Personally, I didn't that scene was extremely funny. If they wanted to do a Three's Company-style involving comedy from miscommunication, they coulda done it much better, and funnier.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 01:08 pm: |
I read something interesting on the IMDB about the character of consperator Colonel West. His name was a reference to Colonel Oliver North of Iran/Contra consperacy fame.
| By Derf on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 10:00 pm: |
That seems a bit contrived to me ... an attempt to equate The Iran/Contra conspiracy with The Wizard Of Oz. That's like saying the Wicked Witch of the "West" is the idealogically opposite of the Good Witch of the "North". It's just too corny to believe.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 11:50 pm: |
Except I believe that the info first came out of an interview with one of the writers somewhere along the line.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 01:00 am: |
Just don�t tell Chekov. He�ll think it was Zorin�s idea.
Chang�s demand to Kirk during his and McCoy�s trial that he answer a question without waiting for a translation is a paraphrase of a demand ambassador Adlai Stevenson made of Soviet ambassador Valerian Zorin at the U.N. during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 60s. Could Valeris� name be a reference to Zorin?
Bad Editing 101 (Fall Semester)
In the beginning of the movie, a bearded crewman named Valtane is right beside Sulu, standing over him with a PADD, when the ship begins to shake as the subspace shockwave nears. There�s a shot of Sulu�s teacup beginning to shake, then a reaction shot of Sulu next to Valtane, then back to the cup, then a wide shot of Sulu and Valtane, with officers reacting in the background, then a medium shot of two officers leaning against a bulkhead for support, and then a shot of Valtane, who is now at a work station, seated with two other officers in front of him, then a shot of the cup sliding off the table, then the cup breaking, and then a wide shot of Sulu, with Valtane now again at Sulu�s side, rushing from Sulu�s side to the science station, shoving another crewman aside! This entire series of shots, from beginning to end, lasts only 10 seconds. That Valtane sure is fast!
Bad Editing 101 (Spring Semester)
Also, the first close-up of the cup shows it just at the edge of the table, but the shot immediately after this of Sulu, Valtane and the crewmen in the background shows the cup now in the middle of the table. When the shot goes back to the close-up, the cup is back on the edge, and falls.
Dammit, I�m a Doctor, not the National Enquirer!
At the classified Starfleet briefing, Bones asks, "Where�s Sulu?", and Kirk says, "Captain Sulu," emphasis his, as if correcting Bones. Sulu�s voice-over log in the beginning of the movie establishes that he�s been a captain for three years. How can Bones not have known all this time that he was a captain?
But who gets the right side of the bed?
I still don�t see how Kirk and Spock can both serve on the Enterprise if both hold the rank of captain.
Excuse me, Captain, but could you speak a little louder into that potted plant by the window? I didn�t hear that last line about "not trusting Klingons"
When Kirk makes the log entry that�s eventually used against him at his trial, he turns to see Valeris after she makes a coughing sound. He tells her she could�ve knocked. First, shouldn�t he have said, "Ring the chime." And why didn�t the door make a swooshing sound when it opened? And why would the Vulcan Valeris show such a lack of etiquette and protocol with her captain? And why would the door have opened for Valeris without Kirk�s verbal permission? Was the door open all that time? It would explain why he said, "knock" instead of "ring the chime," but I can�t believe Kirk would make such a personal log entry with his door open for anyone to hear.
And if Valeris is unavailable, Starfleet Academy�s track coach, cafeteria chef and grounds keeper are next in line for the job
When Spock speaks to Valeris in his quarters, he tells her that after his mission, he intends for her to replace him. Huh? Spock is a captain in rank, and second in command of the flagship of the Federation. Valeris is a lieutenant, fresh out of the Academy. I don�t think I have to explain this any further.
That�s nothing. We hear John Goodman was up for the part of Valeris
Someone definitely has a liking for Chinese names. The episode Space Seed featured a character with a Chinese name, even though he was said to be Indian in descent, and played by a Mexican. This movie features anotherr character with a Chinese name, Chang, even though he�s played by a British actor, and the character is a Klingon!
Getting everyone at a diplomatic function drunk on Romulan Ale certainly didn�t help matters either, Einstein
The unitran must be having a day off on the Enterprise. Azetbur takes offense at Chekov�s use of the phrases "inalienable," and "human rights." This is a mistake that a foreigner having learned to speak English would make. They might misinterpret the word "inalienable," translating it literally to mean "excluding aliens," rather than the correct definition, which is "that which cannot be taken away from an owner, such as property or rights." But wouldn�t the universal translator on the Enterprise have translated the word into the appropriate Klingon word?
Oh, don�t mind Chekov, Chancellor. As far as he�s concerned, Russians haven�t "invented" sentient rights yet
And as far as the phrase "human rights" is concerned, Azetbur is right. Is this term still in use in the 23rd century? Wouldn�t it have become obsolete in an interstellar community? Wouldn�t it be something like sentient rights, like they use on Babylon Five?
But that floating Pepto Bismal blood was cool, wasn�t it?
Too bad each deck on Klingon ships doesn�t have its own artificial gravity. Decentralizing it would make what happened in this movie very hard.
They do. Unfortunately, they installed it right over the exterior of the primary one.
Too bad Klingon ships don�t have auxiliary artificial gravity that automatically kicks in when the primary dies.
Johnnie Cochrane and Barry Scheck would have a field day with this
Isn�t it a bit convenient that such large Klingon blood droplets followed the assassins from the room where Gorkon was shot, all the way back to the transporter pad?
It would explain why I saw Yeoman Rand�s rear end covered with them
Spock slaps a veridian patch onto Kirk�s shoulder to track him. Does Spock always just happen to carry these things around with him?
First he delivers a chop to Gorkon�s chest, then starts talking out of sync with his dialogue. Next he�ll start swinging a samurai sword
When Bones works to save Gorkon, he tells those around him to hold him down. When Gorkon�s legs begin moving about, Bones repeats his order, saying, "I said HOLD him!", but his mouth doesn�t move. It appears to have been dubbed in later.
Lieutenant K�Vetch, head of New Technologies. I want decentralized gravity, auxiliary backup gravity, modern handcuffs, and take that st upid screen door off our outer hull and replace it with a solid one!
We can surmise two very interesting facts from Kirk and Bones� arrest scene: 1. All Klingons have the exact same wrist measurement, and 2. Both Kirk and Bones both also have this same measurement. We know this because the handcuffs that the Klingons manacle them with look like miniature medieval wooden stocks; they�re not adjustable currently police handcuffs. I guess the prop master forgot that he was working on a film set in the future, not the past. Or do the Klingons deliberately use these cuffs to intentionally make their prisoners uncomfortable?
Maybe being tanked is standard operating procedure among Klingon doctors?
Why does the judge sustain Col. Worf�s objection when Chang asks Bones whether he consumed a lot of Romulan ale on the night in question? Isn�t it relevant?
Dammit, Jim, I�m a doctor, not a tea totaller! So I took a couple of shots in the holding cell! So what?
And why does Bones answer the question? The objection was sustained!
Universal Translators? Great, next you�ll want us to get modern handcuffs and auxiliary gravity
Don�t the Klingons have universal translators? When Kirk and Bones are put on trial, they require translators transmitting the words into English to hand receivers that the two have to hold to their ears. Maybe the court is a very ancient building, not equipped with them, and maybe trying aliens there is unusual, but why not give them whatever the Klingons carry on their persons when they board an alien ship? Why not give them headphones, like the ones used in Earth�s primitive 20th century United Nations?
Captain Kirk, It is the judgement of this court that the alleged personal log recording entered into evidence of you confessing to hate Klingons, plotting to murder Chancellor Gorkon and the President of the Federation, urinating in our orange juice and having a thousand pizzas delivered to Chronos is, in fact, authentic, and may be considered by the jury. We will concede, however, that the part about your latent homosexual feelings for Mr. Spock was falsified by Lt. Valeris (at least we hope it was).
I know the Klingon court system was depicted as somewhat unenlightened, but the introduction of Kirk�s personal log raises an interesting legal question: With the level of sophistication of video, audio, and computer technology that allows people today to alter film and audio information, will the technology ever reach a point 300 years from now where it will be impossible to distinguish between authentic recorded information and falsified information? We know that by NextGen, hologram technology is so sophisticated, and the ability to create convincing forgeries is somewhat on par with the ability to discern them, as seen in In The Pale Moonlight(DS9), but what about at this movie�s point in the timeline?
Chekov: "I don�t understand, Keptin. Six and a half hours ago, zis energy compass indicated
the energy surge vas coming from zis direction, and now it says it�s coming from zat
direction."
Spock: "Mr. Chekov, that� s a pocket wristwatch."
Chekov: "Oh."
After Kirk and crew have dinner with Gorkon, Spock calls Kirk to the bridge and says there�s and enormous energy surge emanating from the Enterprise. Let�s repeat that: He says the surge is coming "from us," meaning from the ship. But after Kirk and Bones� conviction and sentence, the crew review the torpedo footage, and when Uhura suggests it was coming from Kronos 1, Spock disagrees, saying it was very near to the Enterprise, possibly beneath them. Waitaminute. Didn�t Spock say to Kirk before that it was coming from the Enterprise itself? When did this determination change? And why didn�t the creators show how the crew came to that conclusion? I don�t know if a scene was cut, but it created an awful lapse in plot consistency. Wasn�t this an important part of the investigation to show the audience?
Because "I�m going to make Kirk my b itch" is the same in every language
Why aren�t there universal translators in the Rura Penthe prison? How do the warden and guards communicate with the prisoners?
More kung fu dialogue dubbing
Ed Nielsen of Anchorage, Alaska, noticed that when Kirk and Bones first arrive on the planet and are confronted by an inmate who demands Kirk�s coat, Bones says, "He�s definitely on about something, Jim!", but his mouth doesn�t move. I reviewed the scene, and found that during this line, which is split among two different shots of Bones, Bones lips indeed do not move, though only in the first shot, which contains the first half of the line: "He�s definitely on..."
Does this mean he can dribble a soccer ball with his groin?
Kirk defeats an inmate by kicking him in the knees, which Martia later tells him is where the alien�s genitals are located. Just how in the world did evolution cause a race to develop genitals on their knees? Given that knees are more likely to bump into objects and people when walking or fighting than the groin is, just what advantages did nature see in this?
An extraterrestrial pervert
And if it genitals are located on the knees of members of this race, then wouldn�t it stand to reason, that these people would make it their business to cover up this area of their bodies, perhaps with protective padding? Yet, for some reason, not only does this alien not put padding of some kind on it, he walks around with a big hole in his pants, leaving the area totally exposed, not bothering to patch it up. Is he that confident that he won�t bump it into anything, or that no one will take a shot at him down there?
He must be related to Valeris
The Excelsior crewman played by Christian Slater walks in on Sulu while he was sleeping, apparently without chiming first and receiving permission to enter.
Oh, what the hell, we�re red shirts! We�re probably gonna end up dead no matter what we do!
ST III featured security guards in front of Spock�s broken-into quarters that wore protective chest plates and helmets. I pointed out how an attacker could easily shoot or stab them in the uncovered face. Now in this movie, when they rush into the galley, they don�t even have the helmets! That�s a pretty cavalier attitude to have, and ironic, given that Burke and Samno were shot with phasers to the head.
