number6
Vice Admiral
I never know how much Star Trek sucked until I came here.
Unpopular TUC View
- Thread starter balls
- Start date
I never know how much Star Trek sucked until I came here.
Not really...
In TMP, Kirk turned into an embittered asshole who played games with the fate of the Federation in order to get his old job back. Of course that was character assassination, but it was fitting character assassination. The character became much more enjoyable as the result.
Similarly, Worf was written to leave a helpless wounded Romulan die in agony, then to slay a rival in bloody-eyed vengeance, against all Federation principles. Excellent character assassination again, helping the character grow a lot and gain immensely in popularity.
Character assassination is usually a good thing. To evoke the term implies that the character has a long history, and that in turn implies the character is fossilized. What possible interest would is be to us to follow the "adventures" of a person who remains the same from his mid-twenties to his mid-seventies?
Kirk was assassinated in his very first appearance already, really - with a machine gun. He was established as a dull bookworm, a romantic adventurer ready for risks, a stiff follower of regulations who'd agree to executing his best friend, and a compassionate personality who'd risk a crucially important mission for friendship, all within a single episode. A cynically manipulative asshole, a boyishly rejuvenated middle-ager, and a weary old soldier effortlessly fit in there, too, as offered to us in the movies. I see absolutely no reason to make an exception in case of ST6.
Timo Saloniemi
IMO it would be character assassination if someone of Spock's intelligence, experience and ability for abstract reasoning to place individual liberties as inflexible, absolute and unwavering. As one approaches the theoretical highest level of moral development one seeks universal principals and internal ideals in evaluating moral issues. That individual liberties should, without exception, supercede the concepts of justice, mercy, or peace, which are generally universally accepted as good is somewhat disquieting. I think it is illogical to assume that Spock would place Valeris's rights to mental privacy above compassion for his friends whose lives will be ruined should he not invade her mind, above peace with the Klingons that will be unobtainable should he not invade her mind, or above the right to life the head of the Federation President will be denied through assasination should he not invade her mind. I think Spock, our local moral compass, has a higher level of moral reasoning than that. Perhaps he might even achieve the highest levels:
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm
Level 3. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights
At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
Stage 6 - Universal Principles
Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
I would have less respect for the character if he let his friends suffer, let an assasination occur, and let an interstellar war erupt as he sat around "quoting rules and Vulcan philosphies... and let your father die". The needs of the many far outweighed the privacy of the guilty one.
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm
Level 3. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights
At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
Stage 6 - Universal Principles
Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
I would have less respect for the character if he let his friends suffer, let an assasination occur, and let an interstellar war erupt as he sat around "quoting rules and Vulcan philosphies... and let your father die". The needs of the many far outweighed the privacy of the guilty one.
Last edited:
I'm british so I couldn't give a shit about the patriot act
Its funny how people see things differently. This scene never really bothered me. Valeris is sat there with her arms folded going "I'm not telling". She may as well stick her tongue out.
She knows the information. No time for playing games.
Look, we are talking about a hypothetical situation here. Mind Melds don't exist. We can't read minds. Spock knows more about this shit than anyone. My money is on the Vulcan to make the call here. Yes, it looks fairly terrible but I doubt any lasting damage was done.
It wasn't a rape. If it was Spock would not have done it. I'm certain of that. It may have been against protocol, it may have been shocking to see - but it had to be done.
^Agreed, it wasn't rape.
And also, why are so many people hell bent on what "I" saw. If to me she said Nanclaus then she said it. Why are people who are thousands of miles apart so quick to tell each other they are wrong. Too bad certain arguing parties concerning how things are said will never be able to actually watch the movie together and discuss it that way. All you nitpickers and accusers can lie under the security blanket of the internet without any human interaction because your thousands of miles away from the person your disputing. You think your gods, dictating to people what they saw and what they heard.
And also, why are so many people hell bent on what "I" saw. If to me she said Nanclaus then she said it. Why are people who are thousands of miles apart so quick to tell each other they are wrong. Too bad certain arguing parties concerning how things are said will never be able to actually watch the movie together and discuss it that way. All you nitpickers and accusers can lie under the security blanket of the internet without any human interaction because your thousands of miles away from the person your disputing. You think your gods, dictating to people what they saw and what they heard.
Nobody would have that sort of grip, until somebody went and gripped...
The character evolved throughout the movies (and had already evolved during the original show), and was now "hypothetically" telling his superiors to go to hell, using human religious metaphors and wit, insisting that logic was not the end-all of being Vulcan, and leaving Starfleet to talk peace with Klingons. What the movie showed us was the most recent version of Spock - as such neither unrealistic nor realistic, as we couldn't objectively "grip" how the character would evolve. And that is realism,
as Spock always was a torn character, prone to mental upheavals that would leave
us gasping or rolling our eyes.
And that's an objective truth, really. It is an oft-confirmed fact that people can and will get different interpretations out of poor signal, and that usually nothing can be done to decide between which is the correct interpretation because the human tendency to hear things goes way beyond the information content of the signal.
That is, no machine could ever do better than humans, unless one counts it as
"better" when the machine correctly states that there is not enough
information content in the signal to get any sort of an interpretation out.
My copies of ST6 all have shitty soundtracks, and none is the "flashes of
villain faces" version, so I can't help much in terms of offering another
subjective truth. But "And others" and "Nanclus" both sound like perfectly
valid interpretations, and the latter basically has become the de facto truth
now that every third novel out there is calling that Ambassador by that
name.
