Honestly, when it comes to these types of things Star Trek has a fairly limited view in terms of what it actually is a problem if done in the real world.
The Undiscovered Country
- Thread starter PaddyRyan1706
- Start date
- Status
Was there ever a novelization of the movie where it was discussed Admiral Cartwright's history with the Klingons? His clear hatred for the Klingons and his view of what should become of them made him an obvious prime suspect as a conspirator, which hurt the revelation of his involvement. I'm not sure if Cartwright was handled differently, where he was championing the Klingon peace, would make his part in the assassination less suspicious but a little backstory would have been interesting to learn. Brock Peters didn't hold back, even when he didn't have dialogue he expressed this cold, cold look throughout the movie, for me there's no question he was involved.
I don't recall the novel (it's been a while since I read it). But, even though his presentation in the film was clear he was part of the conspiracy, it was still a shock going from ST IV to VI with him being an antagonist.
That was the point. Meyer wanted a hero from one of the previous films to be one of the conspirators. Since he couldn't do it with Saavik, we got it with Cartwright. (Although I'm not sure if he only cast Brock Peters in the film after it was clear Kirstie Alley couldn't reprise her role as Saavik, or if he was always planning to use the Admiral Cartwright character.)
This is admittedly more headcanon than anything but I always assumed Cartwright's objections and role in the conspiracy were rooted in more in tactical/strategic thinking than outright hatred. While the "alien trash" remark certainly suggests bigotry on his part, the emphasis seemed to be on the idea of the Federation being open to an attack or subversion by the Empire if its guard is down. Its not hard to imagine him as an officer on a starship during the cold war tensions with Klingons now essentially believing that the only peace possible was if Starfleet was in much stronger place militarily.
Moreover given that Cartwright was on Earth during the arguments of Kirk's trial, its likely he viewed/heard of the Klingon's attempts to get hold of the Genesis Device and saw it as further reinforcement that a strong defensive position was utterly crucial to beating back the Empire's attempts at expansion.
Moreover given that Cartwright was on Earth during the arguments of Kirk's trial, its likely he viewed/heard of the Klingon's attempts to get hold of the Genesis Device and saw it as further reinforcement that a strong defensive position was utterly crucial to beating back the Empire's attempts at expansion.
Cost cutting strikes againCartwright was there because he already had a uniform that fit.
I read he had trouble saying some of those lines and it took several takes because he was very uncomfortable with them, but it was supposed to make the point that in the future, Earth racism is so far gone that no one remembers it very well.
The only problem with this is the Klingons aren't someone the Federation loathes because of their race (or just because of it). They're a totalitarian dictatorship guilty of numerous war crimes.
Which is very different from hatred of persecuted minorities.
Hatred of guy who is half-black/half-white is different from Kira hating Cardassians.
That's actually a really interesting point. An article I read (and cannot find any more
) had an interesting point that despite the film's theme around racism there are still legitimate grievances against the Klingons that are never addressed.
I disagree. There is more defensiveness toward the first Abrams film than any other slice of the franchise. Been there from Day One, still there eleven years later.
This thread is a perfect example. I'm literally the only one critiquing it -- in a thread that, yes, admittedly is meant to be about a different ST film in a different "universe" -- and yet I have no less than six other people lashing back against me. If you don't see that as defensiveness, that might be because you're amongst that same cohort. People have a hard time noticing their actions or taking responsibility when part of a multitude.
I guess the police also get "exasperated" when they murder a combative person in their custody. I thought you could get behind a more negative epithet like "bitterly". Apparently, not.
So, yes. I acknowledge that Kirk has performed dark actions prior to ST 09. Although, in fairness, in ST III, Kruge had just had Kirk's son executed, and he was literally trying to pull Kirk off a cliff.
The Narada wasn't imperilling the Enterprise in that manner. And if the defence is, "Well, Nero caused the death of Kirk's father", that would be interesting -- if only because Kirk usurps Spock on the basis he is "emotionally compromised" and apparently clouded by what Nero just did to Vulcan and his mother. So: Being emotionally compromised is only wrong when it happens to a Vulcan? The film has twisted, psychotic logic, simply to allow Kirk to become "captain" at any cost.