Methinks thy Lieutenant Uhura knowest not how to read properly
Apparently, the Klingon-English dictionary that Uhura is using while the Enterprise proceeds to Rura Penthe is a dictionary of archaic Klingon words. Instead of saying, "We is your freighter Ursva," she says, "We is thy freighter Ursva." Unless it�s a book of both modern and archaic terms mixed together, which makes no sense, since a foreign language dictionary should be made to be as easy to understand as possible. And in case you thought the word "thy" was directly after the word "the" in her book, and she simply read the wrong word by accident, there are almost 200 words, or five and a half pages, between the words "the" and "thy" in my American Heritage Dictionary.
The agony of de feet
Would it be so hard for the Enterprise quartermaster to replicate Starfleet-issue shoes and boots for members of crewman Dax�s race?
Maybe they just thought Kirk was trying to quit smoking
Kirk reveals the veridian patch to Bones while hiking across the Rura Penthe wasteland, and the two apparently have their uniforms on underneath their fur ponchos. Does this mean that they�ve been wearing them all this time? First of all, isn�t there any sense of security in the future? No one frisked, strip searched, or confiscated property from Kirk and Bones? This is absolutely ridiculous! Aren�t the Klingons familiar with the concept of "concealed weapons?" Kirk told the alien who started a fight with him in the prison that they confiscated the universal translators. Why not the veridian patch?
No wonder the warden let them escape!
Second, just how swift is the Klingon judiciary system? I ask this, because Kirk and Bones wore their uniforms for (depending on how much time elapsed between Kirk and Bones� arrest and rescue), anywhere from several days to several weeks, judging from what we see onscreen, and must both smell like a hamper full of used diapers in the middle of August!
She must be getting hormones from the prison�s black market
When Martia shapeshifts into both the little girl and her furry form, she retains her humanlike (actress Iman�s) voice. But when she shapeshifts into a duplicate of Kirk, her voice is exactly like Kirk�s as well.
They must�ve attended one of those intensive short-term language classes for assassins, cutthroats and murderers
It sure is convenient and courteous for the prison warden and Martia to have learned to speak English so well.
Cool shapeshifting powers, really bad memory
When the Rura Penthe warden shows up to confront the escaped trio, Martia frantically points to Kirk, saying, "Kill him, he�s the one!" Why is she bothering to do this? Why doesn�t she just shift back to her true form, or for that matter, ANY form, which would show the warden who she is? True, the warden planned on killing her anyway, but she didn�t know that. Did she forget she could shapeshift?
I think Rube Goldberg designed a machine that could kill someone like this
This elaborate, convoluted scheme that the prison warden hatches in order to kill Kirk and Bones is asinine. Kirk and Martia mention that for both to die in an accident would�ve looked suspicious. But who said anything about an accident? It�s a prison, for crying out loud! Black market smuggling, drug dealing, rape and murder occur all the time in prison, and this one in particular hardly appears to be more tightly secure. The warden could�ve easily killed Kirk and Bones and make it look like the work of another prisoner, or even gotten \i another} prisoner to do it, and then killed that prisoner to eliminate a witness. The run-ins that Kirk had with those two aliens in the prison even helped establish that there were those who had it in for them. Who came up with this plan?
Did the writer of this scene take a shot to the head on stun too?
Valeris states in the galley that no one can used an unauthorized phaser aboard the starship without setting off the alarms. So why didn�t they go off when she killed Burke and Samno? Sure, they said it was on heavy stun, implying that only a phaser on kill sets off the alarm, but she made no mention of that in the galley. And why would the alarms not go off when fired on heavy stun? Is Starfleet Security really that casual about phasers being fired on the ship, so long as it�s on heavy stun? Is this so Bones and Spock can playfully continue their feud by taking relatively safe potshots at one another? Shouldn�t a phaser fired on any level that is conceivably capable of being fatal set them off? Valeris could�ve repisoderogrammed the alarms, but if she did, why would she then limit her phaser firing level at all? And doesn�t it seem odd, that a fresh Academy graduate knows more about ship operations and workings than the senior staff?
If this moron graduated at the top of the class, pickens must be slim at the Academy Admissions office
If we assume that Starfleet vessels now use humanoid court reporters (as Phil speculated), we can surmise that Valeris intervened, stopping the reporter before the reporter went to sickbay, probably with some made-up story that Kirk or Spock wanted her to act as reporter instead (already highly implausible, since they simply would�ve contacted the reporter personally about the change in plan over the comm system), and went to sickbay herself to kill Burke and Samno. Let�s also assume that Kirk and Spock went to the ship�s court reporter themselves, told him/her the plan, and instructed them to play along, and allow Valeris to take over from them when she approached them. Did Valeris think that there would be no one else in sickbay besides the two yeomen? Did she plan on killing everyone else present, hoping that they would all stand still for her, while she ran up to each and every one of them, and put a phaser on heavy stun to their head and killed them? Even if she didn�t know yet that Kirk and Bones were returned to the ship, didn�t she think that Spock would be present at such an important event?
Bridge, brig, it�s a difference of a couple of letters, so what?
After Valeris is discovered, why is she taken to the bridge, and not to the brig, or an interrogation room? (It�d be less dramatic, that�s why.)
Irony does make for great drama
I know Valeris would argue that she felt her actions were justified, but I think she needs to brush up on her logic. In confessing, she comments on how the Klingons can�t be trusted, pointing out that they conspired to kill their own chancellor. Maybe someone should remind her that she did the exact same thing. Moreover, she did it with two high-ranking Starfleet officers, and tried to frame two innocent men in the process. Mind telling me where the logic is in all that? Ironically, the rationale on the part of the conspirators is that Klingons, Romulans and Federation cannot live and work together in peace because they can never trust one another, even though that�s exactly what the conspirators (of all three races) did in order to make their plan work.
I knew she shouldn�t have told the location to Linda Tripp!
How does Sulu know the location of the peace conference? Neither he nor the Excelsior are involved in the negotiations. Didn�t Azetbur want the location of the conference kept secret?
I guess the creators think internal plot consistency is for the birds (of prey)
The space battle between Chang�s Bird of Prey and the two Starfleet vessels has a couple of confusing discrepancies. First, the Bird severely pummels the Enterprise, but at one point, Scotty yells to Kirk that the shields are weakening, and this is accompanied by a graphic of the Enterprise, with her shields flashing. Wait a minute. You mean the Enterprise�s shields have been up all this time? Not only does the damage that the Enterprise sustains appear to be consistent with not having shields at all, but every shot of the Enterprise getting hit shows the Bird�s weapons making actual contact with the ship, rather than dispersing as the shields become temporarily visible, which is what usually happens when the shields are up. A torpedo even careens off the top of the Enterprise�s saucer section.
I�m beginning to think "shields" just refers to those lines around the Enterprise on the computer console screen graphics
And when the Excelsior shows up, the first torpedo that Chang fires at her goes RIGHT THROUGH the saucer section, from bottom to top! How is this possible? Why aren�t the Excelsior�s shields up?
Dammit, I�m a doctor, not an engineer!
During the battle at the end of the movie, Spock enlists Bones� help in modifying a torpedo. Wouldn�t Scotty be better suited for this?
If Klingons start coming up you asking you to read their scripts, you�ll we�ll know for sure
Is Camp Khitomer in California? The buildings used in the establishing shot with the relief sculpted-exteriors look suspiciously like the Brandeis Bardin Institute in Simi Valley, California. Interestingly, they were also used as the jail in the HBO movie Deadlock, with Rutger Hauer, Mimi Rogers and Joan Chen, and was blown up (at least, a miniature of them) in The Lawnmower Man.
Spock: "Gas. Gas, Captain. That�s the answer."
Kirk: "We can detect Chang�s ship be tracing its gas trails?"
Spock: "No, that smell. Scotty was in here earlier, and I believe he had
Mexican today."
The ability of ships to detect cloaked ships� plasma trails renders the Bird of Prey�s ability to fire when cloaked moot, but why don�t the Klingons use this Bird of Prey for ambushes, if not dogfighting? A Bird of Prey could arrive at a destination it knows an enemy will be. It can maneuver into its position using thrusters only, and fire at the ship while still cloaked. It can then attack its target easily, especially if the target is running without shields, which ships generally do when they�re not in combat. The target would not be able to detect the Bird of Prey, because there are no plasma trails in the immediately vicinity of the Bird. Now I know the one in this movie was the prototype, but what about the engineers who created it? Were they all on the Bird when it was destroyed? If so, didn�t any of them keep records of its design on Chronos?
A Klingon wasn�t his original disguise, but the costume shop was out of Richard Nixon masks
Why is Colonel West disguised as a Klingon? Two reasons. First, the external: The creators don�t want the audience to know it�s West until after they�ve built up suspense with his firing on the President, and his ejection from the sniper�s nest by Scotty. Second, the internal: Just as the Klingons are all ready to go to war because they think a human (Kirk) killed their guy, the conspirators need the Federation to believe the Klingons killed theirs. This is where the problem is. The only way for anyone to know that a Klingon did it would be for the assassin, West, to be caught. So was West going to sacrifice himself by allowing himself to be captured? Even if he did, his identity as human would�ve been eventually revealed. Perhaps he wanted to be caught on camera as a Klingon as he entered his nest, but if this is so, they should�ve shown a scene to establish this.
Colonel West: "Hi, I�m Colonel West. I�m here disguised as a Klingon to kill the President and
implicate the Klingons."
Seating attendant: "Oh, good, you�re here. You�re in row three, seat one, on the left, sir. And
don�t forget your sniper scope."
Colonel West: "Oh, yeah, thanks."
And speaking of which, West was sitting with the other Klingons before walking out of the hall to go to his sniper�s nest. Didn�t any of the other Klingons wonder who this unfamiliar guy was, and what he was doing there?
This was a big problem whenever the Kl�Hatfields and the Kl�McCoys walked into the same bar
In Hide and Q (TNG), Q, referring to the Klingon wisdom that says not to drink with your enemy, tells Riker, "that�s probably why you beat them," indicating a Klingon defeat at the hands of the Federation, since that�s how the writer of that episode assumed Worf came to be on the Enterprise, but this movie this movie depicts the enmity between the Federation and the Klingons beginning to dissolve when the Federation offered friendly assistance during a time of crisis for the Klingons, resulting in mutual trust and friendship between the two superpowers.
| By Out to Lunch on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 07:17 am: |
Firstly, I'd like to say that I haven't read the "Official" nits that are in the book so what I'm about to say now might be in there already.
The thing about gas is interesting. The Klingons and the Romulans have had cloaked ships for years and presumably the Federation has being trying to suss out some way of getting round them (using all their top scientists and tacticians). How come then after all this time, the solution just happens to be found by one guy, in the heat of battle, just when needed? If he'd only applied his mind earlier he might have saved lots more lives.
Also, Spock deduces that since the databanks on the Enterprise were altered, there must be guilty person(s) on board the Enterprise. This is true, however it isn't necessarily true that the person would have gravity boots because it's possible that those people would have beemed over from the BOP and all the people on the Enterprise were doing was changing the databanks.
Which raises the point - why were the databanks altered anyway if Scotty would have been able to confirm that they were still fully stocked?
| By ScottN on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 10:44 am: |
Could Valeris� name be a reference to Zorin?
