothing worse than what "every" Star Trek film suffers from (even Trek at its finest hour with ST:II). Magical technology that is created for one particular Star Trek film and never heard of again (such as ST:IV's "Transparant Aluminum"). Or tech behaving in ways it shouldn't (ST:ID's communicators that can transmit messages across several lightyears in realtime like a regular phone).
So I created "this" thread pointing out all the major nitpicks I could find in my favourite film. I tore it to pieces deliberately to prove a point that "every" Trek film has its share of nitpicks. However it would seem that when it comes to nitpicks, "great" Trek films get a free pass, while "JJTrek" gets crucified.
That was the point behind this thread.
Kevin
Last edited:
SherpaJones
New Member
Kevin,
My early response of "not sure why you say this . . ." is not a general response to the broad topic of your thread, but a specific response to one of the points you make in your original post. My post follows this format: specific quote from your post followed by my specific response to your quote. It seems that you have read my first line and too quickly jumped to defend your thread, without considering the context of what I have written. I even wonder if you read my post in it's entirety. I will add a broader introduction to my post if that helps you.
My early response of "not sure why you say this . . ." is not a general response to the broad topic of your thread, but a specific response to one of the points you make in your original post. My post follows this format: specific quote from your post followed by my specific response to your quote. It seems that you have read my first line and too quickly jumped to defend your thread, without considering the context of what I have written. I even wonder if you read my post in it's entirety. I will add a broader introduction to my post if that helps you.
Last edited:
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
I read every word.
Yes I got the point of your post. The point of me snipping your post to the first few words, was a tongue in cheek way of responding in saying that "you're a little late to the party and thus my thread may seem out of context."
It was also a response in general to any newcomers who again might think that this thread was a slam on ST:II (when in fact it is meant as the opposite).
Oh and the shuttle definitely docks with the engineering section.
Kevin
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Psst...
I know.
Kevin
I know.
Kevin
- Status
Similar threads
