was Kruge the good guy?

[drt]

Apparently Christopher Lloyd was chosen because he was "more intimidating". That's gotta be a typo. Is it even humanly possible to be MORE intimidating than EJO? I mean, we've all seen nuBSG...

Heh, my buddy and I saw EJO out and about maybe 15 years ago, he seemed so intense and scary in person that we were afraid to approach him, even though he’d probably have been totally nice.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Yeah he was a bad guy. He was a fun one, Lloyd is charismatic in the role and I love every moment where he's on screen. His motivations are clear and he's a good physical foil for Kirk, but nothing close to being a good guy.

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

Which is the point. This was before TNG retconned the Klingons into noble warriors. At the time the movie came out, Klingons were The Bad Guys, period. "Thinks like a Klingon" meant "is cruel, murderous, and treacherous."

his is also a guy who blew up his own lover because she saw the blueprints

Kruge's introduction with Valkris is interesting because I'd say this is precisely the moment Star Trek starts shifting the Klingons into "noble (by their own definition at least) warrior race." Kruge isn't angry with Valkris and doesn't take any enjoyment from ordering her death, and she accepts her fate stoically. They exchange fond, respectful farewells to each other and bring up "love" and "honor." They're both doing their duty rather than relishing treachery and cruelty. There's a code of ethics at play here whereas the Klingons of TOS were essentially a race of Skeletors who might happily proclaim "evil is great and good is dumb bwahaha."

The scene with Valkris colors the rest of the movie, and there are other little bits that frame the Federation's ongoing conflict with the Klingons in strictly political and cultural terms rather than their intrinsically evil nature: the Klingon government is participating in peace talks; Maltz pays the Federation a compliment ("impressive") and recognizes the positive intention of the Genesis project ("they can make planets"), and he even expresses remorse--even if we assume it's more for being a failure than for humanitarian reasons, it's a notably non-selfish response for a Klingon up to that point.

The movie definitely still thinks Klingon culture sucks, but they at least appear to have a recognizable, ordered sense of right and wrong that we can potentially work with (eventually...). That's a significant movement away from the savage sadists of TOS.

Come to think of it, the Valkris scene might be the single most significant moment for the Klingons in all of Star Trek!

 

[Ssosmcin]

Kruge's introduction with Valkris is interesting because I'd say this is precisely the moment Star Trek starts shifting the Klingons into "noble (by their own definition at least) warrior race." Kruge isn't angry with Valkris and doesn't take any enjoyment from ordering her death, and she accepts her fate stoically. They exchange fond, respectful farewells to each other and bring up "love" and "honor." They're both doing their duty rather than relishing treachery and cruelty. There's a code of ethics at play here whereas the Klingons of TOS were essentially a race of Skeletors who might happily proclaim "evil is great and good is dumb bwahaha."

The scene with Valkris colors the rest of the movie, and there are other little bits that frame the Federation's ongoing conflict with the Klingons in strictly political and cultural terms rather than their intrinsically evil nature: the Klingon government is participating in peace talks; Maltz pays the Federation a compliment ("impressive") and recognizes the positive intention of the Genesis project ("they can make planets"), and he even expresses remorse--even if we assume it's more for being a failure than for humanitarian reasons, it's a notably non-selfish response for a Klingon up to that point.

The movie definitely still thinks Klingon culture sucks, but they at least appear to have a recognizable, ordered sense of right and wrong that we can potentially work with (eventually...). That's a significant movement away from the savage sadists of TOS.

Come to think of it, the Valkris scene might be the single most significant moment for the Klingons in all of Star Trek!

While that's the the end result, we should remember that they were originally intended to be Romulans. So all of that honor, respect and the use of the Bird of Prey were not supposed to be Klingon aspects.

Hell, Kirk even says in the prior film that "Klingon's don't take prisoners." However, to be fair, Chekov said the same thing about the Romulans in the original series - but the dialog in the Kobyashi Maru scene indicates Romulans were meant for that also (the Neutral Zone and being near Gamma Hydra), but the reuse of the Klingon battle cruiser footage no doubt changed them at that time. Romulans got no love in the early films...

 

[Christopher]

Kruge's introduction with Valkris is interesting because I'd say this is precisely the moment Star Trek starts shifting the Klingons into "noble (by their own definition at least) warrior race." Kruge isn't angry with Valkris and doesn't take any enjoyment from ordering her death, and she accepts her fate stoically. They exchange fond, respectful farewells to each other and bring up "love" and "honor." They're both doing their duty rather than relishing treachery and cruelty. There's a code of ethics at play here whereas the Klingons of TOS were essentially a race of Skeletors who might happily proclaim "evil is great and good is dumb bwahaha."

