69
Imagine how much better early Trek would have been without Shatner Shatnering up everything.
Just watch the documentary "The Captains" to see why.
all 37 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
It kinda makes sense that Kirk is there while Spock talks to his dad. Kirk is his best friend after all. It also makes sense that people present him with information and he makes the decisions. That's how the chain of command works. He's the Captain of the flagship of the Federation. He's the decision maker. He bears the responsibility for their actions, so he decides what those actions will be.
While I'm criticizing Star Trek IV, where's the transparent aluminum, guys?
Aluminum oxynitride exists now
[deleted]
the whole thing is bad.
Very hard disagree from me. I find it to be one of the most fun Star Trek movies, and by the metrics, most fans agree. This is the first time that I encounter someone that suggests that Star Trek IV would be unpopular.
OK I was mistaken here. I parsed it as V. Sorry!
That had to, ILM was busy with Ghostbusters 2 and Indiana Jones 3, they couldn’t do it. At that time if it wasn’t ILM then it was sub-standard.
I really enjoy the movie despite the problems, but it does have huge problems. And thankfully some of the stuff (no swearing in the 23rd century) has been retconned.
Edit: Since I already opened this can of worms, my biggest problem with ST IV, by far, is that Kirk and his crew have major difficulties adapting to 1980s Earth when not only do they not have that difficulty when on clandestine missions on entirely alien planets, Kirk and Spock do not seem to have a problem adapting to 1930s Earth in City on the Edge of Forever.
It kind of makes them seem inept and it bothers me.
My head canon attributes the crew’s poor adaptability to the 1980s to having made the trip in a Klingon bird of prey, which almost certainly would not have had good historical data about 20th century Earth. No data, no “here’s how to act” briefing.
But credit to Kirk for having “double dumbass on you!” at the ready. Absolutely devastating.
That would work except that Kirk and Spock went back to the 1930s with no data whatsoever and still adapted quickly.
no swearing in the 23rd century
I always took that to mean that the concept of a forbidden word had lost all meaning in the future post-scarcity society with strong civil rights.
So, in my head-canon, people in the future who do curse, do so as an academic hobby.
They've actively studied what combinations of words would have caused alarm in a chosen century of history, and then use those words. Anyone who reacts to the fact that they're cursing, in my head-canon, is reacting to the fact that they clearly intended to curse, having studied how to do so, and were looking for a reaction.
I suppose, but it's not presented that way in the dialogue:
SPOCK: Admiral, may I ask you a question?
KIRK: Spock, don't call me Admiral. ...You used to call me Jim. Don't you remember? Jim. ...What's your question?
SPOCK: Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, ...shall I say, ...more colourful metaphors. 'Double dumb ass on you' ...and so forth.
KIRK: You mean profanity. That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays any attention to you if you don't swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
SPOCK: For example?
KIRK: Oh, the collective works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins.
SPOCK: Ah! ...'The giants'.
(Sorry about the bad transcript, it was the first one I could find.)
I wouldn't exactly call either Jaqueline Susann or Harold Robins to be examples of authors known to have excessive swearing in their books. The problem is that the punchline doesn't work unless it's those sort of authors and not authors of the time who did have extremely sweary books, like John Irving. So it makes it sound like everyone in the 23rd century is a prude who basically doesn't swear.
And Kirk not understanding how 'dumbass' worked kind of cemented that in.
In my head-canon, it's boredom, not prudishness, that caused swearing to die out.
Almost no one in the future swears because it's not any fun anymore, because almost no one else cares.
This allows for i.e. Mariner being intentionally fluent in 20th century swears, and command crew around Mariner reacting - not because anyone cares in the 24th century about those words, but only because they know Mariner explicitly intentionally chose those words to cause annoyance.
It also allows Kirk, another academically minded rebel, to have some poorly researched idea how to swear in the 29th century, while Spock is genuinely confused at encountering a long dead way of speaking.
Yeah, but it didn't die out. Not just Mariner and T'Ana swear. There's plenty of swearing in Discovery and SNW. It's been retconned and rightly so.
