[horatio]

I think the point of the movie was that Kirk realized that he should not act on his racist feelings. He realized that there are bigger issues at stake, he began to think politically and saved the day.
He didn't save the day via becoming disgusted about his own feelings. He might be a nicer guy afterwards but he hasn't reached the political sphere yet.

Or in other terms, the movie isn't great because Kirk becomes aware of his racism and loses it but rather because he does the right thing in spite of his racist feelings towards Klingons. He cannot forgive them the death of his son and yet he still opens his arms, he still considers the risky path towards peace as worthwhile.
And as we all know Klingon-Federation history between TUC and TNG was anything but rosy. Peace isn't necessarily the rational thing, it's more like a leap of faith and it's no coincidence that the late Spock from TUC and Unification was enganged in this "illogical" business.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The Meyer movies, the Section 31 stories in DS9, torture in ENT, I understand why might can consider such stories as going too far. But isn't this better than constant Roddenberryian utopia with no real conflicts, tensions and thus no potential for good drama left?

Yes, and I don't have a problem with the latter. However, when the TOS films are see-sawing from one tone to another it becomes a case of what is what with events. One film he's all friendly and inviting them aboard, the next minute it's 'let them die'. And David was already dead by then, so what's up with the bipolar?

The abrupt changes in their characters did not fit their pasts and it was an out of synch change in TUC.

Required for the story they wanted to tell, I will accept - but I don't have to like that particular TUC instance of it any more than I have to like Picard's descent into guns 'n' gals over the course of the TNG films.

DS9 was consistently darker and morally questioning, ENT was a bit all over the place but eventually found an allegory or two here to work with

I think that we need both, Roddenberry and Meyer, the paradise and its very fragility. Or in other terms you need to show that there is a constant struggle to maintain your great world, that without this struggle you might quickly regress to the savage ways. So the seemingly static Federation paradise is quite dynamic beneath the surface, there are forces who would undo it and there are counteracting forces.

I would agree - I say only that Meyer's attempt was made too late to bring that element into TOS and fitted the later series better.

Certain things fit certain Trek shows better than others. It's my feeling that 'Undermining the Paradise' stories are not a good fit for TOS, arguably the most optimistic one of them all. Even though, in general, I do like stories that attempt to do so.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I think the point of the movie was that Kirk realized that he should not act on his racist feelings. He realized that there are bigger issues at stake, he began to think politically and saved the day.
He didn't save the day via becoming disgusted about his own feelings. He might be a nicer guy afterwards but he hasn't reached the political sphere yet.

Yes, and I understand that. And in order to complete that journey he has to start out feeling that way and expressing it publicly, or he can have no big speech at the end. From a film-making and story-telling POV this is to be expected.

Or Kirk has no arc within the film.

But, understanding the intention, and liking the effect are not the same thing.

[horatio]

Well, if you ignore TFF and its Klingon-Federation détente atmosphere the change is not that big. Although I like TFF quite a bit I wouldn't be inclined in the least to take anything in this Shat-y pleasure seriously continuity-wise.

[kevin]

Well you could argue that, but then one could also use that justification to decide to do the same about parts of any of the films as well they felt didn't fit, although................since Roddenberry was also a fan of making certain parts of Trek 'apocryphal', it might just work!

[horatio]

I claim that Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is a but a dream. is the motto of the movie and the only attitude towards it which makes viewing it bearable.

[kevin]

And that does make it flow easier - but, in Trekdom, obviously not everyone will want to 'remove' it from the continuity and as a result, some people will keep it.

I don't like the film, but I don't strictly remove it either, and as such there are problems for me with the flow between IV, V and VI that don't exist with the flow between II, III and IV.

Which is why I personally prefer II, III and IV out of the TOS series and put the others lower down.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Ultimately though it served the story and this is why sometimes outside directors are best for giving a bit of perspective.

It did serve the story of TUC, I won't argue with that. But there are a lot of little problem about it I have that mean I personally no longer put it very high up amongst them.

That said, I'm well aware of being in the minority regarding TUC.

I mean who would have thought of giving the Enterprise a sub like feel for the action of the ships and crew...or even putting themes in the films. Nimoy apparently liked the concept and mimicked it from the First Film even though unofficially Meyers was behind the scenes on the Third Movie but didn't get his name in the credits.

I believe Meyer did that because of his own fondness for the period and also the Hornblower stories. And the military service component was always there in TOS as a series. Years later do I think Meyer and Bennet had to make it so blindingly obvious? That's different. I vary on that.

Do I quite believe that in the 23rd Century starships suddenly look like contemporary submarines inside and fight in space like ships on an ocean? Well, not entirely - but these are lower priority bits and pieces.

On screen, it works. I'll go with that.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

It did serve the story of TUC, I won't argue with that. But there are a lot of little problem about it I have that mean I personally no longer put it very high up amongst them.

That said, I'm well aware of being in the minority regarding TUC.

I have to be honest I felt the same way at the time.
I don't know if I can justify ignoring those feelings. I can say that the worst of the behavior...

"Klingons would become the trash of the Galaxy" from Cartwright.
And Yomen's Burke and Samnal.

...Were at least vilified...and I do believe those elements are almost always present...even if just bellow the surface.

I believe Meyer did that because of his own fondness for the period and also the Hornblower stories. And the military service component was always there in TOS as a series. Years later do I think Meyer and Bennet had to make it so blindingly obvious? That's different. I vary on that.

It's always been there as far as naval Jargon but Meyer's put it visually on Screen. He first to give the ships a sound as they past as though they were flowing through water.

Notice in both his movies he relied on the red-lighting of Red Alert to set the the tone for the battles just like on subs and also note the purposeful righting to scenes where the crew had to move through parts of the ship by means of ladders. They could have done without those scenes but he knew seeing the loading of the torpedo was a powerful battle sight it added to the feeling of drilling men and small quarters.

[martok2112]

Late to the game on this one, but this has evolved into some interesting discussion. If I have repeated some ideas, my apologies in advance.

The racism issue does not just end at the movie itself. Some of the actors seemed to have a genuine problem in performing certain lines.

Believe it or not, if you watch some of the documentary "behind the scenes" stuff on TUC, you'll find that even the cast members had some difficulty with some of their lines. Apparently, Brock Peters (Admiral Cartright) had problems with a line he delivered during the classified conference near the beginning of the movie. The "Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy" speech.

Apparently even Der Shat had problems with his "let them die" line.


Gene Roddenberry declared Star Trek V and VI to be apochryphal. V because of Sybok, and VI because of its more militaristic nature.