Star Trek Continues Ep. 5: "Divided We Stand"...(spoilers)

[Christopher Miles]

Ok, I just realized something.

Everyone take a minute to go upthread- then back down.

This fan made episode, on its own, managed to get us all reading, talking, thinking about The Civil War, Race relations, the Founders intentions, States' rights, the participation of European powers in The US Civil War - as well as getting a fresh perspective on our war from those not from the U.S.

So, for that, I gotta hand it to this ep. A more civil, more well informed electronic "water cooler" I have not encountered. There have been no attacks, no insults, just a great set of important points, each well made.

Ok, so maybe we are, in fits and starts- fans and producers alike- getting a little closer to what Trek is about-

The Question and the Conversation... What an episode does for us, the viewer, and maybe what we each want to do to make it a little better. "Hey TV: We want to be made to think again!"

Now I'm sermonizing. I sound like Linus on stage at Christmas.

Curse you Mignogna.

 

[Warped9]

Ok, I just realized something.

Everyone take a minute to go upthread- then back down.

This fan made episode, on its own, managed to get us all reading, talking, thinking about The Civil War, Race relations, the Founders intentions, States' rights, the participation of European powers in The US Civil War - as well as getting a fresh perspective on our war from those not from the US.

So, for that, I gotta hand it to this ep. A more civil, more well informed electronic "water cooler" I have not encountered.
No attacks, no insults, just important points, well made.

Ok, so maybe we are getting a little closer to what Trek is about-

The Question and the Conversation... What it does for us, the viewer.

Now I'm sermonizing. I sound like Linus at Christmas.

Curse you Mignogna.

Well said. That is one great strength of these episodes: even the weakest (in my opinion) isn't actually bad or poor in of itself, but not simply as strong as it could be. And all of them have (so far) been food for thought and discussion.

I would also add that the STC folks are wrestling with something daunting: getting your head out of 2015 perspectives and trying to see things from a mid 1960's viewpoint. That ain't easy even for the most dedicated fan.

I applaud STC for showing us things TOS could have (or should have) shown us (take a bow Commodore Gray) and might have given slightly different circumstances. These are things I most certainly want to see in future episodes. This includes stories that TOS could have (or should have) done if they had indeed run for another season as long as they are told with a reasonably authentic perspective. Putting a LGBT character or story into TOS would have been highly unlikely--practically impossible--unless someone could be really clever so the censors weren't likely to catch it. In like manner doing that in STC wouldn't ring true either unless, again, the writing was really clever.

We should remember that not all TOS episodes were message stories. It's nice when you get them, but straight up adventure (or humour) is okay too.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

That was the best outing yet for Star Trek Continues, and a damn fine episode for any of the incarnations of Star Trek. BRAVO!!

 

[nightwind1]

Although I'm not a big fan of PragerU, this video of a Professor from West Point summarizes why the South attempted to leave the Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4 (5:50). I don't see how Kirk, who so admires Lincoln could take any position except that which he takes in this episode. Furthermore, there were soldiers fighting for the North from every state in the Union except South Carolina. This is not an insult to all Southerners.

There were plenty of soldiers from the North that went south to fight for the Confederacy as well.

The South had no interest in State's rights when those rights pertained to a State which wished to keep slavery outside of its borders. When that State's rights were at stake, the South strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act which abolished that state's rights.

So did the North, which obeyed it, and SCOTUS ratified it.

Without re-fighting the War here, all I am saying is that the more conciliatory words Kirk spoke earlier in the episode were more in keeping with what I would expect from the "real" Kirk, not simplistic North boostering.

Somehow, I don't think the "real" Kirk would have anything good to say about slavers and traitors.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Re user name Ryan Thomas Riddle's post up-thread.

Ryan's thorough analysis is spot on. I particularly appreciate the coordinated screen caps which help set the tone for each point in his well though out post.

RTR, that was a great post and excellent food for thought.

Thanks, guys!

 

[Shyaporn]

Yet another very well executed episode - STC is definitely setting a high bar. Divided was not my cup of tea, though, not because of anything STC did, but simply because I never liked the "historical re-enactment" episodes of Star Trek TOS to begin with. Whenever one would come on TV, I always felt as though I was being tricked into a history lesson.

Really pleased to see Dr. M’Benga, as well - and excellently performed by Martin Bradford!

Aside from all that, did anyone else notice that Steven Dengler, who plays security chief Lt. Drake (with the prosthetic arm), sounds almost exactly like Tuvok/Tim Russ?! Particularly in the Sick Bay scene (at 32:00). Even his cadence is similar - I missed a good 5 minutes of the episode trying to figure out who he reminded me of!

