kahless@samira.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (11/28/86)
I just returned from Star Trek IV, and here are my inital impressions.
There may be some spoilers in this, so beware.
I found the movie somewhat disappointing, somewhat ordinary.
Another alien thingie is suddenly in orbit around Earth, and only
Captain Kirk can save everyone. This is the second time we've
seen this plot device in four movies. I couldn't help but thinking
of the clan of monsters that is always coming to eat Tokyo.
I suppose I like whales as much as the next guy, but there's a
limit to how long they can hold me off the edge of my seat. I mean,
they're just not *THAT* cute.
Personally, I thought the movie looked cheap in places, particularly
in the makeup on non-Earthers. The Andorian at the end looked down right
fake, with uniformly bright blue skin. There were many cheap animal-critters
in the court-martial scene, like something out of a cheap horror movie.
None of the aliens looked *REALLY* alien, really new.
Also, I wonder about the technical accuracy of the movie, particularly
in the realm of Klingon technology. For instance, it is widely known that
Klingon transporters are SILENT, yet over and over we heard the screach
of a Federation transporter when using the transporters on the Bounty.
On the plus side, John Schuck wasn't too bad as the Klingon Ambassador.
I had feared he would be simply dreadful, given that his past parts have
been doing things like bumbling robot cops and buffoon deputies in Disney
movies. Also, there were entertaining moments, like Chekov asking everyone
where the nuclear powered ships in Alameda were.
Here are a list of issues that I think need to be addressed:
Did anyone wonder why *NOBODY* accidentally ran into the parked
invisible Bounty? Also, there was a huge depression on the ground where
the ship landed, yet nobody seemed to look.
What were the phasers Chekov et. al. carried? They weren't old
issue Federation #1's, and they didn't look like Klingon phasers. I don't
think the Empire even makes such dinky toy phasers. When Kirk arrived
on the Bounty back in Star Trek III, he was carrying a Klingon phaser,
wasn't he? He certainly wasn't carrying a #1. The Vulcans, being
peace lovers, surely didn't give them a bunch of phasers so they could
be better armed when they went back to Earth to turn themselves in.
I mean, the trip to Earth was supposed to be a brief one, and they should
have made the reasonable assumption that a working Earth would be there
when they arrived, so they would have no need to load phasers, communicators,
etc. If anything, they should have been using the Klingon phasers left
over from the previous owners of the Bounty.
When Kirk, Bones, Chekov, & Whatzername transported out of the
hospital, did I really see them materialize on the lawn instead of
inside the ship?
About possible time contamination: Chekov left behind a working
communicator on the Enterprise, plus a broken phaser and who knows
what else. Kirk was upset when a working communicator left behind
on Iota, and the Iotians are considerably less technically sophisticated
and immitative than late 20'th century Earthers. From the communicator,
they could figure out the basis of the transtator, and that would give
Earth transporters and other things they shouldn't have for a long time.
Anybody else have any opinions on any of these issues?belmonte@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Matthew Belmonte) (11/28/86)
SPOILER FOLLOWS, OF COURSE... In article <50@samira.UUCP> kahless@samira.UUCP (Lord Kahless) writes: > About possible time contamination: Chekov left behind a working >communicator on the Enterprise, plus a broken phaser and who knows >what else. Kirk was upset when a working communicator left behind >on Iota, and the Iotians are considerably less technically sophisticated >and immitative than late 20'th century Earthers. From the communicator, >they could figure out the basis of the transtator, and that would give >Earth transporters and other things they shouldn't have for a long time. To quote Scotty, how do we know he didn't invent it? To all you "Re: Transporters" fans, here's your answer. NOBODY really invented the transporter. The U.S. Navy somehow acquired the central technology for the transporter in the year 1986. Of course they kept it under wraps for awhile. The first major use of the transporter on Earth was to lock onto and dematerialise all the missiles on the day when we finally got stupid enough to fire them. With the decline of the individual states on Earth and the rise of unity in the Federation, transporter technology became more widely available, at least to the military. The big problem on into the 23rd century is that since nobody really invented the transporter in the first place, nobody really knows what to do to it when it goes wrong (except people like Scotty, who've gleaned alot of empirical knowledge of transporter technology). -- "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." -- a member of the Nixon administration Matthew Belmonte ARPA: <belmonte@svax.cs.cornell.edu> BITNET: <d25y@cornella> <d25y@crnlvax5> UUCP: ..!decvax!duke!duknbsr!mkb