According to Nimoy's autobiography, Kim Catrall based the name on Eris, the Greek (Roman?) goddess of discord, and added the "Val" to make it a bit more alien.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 09:12 pm: |
I still don�t see how Kirk and Spock can both serve on the Enterprise if both hold the rank of
captain.
At the begining Spock says that he opened up a dialogue with Gorkon. I thought that that ment that he was onboard more as an addition to the mission than a normal member of the crew. Meaning that it's Kirk's ship but Spock's mission.
| By Rene on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 09:34 pm: |
So how do you explain them serving together in Trek V on the Enterprise?
| By Derf on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 09:53 pm: |
The rub was only apparent after Kirk was demoted in STIV. However, Spock was a captain way back in ST2 as a "training" captain, nothing more. (but a captain, nonetheless) He died in that movie, was ressurected in ST3, and allowed to help save the Earth in ST4. Why wouldn't Starfleet let Spock keep his "captain's rank" yet be the first officer of the Enterprise? I think Spock's actions in the previous films would give him the clout to get those concessions from Starfleet.
| By Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 09:53 pm: |
It was an emergency situation and the Enterprise had less than a skeleton crew aboard.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 - 12:06 am: |
Luigi Novi: Could Valeris� name be a reference to Zorin?
ScottN: According to Nimoy's autobiography, Kim Catrall based the name on Eris, the Greek (Roman?) goddess of discord, and added the "Val" to make it a bit more alien.
Luigi Novi: You mean an actor can pick the name of their character? That sounds unusual. What was the character's name in the script?
| By ScottN on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 - 01:13 am: |
So how do you explain them serving together in Trek V on the Enterprise?
Well, let's see... Spock died in STII, came back in STIII, was in 1986 in STIV, and STV occurred right after that. Maybe he never was assigned/reassigned?
| By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 - 01:27 am: |
I think the emergency/skeleton crew/Spock figured he'd help Kirk out explanation is a bit better.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 - 04:38 am: |
Luigi Novi: You mean an actor can pick the name of their character? That sounds unusual. What was the character's name in the script?
It was Savak but for whatever reason they decided to make it a new character and after they cast her she got to help develop the charater.
| By ScottN on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 - 09:55 am: |
Because "they" decided that Saavik wouldn't betray the Federation that way. Hence, it was made a new character, and Ms. Catrall was given some input into the character's name and background.
| By TWS Garrison on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 10:24 am: |
Apparently, the Klingon-English dictionary that Uhura is using while the Enterprise proceeds to Rura Penthe is a dictionary of archaic Klingon words. Instead of saying, "We is your freighter Ursva," she says, "We is thy freighter Ursva." Unless it?s a book of both modern and archaic terms mixed together, which makes no sense, since a foreign language dictionary should be made to be as easy to understand as possible.
I don't see this as an archaic/modern issue, but as a familiar/formal problem. I think the point is that Uhura, because of her inexperience with Klingon, meant to use the Klingon word for "your" that strangers would use, but what she actually used was the word that friends and family would use, which in English would be "thy" (except that the familiar forms have been largely abandoned in English).
| By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 07:12 pm: |
Right. Why, then, would the captioning translate it as "thy", instead of "your," if "thy" is no longer the appropriate English equivalent? If that word was abandoned, and "your" is the current usage, the captioning would simply have been "your."
| By Duke of Earl Grey on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 09:46 pm: |
Cus THAT wouldn't have been funny!
Besides, "thy" is still a word, and still means what it means, even if we don't normally use it in everyday language.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 03:27 am: |
The fact that we don't use it in everyday language anymore is precisely why it wouldn't have been in Uhura's dictionary or in the captioning. That was the point I was making.
Personally, I didn't that scene was extremely funny. If they wanted to do a Three's Company-style involving comedy from miscommunication, they coulda done it much better, and funnier.
| By Lots and Lots of Language on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 08:30 am: |
Luigi--
I think the point that the others were trying to make is that in Klingon she used the familiar form.
Uhura's dictionary probably listed "your" and then gave the two forms--she chose one, and it happened to be the familiar "thy" rather than the formal "your" in the Klingon.
To show us, the viewers, that she chose the wrong one in Klingon, the captioning translated it into the "thy" (which, as pointed out, is still a perfectly valid word with the same familiar connotations... but would probably get strange looks if used in a crowd)
| By LUIGI NOVI on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 09:33 pm: |
Lots, "thy" isn't wrong because it's "familiar", as opposed to "formal". It's wrong because it's no longer used. If Uhura was looking in the portion of the dictionary that lists the English words with the Klingon translation, which she presumably was, She would not have looked under "thy". She would've looked under "your", which is nowhere near the word "thy" in the dictionary. If there were two forms of that word, they would've been in Klingon. The word "thy" would not have figured into the conversation AT ALL.
Whether it's "still a word" or "valid" or not is not relevant. "Arigato" is a valid word, isn't it? But if you're an English speaking person reading an English to Spanish dictionary, you use the Spanish word, gracias. The captioning would translate it as "thank you." If the person speaking messed up, and accidentally read the word for "that", instead of "thanks", the captioning would read "que." It would not read "arigato", the Japanese word for thank you, valid word or not, funny scene or not.
| By TWS Garrison on Monday, May 28, 2001 - 08:24 pm: |
But if you meant to say "usted", and instead said "tu", the captioning could only really communicate that by "thou".
| By John A. Lang on Monday, May 28, 2001 - 10:23 pm: |
Maybe the REAL reason Uhura used "THY" is because she knew the Klingons were REALLY into Shakespeare and she thought that throwing in the old Shakespearian language would really "soup up" the message.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 03:32 am: |
Okay, I'll bite. What does "usted" mean? Without knowing that word, I can't understand your point, TWS.
| By Lots and Lots of Language on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 07:41 am: |
Luigi--
What I meant to convey is that Uhura did look up the word "your" and there she found two words. Let's name them word 1 and word 2. She chose word 1, which, in Klingon, happened to be the familiar form of "your." Thus, to convey to us the fact that she chose the wrong one, the captioning put the familiar English form up, which is "thy."
| By ScottN on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 10:55 am: |
Luigi,
In Spanish, there are two forms of the pronoun "You". "Usted" is the formal form, and "Tu" is the familiar form.
| By Merat on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 01:48 pm: |
Also, Luigi... "thy" is not completly dead. It is often used in prayer and in rituals. Perhapse she mistakenly looked this form up?
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 03:52 pm: |
Lots, if the Klingon word in question was "thy", it wouldn't have been listed as a form of "your" in the first place. It would've been listed under thy.
Merat, again, how can you look for "your," and "accidentally" look up a word that begins with an entirely differnt letter, a letter that's five letters away in the alphabet from the one that begins the correct word? There are 94 pages between "thy" and "your" in my American Heritage Dictionary. "Accidentally" reading the wrong word would mean reading a word that's next to the right one, or at least, near it. She could look up "your", and accidentally read "youngster", or "you're". She could not accidentally read "thy".
| By Meg on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 06:38 pm: |
I'm just going to say, maybe something got lost in the translation between Klingon and Federation Standard.
| By Carlos on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 08:02 pm: |
Luigi- Here is what Lots... and the others are trying to explain to you (I am using Spanish as the example):
If you look up the English word you, you will probably find the words tu, usted, vos, ustedes, and vosotros as the Spanish equivalents. But though all these words mean you, their meanings vary depending on the context of its use (singular and plural, formal and informal, regional dialects, etc). What Lots... and the others are suggesting is that Uhura chose the wrong one and she chose something that meant your, but was perhaps not the correct one for what she intended. But in the English translation, it would still come up as your, so the filmmakers chose to represent Uhura's error by supplanting your with thy.
I offer another example (again, in Spanish):
If you look up orange juice in Spanish, you will probably get jugo de naranja and jugo de china. Except, the latter is not used in all Latin-speaking countries and it actually translates to juice from China.
On the other hand, isn't it also possible that she mispronounced a word? Again, Spanish:
Yo tengo doce años;.
Versus
Yo tengo doce anos.
The first translates to: I am twelve years old. But if one mispronounces the ñ as an n, then it translates to: I have twelve anuses. All the more reason for the Klingons to look at you funny.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 10:21 pm: |
Now THAT would've been funny!! I'll bet Jesus Christ had to be careful when he was twelve years old. Or when he was drinking orange juice.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 10:33 pm: |
Seriously, while I appreciate you providing your viewpoint on this, the first two examples you cite don't really correllate well. In the first example, you show how "you" has several forms in Spanish. But if you translate it back into English, it's still "you." It doesn't turn into an entirely different, archaic word that is no longer used in common speech. If one of those forms meant "thy", it would be listed under "thy", not "your".
In the second example, It would be required that the Klingon, AND the other Klingon who joined him at the comm station, BOTH were of a different Klingon dialect from the one Uhura used. The intent of the scene seemed to be Uhura messing up, not that they ran into the wrong Klingons who were from a different Klingon "country."
The third theory you provide, however, in addition to being funny, actually sounds plausible. Well done!
| By ScottN on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 10:55 pm: |
The problem, Luigi, is that English doesn't have "formal" and "familiar" forms of the pronoun "you". Thus, TPTB had to fall back to the archaic "thy" when they were trying to show Uhura's miscue to those of us who don't speak Klingon.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 11:44 pm: |
Scott, the captioned word was in English. The Klingon word she tried to use may have been wrong, but "your" is still "your". It doesn't become "thy" when the foreign word is wrong.
| By ScottN on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 03:32 am: |
The Spanish version of STVI probably said "tu" rather than "su". The German version probably also used the familiar.
| By Merat on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 12:26 pm: |
Thy is still in use, Luigi. It is still a valid word. For example, prayer....
"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy named."
| By Carlos on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 12:28 pm: |
Luigi-
Except thy and your mean essentially the same thing (whether it's used prevalently in today's language or not). You're arguing that WordA leads to WordB, thus WordB should lead back to WordA, not WordC.
Let's go back to English/Spanish:
car: coche, carro
Both mean the same thing (though, again, there are dialects that use one or the other).
Now the Spanish/English entry:
coche: automobile, car, carriage
Do you begin to see? Car may lead to coche, but coche doesn't necessarily lead immediately back to car.
Regretfully, other than the oft-mentioned formal/informal distinctions of your in Spanish, I cannot think of another example that may help you understand. But let's try the car example the other way:
Say you were a Spanish-speaking person who wanted to say coche in English. You look it up in your handy dictionary, and you choose the third definition (carriage). But of course, carriage, though technically valid, is rarely used in English to describe a car. In order to convey the slip to you (and to the audience now reading the subtitles of what you're saying), I may choose to substitute the word coche for something else that's closer to horse-drawn buggy or stagecoach in Spanish (regretfully, I do not know a word for that).
Does that make it easier to understand?
| By margie on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 12:33 pm: |
>Scott, the captioned word was in English. The Klingon word she tried to use may have been wrong, but "your" is still "your". It doesn't become "thy" when the foreign word is wrong. <
But how would we have known the foreign word was wrong if the captioning said, "you"? That's what everyone's trying to say. The only reason the captioning says, "thy" is for the viewers, so we get the joke. The captioning was not reading the English/Klingon dictionary, but was translating literally what Uhura said.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 09:16 pm: |
Carlos: Do you begin to see? Car may lead to coche, but coche doesn't necessarily lead immediately back to car.
