History Headscratchers / StarTrekVTheFinalFrontier

** Heh. The Sherwood thing was a Q episode. I think the problem folks have with the movie is that it'd be one thing if it was an episode that contributed nothing to the canon (who wants to count how many episodes there were of that in every Trek series?), but a movie has to have higher stakes. And high stakes are certainly promised, with the question to locate God, but the sloppy execution and real-world problems left you with a huge mess. I think it's the same reason so many folks have trouble with the first movie and the two TNG films. Adding to that the film being so critically panned that they almost pulled the plug on Star Trek movies forever and you can see why fans pretend this never happened.

** Just in case someone is NEW to this film and all the speculation, I THINK Shatner himself has conceded that it "Was all just a dream" and the film lends itself to this, opening and closing with Row, Row, Row your boat. I think it's also stated somewhere on this wiki, and that explanation works best. The DCU Comic Book was a better story than the movie explaining away all the headscratchers. (I wish I still had my copy ) Including Kirk's brother. What movie goes fail to realize is that there was a writer's strike and cost overruns that ruined the movie before it began. Even Shatner knew it as he was filming, but by God, he gave 110%, as only superham Shatner can. This movie is a winner only because of sheer BALLS expended in order just to get it made with all the REAL WORLD problems happening. So stop thinking of it as a Star Trek movie and put it in the same box as the TNG holodeck stories where they went to Sherwood just to break the tension and have a little fun.

* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system (Starfleet headquarters and the capitol of the Federation) by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century. He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise'' which was engaged in rescuing diplomats (including a Klingon official) from a hostage situation. Then, he follows ''Enterprise'' literally to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why would it allow Klaa to so casually risk war with the Federation ''and''--considering the Romulan ambassador aboard ''Enterprise''--the Romulan Empire?

* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system (Starfleet headquarters and the capitol of the Federation) by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century. He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise'' which was engaged in rescuing diplomats (including a Klingon official) from a hostage situation. Then, he literally follows ''Enterprise'' to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why would it allow Klaa to so casually risk war with the Federation ''and''--considering the Romulan ambassador aboard ''Enterprise''--the Romulan Empire?

* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century (he could actually reach Earth, the federation capitol, in just a few hours without ever on impulse speed). He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise''--which, at the time was engaged in attempting to rescue a Klingon official from a hostage situation. Then, he literally follows ''Enterprise'' to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack, while that Klingon official is still aboard that ship. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why is he allowed to do any of that?

* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century (he could actually reach Earth, the federation capitol, in just a few hours without ever engaging his warp engines). He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise''--which, at the time was engaged in attempting to rescue a Klingon official from a hostage situation. Then, he literally follows ''Enterprise'' to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack, while that Klingon official is still aboard that ship. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why is he allowed to do any of that?

* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century. He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise''--which, at the time was engaged in attempting to rescue a Klingon official from a hostage situation. Then, he literally follows ''Enterprise'' to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack, while that Klingon official is still aboard that ship. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why is he allowed take so many actions that are likely to lead to armed conflict with the Federation?

[[folder Here's a Warship, Go Do Whatever]]
* What's going on with Klaa, the commander of the Klingon bird-of-prey? He's introduced to us when he destroys Pioneer 10, which SFDebris points out will only be barely outside our solar system by the 23[[superscript:rd]] century. He takes on the mission to Nimbus III just because he's bored, and on his own initiative, he launches an unprovoked attack on ''Enterprise''--which, at the time was engaged in attempting to rescue a Klingon official from a hostage situation. Then, he literally follows ''Enterprise'' to the center of the galaxy just to launch another unprovoked attack, while that Klingon official is still aboard that ship. Does Klaa answer to the Klingon military? If he does, why is he allowed take so many actions that are likely to lead to armed conflict with the Federation?

[[/folder]]

* After the death of Sybok, Kirk offers Spock comfort in what should be a CrowningMomentOfHeartwarming, saying "I lost a brother once. I was lucky to get him back." Kirk's obviously referencing Spock, and the events of Star Trek II and III, and when Kirk says that he lost a brother, both [=McCoy=] and Spock give a small look of surprise before they realize who Kirk is talking about. The thing is, Kirk ''did'' loose his actual brother, George Kirk, who died horribly in ''[[Recap/StarTrekS1E29OperationAnnihilate Operation Annihilate!]]''. In fact, both Spock and Bones were with Kirk when the away team found George's corpse. Doesn't that kind of move Kirks statement to Spock from heartwarming to borderline sociopathy?

