The Junior Officer in Star Trek III: Inappropriate Behavior?

I'm referring to the young man who approaches Kirk as the latter is leaving the bridge at the outset of TSFS and asks if Starfleet is planning a ceremony or reception for the Enterprise and her crew. His behavior strikes me as being somewhat inappropriate given that he assumes Starfleet would want to reward or celebrate what the Enterprise has been through.

I suppose the fact that Admiral Morrow later mentions Kirk and company receiving commendations is evidence that the brass was grateful for the ship's safe return after so many Starfleet officers died in TWOK, but the lieutenant's statement is enough to take a double-take from Uhura and has the added effect of upsetting Kirk (when he reaches the turbolift) due it reminding him of Spock's absence.

Of note, the Starfleet officer in question is the same actor who plays Jackie Chiles in Seinfeld and the Jem'Hadar third in "Rocks and Shoals."

 

Phil Morris, son of Greg Morris (Barney on Mission Impossible), and a MI alum himself. Not a bad resume there.

That line struck me as a little awkward, but it is what it is.

Not to derail, but I when I was a kid I always thought Barney was one of the best members of IMF. Much cooler than Willy.

 

I've always interpreted Foster's line as asking if there would be a memorial service for Spock and the other casualties.

And the second of Phil Morris's five Trek roles. He and his sister Iona were two of the Onlies in "Miri." (In addition to those roles and Remata'Klan, he was Thopok in DS9: "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places" and John Kelly in VGR: "One Small Step.")

 

You might be right, though Kirk's line immediately after that makes me wonder. He says, "A hero's welcome show, is that what you'd like?"

I just checked Phil Morris' IMDB credits and saw that he made a guest appearance in Knight Rider around the same time as TSFS. I'd never known it was him, as the character he was playing wore shades throughout his appearance.

 

I had forgotten about the Onlies. How did that come about? Surely not a case of "Dad, can we go to work with you today?" "Ok, I'll see if I can find you something to do."

 

The line is actually "A hero's welcome, son? Is that what you'd like?... Well, God knows, there should be. This time we paid for the party with our dearest blood."

Of course, that's just how Kirk interprets it -- and it's a little unclear whether he agrees with the sentiment or not.

They needed a bunch of kids as extras, so they got a bunch of people from Trek and the neighboring M:I to bring in their kids. They also used Shatner's two daughters, Roddenberry's two daughters, Grace Lee Whitney's two sons, and director Vincent McEveety's nephew.

 

I think after the, what feels according to the intro for TSFS, to be a long and solemn journey home, that the sentiment among the crew would be with that officer. Some kind of recognition and time to recoup.

 

I don't think the cadet (cadet?) was acting inappropriately, Kirk strikes me as the kind of commanding officer who would be approachable by anyone in his command. The cadet obviously felt comfortable asking Kirk the question.

The ship and crew had just won in a battle against a well armed criminal (or terrorist), a celebration would have been a perfectly reasonable expection.

 

I dont think Khan was a terrorist. His motives were personal.

 

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. It can be used in pursuit of numerous different goals. Most often it's used by small, non-state actors against more powerful opponents.

It's clear enough that Khan did have motives beyond revenge on Kirk. Even after his sneak attack, when he thought he had the Enterprise at his mercy, he attempted to extort the plans for Genesis from Kirk. And once he thought he had Kirk stranded and doomed on the planetoid, he still stole the Genesis torpedo. Destroying Kirk was just step one of his plan. After all, he was formerly a prince who ruled over millions. He was in the game of conquest, and he took Genesis to use as a weapon, a source of power. So we have a small band of aspiring conquerors who steal a military vessel, torture the staff of a research base, entrap and attack another military vessel, and steal a weapon of mass destruction in order to use in pursuit of political conquest. That might be called terrorism, especially if the intent is to use the threat of employing the WMD in order to terrorize a larger power (the Federation) into compliance.

 

This may not be relevant as it wasn't on screen, but the novelisation states that Foster's inappropriate behaviour was actually that he asked a question of Kirk as he was leaving the bridge. Kirk ignores the "breach of protocol" and allows Foster to ask his question.

 

kirk should've alerted security to the bridge, had him placed under arrest & sent to the brig pending a court marshal once they reached earth. the CM would take place and Kirk and Uhura would testify against him and he would be sent to a maximum security prison...once there Kirk would arrange through various channels for the Klingons to break in and transfer him to the penal Colony Rura Penthe where he would spend the rest of his natural life....

 

What in the blue hell...

 

That actually makes sense for the character. Look what hapenned with all and I mean ALL those who dared to as much as annoy Kirk one way or the other in all those episodes. All dead or worse. He sure is smooth with the honey colored eyes, smiling face and suave manners, but he's implacable. I'd cite Peter Preston, who died for having opened his big mouth at the wrong time (nobody can prove it, of course, but look at the face of the other cadets at the moment: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/twok/ch4/twok0191.jpg), but my favorite piece of evidence of Kirk's bloodthirst is Captain Spock. Being very intelligent, he saw the risk and all those years never wanted to take command of the Enterprise. But one day he thought it was safe to command in a training cruise. Look what happened to him. Kirk showed from nowhere fot "a surprise inspection". At least he saved Saavik when she dared to quote the regulation. Kid never knew how close she was to fate.

The victim list is extense. The Deckers (both father and son), for example, and I believe even Scotty was on the run when he choose to "retire" to planet faraway (but only made it so far as the Dyson Sphere).

The message is clear. Don't mess with Kirk. Or you will die.

 

Saavik was never in any danger because Kirk wanted to get in her pants. Now, as for Carol and David Marcus...

 

Well, Carol was obviously in danger, because no sooner does she come back into his life than she's put into the Federation Witness Protection Program; while her son gets to go explore the Genesis Planet, Carol herself is never seen again.

 

Or, have security haul him off to a escape pod, throw him in, and launch him toward a nearby ice planet.

 

Mr. Adventure was more of a jerk to his superior office Commander Uhura, IMO.

 

And Kirk isn't angry or offended when he replies. He even cracks a bit of a (pained) smile. So it would seem that Kirk didn't consider Foster's remarks to be out of line.

 

... and he Shat his pants when he saw Kirk.

And he soiled himself again when his "superior officer" pointed a gun at him.

His full name should be Mr. Adventure Brownpants.