I think that's back-projecting too much weight onto that scene. Yes, the passing mention of "honor" in that scene -- left over from the original draft where they were Romulans, as mentioned in the previous post -- opened the door for TNG to retcon Klingons as honorable a few years later, but that doesn't mean it was the intention of the filmmakers at the time. It was just a throwaway line, and the rest of the movie portrayed Kruge as pretty treacherous -- casually killing his crew for petty mistakes, taking hostages and executing them to extort a secret from his enemy, etc. It may look in retrospect like it "began" here, but that's only because TNG's creators 2-3 years later used it as a retroactive precedent for what they began. From my perspective at the time, it didn't make Klingons seem any less treacherous to me. That's a later perspective coloring how it looks in retrospect.

The movie definitely still thinks Klingon culture sucks, but they at least appear to have a recognizable, ordered sense of right and wrong that we can potentially work with (eventually...). That's a significant movement away from the savage sadists of TOS.

I'd say "Day of the Dove" already achieved that 16 years earlier. Indeed, I don't think TOS ever portrayed the Klingons as "savage," but rather as cunning, devious, insidious political animals. Kor was a military governor occupying a conquered territory, and he was being monitored by his superiors like a Soviet or Communist Chinese political officer. Kras, Krell, and the Klingons in "Tribbles" were all engaged in espionage and subversion on behalf of their government rather than open aggression, and Koloth was as far from a "savage" as you can get, more like a mannered, upper-class European military officer, a la Major Strasser in Casablanca, say. Basically TOS Klingons were what TNG-era Romulans and Cardassians became.

No, the perception of Klingons as "savage" is another back-projection from how they were portrayed in TNG. TOS Klingons were a mix of Cold War-era commies and the Orientalist Yellow Peril trope of civilized but sinister foes. TNG retconned them into a blend of Vikings and samurai, bringing the Viking Berserker type into the mix and thus making them far more wild and brutal at the same time as making them supposedly more honorable and admirable.

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

While that's the the end result, we should remember that they were originally intended to be Romulans. So all of that honor, respect and the use of the Bird of Prey were not supposed to be Klingon aspects.

It may look in retrospect like it "began" here, but that's only because TNG's creators 2-3 years later used it as a retroactive precedent for what they began. From my perspective at the time, it didn't make Klingons seem any less treacherous to me. That's a later perspective coloring how it looks in retrospect.

Good points, both of you. I wasn't necessarily concerned whether it was the explicit intention of the filmmakers to "soften" the Klingons or not, just that this is where you can point to their portrayal starting to shift. (Though for whatever it's worth, they could've very easily modified the scene so that Kruge and/or Valkris betray one another but they didn't-- also, I'm not sure this scene existed when the Romulans were villains; I don't recall it in the "Return to Genesis" treatment, at least)

I'll push back a little on how much I'm letting hindsight color how I read that scene, though. It's the Klingons' introduction in the movie, and the first thing we see (aside from their bitchin' invisible spaceship) is how devoted to the cause they are and their mutual affection for one another. I'll grant that the second thing we see is their total backstabbing of the pirates they were working with, but hey, first impressions and all that.

Kruge also later vaporizes his gunner, sure, but it's out of Bond villain-esque "how dare you fail me" outrage rather than being treacherous. The Klingons here seem to expect that they potentially pay for failure with their lives, so if nothing else, Kruge is at least honest about that aspect.

Come to think of it, between him and Kruge, it's Kirk who is by far the more conniving and devious of the two, and is constantly bluffing and straight-up lying all throughout their encounter. Kruge even shows some annoyance at Kirk's slimy son-of-a-bitch ways ("No! Because you wish it!"), after Kruge had been ever so slightly magnanimous with him after having killed his son.

A LOT of this comes from Christopher Lloyd's performance, I admit; in the scripts Kruge comes off as much more of a bastard. But Lloyd gives Kruge a genuineness that ends up coloring the Klingons in this film, since he's about all we really see of them. He's ruthless but seems to have respect for certain rules of engagement, and I think that informs the "honor" of future Klingon portrayals.

I'd say "Day of the Dove" already achieved that 16 years earlier. Indeed, I don't think TOS ever portrayed the Klingons as "savage," but rather as cunning, devious, insidious political animals.

