Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

star trek the mess


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I doan get it. chekov and terrell beam down to ceti alpha 5 believing it to be 6 and find khan and his people...but how? khan later informs them that they are on ceti alpha 5 because 6 exploded shifting the orbit of 5 and so on.....
but when the Reliant entered the ceti alpha system shouldn't their scans have revealed to them that the system was one planet short???...
so how could they possibly have mistook planet 5 for planet 6?
granted, kirk probably didn't inform starfleet that he was gonna disposit psychopathic khan and his people on ceti alpha 5 but still...
how could a starship bridge crew have miscounted the proper number of planets in that system?
stupid, just like it was stupid having chekov realize what was going on when he saw botany bay...he wasn't added until the 2nd season. so much dumbness because schtootzes like nicholas meyer get overblown and hafta start screwing up established canon...
of course it's all academic now because the star trek franchise lies essentially destroyed because they hadda push the science fiction humanistic BS instead of sticking with the proper character interactions and an action-adventure approach and so they eventually ruined the whole thing...
so how about star trek 7: the grasp of janice?...janice lester escapes from the nuthouse and turns herself into a 50 foot woman!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

I doan get it. chekov and terrell beam down to ceti alpha 5 believing it to be 6 and find khan and his people...but how? khan later informs them that they are on ceti alpha 5 because 6 exploded shifting the orbit of 5 and so on.....
but when the Reliant entered the ceti alpha system shouldn't their scans have revealed to them that the system was one planet short???...
so how could they possibly have mistook planet 5 for planet 6?
granted, kirk probably didn't inform starfleet that he was gonna disposit psychopathic khan and his people on ceti alpha 5 but still...
how could a starship bridge crew have miscounted the proper number of planets in that system?
stupid, just like it was stupid having chekov realize what was going on when he saw botany bay...he wasn't added until the 2nd season. so much dumbness because schtootzes like nicholas meyer get overblown and hafta start screwing up established canon...

The missing planet problem is pretty dumb, as their instruments at least should have picked up on it, even if the two planets were in vastly different orbits.

However, the "how did Chekov know about Khan?" question that's been brought up endless times in the past 36 years is very easy to explain: someone told him what happened. Just because he wasn't part of the crew at the time doesn't mean that others who were there couldn't have told him the tale many, many times. I mean, what else are he and Sulu going to talk about during their long hours at the helm together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to admit, to be such a bad actor, William Shatner had a very good career. I was watching Star Trek IV the other day, and that one is just a great comedic romp. It's funny how it was made to contrast "present day" with the future, but they really overdid the 80s stuff to the point that this film is now a great 80s retro film on top of just a good comedy. Every time you think something serious is happening, the score lets you know that this will all turn out fine.

Oh Nip about your original question? There was a little dime store novel that came out at the same time that Star Trek II was released in 1982. It actually had Chekov secretly in love with Khan's wife before Khan came on the scene. It was something he never told her, but it was meant to give some melodramatic background to the story. Yet Chekov wasn't even on the show when the episode about Khan aired. Interesting.

My evaluation of the Star Trek movies:

I (1979) - Look folks! We can do special effects better than we did in 1969!

II (1982) - The best serious Star Trek film with a link back to the original TV show.

III (1984) - Just a bridge between II and IV.

IV (1986) - A great comedy with a serious environmental message.

V (1989) - Don't bother.

I didn't see the others with the exception of "Generations" where they pass the baton from the original Star Trek gang to the new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, calvinnme said:

You have to admit, to be such a bad actor, William Shatner had a very good career. I was watching Star Trek IV the other day, and that one is just a great comedic romp. It's funny how it was made to contrast "present day" with the future, but they really overdid the 80s stuff to the point that this film is now a great 80s retro film on top of just a good comedy. Every time you think something serious is happening, the score lets you know that this will all turn out fine.

Oh Nip about your original question? There was a little dime store novel that came out at the same time that Star Trek II was released in 1982. It actually had Chekov secretly in love with Khan's wife before Khan came on the scene. It was something he never told her, but it was meant to give some melodramatic background to the story. Yet Chekov wasn't even on the show when the episode about Khan aired. Interesting.