 

[Barbreader]

I give both Continues and Farragut kiddos for their historical episodes since they are NOT set in our present time. Most of the TOS trips to the past were to the 1960s. Granted, DS9 went back to TOS's Trouble with Tribbles and the TNG movie, First Contact, went back to the first use of warp drive, April 5, 2062, if I'm not mistaken.

Another thing some fan series with time travel do (Star Trek: Unity from England; Star Trek: Eternal Night from Australia) go back to the time they are making the film, but at least since these filmmakers are not in the US, the Starfleet crews don't come to the USA (as they do in TOS, Continues, and Farragut.) Granted, everyone has Starfleet come to their own country, but it fits with 'write what you know.'

 

[DCR]

I have to admit I normally dislike the historical episodes, particularly when the characters are pretending to be someone they're not.

I actually like the fact they're letting the story determine its running time. That's one divergence from the original that I think is a good one. Of course, it's also not something that makes me think of TNG rather than TOS, so that's another positive.

The biggest issue with STC for me remains the writing. The cast is generally very good, though I think Todd Haberkorn's Spock is lacking in presence and gravitas. He feels too 'slight' to me. I had a similar problem with Dr. M'Benga, I was thrilled to see him but I think the actor needed to display more presence to really carry the role. When it comes to the writing though, I keep looking for more. The episodes are competently written, but for the most part lack that spark. They really need a "Tressaurian Intersection" or "World Enough and Time," to get them over that hump for me.

 

[HarryM]

I'm in general agreement that the story was a bit lacking. In every other respect they've done a remarkable job. Acting good, effects, production values etc. I think they need to take some time and develop the stories more.

I'm just not sure what it's supposed to be about. "Freedom isn't free?" If that's it I would like to see it tied into the Trek universe. Maybe it needs some sort of framing story, a crisis or battle that the ship has gone through that makes them question why they are out there, and the Civil War part reminds them what that is. Sort of like in "The Cage" Pike is worn out and flirts with the idea of quitting, then his "vacation" on Talos IV shows him he really doesn't want that.

The nanites are a little too magical in what they can do, (a little like Kirk getting bonked on the head and seeing ghosts in White Iris). They seem a little too good at moving around and interacting whereever they wish, then (conveniently) every last one is tricked into going where the crew wants in order to get rid of them. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a "trip" to the Civil War (which was fun) but it just felt kind of stuck in there too easily and I had trouble with that.

 

[E-DUB]

DS9 also did a two-parter where they traveled back to early twenty-first century. (Still in the future as of filming time.)

 

[Kor]

And I'll raise you a dollar. The whole point of STC is that the production wants to "continue" the voyages of the starship Enterprise. That to me means that there should be a level of authenticity to STC and similar outings. Besides, these episodes do not come out as often as we would like, so 'padding' a STC episode is still like a feast to the senses. But I do agree that not subject matter warrants a full episode, so the other routes are the vignettes.

And for that matter, if length shouldn't be a constraint in favor of more "organic" storytelling, then they may as well dispense with all of the fade-outs for commercial breaks, too.

Having such dramatic climaxes at very specific times (even if the story might not really call for it) is in itself a very artificial and unnatural narrative constraint necessitated by the commercial network television format. Why fade out with an orchestra crescendo at a dramatic moment, and then fade right back in to the same scene or even the exact same shot, if there is actually no commercial break? You certainly don't see that in feature films, or on television shows produced for public television or in countries where commercials only appear at the top of the hour.

It's because STC is doing its best to emulate the format and structure of the original series, constraints and all. The total length should be around 52 minutes, for the same reason. For the kind of exacting period authenticity they are going for, it's best to adhere to the whole format.

Kor

 

[Astra]

Thank you for replying Treadwell!

when lying on the table, where would it be? Unless they cut a hole into the surface.

There was. It's a really easy trick, I've done it in one of my own films as well.

Really? No hopping around with a green sock? I had hoped to see a picture of it...
But what when he walked on crutches out of the tent to see Lincoln? Doesn't the camera do pan around?

(I was wondering if probably that other soldier shown in the tent was someone who really was without an arm)

Yep!

Thought so. It looked very real indeed, and the camera lingered on it for emphasis.
Some people above were complaining about having been pulled out of the story here or there for different reasons. This was my moment. As I started to ponder - without knowing the gentleman or what happened to him - about all those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all those young men coming home without limbs.

If we think this is a thing from the past, we have to think again. It is happening right here, right now.

 

[Treadwell]

Thank you for replying Treadwell!

Really? No hopping around with a green sock?

Well, I was talking about the hole in the table. I honestly don't remember if he wore a green sock when he was on the crutches.