Edit: And Raffi swears in Picard as well. And then there's Data's "oh shit" when the Enterprise crashes in Generations. Plus, you know McCoy swore as much as T'Ana did, they just couldn't broadcast it.
Yeah. Bones absolutely was meant to swear like a sailor, and couldn't get out part the censors.
This all still fits my head-canon, in case it helps you enjoy Trek IV more.
In my head canon, It's not that swearing died out. What died off is any particular words being exceptional or able to cause offense.
Spock is confused in the 20th century, because the angry man expected a reaction to his swearing.
A typical angry 24th century person wouldn't waste their energy adding swears when truly angry, because the swears don't bring any additional reaction.
We do see some evidence of this in other Trek - 24th century people (at least federation officers) are often shown to get very articulate, when angry.
So I attribute Spock's confusion to encountering a 20th century person who became less articulate, when angered. Then Kirk has to try to explain that the selected (less specific) words carry 20th century cultural significance.
Except, again, people swear when angry in Discovery, SNW, Lower Decks and Picard.
Yeah. I mean - It's still clearly a retcon. I don't disagree by any means.
I just like to allow that the 20th century man's reaction is substantially different enough from any 24th century norm to support Spock's confusion.
Our conversation led me to this, which I hope you will enjoy as much as I did-
If you have fun watching it, then go for it. The whole Shatner focused thing makes a lot of sense. He would setup shots in minutes instead of the industry norm of hours just for that focus.
You're thinking of Star Trek V, which Shatner directed and is, indeed, a stinker of a film.
This is Star Trek IV- the one with the whales. Most people consider it one of the best Star Trek films despite its flaws.
Yep... sorry about that. Early morning brain took over.
Happens to the best of us. The fact that there are six TOS movies alone doesn't help.
star trek iv and v is what firmly cemented the idea that the even numbered trek films were better.
Although you wouldn't believe how many Star Trek V defenders I have met over the years. Which is why, I assume, Sybok got a mention in SNW.
How do they defend it?
I’m generally curious about what they liked about it and how they frame it.
I'll give it a go:
I like that it's about exploration. Even if it's Sybok forcing the expedition to begin with, Kirk does ultimately make the choice to go along with it. No other Trek movie is actually about seeking out a strange new world.
I like the shore leave scenes. I hear a lot of complaints about them, but I appreciate spending a little time with the our characters just being dysfunctional friends.
I like that it makes full use of DeForest Kelley. His "pain" scene is excellent, and his frequent exasperation with Kirk is sold very well throughout the film. Say what you will about Shatner's ego, but he gets that Kirk can be a petulant child at times, and needs McCoy to verbally smack some sense into him, as in the brig scene.
For that matter, I like Kirk's pain speech. A little sermonising, maybe, but that's Trek for you. It works well enough considering that two films ago this man was forced to abandon his estranged son's corpse on an exploding planet. Insisting on holding on to that pain is substantial, but very Kirk.
I enjoy the entire meeting with God. A little goofy, but terrifically quotable.
I do see plenty of faults. A lot of the humour doesn't land. Introducing our new hero ship as a piece of junk is immediately off-putting. The Scotty/Uhura pairing comes out of nowhere and ultimately goes nowhere. The ground assault sequence was disappointingly underwhelming. The effects are weak af, and if I saw it on release in theatres I'd probably feel pretty sour towards the apparent trajectory of the series towards something that felt more direct-to-video.
But I never have a bad time watching it. The good outweighs the bad for me.
These are all fair points. I might give it another shot, but my first watch was rather rough.
Yeah, I'm clearly in the minority, and I might just be too forgiving of the TOS era movies. I'm certainly not as inclined to give a break to Insurrection or Nemesis. But if you do give it another chance, I hope you enjoy it a bit more this time!
a sub par visual effects studio
You mean Industrial Light & Magic??
Perhaps you're thinking of Star Trek V.
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
69 points (98.6% liked)
Star Trek
1180 readers
8 users here now
/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!
Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!
~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.
~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!
~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS