Star Trek 3 pet peeve of mine.

[JonnyQuest037]

As a story, I love the DC Comics 80s run being in there, and kinda wish more tie-ins could have referenced it. But it requires the battle damage from the comics to just happen to exactly match that from TWOK etc.

not exactly, the ship in TSFS has more damage than in TWOK.

Yep, here's the Enterprise pulling into Spacedock at the beginning of TSFS:

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-03/screencaps/search-for-spock-2021/chapter-02/st-tsfs-remaster-bluray-0174.jpg

And here's the Enterprise at the end of TWOK, just before the "I feel young" scene:

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter21/st2-twok-dc-2940.jpg

Fortunately, the trip the Enterprise takes to the Great Barrier from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" in DC's Star Trek #7-8, the two-parter that occurs directly before Star Trek III, explains the extra damage nicely.

 

[Pauln6]

In my mind, it's a few months between the movies. That gives time for Saavik to be reassigned to the Grissom, an expedition to Genesis to be organized, and the Enterprise to sustain the extra damage we see at the beginning of STIII. If you're a fan of the first DC Comics run, a gap allows the adventures in the early issues to slot in perfectly.

It also makes Spock's sacrifice at the end of TWOK feel a lot more meaningful if he isn't resurrected mere days or weeks later. A months long gap allows some time for him to be mourned and for his friends to adjust to his absence.

If the ship couldn't sustain more than Warp 2, lots of other vessels could travel all over in the time it took to get from a remote outpost to Earth.

 

[Ubiquitousclate]

You mentioned not being able to sustain beyond Warp 2. I seem to remember a line in TSFS by Scotty that "she's got her second wind now" whilst en route to Genesis. I understand what that meant, but it seemed an odd figure of speech for a machine. Enterprise was able to warp away from Reliant decently in TWOK, and I understand that the pounding that she took doubtless lessened her speed capability, but is there an estimate as to what she was confined to after TWOK?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Okay in Star Trek 3, Captain Kirk loses his son. Now to me and I have thought this ever since I saw the movie. So I'm going back 40 years.
I think Captain Kirk would have time warped back in time to save his son. Anyway that's what I thought years ago and I still think it to this day. Thoughts anybody?

In ST4, they barely survived the first time and lost the ship the second time. Are you asking about Generations and the Nexus?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Okay in Star Trek 3, Captain Kirk loses his son. Now to me and I have thought this ever since I saw the movie. So I'm going back 40 years.
I think Captain Kirk would have time warped back in time to save his son. Anyway that's what I thought years ago and I still think it to this day. Thoughts anybody?

Because such an idea would have robbed the film of one of its key events (one of the strongest in the entire franchise). As revealed in Kirk's conversation with Sarek, he had to endure all of his losses for the sake of Spock, otherwise, the cost would have been his soul. Think about what that meant; Star Trek--at least on the TOS side--has a history of characters facing personal sacrifice / great (and grave) consequences for actions, as its a reflection of real life--there's not always going to be an "out" for life's tragedies. This is one of the endless reasons TOS is undoubtedly the most relatable part of the ST franchise.

Easy solutions (i.e. time travel) for tragedy would be as silly as crap seen in Back to the Future, and that is in no way Star Trek.

I think it would be too easy to travel back in time to save everything and everybody.
In real life we can't either...

Exactly.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

You mentioned not being able to sustain beyond Warp 2. I seem to remember a line in TSFS by Scotty that "she's got her second wind now" whilst en route to Genesis. I understand what that meant, but it seemed an odd figure of speech for a machine. Enterprise was able to warp away from Reliant decently in TWOK, and I understand that the pounding that she took doubtless lessened her speed capability, but is there an estimate as to what she was confined to after TWOK?

I doubt there's anything definitive anywhere beyond "long enough for Carol and most of the cadets to get off Enterprise and disappear and for David and Saavik to transfer to Grissom and for Grissom to settle in surveying the Genesis Planet and for the Klingons to file a bunch of diplomatic protests."

But all that's actually needed for the story to work in TWOK is for Enterprise to be able to travel faster than light, which is a lot slower than most starships go.

