The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek - Original Series (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=223735)

JT Perfecthair August 26 2013 12:09 AM

Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
My example is that I believe Kirk would get an earful over his resolution to the Apollo situation.

Once they figured out the temple was the source of his power, Spock could have destroyed it at any time. There was no rush to force Apollo's hand and resolve the encounter that quickly, I think that upper echelons would feel that contact with an actual Greek god was worth gathering a few laurel wreathes as part of a longer term operation.

The writers of course are constrained by the episodic nature of the show, that each week had its own story and resolution, so they really had no alternative but to write it just as it was.

Warped9 August 26 2013 12:25 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
I disagree. Kirk and his crew were being held against their will. And Apollo had shown little hesitation in injuring or even killing someone if they opposed him. Apollo didn't openly invite them down for a friendly chat. He bullied them into acquiescing to his demands.

Apollo would only talk on his terms which involved the total capitulation of Kirk and his crew and the destruction of the Enterprise and thereby stranding them planetside.

Apollo's abilities had long corrupted him into behaving like a spoiled brat. He would be considerate to others only on his terms and not because he had any genuine consideration for others.

I rather liked how the fan production "Pilgrim Of Eternity" picks up on that wherein when Apollo is rendered powerless and essentially mortal he starts behaving with more deference and consideration because he can't bully anyone into doing anything they don't want to do anymore. If he had approached the Enterprise crew in that manner originally he could indeed have been a fount of historical information and Kirk and company would have been only too happy to talk with him.

SantaSpock August 26 2013 01:35 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
In restrospect he dealt with the Khan situation badly.

They were probably cranky for a while with Kirk over the Amok Time thing. Though we all knew he did the right thing.

Kirk wasn't exactly a success in "A Private Little War" but what could he do, Starfleet obviously sent him there

Ho Ho Homeier August 26 2013 02:16 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
NBC apparently thought he did. :shifty:

Santa Kang August 26 2013 03:34 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
A Private Little War and Errand of Mercy weren't exactly wins.

Warped9 August 26 2013 03:48 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 8556802)
A Private Little War and Errand of Mercy weren't exactly wins.

With "Errand Of Mercy" it's a matter of perspective. Kirk was ordered to try keeping Organia out of Klingon hands. Well, that did happen but not in any way anyone could have imagined. Additionally the Organians put a stop to the war the Federation didn't want, but again in no way anyone could have envisioned. It's not a win in the usual sense, but it's not a loss either at least from the Federation's perspective. From the Klingon perspective it's a loss because (if Kor is any example) they were only to happy to fight for whatever they might get out of it.

It also implies both parties would have to go back to the negotiating table to continue arguing about the disputed areas. The Organian Treaty states any disputed planet would go to the side who could prove they could develop it most effectively. Okay, but what does that really mean? Develop it most effectively for who? Either side could develop a planet effectively for themselves at least given there are no inhabitants already there. But if there are inhabitants---such as on Neral in "A Private Little War"---then how is development defined and measured? Evidently the Federation preferred a "hands off" approach in keeping with their non-interference policy, the idea being the native inhabitants could develop themselves best on their own. The Klingons obviously had a more "hands on" notion to fit an evolutionary pattern they favoured: survival of the fittest and most aggressive. Either side has a case within context of their own principles so how is it decided which one is right?

One can argue the Klingons were sabotaging the Federation approach, but Kirk in response sabotaged the Klingon method. The natives are caught in the middle not really of their own making. I do get a sense the Klingons would get bored rather quickly of this game of keeping a level playing field on a backwater planet. Seems to me they used their "hands on" approach with the natives only because they were compelled to by treaty, otherwise they'd have just marched in just as they had intended to do on Organia. I suppose it might only matter if the Klingons really want that planet in that sector.

Push The Button August 26 2013 06:12 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

CommishSleer wrote: (Post 8556559)
In restrospect he dealt with the Khan situation badly.

Why does Kirk have to shoulder all of the blame for what happened to Khan and his people? Reports and logs were filed with Starfleet Command, it wasn't like Kirk was the only one that knew they were left on Ceti Alpha 5 with a limited amount of supplies. Why was it his sole responsibility to check on their progress? Spock, McCoy, and about 400 other Enterprise crew also knew what happened, none of them ever were curious enough to follow up and ask a few questions for themselves?

There isn't some Federation department or bureau that tracks and monitors colonies and settlements? And over the course of 15 years, no other ship ever visited that system and noticed that one of it's planets was missing? There was no mention of Khan or the Botany Bay in the database entry for Ceti Alpha 5, or vice-versa?

