So i used to like Star Trek V when i was younger and now i find it almost unwatchable it is so bad. — Page 2

Reasons for facepalming, as mentioned before....I dont see how someone could think that the rediculous Voyage Home could be better than Final Frontier, fucking whales save the world? what is this shit? (read my previous posts), and the only reason why I give Search for Spock the nudge over FF is because of Lloyd, other than him the movie is a complete bore

I agree tho, the Meyer movies are the best

Now you have got me face palming with all your ridiculous face palming. If you are waiting for a voice of reason, what say you chime in and let us know why we lack reason for liking the films in the order we do?

Likewise, I suppose I fail to see how someone could like The Final Frontier over The Voyage Home. The beauty of person preference at work.

I felt The Voyage Home was ridiculous, but somewhat enjoyable. I felt FF was ridiculous, and not so enjoyable. Hence the VH before the FF. I'd rather take my ridiculousness with a good dose of enjoyable, makes it go down smoother IMHO. This is probably the same reason you like FF better than VH, because you enjoyed it more.

ChainsawAsh said:

So here's the short version of my The Search for Spock review:

It sucked. 

Updated list:

- The Undiscovered Country
- The Wrath of Khan
- The Final Frontier
- The Motion Picture
- The Search for Spock

Now I guess I need to watch The Voyage Home again so my list will be complete.

Finally SOMEONE is getting what I was saying

CompMovieGuy said:

I actually thought this film (final frontier) wasnt half bad

I dont understand how people could think this film was so horrible after going to see the previous "save the whales" movie,.....after all, how hard would it be to believe that there is a god after seeing an alien cube come to earth just to destroy it unless it talks to some fish and then it talks to the fish for 5 seconds and then everything is ok and it leaves. I mean really? What could be said in that 5 seconds, was it a hi and bye routine? You figure after waiting that long to talk to this fish a little more conversation would be going on.

I think 4 is INCREDIBLY! over-rated

Favorite movie with the OS crew, VI had alot of substance and something about it just stuck with me, thought it was done very well, and I soley credit Meyer for this, since II was my second fav of the OS crew, and I think Nimoy is over-rated as a director, because without Lloyd in the III, that movie would have blown donkey D

ChainsawAsh said:

The only purpose of the film is to retcon the changes The Wrath of Khan made (Kirk's son, the Genesis planet/device, Spock's death), the most offensive of which is resurrecting Spock.  That action cheapens his sacrifice in WoK immensely - the producers should've had the balls to kill him and keep him dead.

Yeah, that is what has always bugged me about that film. Its whole existence is to negate a great part of the previous film. Ought to have just killed David off in the last film for the dramatic ending and called it good. I guess Trek wouldn't have been the same without Spock, but why even kill him off in the first place then? I made my peace with this annoyance long ago though. Until yesterday, I hadn't seen it in years, and was able to enjoy it a lot more than I ever remembered enjoying it in my adult life.

Bingowings said:

One of the things the hurt The Undiscovered Country was the replacement of Saavik with Valeris and all the goofball humour that came with that change.

The look on the engineering hand's face as the top graduating officer manages to get the ship out of space dock is very silly.

She's top of the class but can't steer?

Having Saavik as the turn coat would have been much more dramatic and like Kirk she had good  reasons for not trusting the Klingons.

It would have made the mind rape scene between her and Spock more unpleasent too (especially if she did have a child explaining her stay on Vulcan in The Voyage Home).

Well since they could not get Kirstie back to play Saavik and replaced her with Curtis the change to valeris was not any more jarring.  Robin Curtis Saavik is not Saavik at all in character.  She is played as an unemotional vulcan.  Whereas the character played by Kirstie Alley was half romulan and therefore like Spock being half human capable of deep emotion.  She had tears in her eyes at Spock's funeral. 

Then suddenly in 3 she shows no emotion whatsoever when her implied lover David Marcus is killed.  Well at least i always thought they were lovers.  and there is also a relationship between her and spock.  In fact i think in one of the novels she was his wife?