 

[Astra]

Well, I was talking about the hole in the table. I honestly don't remember if he wore a green sock when he was on the crutches.

I may ask him myself then, he is coming to Germany next year...

 

[feek61]

Thank you for replying Treadwell!

Really? No hopping around with a green sock?

Well, I was talking about the hole in the table. I honestly don't remember if he wore a green sock when he was on the crutches.

His leg was tied behind him; all of those severed limb scenes with Kirk were done using practical effects (no green sock).

 

[Phantom]

McCoy worked in the medical tent all night except for a short coffee break, so I would have liked to see him operating on a few more patients. I would have also liked to see Billy rallying the men at the end instead of getting a long-winded play by play, but I am grateful that the actor could pull it off and for the score which made it tolerable.

That would have required a focus shift off our PoV characters, something classic Trek did rarely if at all.

Somehow, I don't think the "real" Kirk would have anything good to say about slavers and traitors.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Do you mean all the Northern officers and civilians who also owned slaves? Or King Lincoln the First, who censored the papers, suppressed the Courts, and exiled his political opposition? Who repeatedly said his cause was Union, not Emancipation, and was perfectly willing to let slavery remain as late as the Hampton Roads conference, so long as the South returned to the Union?

And read your Constitution again. Also read the ratifying statements of several of the Colonies, who explicitly reserved the right to secede.

The Civil War (like most human affairs) is not a simplistic right/wrong, good guys/evil guys issue.

Kirk rightly starts to point this out in the ep, when he reminded the soldiers "Those are your brothers, and they will be again when this is over." Then the writers sent him off into "Lets go, boys!" territory, the mature, measured attitude of a society that had long-since moved on disappeared.

 

[Phantom]

combined post.

 

[nightwind1]

McCoy worked in the medical tent all night except for a short coffee break, so I would have liked to see him operating on a few more patients. I would have also liked to see Billy rallying the men at the end instead of getting a long-winded play by play, but I am grateful that the actor could pull it off and for the score which made it tolerable.

That would have required a focus shift off our PoV characters, something classic Trek did rarely if at all.

Somehow, I don't think the "real" Kirk would have anything good to say about slavers and traitors.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Do you mean all the Northern officers and civilians who also owned slaves? Or King Lincoln the First, who censored the papers, suppressed the Courts, and exiled his political opposition? Who repeatedly said his cause was Union, not Emancipation, and was perfectly willing to let slavery remain as late as the Hampton Roads conference, so long as the South returned to the Union?

And read your Constitution again. Also read the ratifying statements of several of the Colonies, who explicitly reserved the right to secede.

The Civil War (like most human affairs) is not a simplistic right/wrong, good guys/evil guys issue.

Kirk rightly starts to point this out in the ep, when he reminded the soldiers "Those are your brothers, and they will be again when this is over." Then the writers sent him off into "Lets go, boys!" territory, the mature, measured attitude of a society that had long-since moved on disappeared.

It IS a simple right/wrong, good guys/evil guys issue. Read the Cornerstone Speech the the Confederate Vice President. Read the Causes and Reasons for Succession that most of the traitorous states published. Read THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. The PRIME reason for the Slaver's Revolt was slavery, plain and simple.

 

[BigJake]

"King Lincoln the First"? Seriously? Can we not go importing the looniest political rhetoric of the 19th century into the thread? We surely have enough of our own today.

The South was super-duper explicit that it was seceding and declaring war over slavery far and away above all else. Pretty much every one of the Confederate States' declarations of war starts with this point. The South was the aggressor in that war and was aggressively trying to spread slavery (cf. Bleeding Kansas) out of the fear that the Peculiar Institution would die if it was confined to the South (which assumption, to be fair, was shared by the Northen Abolitionists). The Civil War was a war of choice by the planter politicians of the South which they went in knowing was unwinnable, but in which they were banking that slavery had more and stronger supporters in the North than it actually did and that those supporters would successfully force the North to quickly sue for peace, which didn't happen. All of that is as far from ambiguous as it is possible to be.

There was plenty of ambiguity in the stance and morality of the North at various points before, during and after the hostilities. But really all of that pales in comparison to the immensity of the Southern folly that produced the Civil War. There's no getting around that, and there's no honest way to reconstruct the history to make the South look sympathetic.

Ergo, as pertains the episode, it remains difficult to take issue with Kirk's position or with the writers' decision to make that Kirk's position.

 

[DCR]

Yes, while it's perfectly possible to argue that there was no one cause that each individual Confederate soldier felt he was fighting for, that's not the case for the secessionist governments.

Even the strongest state's rights argument ends up with the fact that the specific right in question was chattel slavery.