Episode of the Week : Wolf in the Fold

[Timo]

Importantly, nor is anybody else.

Scotty's "resentment" is never brought up by the prosecution (Hengist et al.) nor nervously discussed and carefully hidden by the defense (Kirk and friends). The "issue" ceases to exist after the banter in the teaser. Sure, it may be intended to make the audience consider (im)possibilities, but in-universe, it just ain't true, let alone relevant.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I like this episode, though I agree the blow to the head/resentment toward women part is strange.

If there had been a string of incidents where an explosion caused by a woman had occured, knocking Scotty around each time, then yeah I guess it would start to make sense. But one occurence?

I'd not considerd until this thread that the resentment of women could simply be a personality trait of Scotty's. It doesn't seem too likely...but now I'll have to re-watch and look for this.

And who, by the way, caused this explosion? Wouldn't a crewman who caused an explosion have something to answer for? Negligence in the line of duty? Something? If I served on a naval vessel and caused an explosion, I don't think it'd be shrugged off like it was just another day at the office!

 

[CrazyMatt]

A solid 8. Robert Block with another winner. I understand why some don't like it as it's a somewhat atypical episode. Also, there are some plot points that are a bit shaky. But perhaps the biggest drawback is the lack of Spock in the first half, brought on by the production team's need to downplay Nimoy's character after the actor was nominated for an Emmy for the second time... resulting in a very unhappy un-nominated (again) Shatner!

You don't mean it was Shatner's vendetta against Nimoy, do you?

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

 

[kirkfan]

I like this episode, though I agree the blow to the head/resentment toward women part is strange.

If there had been a string of incidents where an explosion caused by a woman had occured, knocking Scotty around each time, then yeah I guess it would start to make sense. But one occurence?

I'd not considerd until this thread that the resentment of women could simply be a personality trait of Scotty's. It doesn't seem too likely...but now I'll have to re-watch and look for this.

And who, by the way, caused this explosion? Wouldn't a crewman who caused an explosion have something to answer for? Negligence in the line of duty? Something? If I served on a naval vessel and caused an explosion, I don't think it'd be shrugged off like it was just another day at the office!

We can't say anything for sure about that. For all we know the person who caused the explosion had been disciplined prior to the episode, we're just not told about it.

 

[kirkfan]

A solid 8. Robert Block with another winner. I understand why some don't like it as it's a somewhat atypical episode. Also, there are some plot points that are a bit shaky. But perhaps the biggest drawback is the lack of Spock in the first half, brought on by the production team's need to downplay Nimoy's character after the actor was nominated for an Emmy for the second time... resulting in a very unhappy un-nominated (again) Shatner!

You don't mean it was Shatner's vendetta against Nimoy, do you?

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

Does that mean that the two of them didn't like each other much in real life?

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I gave "Wolf" a five. It's not exactly a formula episode, but it has a certain "assembly line" quality, like "The Apple," that turns me off. Nothing really good happens. The story is disrespectful of history in its made-up bullcrap that trivializes terrible things. And once again, an episode ends on a happy, laughing note that utterly forgets those who have just been killed.

I will say, John Fiedler gives a standout vocal performance as Redjac unleashed.

Does that mean that the two of them didn't like each other much in real life?

As the story goes, they started out as rivals, with Shatner guarding his star status (knowing what happened to Guy Williams on Lost in Space), but they became friends eventually.

IIRC, during the movie era they resolved their competition by agreeing to receive the same pay for each film.

 

[kirkfan]

John Fiedler is a funny guy and very good as an actor.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This one has an interesting idea that utterly fails in execution and crosses the line into tedious for me. This is about as bad as the second season gets.

Three.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Pathetic episode. Absolutely pathetic. Zero.

 

[kirkfan]

Pathetic episode. Absolutely pathetic. Zero.

No argument there.

 

[tafkats]

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

Does that mean that the two of them didn't like each other much in real life?

Nimoy describes Shatner as a good friend, and says their relationship was one of great respect, but also a certain amount of "sibling rivalry" as if between "a pair of very competitive brothers." That's from I Am Spock.

 

[kirkfan]

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

Does that mean that the two of them didn't like each other much in real life?

Nimoy describes Shatner as a good friend, and says their relationship was one of great respect, but also a certain amount of "sibling rivalry" as if between "a pair of very competitive brothers." That's from I Am Spock.

Well, at least he didn't call his book "I, Spock". That's been done to death.

 

[Harvey]

A solid 8. Robert Block with another winner. I understand why some don't like it as it's a somewhat atypical episode. Also, there are some plot points that are a bit shaky. But perhaps the biggest drawback is the lack of Spock in the first half, brought on by the production team's need to downplay Nimoy's character after the actor was nominated for an Emmy for the second time... resulting in a very unhappy un-nominated (again) Shatner!

You don't mean it was Shatner's vendetta against Nimoy, do you?

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

Is there any corroboration to the theory that the staff downplayed Spock's role due to Nimoy's second Emmy nomination besides Marc Cushman's speculation?

 

[CrazyMatt]

You don't mean it was Shatner's vendetta against Nimoy, do you?