That was inadequate wording on my part. I had a hard time coming up with a quick and easy term for "strawman foil for the heroes by being bad and wrong at all times and in every circumstance."

 

[ChallengerHK]

Good points, both of you. I wasn't necessarily concerned whether it was the explicit intention of the filmmakers to "soften" the Klingons or not, just that this is where you can point to their portrayal starting to shift.

I think there's a lot to this. Keep in mind that TSFS was initially written with Romulans instead of Klingons for the big bads. Historically the Romulans were the honorable enemy. When the rewrite took place there was a great deal of Rom-centric material left in, like honorable behavior and a Bird of Prey. I would argue that this film marks not only the shift of the Klingons to being concerned with honor but also presages a shift in the Romulans away from honor.

 

[Christopher]

Good points, both of you. I wasn't necessarily concerned whether it was the explicit intention of the filmmakers to "soften" the Klingons or not, just that this is where you can point to their portrayal starting to shift. (Though for whatever it's worth, they could've very easily modified the scene so that Kruge and/or Valkris betray one another but they didn't-- also, I'm not sure this scene existed when the Romulans were villains; I don't recall it in the "Return to Genesis" treatment, at least)

I'm still not convinced it means that much. Saying "You will be remembered with honor" doesn't automatically suggest the existence of a code of honor governing ethical behavior -- the word means different things in different contexts. Kruge's line just meant that Valkris's memory would be revered for her role in bringing the power of Genesis to the Klingons. Since she did so in her capacity as a spy, having stolen the information, it's quite a stretch to equate it with "honor" in the sense of honest, open, righteous behavior. TNG-era Klingons would not admire spies, seeing them as a necessary evil at best and unworthy of celebration; TOS Klingons reveled in spycraft to a degree that Garak -- or Sela -- would appreciate.

I'll push back a little on how much I'm letting hindsight color how I read that scene, though. It's the Klingons' introduction in the movie, and the first thing we see (aside from their bitchin' invisible spaceship) is how devoted to the cause they are and their mutual affection for one another. I'll grant that the second thing we see is their total backstabbing of the pirates they were working with, but hey, first impressions and all that.

I don't think we saw enough of Valkris to get a good sense of anything about her and Kruge, since most of her scene was cut. Hell, it was literally decades before I learned that Valkris was even meant to be a Klingon. Her ridges are so subtle that I assumed she was a different species.

Kruge also later vaporizes his gunner, sure, but it's out of Bond villain-esque "how dare you fail me" outrage rather than being treacherous

I think that's a pretty narrow definition. Surely treachery entails betraying your obligations to others -- such as a captain's obligation to be fair to his crew. Killing someone out of kneejerk annoyance for a mistake they could've learned from going forward is not only stupid -- the move of an unthinking savage, to borrow your word -- but unfairly excessive, placing a selfish impulse over a captain's responsibility to do right by his crew (which in a Klingon sense would presumably mean not punishing them more severely than they deserve).

Come to think of it, between him and Kruge, it's Kirk who is by far the more conniving and devious of the two, and is constantly bluffing and straight-up lying all throughout their encounter.

And yet this is the movie that decided that Klingons would go skulking about in invisible ships so they could attack people by surprise, something I've never been able to reconcile with the TNG-era portrayal of Klingons as a people who by all rights should despise that kind of sneakiness. Surely a sneak attack on an unsuspecting victim is the very embodiment of treachery. As is taking hostages, and as is executing hostages to extort information. Surely you're not suggesting that subterfuge in the service of protecting lives is more evil than executing a defenseless hostage.

A LOT of this comes from Christopher Lloyd's performance, I admit; in the scripts Kruge comes off as much more of a bastard. But Lloyd gives Kruge a genuineness that ends up coloring the Klingons in this film, since he's about all we really see of them. He's ruthless but seems to have respect for certain rules of engagement, and I think that informs the "honor" of future Klingon portrayals.

Again, how is this in any way different from what "Day of the Dove" did 16 years earlier? Michael Ansara's Kang was the original template of a noble, rational Klingon, giving previously unseen depth to the Klingons both through writing and performance. He had sincere mutual affection for his wife Mara, which was shown far more clearly than the brief hint of a relationship between Kruge and Valkris. And he was the one Klingon featured in TOS (discounting the illusory Kahless) whose attack on the protagonists was not part of a scheme of aggression but was motivated by self-defense against what he'd been misled to believe was the Enterprise's unprovoked attack on his ship.