Luigi Novi: Except, that Uhura wouldn't be looking up coche. She'd be looking up car! Don't you understand, Carlos, if Spanish is the used as the equivalent of Klingon for purposes of the comparison, you're saying Uhura would be reading the Klingon to English half of the book. She wouldn't. She'd be reading the English to Klingon half of it. You use the two versions of car as an example, but if that were the case, it would be wrong in Klingon, not when captioned in English. If Uhura said coche, when she should have said carro, then only the Spaniards would've known the mistake. If the scene were captioned in English, the fact that the distinction between those two forms doesn't exist in English is precisely why it wouldn't work. It would simply have read "car," and the humor wouldn't carry over.
Does that make it easier to understand?
Margie: But how would we have known the foreign word was wrong if the captioning said, "you"?
Luigi Novi: It wouldn't. That's why the scene doesn't work for me, and why its' a nit. The logic of language is dispensed with for the sake of humor, much like a lot of the humor in ST IV. Being nitpickers, that's why I pointed it out. Yes, I know there were external reasons for this nit. There are external reasons for many nits that happen. We still point them out, though.
margie: The captioning was not reading the English/Klingon dictionary, but was translating literally what Uhura said.
Luigi Novi: It could only do that if she looked up "thy" instead of "your", and read that word, as I've already said.
| By juli k on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 09:42 pm: |
Cool! This is the perfect thread in which to procrastinate on my translation work....
Who knows, maybe the Klingon language has dozens of words for "you." The Japanese language has seven that I can think of, and I know there are many more.
If someone had no knowledge of a language, they would normally take the very first entry in the dictionary, no matter what the situation. But say Uhura studied a bit of Klingon as part of her communications training x years ago and recalls vaguely that the Klingon language is hierarchical and has many levels of politeness depending on social status (like Japanese). She would know that the neutral word for "you" that appears first in the dictionary would be too polite and would give her away completely, so she chose a level that she thought was more appropriate to the crew of a cargo ship, but there were so many levels that she chose the wrong "you."
You still might say, "That doesn't explain why it was translated into the archaic word 'thy.'" Well, sometimes a word could be current in one situation, and archaic in another.
Another possibility: In my version of Undiscovered Country, neither Uhura nor the Klingons use ANY word for "you" or "your" in the Japanese subtitles, because Japanese conversation often the subject is only implied and not said.
For example, "I love you" would be just Ai shite iru ("Love"). Both the "I" (watashi and "you" (anata)are left out, because the subject and object are obvious.
Someone in their first semester of Japanese language study would not know this, and if he were to try to impress his Japanese girlfriend by saying, "Watashi-wa anata-o ai shite iru, he would most likely get laughed at, because he would sound ridiculously formal. So perhaps in the Klingon language the very use of ANY word for "you" in that particular situation would be archaic, which is why they chose to translate it "thy."
One more example. This is similar to Carlos' years/anus explanation. In Chinese, there is the word "mai." The meaning is completely different, depending on the intonation. If you say it like we would say, "NO!" it means "to buy." If you say it sort of like, "No?" it means "to sell." So perhaps Uhura said the right word, but with an intonation that changed the meaning slightly.
Anyway, I tend to agree with everybody else--"thy" is the only other word for "your" in the English language, and even though it is not accurate, the subtitle translators were forced to settle for second best. In translation, it is often more important to get across the intended effect of a word or phrase than it is to translate it verbatim. There are some things that are impossible to translate between Japanese and English, because of the deep cultural differences (and it gives me a headache). I can't begin to imagine the difficulties in translating between two languages that arose on different planets!
Luigi, do you give up yet? ;-)
margie! I saw your message on the front board, and I just sent you an e-mail. Are you able to get online from home now?
| By Carlos on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 10:04 pm: |
Luigi, let me repeat what I said:
Say you were a Spanish-speaking person who wanted to say coche in English.
I explained quite carefully that I was working from Spanish to English because I couldn't think of an English to Spanish example other than the oft-mentioned tu versus usted.
You see? Spanish is being used as the equivalent of English in this example (and English the equivalent of Klingon). So in my example, Uhura (being a Spanish speaker)would be looking up coche, not car!
Imagine a Star Trek where Uhura speaks Spanish and the aliens speak English. Uhura wants to translate the following into English:
Tengo que cambiar el aceite de mi coche.
So she says:
I need to change the oil on my carriage.
Anyone would look at her oddly for saying that. Then the caption in Spanish may read:
Tengo que cambiar el aceite de mi carreta.
Carreta is closer to horse-drawn buggy, which is the defintion English-speakers usually associate with a carriage. Then the humor does carry over. Uhura said carriage when she should have said car.
You explain to Margie that you understand the external reasons why the word was changed. The sole purpose of the captaining is external. It's to let the audience know what the Klingons understand Uhura to be saying,
| By margie on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 12:53 pm: |
Juli, I'll check my email either tonight or tomorrow. I've been very busy this week. Hopefully the problem was fixed. I'd cross my fingers, but it's very difficult to type that way!
| By Lots and Lots of Language on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 06:05 pm: |
Okay, Luigi:
I went to http://babelfish.altavista.com/
And put in the following English phrase:
"Go stick your head in a pig"
Then, I had it translate it into French. It returned:
Disparaissent le bâton votre tête chez un porc
I then took that phrase and had it translate it from French back into English. It returned:
Disappear the stick your head in a pig
*now* do you see?
| By Anonymous on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 06:23 pm: |
Not to mention that the translation reads "We is thy freighter Ursva" which reads better in English as "We are the freighter Ursva."
And therefore, Luigi, she could have skipped a line and read the Klingon word for "thy."
| By Anonymous on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 09:04 pm: |
Let it go already. Geez. Nobody cares.
| By Merat on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 09:24 pm: |
Ok, Anon #2, lighten up. Also, your argument is deeply flawed. If, as you put it, "nobody care[d]" then we would not be discussing it in such great length, now would we?
| By Anonymous on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 09:27 pm: |
Okay...maybe the two language nerds care....but this is a place to discuss Star Trek VI, and the "thy" nit is legitimate.
| By Merat on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 09:41 pm: |
First of all, please chose a name, as talking to the various Anonymous people quickly becomes confusing. Also, Nitcentral isn't just a place to say "this is a nit." and leave it at that. We like to discuss it, stretch our brains a bit, maybe learn a few things.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 11:50 pm: |
Lots and Lots of Language: Okay, Luigi:
I went to http://babelfish.altavista.com/ And put in the following English phrase: "Go stick your head in a pig". Then, I had it translate it into French. It returned: Disparaissent le bâton votre tête chez un porc.
I then took that phrase and had it translate it from French back into English. It returned:
Disappear the stick your head in a pig
*now* do you see?
Luigi: LOL. No, Lolar, I do not. Babelfish translates INDIVIDUAL words. It has no syntax or sentence structure function, and is incapable of competently translating phrases or sentences. The reason it returned the gibberish it did had NOTHING to do with the points that Carlos or the others brought up. Anyone who goes to babelfish to translate anything more than single words at at time is fooling themselves.
And if anyone missed it, Carlos pointed out above that Uhura may have simply mispronounced the word, and that makes sense to me. While I don't find any of the other arguments convincing, that one actually works, and I said so above, and I included it in my nitpick document. I thought it would end there, since I basically admitted Carlos could have been right, except that Lolar continued it with more arguments that I didn't buy.
Anonymous: Not to mention that the translation reads "We is thy freighter Ursva" which reads better in English as "We are the freighter Ursva." And therefore, Luigi, she could have skipped a line and read the Klingon word for "thy."
Luigi Novi: A line? Try five and half pages, Anonymous. That's how many are in between those two words in The American Heritage Dictionary, and in English to foreign language dictionaries, which are arranged to include the most common words that would be used to save space, the word thy doesn't even appear at all.
Merat: Nitcentral isn't just a place to say "this is a nit." and leave it at that. We like to discuss it, stretch our brains a bit, maybe learn a few things.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Merat.
| By ScottN on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 12:31 am: |
No, Luigi, the five pages thing doesn't matter.
If I look in an English-Spanish dictionary.
Your: su (formal)
tu (familar)
If I meant to use the formal form, and accidentally read the next line, you get the equivalent of what Uhura did.
Also, it looked to me like they *WERE* doing a word for word translation. So the Babelfish example is a good one.
| By juli k on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 12:55 am: |
Luigi, if you still care, I thought about a way to explain this a little more clearly.
The way I see it, there are at least three important components to translation.
Factual content (information like names, dates, scientific stuff, legal mumbo-jumbo, etc.) is relatively easy to convey because it is concrete and involves dry language without metaphors and so on.
Emotional content (feelings, tone, jokes) is much more difficult to convey because it involves more ambiguous language about abstract subjects.
Linguistic content can be close to impossible to translate without elaborate explanations. Consider the following dialog in Japanese:
A: Shouga nai. ("We're out of ginger.")
B: Shiyou ga nai! ("Can't be helped!")
A: Samuuuui! ("That's cooooold!")
I have translated the factual content faithfully, but it makes no sense in English. That's because the emotional and linguistic content are missing. The conversation centers around a bad pun that cannot be translated directly into English.
Shouga means "ginger." nai means "there is no _____." Hence, "There isn't any ginger/We're out of ginger."
Shiyou ga nai is a set phrase that can be literally translated, "There is no way to do it," meaning "It can't be helped."
The pun comes from the fact that Shiyou ga nai sounds like Shouga nai when pronounced quickly, so person B's reply carries a double meaning.
Samui means "cold," but it is also slang for "That's a bad joke."
Now if this dialog were a scene in a Japanese movie and I were trying to assign English subtitles to it, I would have a big problem. I would want to preserve the factual content of the dialog, but I can't use the nonsensical English translation above, and I can't explain all that stuff in the limited space of a subtitle. So what do I do?
I am forced to prioritize. Say we keep person A's "We're out of ginger" part. But I still have to decide what is more important to convey in person B's reply--1) the factual content ("Can't be helped"); 2) the emotional content (B made a bad joke); 3) the linguistic content (the double meaning of "Shouga nai/Shiyou ga nai").
I think we can agree that in this case 2) should be my top priority. This means that I have to invent a bad English-language pun around "ginger." So this is what I come up with:
A: We're out of ginger!
B: Ginger (didn't cha) pick some up yesterday?
A: Ouch.
(Okay, it's not a great substitution, but I'm not getting paid to think about this all day!)
Now, my translation may admittedly be inaccurate in terms of factual content, but it is not a nit, because 100 percent accuracy is not possible or even desirable in this case.
The same is true of Uhura's conversation with the Klingons. Even assuming "thy" is inaccurate (and we haven't determined that), it is not a nit, because it serves to convey the emotional content that some error in Uhura's conversational Klingon caused the Klingons to think there was something strange about her. "Thy" may not do that job perfectly, but there is no better choice. Even if it were not a very skillful translation, it would still not be a nit, any more than bad acting or writing is a nit.
If you want to see examples of translation inaccuracies that are nits, check out the Star Trek thread "Something Got Lost in the Translation." There are tons of them. (I'm not sure where the thread is, though. If you have trouble finding it, I'll look it up for you.)
| By LUIGI NOVI on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 02:32 am: |
ScottN:
No, Luigi, the five pages thing doesn't matter.
If I look in an English-Spanish dictionary:
Your: su (formal)
tu (familar)
If I meant to use the formal form, and accidentally read the next line, you get the equivalent of what Uhura did.