And of course it's entirely possible that she warped out at high speed briefly, and then something else failed because of the damage. If you read WW2 naval history there's all kinds of stories of ships being damaged, heading for port under their own power, and then having something fail an needing a tow (or just outright sinking). As others have noted, there's additional damage in TSFS from TWOK, implying that something else blew up on the transit home. No need for any DC comics shenanigans to make that element work.

 

[Airin]

As others have said, tampering with the timeline is a "must-not", as seen in "The City on the Edge of Forever", no matter what personal feelings tell one to do. Apart from being a narrative device that would rob every character death of drama and significance.

If there's a thing I don't understand in this film, is Sarek's and Kirk's conviction that Spock could be resurrected. They head for Genesis to retrieve his body once they learn his katra is inside McCoy. But why?? At this point they still didn't know that Spock's body had been rejuvenated. And as said at the end of the movie, the fal-tor-pan ceremony was something that had not been attempted in ages, and then just in legend. So why did they think that Spock would be an exception?
Kirk doesn't go to Genesis just for Spock, either. He wants to help McCoy too. Yet he has still no reason to believe that the transfer of the katra would be possible.

 

[Jedi Marso]

I hate temporal mechanics.

 

[FormerLurker]

As others have said, tampering with the timeline is a "must-not", as seen in "The City on the Edge of Forever", no matter what personal feelings tell one to do. Apart from being a narrative device that would rob every character death of drama and significance.

If there's a thing I don't understand in this film, is Sarek's and Kirk's conviction that Spock could be resurrected. They head for Genesis to retrieve his body once they learn his katra is inside McCoy. But why?? At this point they still didn't know that Spock's body had been rejuvenated. And as said at the end of the movie, the fal-tor-pan ceremony was something that had not been attempted in ages, and then just in legend. So why did they think that Spock would be an exception?
Kirk doesn't go to Genesis just for Spock, either. He wants to help McCoy too. Yet he has still no reason to believe that the transfer of the katra would be possible.

They didn't go to Genesis to reunite Spock with his body. They went to retrieve his body so they could do whatever was necessary for Spock's katra to have peace. If his body is still dead, then to sever the connection so he can be placed with the other preserved katras on Mount Seleya. Because his body was revived, Sarek believed that Fal-Tor-Pan was a possibility, and he turned out to be correct in his belief. Sometimes uncertain logic is better than the proven variety.

 

[Airin]

They didn't go to Genesis to reunite Spock with his body. They went to retrieve his body so they could do whatever was necessary for Spock's katra to have peace. If his body is still dead, then to sever the connection so he can be placed with the other preserved katras on Mount Seleya. Because his body was revived, Sarek believed that Fal-Tor-Pan was a possibility, and he turned out to be correct in his belief. Sometimes uncertain logic is better than the proven variety.

I didn't get at all the impression that they were just going to Genesis to retrieve a dead body, or that this would be even relevant to give peace to a katra. The way it goes is: 1) Kirk learns the katra is inside McCoy, 2) Kirk needs the body. The logical assumption being he wants to put 1 and 2 together (and something similar happened in "Return to Tomorrow").
In "The Fifty Year Mission: the first 25 years" Leonard Nimoy's thoughts about the movie concept were these: "Could you imagine what would happen if Kirk had any reason whatsoever, if he were given reason to believe or hope there might be a way to get Spock back? To save him or help him? He would be obsessed, wouldn't he?"
He was working with the idea that Kirk went to Genesis in the hopes of getting him back, not just to fulfill some funeral tradition.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I didn't get at all the impression that they were just going to Genesis to retrieve a dead body, or that this would be even relevant to give peace to a katra. The way it goes is: 1) Kirk learns the katra is inside McCoy, 2) Kirk needs the body. The logical assumption being he wants to put 1 and 2 together (and something similar happened in "Return to Tomorrow").
In "The Fifty Year Mission: the first 25 years" Leonard Nimoy's thoughts about the movie concept were these: "Could you imagine what would happen if Kirk had any reason whatsoever, if he were given reason to believe or hope there might be a way to get Spock back? To save him or help him? He would be obsessed, wouldn't he?"
He was working with the idea that Kirk went to Genesis in the hopes of getting him back, not just to fulfill some funeral tradition.