In fact, I'll go back even farther -- John Colicos's performance as Kor was the ur-example of an actor bringing more nuance and sincerity to a character than was in the script alone. Colicos's villains were usually charming, debonair, amused, and textured, and the only reason Klingons were more than one-shot bad guys of the week is because Colicos made them more than that.

 

[UssGlenn]

casually killing his crew for petty mistakes,

Kruge also later vaporizes his gunner, sure, but it's out of Bond villain-esque "how dare you fail me"

Killing someone out of kneejerk annoyance for a mistake they could've learned from going forward is not only stupid -- the move of an unthinking savage, to borrow your word -- but unfairly excessive,

Lets not forget that the Gunners mistake was a huge one. Kruge was planning on having an entire Federation ship and crew to hold hostage. That would have given him a huge amount of leverage. Instead he had to make due with 3 people.

 

[Shat Happens]

At this point, I'd like to quote myself:

STIII was awesome. Kruge was awesome. He wanted to kill everybody and everything. He killed more people than VGer, Khan, the whale probe, Klaa and Chang's gang put together. He blew up an alien spaceship with his girl aboard and didn't even flinch. He blew up a Federation starship full of people. He killed his gunner. He killed a hostage -- and didn't care which one it was. He killed a monster with one hand and radioed "situation normal". His pet was another monster other Klingons were afraid of feeding. He almost killed Torg. He thought it was perfectly alright to send half a dozen soldiers into an enemy battle cruiser to kill everyone inside (and when they didn't find an army waiting for them, he thought "they are hiding"). He made Kirk mad enough to blow up the f*ing Starship Enterprise®. Khan killed Spock? Kruge wants to kill him again! Kirk had to kick him in the face into a lava pit to stop him. The only time he seemed happy was when he was informed the entire planet was going to blow up -- the same planet he was on!

I ask, what else can you expect form a movie villain? Much love for Kruge

(I notice now I wrote that 10 years ago, Jay-sus)

 

[Christopher]

Lets not forget that the Gunners mistake was a huge one. Kruge was planning on having an entire Federation ship and crew to hold hostage. That would have given him a huge amount of leverage. Instead he had to make due with 3 people.

No, not really. Kruge didn't want hostages for "leverage," since he didn't know the Enterprise would be coming. He wanted Starfleet scientists he could interrogate for information on how Genesis worked. As it turned out, the two crewmembers who knew the most about Genesis were already on the planet surface ("Perhaps the very scientists you seek"). So if he'd been a little less quick on the trigger, Kruge would've realized that the gunner's mistake didn't actually make much difference to his plans.

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

I'm still not convinced it means that much.

And that's fine. I'm mostly saying that my perspective isn't so much working retroactively from TNG-onwards but more that the placement of the Valkris scene so early created a powerful impression on how I viewed the Klingons and their actions through the rest of the movie (namely, they're willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a mutual cause far more readily than we humans would ever expect of one another; this informs that they probably won't see things like killing incompetent subordinates and executing prisoners as necessarily evil things). It's their introduction, so it feels like it's making a statement of This Is Who These People Are, their ruthless mutual devotion and self-sacrifice to a shared cause (which does strike me as "honorable" in a way) being presented as their defining characteristic.

And also that, while this has lessened over the years and subsequent additional movies, it was easy to view the villains of Star Trek III as "the Klingons" more than "these particular Klingons." Kruge's apparent sincerity doesn't just feel like an outlier or an exception or otherwise just a facet of his own character, it feels like it reflects Klingon culture in general, which what makes it come off differently than Kang or Kor.

Again, if it didn't strike you that way when you watched, that's all well and good!

Surely you're not suggesting that subterfuge in the service of protecting lives is more evil than executing a defenseless hostage.

Well, no, of course not. Kruge is evil and the bad guy. He's just not willingly as duplicitous as Kirk is.

Klingons would go skulking about in invisible ships so they could attack people by surprise, something I've never been able to reconcile with the TNG-era portrayal of Klingons as a people who by all rights should despise that kind of sneakiness.

They're hypocrites. We're talking more about how Klingons see their ideal selves, not how they actually are in practice.

In fact, I'll go back even farther -- John Colicos's performance as Kor was the ur-example of an actor bringing more nuance and sincerity to a character than was in the script alone.

