Some points about Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country

Perhaps this movie should be considered to be in a slightly different continuity. That would explain inconsistencies in characterization.

Kor

 

While I'm not a huge fan of the character inconsistencies...I can see it a little. These guys have been tangling with the Klingon military for over 30 years. Kirk lost his son and his ship as a result of those conflicts. He lost men in the field through the years.

While I do think it goes back on some of the fundamentals of the characters...these people are tired and (quite frankly) older and crankier. I think it's a fair (if not entirely welcome) element to the characters at that point of their careers.

My problems with TUC are actually more story driven than anything.

 

Another huge issue was McCoy not knowing Klingon anatomy. These guys have only been your mortal enemies for the past 25/35/100 (TOS/DSC/ENT) years. Might be smart to train your doctors with knowledge about the enemy.

And Uhura not knowing Klingon. I grew up reading the 80's novels where she was explicitly the linguist (which was carried over from the Phase II bible). I'm so glad Into Darkness fixed this one.

 

Yes, I heard that Nichelle Nichols was not happy with that scene either.

Kor

 

I could be mistaken, but I have a feeling it’s Catrall herself who first called the meld scene as rape.

 

I had heard that too. His line about bringing them to their knees was particularly difficult and I heard he had to redo it a couple of times. I think he eventually did it because he understood the point Meyer was trying to make (that he was not making a 'racist' movie, but rather the reverse).

Yeah, having Uhura have to look through books for Klingon was ridiculous. The only saving grace was the throwaway line about not being able to use the UT, but barely. I mean, why couldn't the computer use the UT and give it as text if that were an issue and Uhura could just read the text (not to mention I agree that she was a linguist and probably would have been fluent anyway). The only positive is the look of disgust when she cuts the signal was probably real.

It's a good movie, but yeah, it has it's flaws. I've learned to exercise a healthy amount of suspension of disbelief, you sort of have to. Even the best Star Trek films have those moments. But there are a few things that are just hard to overlook, like looking in "books" to translate. I'm sure it was done for comedic effect but it fell flat.

 

She was quoted once as saying she'd "Had sex with Spock!" with the requisite wink and smile. I don't think she saw it as invasive and 'rapey' until she saw the finished film.

 

I loved the sets from The Final Frontier, they didn't look like TNG sets to me. It looked like a motion picture set. Repainting TFF bridge and adding pipes to TNG sets looked ridiculous and wasn't thought out.

 

The Klingons didn't kill his son, it was several stupid assholes who did... who happened to be Klingon. It wasn't like the Empire had a score to settle and put out a bounty on David Marcus. David was killed because he made a heroic effort to save Imposter Saavik from being a sacrificial lamb. Kirk's hatred for Klingons was presented on full disclosure in "Errand of Mercy". Every time Klingons showed up, he didn't show the least sympathetic towards them.

Kirk's introduction in ST:II he made a bigoted comment about Klingons. He hates them, he hated them long before his son was killed.

Meyer's Captain's Log intro is nothing but a plot devise and as the film played out, I'm not sure if it worked. How did his speech about the future restored his son's faith???

ST:IV invented some revisionist history claiming the genesis planet was for the Klingon people. Really??? In the sh*tfest movie ST:III Kruge and his band of retards wanted to steal it or conquer it or something ridiculous, and David never stated on the Grissom the planet was for the Klingons. The "I can never forgive them for the death of boy" jibber jabber was odd--since he killed the ones responsible for it.

 

Except that in STIV, the Klingon ambassador took Kruge's side and attempted to justify his actions, instead of throwing him under the bus. He said: "We have the right to preserve our race!" Assuming that Kruge's mission wasn't authorized in advance, once they learned its purpose, it seemed like the Klingon government thought that stealing Genesis was a good idea.

No, it didn't. I've no idea where you're getting this.

 

In "Errand of Mercy" Kor executed 100s of innocent hostages and tortured Spock and threatened to kill and torture him so you'd expect him to be a bit miffed with them. While he didn't jump with joy when the Organians claimed that in the far future humans and Klingons would be friends he had moments of reflection at the end of the episode - he didn't claim he would hate Klingons for the rest of his life or anything like that.
Its true on a lot of episodes in TOS that Klingons were the token bad guys but Kirk never showed real hatred for them or the Romulans. In "Day of the Dove" Kirk allied himself with the Klingons and took them back to a neutral planet or something. In STV Kirk was drinking with them after hosting a party for them. In "Troubles With Tribbles" Kirk was just plain annoyed with the Klingons. In TAS the also had alliances with the Klingons.
It's unfair to say that Kirk always showed hatred towards the Klingons throughout TOS/TAS and the movies. I think its understandable that Kirk didn't trust them in STV - he'd be a fool to trust them - General Chang was disingenuous after all.
.