It was a war/combat scenario where Kirk was literally breaking orders (he had stolen the Enterprise, if you recall) and trying to survive. There was no outside help; no-one coming to his aid. He also loses the Enterprise in the process. In ST XI, Nu-Kirk commits mass murder/genocide and gains everything.
For some people, the Abrams films tremendously coarsened the brand. That's why you might occasionally see the films getting called blasphemous. Unlike the other ST films that preceded the 2009 film (which, yes, could be dark and violent), the Abrams film presents itself as a complete do-over (don't give me that "alternate timeline" crap). It therefore merits extra criticism and extra suspicion as a "new beginning" for the franchise.
And the 2009 film is very seedy and violent in general. Kirk and Spock even come to blows and Kirk physically attempts to mutiny. He is thrown off the ship in a questionable outburst by Spock, and then, when he improbably returns at warp speed, he mutinies again -- this time, he is successful, and has been encouraged to overthrow Spock by his older self! I'm not sure how the older Spock thought Kirk was going to accomplish this. And he almost doesn't. The film has to contort itself to allow him to succeed. For instance, Kirk is apparently fine after provoking Spock's fury, despite the fact he is choked half to death and everybody just lets it happen, standing around like lemons (even Spock's own father). McCoy doesn't even check him over afterwards (or Spock for that matter). And Spock is now disgraced in front of his own bridge crew. Great way to show the budding "friendship" between these people.
How Kirk was ever allowed to get in Spock's face in the first place (he's literally close enough to bite him) is also never explained. Kirk is a prisoner. There's a security team. Even with Spock ordering Kirk to the bridge, those security people do nothing to protect Spock, despite Kirk's blatant insolence and obvious signs of aggression and insubordination. Kirk is right in Spock's face the whole time! Is there *ever* a situation, anywhere in life, where a person would be allowed to do that by a security force? That one security officer even still hates Kirk ("Come with me, cupcake!"). It is not remotely realistic or believable. I offer this as another example. The whole film is like this. Some find the writing and general delivery of the film to be an offence to the name of Star Trek, and I can't say I blame them. Although I'm not sure what you're worried about. I'm the only person criticising it here -- everyone else (in predictable fashion) is attacking me.
Yes, but the treaty isn't with the civilians, it's with the government. They're not making peace with the Ukrainian peasants, they're making peace with the Soviet leadership. Which is why I think that it's a story that benefits from a simple race allegory to one about peace.
Spock believes helping their old enemies is going to be a greater good. He's actually using the utilitarian argument rather than the traditional Federation absolute moral one. The others question whether peace will actually just empower the Klingon government to strike back decades later.
Last edited:
Keep trying to excuse that war crime.
Keep playing whataboutism.
Oh, and by the way: I'm not excusing anything. It's still a crime. The difference is: It's a very tense and grim situation. And when he is able, Kirk actually does spare a member of Kruge's crew. The contrivances and flaws of ST 09 are on a whole other level.
I don’t think you know what that means. Which is par for the course.
You’re trying to excuse it in this post where you say you’re not excusing it. “It’s a very tense and grim situation.”
Re: Kruge
It should be noted that while Kirk is an illegal criminal acting outside of Federation authority, Kruge is inside Federation territory after having committed an act of war against the Federation. One he absolutely did not have the authority or approval of his government to do so. In short, neither of them are protected by traditional laws and customs of war.
In what would legal terminology of olden times, "Kruge is a pirate and Kirk treated him like one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
You're implicitly accusing me of hypocrisy because you're suggesting I ignore issues in the preceding films. I don't. I just think the Abrams film is far worse.
Because it is a very tense and grim situation. That's why we have courts of law, different degrees of murder/manslaughter, etc.
I am saying (though you seem incapable of grasping) that the Abrams movie is far more sinful and retrograde than anything seen in Star Trek before.
All you are doing is cherry-picking from past films (and cherry-picking my posts) in order to play "Gotcha!" All to dodge the criticisms I've made of a film you happen to like. Pretty simple. You don't play fair and you've no intention of doing so. I guess that's why you have no problem with ST 09 Kirk's actions.
- Status
Similar threads