* After the death of Sybok, Kirk offers Spock comfort in what should be a CrowningMomentOfHeartwarming, saying "I lost a brother once. I was lucky to get him back" obviously referencing Spock, and the events of Star Trek II and III. When Kirk says that he lost a brother, both [[=McCoy=] and Spock give a small look of surprise before they realize what Kirk is talking about. The thing is, Kirk ''did'' loose an actual brother: George Kirk, who died horribly in ''[[Recap/StarTrekS1E29OperationAnnihilate Operation Annihilate!]]''. In fact, both Spock and Bones were with Kirk when the away team found George's corpse. Doesn't that kind of move Kirks statement to Spock from heartwarming to borderline sociopathy?

* After the death of Sybok, Kirk offers Spock comfort in what should be a CrowningMomentOfHeartwarming, saying "I lost a brother once. I was lucky to get him back" obviously referencing Spock, and the events of Star Trek II and III. When Kirk says that he lost a brother, both [[=McCoy=] and Spock give a small look of surprise before they realize what Kirk is talking about. The thing is, Kirk ''did'' loose an actual brother: George Kirk, who died horribly

* This may be wonderment about fan reaction more than the film itself, so this may not qualify as a headscratcher (delete away if necessary!), but I have always been curious about the impulse to de-canonize this film. True it's terrible, but it's hardly alone in this among installments of Franchise/StarTrek, and bad episodes do not usually get struck from canon just for being bad. Roddenberry himself apparently made remarks to the effect that this film and the next one have "apocryphal" elements but was vague about what this means. It would appear to me that, in spite of its awfulness, the film does little to actively "harm" canon, thanks in part to its small scale. True, Sybok's very existence is a bit dubious and neither the trip to the galactic core nor the timeline for Nimbus III's foundation make much sense, but compared to Film/StarTrekNemesis (or even Film/StarTrek 2009), the film does little to actively damage the universe of Franchise/StarTrek; its iffy characterizations are best ignored and the film collects dust on a great many shelves, but is that the same thing as de-canonization?

* This may be wonderment about fan reaction more than the film itself, so this may not qualify as a headscratcher (delete away if necessary!), but I have always been curious about the impulse to de-canonize this film. True it's terrible, but it's hardly alone in this among installments of StarTrek, and bad episodes do not usually get struck from canon just for being bad. Roddenberry himself apparently made remarks to the effect that this film and the next one have "apocryphal" elements but was vague about what this means. It would appear to me that, in spite of its awfulness, the film does little to actively "harm" canon, thanks in part to its small scale. True, Sybok's very existence is a bit dubious and neither the trip to the galactic core nor the timeline for Nimbus III's foundation make much sense, but compared to StarTrekNemesis (or even StarTrek2009), the film does little to actively damage the universe of StarTrek; its iffy characterizations are best ignored and the film collects dust on a great many shelves, but is that the same thing as de-canonization?

** Which makes the plan even more foolish since Sybok's only hope is to steal a Starfleet vessel, because if the Romulans or Klingons get there first then they'll all be killed.

** Nimbus III was not a great assignment; in fact, Film/StarTrekTheVITheUndiscoveredCountry shows that the Romulan government actually has an ambassador on Earth, so Nimbus III representative was completely useless. It's unlikely that anybody who was given the position of ambassador to that world was particularly favored by the government that sent them there. Add that to the fact that the Neutral Zone is a DMZ, and it seems unlikely that the Romulans would assign a warship to drop her off. Sybok needed something fast and powerful like a cruiser to get where he needed to go, and to get anyone to send one, he needed a crisis. He's just lucky that Starfleet responded first, as the Romulans or the Klingons probably would have resolved the situation with much more violence.

** Nimbus III was not a great assignment; in fact, Film/StarTrekTheVITheUndiscoveredCountry shows that the Romulan government actually has an ambassador on Earth, so Nimbus III representative was completely useless. It's unlikely was given the position of ambassador to that world was particularly favored by the government that sent them there. Add that to the fact that the Neutral Zone is a DMZ, and it seems unlikely that the Romulans would assign a warship to drop her off. Sybok needed something fast and powerful like a cruiser to get where he needed to go, and to get anyone to send one, he needed a crisis. He's just lucky that Starfleet responded first, as the Romulans or the Klingons probably would have resolved the situation with much more violence.

* Sybok's whole reason for invading Paradise City and holding the population for ransom was to get his hands on a starship. The thing is, a new Romulan Ambassador showed up on the planet minutes before the attack. Why didn't Sybok and co. just nab that one? There was a good chance it was still orbiting the planet, since the Ambassador didn't seem to have time to tell her ship that she'd met up with her Federation and Klingon counterparts and all was well. Or, if it had left, shouldn't it logically have been the first ship to arrive at Nimbus III when the distress calls went out, since it couldn't have been all that far away, even at high Warp?