Luigi Novi: Scott, Anonymous didn't say she read the wrong form. He/She said Uhura read the wrong English word.
Juli, I appreciate the work you and the others put into this, but I still feel Carlos' mispronunciation explanation is the best one. I don't feel that scene correllated to most of the examples you guys have tried to give me, and that Uhura mispronounced the word just makes the most sense.
| By juli k on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 04:48 am: |
Well, Luigi, I still think all the explanations were perfectly plausible, but I'm willing to forget it and get on with life, if you are.
Besides, I think I have an even better explanation! (Do I hear people groaning? No, it must have been my imagination....)
The dictionaries that Uhura was using looked quite old. Maybe when she looked up "you" in the dictionary, the Klingon word that appeared was outdated in Uhura's time, hence the use of the archaic "thy" to translate it.
The more I watch the scene, the more I think this was the intention of the writers.
What I want to know is what those dictionaries were doing on the ship in the first place. I want to think that paper books survive into the 24th century, but I don't think reference books belong on a starship where space is limited and the technology probably exists to fit the future equivalent of the whole Library of Congress on the period at the end of this sentence.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 04:59 am: |
Not bad, Juli. Make that TWO explanations that make sense to me.
| By Merat on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 06:29 am: |
I have to say, I like the explaination in the book better than the one in the movie, though why the author thought that the Enterprise had a cloaking device....? In the movie, Chekov says, "Ve cannot use the universal translator, it vould be recognized!" In the book, the saboteur sabotaged the UT! This makes SO much more sense. The was it is in the movie, they could use the UT to hear what the Klingon was saying, then have Scotty or the "just laugh!" crewman speak to Uhura while the UT translated what they said into Klinoneese on the Bridge only. Then Uhura, the most gifted linguist in the fleet (was this ever made canon?) could just repeat it. In the book, they HAVE to use these old book that I assume they borrowed from Jim's library.
| By Lots and Lots of Language on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 08:05 am: |
Well, it does appear we've discussed this at great length, so it's probably time to drop it...
| By D.W. March on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 10:45 am: |
One last thing: Uhura didn't conjugate the verb correctly. "We is" is not proper grammer in English and is probably still bad for even for Klingons. And the way a verb is conjugated can determine whether or not a sentence is formal or not. In French, "tu" and "vous" mean "you" but one is formal and one is not depending on how the verb is conjugated.
Also, perhaps the best reference for this discussion would be the actual Klingon Dictionary. What it tells me is that Klingons have two different forms of dialect: a more formal one and a shorthand battle language. This could be how Uhura ended up saying thy when she meant your.
| By Merat on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 12:31 pm: |
I finally realized where the Shakespeare in the original Klingon comes from. Many Germans in the 19th century believed that Shakespeare was actually German because his plays, according to them, made much more sense in German.
| By Anonymous on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 04:16 pm: |
Or how about...some Klingon translated Shakespeares' works into original Klingon.
| By Richard Davies on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 04:38 am: |
Many of the best study texts for classic authors have been done by Germans. One of the top translators for code crackers Station X learnt German for just this reason.
| By Merat on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 10:04 am: |
Anonymous, I meant the origin of the joke about Shakespeare in the original Klingon.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 12:16 am: |
Out to Lunch: Also, Spock deduces that since the databanks on the Enterprise were altered, there must be guilty person(s) on board the Enterprise....Which raises the point - why were the databanks altered anyway if Scotty would have been able to confirm that they were still fully stocked?
Luigi Novi: The databanks would function as a record in the criminal investigation that led to Kirk and Bones' trial, and since the only thing to contradict it would be Scotty's word, the conspirators may have thought his word would be dismissed as biased, and that if an unbiased investigator also found a number of torps that indicated the Enterprise didn't fire on the Klingons, it would simply be speculated that the Enterprise crew replicated or built more torpedoes to make it look like that had the innocent number of them.
| By Adam Bomb on Wednesday, July 04, 2001 - 09:53 am: |
Christopher Plummer is not British. He is Canadian.
| By Meg on Wednesday, July 04, 2001 - 10:35 pm: |
Since there was a huge conversation about translations, does anyone know where I can translate text into latin? I have found many pages that will translate into many different languages, but not latin. Can anyone help me?
| By Meg on Friday, July 06, 2001 - 11:49 am: |
Nevermind the above post guys. I found something that works.
| By John A. Lang on Sunday, August 12, 2001 - 11:13 pm: |
VANISHING ACTS IN ST VI:
When the judge passes the sentence, the antenna on McCoy's UT is GONE!
When the Enterprise is approaching Rura Penthe, an Asian lady is at the Helm...however, after Chang fires his 1st torpedo, the Asian lady is GONE! A man is now at the Helm! (Unless the Asian lady is a shape shifter too)
| By Adam Bomb on Monday, August 13, 2001 - 09:16 am: |
John, that Asian lady sure reminds me of Nurse Kellye (Kellye Nakahara) from "M*A*S*H", although I don't think it was her.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Monday, August 13, 2001 - 11:55 pm: |
Adam Bomb: Christopher Plummer is not British. He is Canadian.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, Adam, I stand corrected.
| By Mark Swinton on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 02:47 pm: |
When Martia shapeshifts into both the little girl and her furry form, she retains her humanlike
(actress Iman�s) voice. But when she shapeshifts into a duplicate of Kirk, her voice is exactly
like Kirk�s as well. (-LUIGI NOVI-)
I happen to have a published copy of the working script (at least, I had one - I believe it's now in my garage in Chester, gathering dust...). Anyway, it reveals some fascinating things about this film, one of which is that in the doppelganger scene where Martia morphs into Kirk, the writers use "MARTIA'S VOICE" in the dialogue, as they do at the other points where she has shifted shape. At just one point, however, there's a difference:
[More fighting between Kirk and "Kirk" - they clinch.]
KIRK
I can't believe I kissed you...
"KIRK"
Must've been your life-long ambition!
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 09:36 pm: |
When Martia shapeshifts into both the little girl and her furry form, she retains her humanlike
(actress Iman�s) voice. But when she shapeshifts into a duplicate of Kirk, her voice is exactly
like Kirk�s as well. (-LUIGI NOVI-)
Also she could have used Iman's voice in the other forms so that Kirk and McCoy would know that she was the same person, but than when impersinating Kirk she took his voice.
| By Yotsuyasan on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 11:57 pm: |
>I still don�t see how Kirk and Spock can
>both serve on the Enterprise if both hold
>the rank of captain.
Why can't the Enterprise have two people who hold the rank of captain? Actually... it has three. Scotty holds the rank of Captain in this film. (He was promoted to Captain in Star Trek III. For some reason, his uniform sported a "Commander" rank pin in Star Trek V, even though no mention was ever made of a demotion. He is back to being a Captain in this film.
There is a difference between the rank of Captain and the position of Captain. One does not have to hold the rank to be in the position (although in Star Trek, this is rarely if ever seen) nore does one have to hold the position to have the rank.
>When Kirk makes the log entry that�s
>eventually used against him at his
>trial, he turns to see Valeris after she
>makes a coughing sound. He tells her she
>could�ve knocked. First, shouldn�t he have
>said, "Ring the chime." And why didn�t the
>door make a swooshing sound when it opened?
>And why would the Vulcan Valeris show such
>a lack of etiquette and protocol with her
>captain? And why would the door have opened
>for Valeris without Kirk�s verbal permission?
>Was the door open all that time? It would
>explain why he said, "knock" instead of
>"ring the chime," but I can�t believe
>Kirk would make such a personal log entry
>with his door open for anyone to hear.
Beleive it. The door was open the whole time. Watch the scene as Kirk walks around his quarters while making the entry. As the camera pans around and passes where the door is, you can clearly see it is open. Also, when Valeris steps fully into Kirk's quarters, she stoops down and picks up a bag that Kirk had presumably left there, a clever way to explain why the door had been open. (Although why Kirk would leave a bag in the doorway and make a rather personal log entry for everyone to hear is beyond me!)
>Azetbur takes offense at Chekov�s use of the
>phrases "inalienable," and "human rights."
>This is a mistake that a foreigner having
>learned to speak English would make. They
>might misinterpret the word "inalienable,"
>translating it literally to mean "excluding
>aliens," rather than the correct definition,
>which is "that which cannot be taken away
>from an owner, such as property or rights."
>But wouldn�t the universal translator on the
>Enterprise have translated the word into the
>appropriate Klingon word?
I never got the impression that Universal Translators were used by Gorkon's party when they were aboard the Enterprise. Rather, they knew English. I've always gotten the impression that the Federation is like the United States, in that our top polititions usually only speak our own tounge, and thus forign polititions all have to learn English in order to do business with us. (Kind of ironic, seeing as the Federation President in this movie isn't even human.) In any case, the biggest evidence that Universal Translators were not in use during the dinner scene would be Chang's declairation of "To Be or Not to Be" in Klingon. We (the audience) heard it in Klingon. We didn't hear anything else Gorkon's party said as being in Klingon. Why would the Translators translate everything but this one bit? That'd be silly.
>And when the Excelsior shows up, the first
>torpedo that Chang fires at her goes RIGHT
>THROUGH the saucer section, from bottom to
>top! How is this possible? Why aren�t the
>Excelsior�s shields up?
Yes, the Excelsior's shilds are up. The torpedo hit you just described was a hit that was taken by the Enterprise. At this point the Enterprise's shilds had weakened.
--------------------------------------------------
Luigi Novi: Could Valeris� name be a reference to Zorin?
ScottN: According to Nimoy's autobiography, Kim Catrall based the name on Eris, the Greek (Roman?) goddess of discord, and added the "Val" to make it a bit more alien.
Luigi Novi: You mean an actor can pick the name of their character? That sounds unusual. What was the character's name in the script?
Brian Fitzgerald: It was Savak but for whatever reason they decided to make it a new character and after they cast her she got to help develop the charater.
ScottN: Because "they" decided that Saavik wouldn't betray the Federation that way. Hence, it was made a new character, and Ms. Catrall was given some input into the character's name and background.
Did you get this information about this decision "they" made about Saavik somewhere, or is that just your opinion? Because I read somewhere once (I can't recall where, but it may have been The Star Trek Compendium) that the name change from Saavik was requested by Kim Catrall after she had been cast, because she didn't want to be the third actress to play the part.
On the one hand, I see her point. It is unnerving in a movie (other then James Bond ones) to have a promanent character be re-cast, expecially more then once. In Star Trek III, it had to be Saavik again, as it was more or less a direct continuation of the events of Star Trek II. In this film, there was no reason why it absoloutly had to be the same character.
On the other hand... if the character had been Saavik, her betrayel would have been much more of a surprise. I, for one, had no trouble guessing who the traitor on the Enterprise was. "Hmm... all of these characters whom we've known and loved for years, and this one new character. Who could the traitor be?" Perhaps the powers that be hoped we wouldn't suspect her because she was a Vulcan, but I was more willing to suspect her then I was willing to suspect, say, Uhura or Scotty or Chekov.