Nicholas Meyer wanted Kim Catrall originally for Saavik so she ended up playing valeris.  She did a rather poor job in comparison to Kirstie.  She looked good but could not act very well.  Alley not the best actress ever but at least she had a sprited take on the character and was a competent choice.  Also Meyer wanting Saavik to betray her shipmates was ridiculous.  After what they had been through together in star trek II.  She would have had nothing but respect James Kirk.  After all he did sacrifice his ship and his son to save spock.

There is a HUGE plot hole in "Search for Spock".  Why must Kirk return to get Spock's dead body from The Genesis Planet, and how did he know it was even there?  When Spock's father comes to see Kirk and does the mind meld, Kirk is told that McCoy along with Spock's Katra (his living soul) must be returned to Vulcan so that both can find peace. How that Katra will be saved by the Vulcans is never explaned in the move.  Next thing we know, Kirk and friends are stealing The Enterprise (best part of the film), and heading for The Genesis Planet.  Kirk is never told that Spock's photon tube was found by Kirk's son David intact. So without that knowledge, why this out of the blue plan to head back to The Genesis Planet ?   Last thing Kirk knew it that Spock's tube was shot in space most likely to burn up during entry into the Genesis Planet's atmosphere. 

Another thing that bugs me, is the illogical comment made by Spock's Father when Kirk returns Spock's body and McCoy's Katra laiden brain to Vulcan. He asks Kirk "WHY" did he do this!  "At what cost Kirk, your Son, Your Ship!" Umm, well it was this very same guy (Spock's father) who told Kirk that he "MUST" return to Vulcan "no matter the cost" only a few short reels before.  How freakin' stupid! "Search for Spock" was a real let down.

I thought the new actress for Saavik was far superior to Kirstie Alley. I couldn't buy Alley as a Vulcan for some reason.

Because she was playing the role of a half Vulcan, half Romulan, not a full out emotionless Vulcan. Curtis played the role as a full on Vulcan, which makes the actress change even more jarring, since they are essentially portraying two completely different personalities.

[...]Romulans and Vulcans both have pointed ears and eyebrows, but Alley's Saavik only had the ears.[...]

Probably part of the reason it's hard for me to accept her in the role. She came across as a human actress, not someone belonging to a different species.

Since this is come up, I have to ask this question, as it's something that's always bugged me.  Why does it always seem to be implied that the reason that Spock (and, apparently Saavik) is able to express emotion because of his mixed heritage?  Obviously his mixed heritage is the reason for his feelings of isolation and inferiority, but it should have nothing to do with his or any Vulcan's ability or inability to be emotional.  Lack of emotion is NOT an inherent biological trait in Vulcans.  They train themselves to be logical and to supress emotions.  From what I can see, any Vulcan is capable of being emotional, they simply choose not to.  And before anyone says that maybe Vulcans are more easily possessed of this than humans, you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species.  The Romulans are what the Vulcans would be (and were) had they not chosen to become logical:  extremely emotional and warlike.  So what difference does it make even if Saavik is half-Romulan?  Nothing!  That's not even biologically different from being a full-blooded Vulcan.  The differences between Vulcans and Romulans (and Vulcans and humans, for that matter) is not nature, it's nurture.

Stay tuned for Gaffer Tape's next Trekkie rant:  can Vulcans lie?

you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species.

Negative. They are relative by a common ancestor. I do not believe Vulcan physiology is identical to that of Romulans.

I do agree with the general thought in your post. All of this talk of Spock "getting in touch with his human side" is erroneous. He could as easily be in touch with his Vulcan side when expressing an emotion, considering that Vulcans are inherently an emotional race, even moreso than humans.

DarkFather said:

 

you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species.

 

Negative. They are relative by a common ancestor. I do not believe Vulcan physiology is identical to that of Romulans.

What's the difference?  Are you and I related by a common ancestor?  If so, does that make us separate species?  If I recall correctly, it had only been a few hundred years since the Romulans and Vulcans broke off (but feel free to correct me)... far too short a time for any significant evolutionary factors to change them into individual species.

Are you and I related by a common ancestor?

