A sequel to the previous thread with a more narrow focus. The moderator said that one could be opened if it kept on topic and avoided any mistakes, so be on your best behavior folks!
Basically, a discussion of the politics of The Undiscovered Country and all the various avenues and actions by the people involved. There's plenty to talk about it and it remains my favorite of all Star Trek movies.
It is a movie with some interesting avenues, being the most explicit Cold War allegory of the franchise. Some people actually believe the movie suffers for the fact it's TOO on the nose with the Federation acting more like the United States of America vs. an organization that has risen above prejudice.
The behavior of our heroes often acts of racism parallels with several wanting to destroy the Klingons outright as a people. However, the issue is muddled because "Klingons" doesn't just mean race but is also representative of a totalitarian dictatorship guilty of numerous war crimes.
Gene Roddenberry, Great Bird of the Galaxy, supposedly had some issues with the depiction of the Federation in the movie as well with his belief that it was flawed. Sadly, he passed away before we could get any real information on what sort of changes he might have made for the better (or worse).
Would it have been better to move away from the Cold War allegory a bit and make it a bit...spacier? Or is it precisely as effective as it is because it hews so close to real life? Gorbachev actually suffered a military coup against himself for much the same reason as the conspirators in TUC. Thankfully, it was less successful than the one against Gorkon.
One of the things that TUC benefits from is the fact that it is the "bridge" movie for Klingons between TOS and TNG in its depiction. The Klingons of TUC are erudite, intelligent, and technologically savvy like those TOS but they are also a warrior race that physically resembles the one from TNG. Chancellor Gorkon uses an enormous animal bone as a cane, possibly from one he's killed himself.
There's also the question of just how much the Klingon Empire benefited from the Khitomer Treaty vs. The Federation. If the Federation forced the Klingons to give back its conquests (release Eastern European Soviet satellite states?) it might be the Federation conspirators were worried over nothing. The Klingon Empire getting dismantled with a pen than a sword. However, we also know from TNG and DS9 the Klingon Empire rebuilt itself to the point that in "Yesterday's Empire" they came close to annihilating the Federation w/ presumably the very humanitarian aid they were given. But for the sacrifice of the Enterprise, Admiral Cartwright was right.
Finally, there's the legacy of General Chang, who is immortalized in the Hall of Warriors. This seems strange given he's a traitor who murdered his own chancellor. The lead up to events of the movie showed Chang to be a heroic warrior of the empire in Klingon Academy and while non-canon, I think it is something that gives us a sense that Chang was a true believer. He died a Klingon's death against Kirk and history isn't always as condemnatory of traitors as we'd like to think. There's a statue of General Robert E. Lee in my hometown I'd very much love to pull down and Soviet nostalgia is all the rage in the Russian Federation. I suppose that would make Gowron our version of Putin and he could easily have redeemed Chang's memory (or even K'mpec who seems to have lived by a "middle of the road" appeasement policy).
Basically, a discussion of the politics of The Undiscovered Country and all the various avenues and actions by the people involved. There's plenty to talk about it and it remains my favorite of all Star Trek movies.
It is a movie with some interesting avenues, being the most explicit Cold War allegory of the franchise. Some people actually believe the movie suffers for the fact it's TOO on the nose with the Federation acting more like the United States of America vs. an organization that has risen above prejudice.
The behavior of our heroes often acts of racism parallels with several wanting to destroy the Klingons outright as a people. However, the issue is muddled because "Klingons" doesn't just mean race but is also representative of a totalitarian dictatorship guilty of numerous war crimes.
Gene Roddenberry, Great Bird of the Galaxy, supposedly had some issues with the depiction of the Federation in the movie as well with his belief that it was flawed. Sadly, he passed away before we could get any real information on what sort of changes he might have made for the better (or worse).
Would it have been better to move away from the Cold War allegory a bit and make it a bit...spacier? Or is it precisely as effective as it is because it hews so close to real life? Gorbachev actually suffered a military coup against himself for much the same reason as the conspirators in TUC. Thankfully, it was less successful than the one against Gorkon.
One of the things that TUC benefits from is the fact that it is the "bridge" movie for Klingons between TOS and TNG in its depiction. The Klingons of TUC are erudite, intelligent, and technologically savvy like those TOS but they are also a warrior race that physically resembles the one from TNG. Chancellor Gorkon uses an enormous animal bone as a cane, possibly from one he's killed himself.
There's also the question of just how much the Klingon Empire benefited from the Khitomer Treaty vs. The Federation. If the Federation forced the Klingons to give back its conquests (release Eastern European Soviet satellite states?) it might be the Federation conspirators were worried over nothing. The Klingon Empire getting dismantled with a pen than a sword. However, we also know from TNG and DS9 the Klingon Empire rebuilt itself to the point that in "Yesterday's Empire" they came close to annihilating the Federation w/ presumably the very humanitarian aid they were given. But for the sacrifice of the Enterprise, Admiral Cartwright was right.
Finally, there's the legacy of General Chang, who is immortalized in the Hall of Warriors. This seems strange given he's a traitor who murdered his own chancellor. The lead up to events of the movie showed Chang to be a heroic warrior of the empire in Klingon Academy and while non-canon, I think it is something that gives us a sense that Chang was a true believer. He died a Klingon's death against Kirk and history isn't always as condemnatory of traitors as we'd like to think. There's a statue of General Robert E. Lee in my hometown I'd very much love to pull down and Soviet nostalgia is all the rage in the Russian Federation. I suppose that would make Gowron our version of Putin and he could easily have redeemed Chang's memory (or even K'mpec who seems to have lived by a "middle of the road" appeasement policy).