And speaking of Valeris, her uniform had a few oddities. Any other times we've seen this style of uniform in this movie or in any or the others, the shirt of the uniform and the strip coming over the right shoulder have been the same colour. Yet on Valeris, the shirt is red and the shoulder strip is white. Also, she is refered to as a Lieutenant, yet her rank pin looks much more like the ones that Commanders Chekov and Uhura wear. (Perhaps Valeris is a Lieutenant Commander, but the shortened form of address for this rank is uaually "Commander" and not "Lieutenant.")
| By Duke of Earl Grey on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 07:08 am: |
Whenever Chang's Bird of Prey fires a torpedo, we can see the front of the ship light up for a moment. Is this just for the benefit of the audience, or could Kirk & Co. see this too if they happened to be looking in the right direction? In any case, it appears that the photon torpedoes Chang is shooting aren't cloaked. Might the Enterprise be able to approximate the origin of the torpedoes from visual clues and try to hit Chang with a lucky shot (like in the Battleship board game) rather than just sit there getting pummeled?
| By Rene - Digimon Board Moderator (Rcharbonneau) on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 09:32 am: |
I believe Leonard Nimoy's autobiography stated that it was "they" who decided to change from Saavik to someone new.
| By ScottN on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 10:15 am: |
Rene is correct. I read it in Nimoy's autobio, "I Am Spock". Read the tidbit about Valeris' name in the same place.
| By Rene - Digimon Board Moderator (Rcharbonneau) on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 12:35 pm: |
I also remember reading they wanted the original Saavik to appears (you know, the actress from Cheers, can't remember her name), but she had become too pricey by the time of Trek VI, so they decided to have a new character. (Don't remember where I read that.)
| By ScottN on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 01:26 pm: |
No, that was why they changed Saaviks between STII and STIII.
TPTB had forgotten to put a standard retainer clause in Kirstie Allie's contract, so when it came time for STIII, her agent asked for more than DeForrest Kelley was getting, so they changed actresses.
| By Rene on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 03:57 pm: |
Too bad. I like Kirstie's Saavik better.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 11:11 pm: |
Yotsuyasan: Why can't the Enterprise have two people who hold the rank of captain? Actually... it has three. Scotty holds the rank of Captain in this film. There is a difference between the rank of Captain and the position of Captain. One does not have to hold the rank to be in the position (although in Star Trek, this is rarely if ever seen) nore does one have to hold the position to have the rank.
Luigi Novi: True. Scotty told Geordi that he�s a captain "in rank only" in Relics(TNG), and that he prefers being an engineer, but I still find this practice odd. Is there 21st century precedent for this? Does this occur today in the navy?
Luigi Novi: Re: Kirk�s open door, et al: I can�t believe Kirk would make such a personal log entry with his door open for anyone to hear.
Yotsuyasan: Believe it. The door was open the whole time. As the camera pans�you can clearly see it is open. Also, when Valeris steps fully into Kirk's quarters, she stoops down and picks up a bag that Kirk had presumably left there, a clever way to explain why the door had been open. (Although why Kirk would leave a bag in the doorway and make a rather personal log entry for everyone to hear is beyond me!)
Luigi Novi: I reviewed that scene, and you�re totally right, Yotsuyasan. I totally missed this up until now. (Man, I KNEW I shouldn�t have stopped taking my Ginko Biloba!)
Luigi Novi: Azetbur takes offense at Chekov�s use of the phrases "inalienable," and "human rights." This is a mistake that a foreigner having learned to speak English would make. Wouldn�t the universal translator on the Enterprise have translated the word into the appropriate Klingon word?
Yotsuyasan: I never got the impression that Universal Translators were used by Gorkon's party when they were aboard the Enterprise.
Luigi Novi: I never said they were. I said the unitrans on the Enterprise should�ve translated the proper words.
Yotsuyasan: Rather, they knew English. I've always gotten the impression that the Federation is like the United States, in that our top politicians usually only speak our own tongue, and thus foreign politicians all have to learn English in order to do business with us.
Luigi Novi: I wasn�t aware the U.S. was like this. NONE of our guys learn foreign languages? NEITHER side uses translators?
Yotsuyasan: In any case, the biggest evidence that Universal Translators were not in use during the dinner scene would be Chang's declairation of "To Be or Not to Be" in Klingon. We (the audience) heard it in Klingon. We didn't hear anything else Gorkon's party said as being in Klingon. Why would the Translators translate everything but this one bit? That'd be silly.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, it is silly, Yotsuyasan, but that�s why it�s just another standard nit. We KNOW the Enterprise-D and DS9 for example, use unitrans, but we�ve seen familiar aliens� languages numerous times in various episodes. We heard Klingon and Romulan in The Defector(TNG), Klingon in The Way of the Warrior(DS9), Bajoran in Shakaar(DS9), Trill in Facets(DS9) and Field of Fire(DS9), etc. The dinner scene in this movie is just one more example of when the unitran should be working, but doesn�t.
Luigi Novi: And when the Excelsior shows up, the first torpedo that Chang fires at her goes RIGHT THROUGH the saucer section, from bottom to top! How is this possible? Why aren�t the Excelsior�s shields up?
Yotsuyasan:Yes, the Excelsior's shields are up. The torpedo hit you just described was a hit that was taken by the Enterprise. At this point the Enterprise's shilds had weakened.
Luigi Novi: Oops, you�re right. I got my shots mixed up. I reviewed this scene, and the shot of the torpedo impaling the saucer is indeed the Enterprise. Thanks, Yotsuyasan. What I think I meant to say is: "And when the Excelsior shows up, the first torpedo that Chang fires at her hits the underside of her saucer section, and one of the Enterprise bridge crew, watching this on the main viewer, even says, "Excelsior�s been hit!" How is this possible? Why aren�t the Excelsior�s shields up?"
Thanks for the clarification, buddy.
| By Mark Swinton on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 12:47 pm: |
Yotsuyasan: ... The door was open the whole time. As the camera pans�you can clearly see it is
open. Also, when Valeris steps fully into Kirk's quarters, she stoops down and picks up a bag that Kirk had
presumably left there, a clever way to explain why the door had been open. (Although why Kirk would leave
a bag in the doorway and make a rather personal log entry for everyone to hear is beyond me!)
Actually, if I may make a very embarrassing confession...
I have been known to leave keys in doorlocks all night, or leave doors open whilst doing work during which I would rather not be disturbed. It can and does happen...
| By Adam Bomb on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 04:36 pm: |
I have left my car and house keys on my deck. If anyone wanted, they could have taken the car and/or entered the house quietly.
If Kirk knew the door was open, should he have been dictating his log in the first place? We rarely have ever seen the logs being dictated in any Trek, they are almost always voice overs.
| By margie on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 09:34 pm: |
My sister has to have the car keys physically attached to her or else she ends up leaving the keys in the ignition with the motor running! We bought her a key chain with a long cord so she can keep the keys attached to her belt at all times. It was either that or start carrying a coat hangar everywhere we go, so we could get back in the car!
Is it possible that Kirk forgot the door was open while he was dictating the log?
| By Teral on Saturday, October 06, 2001 - 05:11 pm: |
Yotsuyasan: Why can't the Enterprise have two people who hold the rank of captain? Actually... it has three. Scotty holds the rank of Captain in this film. There is a difference between the rank of Captain and the position of Captain. One does not have to hold the rank to be in the position (although in Star Trek, this is rarely if ever seen) nore does one have to hold the position to have the rank.
Luigi Novi: True. Scotty told Geordi that he�s a captain "in rank only" in Relics(TNG), and that he prefers being an engineer, but I still find this practice odd. Is there 21st century precedent for this? Does this occur today in the navy?
Teral: When I was in the army (danish) my company commander was a captain in rank, and so was his second-in-command
| By Lolar Windrunner on Saturday, October 06, 2001 - 09:00 pm: |
The captain of my friend's destroyer is in rank a commander but Navy Protocol and Regs say that he is to be addressed as captain when he is aboard ship.
| By steven on Sunday, October 14, 2001 - 11:27 pm: |
In the guide to classic trek, Mr. Farrand states thatthe klingon death howl is missing, watch the tape again. His daughter stops the howl before it gets started, stating her Father is not a warrior, He is for peace, not war.
| By Adam Bomb on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 08:00 am: |
Was Kirk going to sleep in his uniform after the dinner? I know he was tired and full of Romulan Ale, but he should have changed into something less formal.
Look at the scene where the crew is searching for the uniforms, especially if you have DVD. One of the rooms is the quarters set from Next Gen. The windows are cropped out on the tape version, but on the DVD, thet are visible, if only for a second or two.
| By Adam Bomb on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 08:07 am: |
Also, the Engineering uniforms from the first movie return to use-in Engineering, and as the uniforms the killers of Gorkon wore on the Klingon ship.
| By Derf on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 11:55 am: |
Kirk was NOT going to sleep IMMEDIATELY after the formal dinner ... (even though he said so ... "I'm going to sleep this off") ... listen to the dialogue. He was (after the beam-out from the dinner scene) in his quarters dictating to the "Captain's/Personal Log" and said, "The Enterprise hosted Chancellor Gorkon and company to dinner LAST NIGHT" so ... at the very least, the Romulan Ale has kept him awake for several hours (long enough for him to post his log in the "day-after" tense). We can assume from this exchange that (perhaps) 12 to 24 hours has elapsed before the Bird-Of-Prey is attacked.
| By ScottN on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:04 pm: |
We can assume from this exchange that (perhaps) 12 to 24 hours has elapsed before the Bird-Of-Prey is attacked.
No, we can't. McCoy essentially admitted (OK, he was browbeaten into admitting) that he was still intoxicated while working on Gorkon.
| By Lolar Windrunner on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 07:19 pm: |
It may have been past midnight by the time he dictated that.
| By mike ram on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 11:48 pm: |
i dont know if it was mentioned or not, but in the classic guide, phil mentioned that he didn't spot valeris in the briefing room scene (at the beginning of the movie, when spock talks to the federation officials). actually, you can see her silouette right after cartwright leaves the room. it's to the left of kirk, close to the stained-glass arrowhead windows!
| By Adam Bomb on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 04:32 am: |
It was past midnight. Assuming that Kirk went to the bridge right after getting the call from Spock (who, BTW, went back on duty right after dinner-doesn't he sleep???) the clock above the viewscreen (first and last time for that) read about 2:30.
| By bela okmyx on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 09:29 pm: |
>>>Someone definitely has a liking for Chinese names. The episode Space Seed featured a character with a Chinese name, even though he was said to be Indian in descent, and played by a Mexican.<<<
"Khan Noonian Singh" is not a Chinese name, but Sikh (from northern India, like Lt. McGivers stated in the episode).
Not to resurrect a beaten dead horse, but during the we-can't-use-the-UT scene, the Klingon picks up the Enterprise on his sensors, and says someting like, "Identify yourself. Over." "Over"? "OVER"? What are they using, Radio Shack walkie-talkies? I realize that this is an out-of-the-way outpost, but even nowadays two-way radio communication is possible. And what about their sensors? They can't tell the difference between a dinky little freighter and a Federation battle cruiser?
| By Derf on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 08:48 am: |
A small possible nit, but probably explained in one of those "Klingon" thesaurus ...
In this movie, Chang orders a beam out thusly:
Chang: Well, most kind. Parting is such sweet sorrow, hmm, Captain? Have we not heard the chimes at midnight? (into communicator) Dath Makth Cheok. (They beam out)
In ST3, Kruge orders a beam out thusly:
Kirk: You should take the Vulcan too.
Kruge: No!!
Kirk: But why?