My evaluation of the Star Trek movies:

I (1979) - Look folks! We can do special effects better than we did in 1969!

II (1982) - The best serious Star Trek film with a link back to the original TV show.

III (1984) - Just a bridge between II and IV.

IV (1986) - A great comedy with a serious environmental message.

V (1989) - Don't bother.

I didn't see the others with the exception of "Generations" where they pass the baton from the original Star Trek gang to the new.

 

Did they ever got that one WRONG, the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Sagittarius_A.gif

 

Stars orbiting a super massive black hole.

0yCohdF.gif

 

Sagittarius-Black-Hole-Wallpaper.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, laffite said:

I am proud and profane to disclose that I have never seen a Star Trek film. I tried to once but the lady who was bald killed it for me. I said to hell with it. And from that moment on, never touched the stuff.

I would have been genuinely surprised if you had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laffite said:

I am proud and profane to disclose that I have never seen a Star Trek film. I tried to once but the lady who was bald killed it for me. I said to hell with it. And from that moment on, never touched the stuff.

You...STARTED...with Trek1: the Motion Picture??  ?  The one fans have written off as "never existed"?

Well, that explains the childhood trauma.  If there was ever indeed a "mess", albeit not the shambling, unholy one that Trek5: the Final Frontier was.  Time to wash the brain and start over.  (If it makes you feel any better, director Robert Wise said he'd never seen the show in his life before directing Trek1, either.)

You might want to start with the one the original poster was ranting on about in the first place thinking everyone in the world had already seen, as most of them have:  Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan (1982).  Not just the best of the Trek movies, but widely considered to be the best movie adaptation of a TV series ever done, period, and the rest of the Trek series, JJ Abrams included, spent the rest of its days trying to escape its shadow.  When "Into Darkness" basically homaged half the script, you know it's a Potent Quotable.  

Then you'll understand why fans always talk about the "even-numbered movies" (ie. the ones written by Nicholas Meyer), before going on to the cute #4, the darn-good #6, and the #8 that finally did Trek:Next Generation justice.  ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, laffite said:

Well the thread does say that they were a mess.

For once, The Nip got something right  ;  -  )

 

////

I'm not sure about that.  He IS right though, that II is a "mess".  But for me, not necessarily for the reasons he mentions.  Just not my favorite (or even liked) of the first few in the franchise.  And too, ........

I NEVER considered ANY of those movies to be tutorials on space travel.  ;)

Just as none of those TRANSFORMER movies are tutorials on ROBOTICS.  :D

They're just movies! 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize, but Shatner is on tour now.

2673_detail.jpg

WILLIAM SHATNER - LIVE ON STAGE FOR CONVERSATION AND Q & A AFTER THE SCREENING OF STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN

http://williamshatnertour.com/

 

Appropriately, he will be coming through my area and his appearance will be at the Akron Civic Theatre, a 1929 "atmospheric" theater built by Marcus Loew.

https://www.akroncivic.com/site/page.php?id=422&eventid=2673

Oddly enough he won't be signing autographs.

http://moviecollector.us/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/akron-civic-int-800x556.jpg

http://moviecollector.us/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/akron-civic-indoors.jpg

http://moviecollector.us/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/akron-civic-for-cl.jpg

http://moviecollector.us/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/akron-civic-theatre-masque-10.jpg

 

Yeah baby.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:11 AM, laffite said:

I am proud and profane to disclose that I have never seen a Star Trek film. I tried to once but the lady who was bald killed it for me. I said to hell with it. 

Persis Khambatta was supposed to be some super-model from India (of all places).

She was also a really mean terrorist in 'Nighthawks' (1981). She was so adequate in that role I wanted to make her bald again and then kill her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, darkblue said:

Persis Khambatta was supposed to be some super-model from India (of all places).

She was also a really mean terrorist in 'Nighthawks' (1981). She was so adequate in that role I wanted to make her bald again and then kill her.

I haven't seen Nighthawks but she sounds rather unlikable. Perhaps she should be summarily dispatched without the balding process.

Actually she didn't kill the movie for me (Star Trek), I was being facetious. And anyone fond of exotic names should love her, bald or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, laffite said:

anyone fond of exotic names should love her, bald or not.