Shatner's insecurities about Nimoy... Shatner was the nominal star of the show by Nimoy was getting almost all the accolades... and Emmy nominations...

Is there any corroboration to the theory that the staff downplayed Spock's role due to Nimoy's second Emmy nomination besides Marc Cushman's speculation?

Cushman states that both D.C. Fontana (by direct memo quotation) and Bob Justman (not directly annotated) wrote memos to Gene Coon, telling him that Spock needed to be more involved earlier in the story. Roddenberry may have also had a say with Coon in this matter, again emphasizing the role of Kirk and downplaying the role of Spock in the story.

Given the evidence Cushman presents, including:

- Nimoy having gotten a second Emmy nomination while Shatner was again passed over;

- Nimoy's salary battle at beginning of the second production season where Roddenberry went far enough to consider firing Nimoy;

- The script for the episode filmed prior ("The Doomsday Machine") included large chunks of action where Shatner was not involved at all. In fact, Shatner felt compelled to cut Nimoy's lines (to the point Norman Spinrad stated that one scene no longer worked as written), suggesting Shatner thought Nimoy's prominence this the script could reinforce the notion that Nimoy was the "real" star of the show, not Shatner. Justman and Solow wrote extensively about that friction point in their book.

With these factors in mind, I find Cushman's analysis of the situation to be sound, logical, and supported by factual evidence from other sources (both Fontana's memo and the Solow/Justman book).

I'm certainly willing to entertain any contrary or different interpretations of why Spock is not a prominent character in the first half of this episode. However, until they are presented to me, with at least as much evidence that Cushman has presented, there's no "there there."

I'm not advocating that everything that Cushman has written in his books is totally accurate or completely correct--I know that's not true. But give me a little credit for being able to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.

While we're on this subject, let me say this: There are those--not necessarily you, Harvey--who have (at least implicitly) criticized others here for believing things simply because they appeared in Cushman's books. Those who would dismiss viewpoints, etc. simply because they come from a particular author without presenting factual, verifiable evidence that disproves the author's claims themselves display bias that discredits them... at least with me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

While we're on this subject, let me say this: There are those--not necessarily you, Harvey--who have (at least implicitly) criticized others here for believing things simply because they appeared in Cushman's books. Those who would dismiss viewpoints, etc. simply because they come from a particular author without presenting factual, verifiable evidence that disproves the author's claims themselves display bias that discredits them... at least with me.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the original claim, not on others to disprove it. That's true irrespective of who makes the claim.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that it is biased to dismiss viewpoints backed by factual, verifiable evidence without at least presenting factual, verifiable evidence supporting arguments to the contrary.

 

[kirkfan]

While we're on this subject, let me say this: There are those--not necessarily you, Harvey--who have (at least implicitly) criticized others here for believing things simply because they appeared in Cushman's books. Those who would dismiss viewpoints, etc. simply because they come from a particular author without presenting factual, verifiable evidence that disproves the author's claims themselves display bias that discredits them... at least with me.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the original claim, not on others to disprove it. That's true irrespective of who makes the claim.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that it is biased to dismiss viewpoints backed by factual, verifiable evidence without at least presenting factual, verifiable evidence supporting arguments to the contrary.

if there is factual, verifiable evidence backing contradictory viewpoints then it means that there is something wrong in the universe.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

if there is factual, verifiable evidence backing contradictory viewpoints then it means that there is something wrong in the universe.

Sorry, but this happens quite frequently. All it means is that the evidence under consideration isn't overwhelming. And you may have noted that I used the words "at least" which were intended to be operative. When it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion about which side is right when both sides have evidence, one side will have better evidence and/or a greater weight of evidence on its side.

 

[Indysolo]

A solid 8. Robert Block with another winner. I understand why some don't like it as it's a somewhat atypical episode. Also, there are some plot points that are a bit shaky. But perhaps the biggest drawback is the lack of Spock in the first half, brought on by the production team's need to downplay Nimoy's character after the actor was nominated for an Emmy for the second time... resulting in a very unhappy un-nominated (again) Shatner!

D.C. Fontana noted the lack of Spock after the story outline and first draft. So it seems that a story that didn't have much Spock in it from the start finished with not much Spock in it.

Neil

 

[Marsden]

if there is factual, verifiable evidence backing contradictory viewpoints then it means that there is something wrong in the universe.

Your universe must be much different than the one I'm in.

 

[kirkfan]

if there is factual, verifiable evidence backing contradictory viewpoints then it means that there is something wrong in the universe.

Sorry, but this happens quite frequently. All it means is that the evidence under consideration isn't overwhelming. And you may have noted that I used the words "at least" which were intended to be operative. When it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion about which side is right when both sides have evidence, one side will have better evidence and/or a greater weight of evidence on its side.

I am sorry but evidence that is sketchy and incomplete is not BACKING a viewpoint, at best it's not contradicting it, but if you have evidence that is BACKING a viewpoint then that means that if you admit the evidence as true then you must admit the viewpoint as well. I see that the real problem is that we don't have the same definitions of these concepts.