Kruge: Because you wish it. (in Klingon) Moltz ... Choah Echua! (all but Kirk, Spock and Kruge beam to ship)
In this movie, the klingon dialogue is translated for us as subtitles stating that Kruge said "Moltz ... activate beam".
| By Rene on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 01:10 pm: |
If your nit is referring to the different Klingon words they used to order a transport...so what? We always hear different transporter commands in English as well.
"Beam us up"
"Energize"
"Two to transport"
etc...
| By Derf on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 01:49 pm: |
Awright ... okay ... yous gots me ... Imma terd ... etc, etc
HOWEVER ... I've got a BETTER nit for ST6
Valeris calms Chekov in the Galley while proving to him that an "unauthorized" phaser could NEVER be fired on board the ship ... but I perport that this is EXACTLY what happened!
Here is the transcript:
Chekov: (refering to the gravity boots) Why not simply ... vaporize them? Valeris: Like this? ... (takes a phaser from a firearms cabinet and vaporizes a pot of mashed potatoes ... an alarm immediately goes off) At ease! ... as you know, Commander Chekov, no one can fire an unauthorized phaser aboard a starship.
LIE!!! What-the-flock did Valeris JUST DO?
| By ScottN on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 03:09 pm: |
I think she meant "... without an alarm".
| By Derf on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 04:21 pm: |
The Vulcan FIRED an unauthorized weapon on a starship ... the weapon discharged and DID its damage. Her assertion that "no one can fire an unauthorized" weapon does NOT dismiss Chekov's point ... the "bad guys" COULD have just simply "vaporized" the shoes, run over to the nearest terminal, press a button and say, "at ease" just as Valeris did.
| By ScottN on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 07:34 pm: |
I think her point was that the alarms would have gone off, and such weapons fire would have been recorded in logs somewhere.
| By Lolar Windrunner on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 04:37 am: |
It was not a lie merely an omission of part of her sentence. I agree with ScottN that she was probably referring to some sort of alarm system/computer record that would keep track of when/where and at what setting the phaser was fired not something that would prevent the actual firing of a phaser. That would be both a benefit and hindrance during a boarding situation, hindrance until they turned it off if the bad guys had weapons unaffected by it and a benefit in case of an accidental weapons discharge (They are kept in the kitchen, of course that could be if the aldebarren flag fish gets loose again). What I find rather odd is that Chekov who since TMP has been assigned to Security (at least in the books and sources I have read) and is the chief of security and second officer in the chain of command right behind Spock get cabbaged about the phasers. Also I don't think just any crewman could turn off an alarm and that an officer would have to do it. And before you say it i realize Valeris didn't give any authorization to the computer but a sufficiently advanced computer system should be able to tell who is using what terminal. There is a new mouse out that has a thumbprint scanner built into it that would only allow access for people in the database. Maybe the button in STVI is similar.
| By Derf on Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:55 pm: |
This most likely has already been discussed, but ...
Scotty: Inform them of what?! A new weapon that is invisible? ... raving lunatics, that's what they'll call us! They'll say that we're so desperate to exonerate the captain that we'll say anything!
Spock: And they would be correct. We have no evidence. Only a theory which happens to fit the facts.
Uhura: Assuming you're right, Mr. Spock, why would they fire on their own president?
Spock: Indeed ...
Martia: (offers Kirk a smoke) This will help keep you warm. I'm Martia ... you are Kirk and McCoy, I presume.
Kirk: How'd you know that?
Martia: We don't get many presidential assassins.
The obvious question arises ... president who? Wouldn't someone like, for example Gowron more closely resemble a president?
| By ScottN on Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 10:40 pm: |
Derf, it's humanocentric, as Azetbur said. They meant Chancellor.
| By Derf on Friday, March 08, 2002 - 01:07 am: |
I've got a re-definition of the above "set off the alarm" round discussed earlier.
(after finding Burke and Samno dead in the corridor)
Scotty: But the uniforms belong to these two men ... Burke and Samno.
McCoy: Not anymore ... phaser on stun at close range. I wonder why they weren't vaporized?
Chekov: It would set off the alarm.
NOW, the "phaser" rules are:
You may fire a phaser onboard a starship, but if you use the "kill" setting, an alarm will sound after you discharge it.
An interesting observation made by McCoy, who said they were killed by a phaser set on stun.
I wonder how close you can point a phaser at somebody before "stun" becomes "kill"? The way Burke's injury looked (on his forehead) it appeared to be point-blank range.
| By Lolar Windrunner on Friday, March 08, 2002 - 03:36 am: |
I'm not sure where i got this or if its just a product of not enough caffiene yet but i thought the range was a few inches for the neural overload effect to occur. So possibly Valeris nerve pinched them (please no pats on the back or shoulders for me from a vulcan) then stunned them. Just an idea.
| By Electron on Friday, March 08, 2002 - 04:21 pm: |
Or she simply stunned them both from a distance and finished her work at zero range. We don't know how often she fired.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:37 am: |
Gotta look your best in front of attempted assassins!
As pointed out at Movie Mistakes at http://www.movie-mistakes.co.uk/film.php?filmid=1222, throughout the movie, and including the climatic battle sequence between the Enterprise and General Chang�s Bird of Prey, Scotty is wearing his black "casual" duty uniform. When Kirk and company beam down to Khitomer, Scotty is wearing his red uniform. When they return to the Enterprise, he�s back in his black uniform.
| By Derf on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:21 pm: |
I don't know if I'd call them both "uniforms" ... could it not ALSO be that one scene was filmed with the red-dress-coat ON and the other with it "off"?
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:34 pm: |
I figured the same thing, but whether it's a separate uniform or just the red jacket of the same one doesn't matter that much, because the bottom line for me is, the way it was produced, it looked like Scotty stopped to put on his red jacket, which means he wasted valuable time.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:41 pm: |
Lolar Windrunner: The captain of my friend's destroyer is in rank a commander but Navy Protocol and Regs say that he is to be addressed as captain when he is aboard ship.
Luigi Novi: I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about two CAPTAINS serving aboard the same vessel. Teral answered this with regard to the Danish army. Does it happen in the U.S.?
And yes, Lolar, the First Officer of Voyager, Cavitt, was a Lieutenant Commander, but was second in command, and Sisko was a commander, but was in charge of DS9 for the first 3 seasons.
| By Lolar Windrunner on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:32 am: |
I am sorry if there was some misunderstanding. AFAIK in the US Navy, which is what the military organization Starfleet is based upon, there can only be one Captain(Commanding officer) no matter what the rank is aboard any particular vessal. Any other Captains(rank) aboard the vessal are not in the chain of command.I know the old navy would temporarily and unofficially bump a passenger captain(rank) up to commodore for the duration of the trip but like I say I don't know what the modern Navy says on that. I think and believe that having more than one captain serving aboard the same ship only happens in Starfleet. But I may be wrong and I am only dealing with secondhand knowledge of the US Navy.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 01:00 pm: |
Thanks, Lolar.
| By lolar Windrunner on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 06:07 pm: |
No problem.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 05:47 am: |
This appeared at the Movie Mistakes page for this movie at http://www.movie-mistakes.co.uk/film.php?filmid=1222:
During the scene in which Bill and Admiral Cartwright discuss Operation Retrieve with the Federation President, the person who briefs the president on Operation Retrieve is called Colonel West. But when you look at West's uniform closely, it can be seen that he carries the rank of Admiral. And according to many Star Trek sites, the rank of Colonel doesn't even exist in Starfleet's ranking system.
That didn't occur to me. Sure, the "Colonel" was a reference to Lt. Colonel Oliver North, but they could've kept the name "West" and called him "Admiral" instead of "Colonel."
| By Derf on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 07:33 am: |
The same movie has the Klingon Colonel Worf (the defense attorney) ... I suppose they needed a Federation Colonel to even out the bunch.
| By ScottN on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 09:55 am: |
Perhaps West was in the Starfleet Marines (DS9:Siege of AR-558)? Maybe the Marines have different insignia?
In the US, while the Marines are associated with the Navy, they use the same rank system as the Army.
| By Lolar Windrunner on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 04:23 am: |
The marines use a similar rank system. There are a few minor differences, the two that come to mind right now are the Lance Corporal and the Gunnery Sargent. I would have to look in the encyclopedia to confirm the compleate rank structure.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 09:37 am: |
Those are both enlisted ranks. The officers' ranks are the same as the Army.
| By STMarine on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 03:20 pm: |
With the debate about the three Captains (Kirk, Spock and Scott) yes it is possible for multiple Captains to serve on the same ship. In the American navy you can have up to something like 6 or 7 Captains on a single ship (usually an aircraft carrier). They would be the Commanding officer, the Executive officer, the Commander of the Air Wing, the Chief Engineer, the head Chaplain, the head of the Medical Department. All would report back to the Commanding officer as the ranking Captain onboard the ship. (Of course the Soviets made things simple by putting Admirals in command of big ships but thats another thing...)
| By Lolar Windrunner on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 12:36 am: |
Ah thank you very much for that. My friend is on a destroyer ( a rather dinky ship to here him talk, dinky yet powerful) and I have to admit he is rather far from the command structure in rank at least. So having Spock as captain of sciences, scotty as captain of engineering would not be improbable.
| By Sven of Nine - yeah, baby, yeah! on Thursday, May 02, 2002 - 02:56 pm: |
A while back:
Luigi Novi: You mean an actor can pick the name of their character? That sounds unusual.
Not at all. In fact, if memory serves me correct, Montgomery Scott was named after Jimmy Doohan's parents, and chosen by Doohan himself.
| By Adam Bomb on Friday, May 03, 2002 - 09:01 am: |
Sven and Luigi: I remember reading in "The Making Of Star Trek" that Jimmy Doohan's middle name is also Montgomery.
| By Anonymous on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 01:47 am: |
Not sure if this was in the book/elsewhere on the web/whatever, but Kirk's personal log changes...
In his quarters: "I COULD NEVER forgive them for the death of my boy"
At the trial "I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO forgive them for the death of my boy"
Also at the end of the movie Valeris refers to Kirk's exclamation "Let them die"...wasn't this said to Spock at the confidential briefing, not in his log?
| By Derf on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 08:14 am: |
It was in the Starfleet briefing room, but the scene shows a starfleet officer far in the background when Kirk and Spock have their discussion, and it has been postulated that it was Valeris listening in with her Vulcan "super" hearing.
| By Nick Angeloni (Nangeloni) on Monday, May 06, 2002 - 09:22 pm: |
I never noticed that particular fact until someone pointed it out to me... supposedly she's only visible in the widescreen version.
| By John A. Lang on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 05:48 am: |
Why is Col. West using PAPER flip charts? Why not bring a portable viewscreen?