 

Yeah, I agree. Before TSFS it was more they were our sworn enemies sort of thing, like the US/USSR Cold War (though the Klingons were obviously more ruthless and deadly). I mean, you could define it as hatred in the sense that Kirk wanted to protect the Federation, but it wasn't personal. It was in a soldier sort of way. In TSFS it became personal, and yes, while it's true it was only a few Klingons who were actually responsible, Kirks hatred became personal and visceral. I think partly because he had just mended fences with his son. After years of being separated and even hated by his son, they had began anew and I think Kirk was looking forward to getting to know his son. Then he was brutally taken away from him. The Klingons took it personally too. Before they wanted to beat and even kill Kirk because it would have been a great honor. But after TSFS they wanted him for not only beating Kruge, but for embarrassing him and stealing his ship--and they felt threatened by Genesis. But no one 'gave' Genesis to the Klingons. The Federation abandoned the technology because it was unstable, as Saavik said, Genesis was a failure. Eventually, like transwarp in TSFS, Genesis was forgotten.

In TFF Kirk made it clear he didn't like Klingons (and of course they didn't like him). The truce at the end was only temporary but he was still leery. I think in TUC when Spock arranged the peace conference, his hatred and distrust re-emerged because he just couldn't believe the Klingons really wanted peace. So for me, it wasn't an issue. Even years later he held a grudge. And how many people do we know have held grudges, sometimes against a group of people. Sometimes those people will even acknowledge they know it's not fair, but they can't help it.

 

I liked this flawed film.
I know that many were not happy with the main characters having such prejudicial character flaws, but I think that since a major part of Star Trek at its best has always been forcing us to see ourselves and how we need to grow and can improve, having our beloved characters the ones who are flawed and have growth made the point better , and forced us to look at ourselves.
Having been a kid who grew up in the Cold War, being taught that the Russians were the "Evil Empire" and such, I understand how hard it is to change views toward a former enemy when political situations change. I also know that sometimes people - in their own stress - say things that are more hateful or angry than they really feel. I know Shatner tried saying the line, "Let them die," in that way, although Meyer edited that nuance out of his performance. I think it could have been more effective if ALL of the Enterprise crew didn't have the same views, and perhaps some internal discussion between them could have been effective regarding the situation.
At the end of the day, as much as Kirk hated Klingons, he and McCoy were sincere in their efforts to save Gorkon, and put their lives on the line to try and do so.
There was some real silliness to the script that was sloppy writing, IMHO, such as having them announce over the PA system about getting ready to interview the two crewmen who were part of the plot, or the whole kitchen scene. I liked seeing daily living on the ship, but a 20th century kitchen was not the way to do it. Phaser alarms may have actually been a good idea, but we never saw one before or after, so it really stands out like a sore thumb and doesn't work.
And, yes, that stupid patch on Kirk was vomit-inducingly contrived.

 

Again, thanks to everyone who have contributed to this conversation and who have provided a spirited defense of the film. You've brought up some good points to consider the next time I decide to rewatch the film (which happens at least once a year)!

 

I think you missed what that scene in TVH was about.

The Klingon Ambassador was calling for Kirk's head ("we demand justice"). Part of his rhetoric was to frame up the Genesis Project (and resulting planet) as a weapon Starfleet produced specifically to destroy the Klingons in attempt to regain leverage by justifying Kruge's incursion and subsequent actions, such as destroying the Grissom with all hands aboard. His line is actually "...and the result of this awesome energy was euphemistically called the Genesis Planet...a secret base from which to launch the annihilation of the Klingon People!!"

The thought is not that this was "true"...the intent is that this was a line of BS the Ambassador was selling to the Council to demonstrate how the Klingons viewed the incident. He was manipulating the facts. I don't think it was ever intended to be "the truth."

 

I never had a problem with Spock's chalice. Vulcans have always had a propensity toward elaborate ornamentation. Look at some of their robes, ceremonial headgear, etc. They clearly have an appreciation for the arts, whether other species would think that is "logical" or not.

Kor

 

Thank you for pointing this out and you are correct. And yet, I've always perceived Vulcans as living austere and ascetic lives. Sure there's some ornamentation on their clothing and I don't find it too difficult to accept the large IDIC decoration in Spock's quarters in TWOK given its cultural significance.

However, I always seen Spock, and Vulcans in general as monks. They are interested in training their minds, shutting out emotions, giving their lives to logic and learning and science and understanding the universe.

That's why I found it so jarring that this Spock owns a copy of a Chagall painting on his wall depicting The Garden Of Eden or mixing a drink of some kind in a very shiny, very expensive looking, very ostentatious silver cup. I know that this version of Spock is different than the Spock we knew from the TV show. This Spock who has died and has come back to life and has come to terms with his human half. Even accepting all that, I still feel that the Spock we see in TUC feels very out of character.

 

Spock was engaging Valeris in an elaborate Vulcan Tea ceremony, probably related to his line "This will be my last voyage as a member of her crew. I mean you to replace me." It therefore seems obvious that an elaborate chalice of colored glass be used for the ceremony, which, if you recall, was performed as each drank from it, from opposite sides, presumably to symbolize the transfer of position/responsibility. The very much in-character Spock is expressing a long-standing single-mindedness in executing the ceremony and what he intends it to represent.

As for the painting, it's probably one his mother sent him.