Santa Kang August 26 2013 06:22 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Terrel didn't know. Marcus didn't know. No ship was sent to check up on them. Sounds to me Kirk managed to keep this out of the official records.

Warped9 August 26 2013 08:36 AM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 8557201)
Terrel didn't know. Marcus didn't know. No ship was sent to check up on them. Sounds to me Kirk managed to keep this out of the official records.

Again you're making an assumption. Hostile people tried to forcibly hijack his ship. You don't think that was logged? Hell, we actually hear Kirk's log entries about the whole thing. No way he hid that baby. Starfleet could just as easily said, "Not your problem anymore, Kirk. We"ll deal with it." Maybe Starfleet is the one who hushes it up and keeps it out of the records.

BillJ August 26 2013 12:06 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 8557369)
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 8557201)
Terrel didn't know. Marcus didn't know. No ship was sent to check up on them. Sounds to me Kirk managed to keep this out of the official records.

Again you're making an assumption. Hostile people tried to forcibly hijack his ship. You don't think that was logged? Hell, we actually hear Kirk's log entries about the whole thing. No way he hid that baby. Starfleet could just as easily said, "Not your problem anymore, Kirk. We"ll deal with it." Maybe Starfleet is the one who hushes it up and keeps it out of the records.

Add to that the fact he had to explain what happened to the ships historian. :techman:

MacLeod August 26 2013 12:20 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Well given the Federations ban on gentic engineering, it seems plausable that they would want to keep queit about the fact that 70 or so genetical engineered super-humans are living on a planet in the Ceti-Alpha system.

For all weknow Terrell didn't bother to check the library computer about the Ceti-Alpha system. And the Reliant was just checking systems that were close to Regula.

SantaSpock August 26 2013 01:02 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 8557369)
Quote:

Nerys Myk wrote: (Post 8557201)
Terrel didn't know. Marcus didn't know. No ship was sent to check up on them. Sounds to me Kirk managed to keep this out of the official records.

Again you're making an assumption. Hostile people tried to forcibly hijack his ship. You don't think that was logged? Hell, we actually hear Kirk's log entries about the whole thing. No way he hid that baby. Starfleet could just as easily said, "Not your problem anymore, Kirk. We"ll deal with it." Maybe Starfleet is the one who hushes it up and keeps it out of the records.

I just assumed that Kirk didn't report Khan and his people to Starfleet.
I never thought otherwise until now. LOL.

I also thought he never reported meeting Cochrane and whatever happened to Nancy Hedford.

JarodRussell August 26 2013 01:27 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Of course Kirk did report it to Starfleet. But what do you expect Starfleet to do? "Hey fellas, there is this 300-year-old genetically engineered tyrant on that planet. All of you secret admirers of his regime, go find him and take him home." No, they made the whole incident classified.

Timo August 26 2013 01:42 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

I also thought he never reported meeting Cochrane and whatever happened to Nancy Hedford.
Indeed - the title of this thread should perhaps be "Do you think Starfleet would have felt Kirk had failed any of the missions if Kirk actually told them the truth about those?"...

Kirk lies to his superiors in the very first episode already, refusing to tell Starfleet the truth about the demise of Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner. Apparently, it isn't too difficult to erase or edit logs after the fact, either - and if the logs don't involve incidents of note, nobody will go through those "Court Martial" style, supposedly-difficult-to-forge flight recorder tapes and find out what really happened.

Actually, forging those tapes may also be simpler than we think. It was said in "Court Martial" that editing could be done only by Kirk, Spock, and Finney. Now, the latter two are specialists - but Kirk is a generalist, so forging of tapes should not be a "skill" issue since he presumably would lack the skill. It's more probably an "access" or "authority" issue, and if Kirk does have the access and the authority, then no adventure is safe from his creative reinterpretation.

As pointed out above, Kirk has obfuscated the deaths of several people quite explicitly. The disappearance of Marla McGivers could well be taken as an implicit fraud, then.

Quote:

"Hey fellas, there is this 300-year-old genetically engineered tyrant on that planet. All of you secret admirers of his regime, go find him and take him home."
This would imply that Khan admirers are a disliked minority. But Starfleet apparently consists almost exclusively of neo-Khanists, unless Kirk's own ship for some strange reason was an exception to the rule. If Kirk reported about Khan's survival, Starfleet would probably send the Federation Flagship and beam down an infrared carpet so that Khan could start his triumphant return with suitable pomp.

Timo Saloniemi

Nine of Four August 26 2013 02:32 PM

Re: Do you think Starfleet felt Kirk had failed any of the missions?
 
Quote:

Melakon wrote: (Post 8556658)
NBC apparently thought he did. :shifty:

Tru dat.

-:klingon:


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.