On the DVD menu, it spells Chekov's name "Chekhov"
| By Craig Rohloff on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 06:49 pm: |
Maybe someone was thinking ahead, figuring that the paper flipcharts could be auctioned off at a later date (at a convention) as a rare collectible. Same with the big poster-like star chart the Klingons examine in their briefing room. (Now that's a poster I wouldn't mind having!)
| By Sven of Nine on Monday, June 03, 2002 - 08:32 pm: |
On the DVD menu, it spells Chekov's name "Chekhov"
Maybe the good man used to live by a cherry orchard with his uncle Vanya and three sisters? 
| By Richard Davies on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 05:33 am: |
Don't forget the end credits have Uhuru instead of Uhura.
| By Nick Angeloni (Nangeloni) on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 01:53 am: |
Moved a bit of trouble to the Garbage Dump... I think everyone involved knows why. If you wish to protest, e-mail me at the above address. And again, play nice.
| By ScottN on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 09:55 am: |
No problem. I should have known better.
| By kerriem on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 03:36 pm: |
Ditto.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 02:50 pm: |
During the initial briefing at Starfleet Command in the beginning of the movie, Spock states, "The moon�s decimation means the deadly pollution of their ozone. They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in approximately 50 Earth years." Why would poisoning the ozone of a planet deplete its oxygen? Oxygen and ozone aren�t the same thing. Oxygen has two molecules, ozone has three. Destroying the ozone layer of a planet might eliminate its inhabitants protection from stellar radiation, but it wouldn�t deplete its oxygen.
| By Sophie on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 04:28 pm: |
Plus, I dislike it when 'decimated' is used to mean 'mostly destroyed'. I realise modern dictionaries sometimes accept this as the usual meaning, but the original meaning was 'to kill or remove one out of every ten'.
| By Darth Sarcasm on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 12:02 pm: |
That isn't the proper use of the word "plus," either. Your prejudice against the varied usage of a word ignores the fact that language isn't static, it's fluid and forever-changing and evolving. If words didn't change, we'd all still be speaking with grunts and gestures.
Why would poisoning the ozone of a planet deplete its oxygen? Oxygen and ozone aren�t the same thing. Oxygen has two molecules, ozone has three. Destroying the ozone layer of a planet might eliminate its inhabitants protection from stellar radiation, but it wouldn�t deplete its oxygen. - Luigi
Well, aside from protecting us from the sun's harmful radiation, ozone also helps to purify the air we breathe by oxidizing the harmful elements.
Also, ozone protects all life from the sun's harmful rays, not just animals life. So plants are just as susceptible, maybe more so since they can't relocate anywhere, to stellar radiation. If the plants die off, what would be supplying the oxygen to the already-damaged, poisoned atmosphere?
It's also possible that Klingons simply breathe ozone and need that form of oxygen.
Or maybe Spock was referring to oxygen as an element, rather than oxygen gas. And because of the destruction of the ozone, regular oxygen molecules are being broken apart in order to oxidize the harmful elements in the atmosphere.
Any chemists among us?
| By Sophie on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:51 pm: |
I agree that I did not use the word 'plus' appropriately. I apologize for that, and for any grammatical errors in the following.
I know language is always evolving, but evolution occurs by mutation, and some mutations are more helpful than others are. Furthermore, evolution does not always proceed from a lower form to a higher form.
I have a question. The ancient Romans had a practice of killing one person in ten. This was called 'decimation'. When we describe this practice, should we:
a) Invent a new word, since 'decimation' has lost its meaning?
b) Have no word with which to describe this practice?
c) Use the word 'decimation' but have to qualify it repeatedly to say that the meaning has changed?
It's not as if the English language doesn't have enough synonyms for 'destroy'.
| By Darth Sarcasm on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:49 pm: |
First, please don't misunderstand when I commented on your use of the word "plus" in your previous post. I am not one of these people who come down on others for misspellings and other grammatical errors. My point was merely to illustrate that proper usage does not always equate with understanding. I understood what you were trying to say despite your word selection.
The main function of language is communication. To know what the word used to mean isn't as relevant as what the word means now. Currently, common usage defines "decimate" as "to destroy," not "to kill one in ten people." That doesn't mean that the word can't mean the latter anymore. It simply means that the former has become the accepted, more common definition. And since I don't foresee the Roman disciplinary tactic gaining popularity in the next few centuries, I'd say that by Spock's time the word would still carry today's common meaning.
How the word's meaning changed is irrelevant except as a matter of linguistic study. It's changed.
Let me ask a question is response. Should we invent a new word for every word with two meanings? Should we call the star of a show something else because "star" originally referred to a twinkling object in the sky?
| By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 12:38 am: |
Darth Sarcasm: If words didn't change, we'd all still be speaking with grunts and gestures.
Works for me at the dinner table.
| By Sophie on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 05:31 pm: |
If response to your question, Darth, star of a show and star in the sky are easily distinguished.
On the other hand, on the first day of Desert Storm, Norman Schwarzkopf claimed to have decimated the Iraqi airforce. Did he mean:
a) we destroyed most of it
b) we destroyed 10% of it
c) we think we got most of it, but I'm covering my posterior by using an ambiguous word
I can accept developing language. For example, I can ignore the 'split infinitive' rule because that is ideological, rather than linguistic (Victorians tried to impose Latin structure on an Anglo-Saxon language because they thought Latin was some kind of perfect language). I can ignore the rule that says 'their' cannot be singular, because saying 'he' is sexist, while 'he or she' is cumbersome.
I do disapprove of using the 'language is evolving' argument to excuse a mistake. I've seen that argument used to excuse people who don't know the difference between a possessive and a plural; then, the other day I saw the author of 'Great Expectations' referred to as Charles Dicken's! Some people have no idea.
A more relevant example:
Episodes of Star Trek are frequently referred to by TV announcers and programme guides as 'intergalactic' adventure. These people obviously think that 'intergalactic' means 'in space', rather than 'in or between 2 or more galaxies'. In the case of DS9 or Voyager, having 'intergalactic' travel capability would violate the whole premise of the show!
| By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 09:54 pm: |
Intragalactic would be the correct word.
| By ScottN on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 10:34 pm: |
Well, they *DID* leave the galaxy on at least three occasions:
1. By Any Other Name (TOS)
2. Is There In Truth No Beauty? (TOS)
3. Where No One Has Gone Before (TNG)
Therefore, "intragalactic" is not completely correct either. "Interstellar" would be the best bet.
| By LUIGI NOVI on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 10:36 am: |
Yes, yes, and in Threshold(VOY), Scorpion partII(VOY), etc., but those are not representative of the series' premise as a whole, Scott. Therefore, while "interstellar" is more often used, "intragalactic" is perfectly correct, since the series take place mostly within our galaxy.
| By Sophie on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 12:21 pm: |
Imagine my disappointment on being told by the announcer that 'the Enterprise is involved in an intergalactic war', and then being show TNG:Loud As A Whisper....
Their latest foible is saying 'and now on BBC2, Captain Janeway takes the helm of Voyager'. I always thought that was the helmsman's job...
| By Darth Sarcasm on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 12:13 pm: |
I do disapprove of using the 'language is evolving' argument to excuse a mistake. - Sophie
Well that depends on when the mistake is being made.
I am certain that there are many words in all languages that have developed as a result of a common misusage. Companies fight this phenomenon to protect their trademarks from becoming generic terms (like "aspirin") all the time.
And sometimes a misusage becomes so commonplace that it becomes the standard (and in the case of "decimate," the prevailing) definition. It is then no longer a mistake. It becomes every bit an accepted part of the language.
After all, control of a definition does not lie with the word, but with the people using the word to communicate.
While I agree with you that the "language is evolving" rationale is sometimes applied to excuse egregious grammar mistakes, I do not think it is misapplied in the case of "decimate." For the definition has already changed. If you were to have made this argument a hundred years ago (or whenever the word was first being misused), then I would agree. But once it's changed so much that it becomes the prvailing definition, the argument that it is a mistake is moot.
Similar to the possessive misuse, I see a lot of misplacement of decimal points when writing out prices. I have debated making an issue of this at times. A local dry cleaner has a large sign outside advertising .99 cents (hmmm... there's no cents symbol on my keyboard) per article of clothing. The way I figure it, I could do a whole load of laundry for under a dollar. I wonder what would happen if I tried to fight this claiming false advertising...
| By Joe King on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 01:22 pm: |
If I invented a product who's name became a generic term for that item, I would be proud; & it would be free publicity.
| By Corporate Sponsor on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:06 pm: |
Except, Joe King, you'd lose the trademark and *anyone* could use that name for their product (thus eating your profits)
| By ChrisJ on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 09:23 am: |
Back to STVI: Spock's ears look weird in this movie. And it seems like technology has regressed somewhat. In the previous film, the bridge crew are using touch-sensitive panels. Now they're back to buttons and switches. (As I said in the Star Trek V discussion, the sets for that movie were borrowed from TNG) so its obvious that somebody said, 'Whoa, slow down a little here! We'd better make it look more primitive again!'
Good thing too, or we would have to assume that the Enterprise D's interior is of antique design. Hmmm... although i'm sure some of the corridor sets for VI are still TNG but more heavily disguised. Is that the Enterprise-D transporter room? I think it is, along with the adjoining corridor. Is that Picard's briefing room? Sure is, with a coat of darker paint.
| By John A. Lang on Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 09:26 pm: |
What I'd like to know is how Col. West (who was disguised as a Klingon) managed to bring in that suitcase with a phaser rifle in it at Camp Khitomer. Where happened to security screening? Apparently, the Federation President & Azetbur aren't very important.
| By Merat on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 09:54 am: |
The conspiracy went pretty high up in the Klingon and Federation. It seemed like Gen. Chang was Azetbur's chief advisor and probably had some large part in security arangements. Admiral Cartwright (Brock Peters, who went on to play Joseph Sisko) and Col. West (Rene Auberjonois, who also played Odo) seemed to be the Federation President's chief advisors and definitly had large parts in arangeing security. They probably aranged to allow that briefcase through.
| By ScottN on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 09:30 pm: |
Never noticed this one before. When Gorkon's party beams aboard for dinner, you can see Chang looking around before he's materialized.
| By ScottN on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 11:17 pm: |
John, not only is ground security lax, but an unauthorized starship is in orbit, firing photon torpedos, and there is no challenge!
Luigi, when were you at Brandeis-Bardin? I thought you were an East-coaster???
| By LUIGI NOVI on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 01:04 pm: |
Geez, Scott. Just because I live in Jersey doesn't mean I don't know what Mount Rushmore or the Eiffel Tower look like.
As you know, I cull my info from many sources. IIRC, I got the Brandeis Bardin info from The Star Trek The Next Generation Companion by Larry Nemecek, in the entry for Descent partsI-II(TNG), which also take place there. Since that takes place after this movie in both external and internal chronology, I didn't mention it under nits for this movie, but mention it again under my nits for that episode.
As for Deadlock, that wasn't mentioned in the Companion, but I noticed it when I saw that movie myself.
| By Craig Rohloff on Tuesday, November 05, 2002 - 10:41 am: |
ScottN: I don't know if Chang looking around before completely materializing is a nit, since it has precedence in ST II: TWOK. When Kirk and party are beaming back to the Enterprise from Regula, they are talking in mid-materialization. (I know, in TOS, the subject being transported would "freeze" during transport, but this is years later with better transporter--and movie sfx--technology!)
| By Sophie on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:37 pm: |
During the dinner scene on Enterprise, Kirk comments that they are 1000 light years away from Starfleet HQ. I always assumed that the meeting took place somewhere between Earth and the Klingon homeworld. Surely this must have a bearing on the long-running discussion about whether Archer's Enterprise could make the trip in a few days...
(I make it 12.5 years at warp 5.)
| By ScottN on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 04:58 pm: |
Well, given that "Neptune and Back..." works out to 80c, then 1000 ly is definitely 12.5 years.
| By Brian Fitzgerald on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 07:27 pm: |
Of course saying 1000 light years might just have been a figure of speach like "The other side of the world" or "a million miles away" not an acurate measure of distance.