The races themselves had a common ancestor. A more accurate analogy is apes and humans.

According to Alpha Memory, they diverged during the Time of Awakening:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Time_of_Awakening

Around the year 300 A.D. That lends the Romulans nearly 1,000 years (ending when the crew first encounter them in TOS) to adapt to their new enviroment and evolve. It is conceivable that the differences became physiological in that frame of time.

Though, admittedly, not enough for them to be distinguishable at face value.

TheBoost said:

It's a combination of racism, bad science, and lazy writing that plagues all Star Trek.

Lazy writing in that it allows endless "I'm torn between two worlds!" character moments.

Endless? This may have been expressed to a small degree in the original series, I honestly don't remember if it was. But the new movie you seem to really appreciate is the one that made a huge plot point of the "I'm torn between two worlds!" theme with Spock. Even though I didn't like the new movie much, I wouldn't have called that bit lazy writing. In my own personal experience, I have come across a lot of people who were torn between too cultures, or two races, and have had a hard time finding their own identity through it. I think perusing this aspect of Spock could potentially be very interesting, though the movie over played it and it just came off as Spock having a really low flash point, and being in the habit of going berserk on people, which is something even most of us emotional humans seem to be able to refrain from. Odd that someone from a culture of highly restrained peoples would have more trouble controlling himself than the average human. This is where we can talk about lazy and convenient writing.

Strangely, my memories of Spock's character seem to be the exact opposite from your take on him. I always remember him being depicted as very vulcan in nature, and facing the challenge of being surrounded by humans and struggling to understand their behavior.

Bad science in that any two organisms that can breed and produce fertile offsprings (like every race in Star Trek) should be considered the same species.

Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.  

Racism in that all alien races are defined by a single trait (/flaw) that can only be overcome by being more human.

Interesting take. I thought humans were usually considered inferior to vulcans, as well as any number of other races in the ST universe (for example, when observing emotional human behavior, Spock's response was often to cocked eyebrow and say, "fascinating" in a semi-condensending tone, as if observing a much lower species. I think it has always been suggested that vulcans have evolved further than humans. There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?

Gaffer, like DF stated, Romulans and Vulcans are not the exact same species, but represent a split in their evolutionary chain. They have the same common ancestors, but somewhere along the line they went their separate ways and continued down separate evolutionary chains. Romulans continuing along the same warlike, barbaric path, and the vulcans taking the high road and becoming more spiritual and intellectual, and eventually throwing emotions out the window.

C3PX said:

Interesting take. I thought humans were usually considered inferior to vulcans, as well as any number of other races in the ST universe (for example, when observing emotional human behavior, Spock's response was often to cocked eyebrow and say, "fascinating" in a semi-condensending tone, as if observing a much lower species. I think it has always been suggested that vulcans have evolved further than humans. There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?

 

Gaffer, like DF stated, Romulans and Vulcans are not the exact same species, but represent a split in their evolutionary chain. They have the same common ancestors, but somewhere along the line they went their separate ways and continued down separate evolutionary chains. Romulans continuing along the same warlike, barbaric path, and the vulcans taking the high road and becoming more spiritual and intellectual, and eventually throwing emotions out the window.

To point 1:  "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
"We're all human!"  "A homosapiens-only club!"  Quotes from the two best ST movies.  The theme is... human is better.

To point 2:  Even a thousand or two thousand years doesn't seem to be enough time for any kind of considerable evolution to take place.  Again, this would be like saying that we're a different species from Jesus or Ceasar.  Like you said, they took different paths.  It was choice, not physical evolution.  If there was any kind of physical predisposition, Vulcan youths wouldn't spend years attempting to harness logic over emotion.  And like DarkFather said, Vulcans/Romulans seem to be inherently predisposed to being more emotional than humans.  And in that regard, both Romulans and Vulcans are exactly the same except in how they choose to deal with:  Romulans with war, Vulcans by psychosis-inducing and bigotry-spawning repression.  ^_^

again, this would be like saying that we're a different species from Jesus or Ceasar.  Like you said, they took different paths.

We do not live on separate planets as they did.