My take has always been that Sarek wants the body back to deal with it properly. Now, I've not watched this movie in a few years so I don't remember exact dialogue and there might be something in there that contradicts me. But I feel like Sarek's goal wasn't actually resurection until Kirk et alia came back with the body.

Kirk, on the other hand, knows that a thousand impossible things have happened in his career, and he has a desperate, irrational need to get Spock back, so he's jumped to "we'll resurrect Spock" with no real evidence. And - like so many emotion, unsubstantiated leaps Kirk makes do - this one turns out to be right.

Again, maybe the actual dialog doesn't support that reading, but this is how I remember the movie, at least.

 

[UssGlenn]

Some confusion is caused by the fact that the reordered the movie in editing. Originally it opened with the Grissom and the discovery that the tube had soft landed, and Kirk later mentions knowing about it in his opening log. As shown in the movie, Kirk and Sarek shouldn't even know there is a body to retrieve.

 

[Airin]

My take has always been that Sarek wants the body back to deal with it properly. Now, I've not watched this movie in a few years so I don't remember exact dialogue and there might be something in there that contradicts me. But I feel like Sarek's goal wasn't actually resurection until Kirk et alia came back with the body.

Kirk, on the other hand, knows that a thousand impossible things have happened in his career, and he has a desperate, irrational need to get Spock back, so he's jumped to "we'll resurrect Spock" with no real evidence. And - like so many emotion, unsubstantiated leaps Kirk makes do - this one turns out to be right.

Again, maybe the actual dialog doesn't support that reading, but this is how I remember the movie, at least.

Upon re-reading the movie script, I think that this is the interpretation that fits best. It's true that Sarek simply instructs Kirk to bring them both (McCoy and Spock's body, I guess) to Seleya, to bring them both peace. And afterwards Kirk goes to Genesis. So yeah, it seems that Sarek's plan was simply that, though there's no clue about what exactly that ceremony would entail. The official novels of this era interpreted that, upon dying, a Vulcan would left his/her katra to the person closest to them (usually the bondmate) and that was the end of it, pretty much. The katra stayed with the person; not alive, but not exactly dead.

But Kirk is suddenly optimistic upon learning the katra was preserved. He's no longer depressed as in the start of the movie, which would explain Nimoy's opinion.
Yet again, it wasn't the first time that Spock came back from the dead...

 

[tim0122]

Okay in Star Trek 3, Captain Kirk loses his son. Now to me and I have thought this ever since I saw the movie. So I'm going back 40 years.
I think Captain Kirk would have time warped back in time to save his son. Anyway that's what I thought years ago and I still think it to this day. Thoughts anybody?

As others in this thread have said, I don't see Kirk doing something that dangerous for selfish reasons. Plus, I think he'd be aware of the possible time paradox inherit in such a mission.

 

[tim0122]

Kirk's got a dead brother too. We're gonna have us quite a backlog once we get rolling on this

And a dead sister-in-law.

 

[tim0122]

This makes a lot of sense. My assumption was that the Enterprise would head straight back for repairs, but this is a better head cannon, and explains the transfers, etc.
I still wish they’d at least mentioned Carol Marcus though.

Would've been nice to see her reaction to her son's death, especially since SHE was the one who raised him and saw him grow up. Instead, she's never seen, and Kirk doesn't even mention breaking the news of their son's death to her.

 

[Mojochi]

And a dead sister-in-law.

Find me a relative of Kirk's who ain't dead

 

[Uxi]

Spock's the only one who can do the calculations .

That's a Disco/SNW invention IIRC.

 

[CoveTom]

That's a Disco/SNW invention IIRC.

Hmm. Have we ever seen (or heard about) the slingshot method of time travel being used by anyone other than the TOS crew with Spock doing the calculations?

 

[tim0122]

Find me a relative of Kirk's who ain't dead

His nephew is presumably still alive. And his mother might've still been alive up to a certain point in the movies. Those are the only two I can think of.