Outstanding name!

Her roles became of less and less import after 'Nighthawks'. She got married shortly after that one and the marriage lasted only 2 months.

Tragically, she suffered a heart attack and died at the young age of 49. Very, very unusual for a woman that young to have a killer MI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, laffite said:

I haven't seen Nighthawks but she sounds rather unlikable. Perhaps she should be summarily dispatched without the balding process.

Actually she didn't kill the movie for me (Star Trek), I was being facetious. And anyone fond of exotic names should love her, bald or not.

No, she was fairly sexy, but given that Trek1 and Nighthawks were her only two big (unfortunate) roles before sinking back into TV and B-movies, there isn't much else to say about her career.

Trek1 originally came out of plans to do a revival TV series, and bald-Khambatta was going to be the new regular sexy-alien character--But those never happened, so they killed off her character and the new Stephen Collins first-mate, in the movie, and Kirstie Alley took over as a female Vulcan in Trek2 when they were wondering whether to kill off Spock.

12 hours ago, MovieCollectorOH said:

Appropriately, he will be coming through my area and his appearance will be at the Akron Civic Theatre, a 1929 "atmospheric" theater built by Marcus Loew.

https://www.akroncivic.com/site/page.php?id=422&eventid=2673

http://moviecollector.us/pics_to_hotlink_on_TCM/akron-civic-indoors.jpg

Yeah baby.  :P

Looks exactly like the old Smith Opera House in Geneva, NY, which had been reduced to being the local movie theater, when I grew up in the next town over.  Say "Theater" to kids today, and you'll hear whines about cineplexes and cellphones, but this is the definition I remember.

This was back in the mid-70's, though, before we moved away, so seeing Star Trek II for the first time there would have been one of those life-seminal moments, with or without Shatner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, darkblue said:

Persis Khambatta was supposed to be some super-model from India (of all places).

She was also a really mean terrorist in 'Nighthawks' (1981). She was so adequate in that role I wanted to make her bald again and then kill her.

Nighthawks was a favorite action movie of mine, There is a great gondola scene.

I thought Khambatta was good in her films. I always wondered what happened to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2018 at 12:28 PM, NipkowDisc said:

I doan get it. chekov and terrell beam down to ceti alpha 5 believing it to be 6 and find khan and his people...but how? khan later informs them that they are on ceti alpha 5 because 6 exploded shifting the orbit of 5 and so on.....
but when the Reliant entered the ceti alpha system shouldn't their scans have revealed to them that the system was one planet short???...
so how could they possibly have mistook planet 5 for planet 6?
granted, kirk probably didn't inform starfleet that he was gonna disposit psychopathic khan and his people on ceti alpha 5 but still...
how could a starship bridge crew have miscounted the proper number of planets in that system?
stupid, just like it was stupid having chekov realize what was going on when he saw botany bay...he wasn't added until the 2nd season. so much dumbness because schtootzes like nicholas meyer get overblown and hafta start screwing up established canon...
of course it's all academic now because the star trek franchise lies essentially destroyed because they hadda push the science fiction humanistic BS instead of sticking with the proper character interactions and an action-adventure approach and so they eventually ruined the whole thing...
so how about star trek 7: the grasp of janice?...janice lester escapes from the nuthouse and turns herself into a 50 foot woman!

:D

This story error has been written about endlessly since 1982. Also how does Khan recognize Chekov? I've read that Meyer knew it was a continuity error before shooting but pressed on anyway and Walter knew but didn't want to lose the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hamradio said:

Persis Khambatta getting her head shaved for the movie.

latest?cb=20100130102942&path-prefix=en

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRr69_yyfZ0Vbhw3WzXn4h

VftrK3z.jpg

 

Wonderful sequence of photos. 1) She is tensely uncertain and maybe a little frightened. 2) Decidedly apprehensive, She's thinking, "Oh my God, oh my God!" 3) She seems relaxed. She's thinking, "Not so bad, not so bad. I still look good. I'm going to be okay with this."

...maybe ...

...after all, I don't read minds. But it's fun trying, especially with her. She seems so genuine and regular in all three.

===

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...