Er, I wasn't trying to imply Christopher Lloyd was the first or only actor to transcend his character in the script. I feel like we're starting to get carried away in arguing every point... I'm not even sure if we fundamentally disagree about anything, to be honest!

 

[fireproof78]

At this point, I'd like to quote myself:



(I notice now I wrote that 10 years ago, Jay-sus)

Except, he didn't kill that many people. He killed the crew of the Grissom, the crew of Valkris' mercenary crew, his gunner and ordered the death of David.

That's it.

The whale probe we don't know, since ships were disabled, and V'Ger slaughtered 3 Klingon ships whole cloth.

Kruge is a villain. There is no awe there.

 

[Christopher]

And that's fine. I'm mostly saying that my perspective isn't so much working retroactively from TNG-onwards but more that the placement of the Valkris scene so early created a powerful impression on how I viewed the Klingons and their actions through the rest of the movie (namely, they're willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a mutual cause far more readily than we humans would ever expect of one another; this informs that they probably won't see things like killing incompetent subordinates and executing prisoners as necessarily evil things). It's their introduction, so it feels like it's making a statement of This Is Who These People Are, their ruthless mutual devotion and self-sacrifice to a shared cause (which does strike me as "honorable" in a way) being presented as their defining characteristic.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I saw it more as just the kind of "life is cheap" culture you often see in portrayals of villainous states -- the people are conditioned to obey authority and accept that their superiors might kill them or order them to sacrifice themselves on a whim. It never struck me as something noble.

If anything, I always felt that Kruge saying "You will be remembered with honor" right before personally killing Valkris and the freighter crew was simple hypocrisy -- he talked honor and acted without it. If there was any kind of code behind it, it was the code of a mobster gunning down an informant who knew too much, and I've never liked mob movies.

Well, no, of course not. Kruge is evil and the bad guy. He's just not willingly as duplicitous as Kirk is.

I don't see any reason to believe he wouldn't engage in duplicity simply because he didn't do so on this mission. I mean, Valkris was a spy who stole the information he wanted. She surely engaged in duplicity, and Kruge "honored" her for it. And as I've said, the use of a cloaking device seems intrinsically duplicitous to me. (And would've been more so if the BoP's cloak hadn't been so poorly adjusted that you could see its distortion. I presume that was poor adjustment rather than its intrinsic nature, because the same BoP was completely invisible at close range in Golden Gate Park in TVH.)

Er, I wasn't trying to imply Christopher Lloyd was the first or only actor to transcend his character in the script. I feel like we're starting to get carried away in arguing every point... I'm not even sure if we fundamentally disagree about anything, to be honest!

I just find it interesting and surprising how sharply our interpretations of the film contrast. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's just striking to juxtapose two such radically different readings.

 

[somebuddyX]

Kruge was a terrorist asshole and I only wish Kirk had kicked him in the face from word go. I always thought Maltz was the more interesting character, more calculating.

 

[DonIago]

It could have been interesting to see Maltz return as one of Gorkon's supporters in TUC.

 

[somebuddyX]

It could have been interesting to see Maltz return as one of Gorkon's supporters in TUC.

It would be. But I just realised I messed up in my original post. I meant Torg, lol.

 

[DonIago]

Eh. He didn't even recognize a self-destruct countdown when it was staring him in the face.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Except, he didn't kill that many people. He killed the crew of the Grissom, the crew of Valkris' mercenary crew, his gunner and ordered the death of David.

That's it.

How many people were on the USS Grissom? Memory Alpha says like 80, but that doesn't seem like a lot and nobody said anything on screen in the movie. But say 80-100 (I'd say a couple of hundred but I don't know anything).

So at minimum, Kruge was responsible for the death of maybe 100 people.

To me, that's many people. Not more than V'Ger, Nomad, the planet killer or the giant Space Amoeba. But a hell of a lot more than Khan.

Kruge is a villain. There is no awe there.

I agree, there's little to awe but he did more permanent personal damage to Kirk than Khan did. Kruge deserves more respect than he gets for being a solid villain who made a larger impact.

 

[fireproof78]

To me, that's many people. Not more than V'Ger, Nomad, the planet killer or the giant Space Amoeba. But a hell of a lot more than Khan.

Yup.

Kruge deserves more respect than he gets for being a solid villain who made a larger impact.

Maybe?

I can't agree on the respect part. I can regard the impact well, but the character lands solidly in the middle ground of "OK" for me with some of the performance choices.