Timo Saloniemi
At the end of "Requiem for Methusela" Spock 'rapes' Kirks mind forcing him to "Forget......".
The fact that Spock has already been mentioned as the moral compass makes me believe that his character's morality is probably well established by the end of TOS if not sooner. Perhaps his level of development exceeds most people's who simply cannot reason morality at a very high level and who cannot understand how such a character would evolve beyond simple black and white/ law and order type morality.
I have the two-disc SE on DVD and I thought she said Nanclus, too...
For a proper chain of evidence, you would have to have a designated court reporter that would make an independent record of any proceedings separate from any ship recording of those same proceedings. Without this independent source, a possibility exists for the only available record to be compromised.
There also could easily be persons on the ship with multiple roles.
At work, I have a network toolkit under my desk. I also have an advanced degree with coursework in ethics. I also have considerable experience with many high level programming languages.
If my boss paged over the loudspeaker "Would the Chief Ethics Officer please report to the conference room" I would know exactly what I would be in for for the rest of the day. Tuck in my shirt, grab a pad of paper and several pens, put my phone on vibrate and be prepared to think long and hard about who our undiscovered constituency may be.
This would be a different role than my network technician or programmer roles.
Granted, this request would happen over the phone, more often than not. But it is possible that if my whereabouts where unknown, that the open call system would be used.
So the request in TUC serves two purposes: 1. inform the person charged with that task to put on their court reporter hat (fresh battery for their tri-corder, general chain of evidence management stuff, tuck in their shirt, etc.) and 2. initiate the subterfuge to expose the mole.
Definitely #2. Considering they had no idea how Valeris would react (and she did show up packing heat), or whether she had any other conspirators with her to bring along as backup, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk told the man or woman serving as Court Reporter to ignore the page and stay in their quarters.
But that's an excellent point you make about people being designated to fill multiple roles on a ship.
But that's an excellent point you make about people being designated to fill multiple roles on a ship.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
McCoy is the ethical compass of TOS, not Spock, but regardless of that ...
did you see Spock slip Kirk a date rape drug? No. He also didn't force himself into Kirk's mind, and Kirk did not resist.
How do we know, when the camera so modestly cuts away from this sex act in favor of an exterior view?
And even if Kirk did put up a fight, Spock's superior strenght would probably have dictated the outcome, without leaving enough marks on Kirk's body to carry the charges in court. It's the slut's own damn fault for not saying no strongly enough, and for dressing in such tight pants and kinky leather boots.
Timo Saloniemi
And even if Kirk did put up a fight, Spock's superior strenght would probably have dictated the outcome, without leaving enough marks on Kirk's body to carry the charges in court. It's the slut's own damn fault for not saying no strongly enough, and for dressing in such tight pants and kinky leather boots.
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk was asleep. He never consented nor was asked. I'm not sure if I would agree to someone erasing a memory from my mind - however painful, without my consent. Spock did this out of compassion and yes, he weighed the good which would result from his action against the bad and made a decision. Kind of like Valeris -- weigh the good that can come from an action verses the bad. Spock's pretty good with predicted outcomes and probabilities.
Last edited:
As Kirk said in TFF, "I want my pain. I need my pain." I would also wonder if he would have given Spock his consent.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You're still not even close to getting it. Spock would never have even thought to do that if he hadn't heard that wonderful speech from McCoy. Spock doesn't know enough to know when to do something like this, but after hearing the doctor's heartfelt statement, and knowing how close McCoy is to Kirk (and to Spock for that matter, this IS after BREAD&CIRCUSES and THE EMPATH), THEN Spock takes the action.
By way of contrast ... If you do a bit of research, you'll see the actors in TUC played the forced meld intentionally as something that would be seen in a sexual context, which to my mind is unfortunate since it takes the meld into STRAW DOGS territory (short version of that is critic Pauline Kael's essay essentially saying Susan George in STRAW DOGS was 'asking for it' ... pause to insert whatever hysterial punctuation you need after that assinine statement.) Cattrall in pre-release interviews went so far as to say that their relationship onscreen included something very sexual (probably in STarlog, though maybe in CFQ.)
And all these 'needs of the many' arguments fall short of Diane Duane's WOUNDED SKY novel, which has Kirk bringing up that notion to himself, then dismissing it because it only applies if you yourself are the one, inflicting it on somebody else to save a bunch invalidates it. So if you applied that to TUC, Kirk would have only allowed Spock to do that to Kirk himself (perhaps if there was a blocked memory or something like that), certainly not to a member of his crew in front of the bridge staff.
This is part of the problem with portraying 23rd century characters for a 20th century audience, as David Gerrold mentions. You basically need to present 20th century viewpoints to make it work, and that undermines most all of the delusional utopia views (which is why FC works for so many people ... pay only lip service to 'enlightened humanity' and really peel back that veneer.) TUC presents easily comprehensible views because everybody knows racists and assholes who also happen to be charming or funny, and the trek crew was ideal for that kind of presentation ... except it invalidated pretty much everything these folks stood for.
I wouldn't have any problem seeing this play out in this fashion on Moore's GALACTICA, because that universe is quite at a remove from Trek (in fact, they have done stuff like this, much more explicitly and painfully.) But I categorically reject it for these characters in this universe.
I also find it interesting that some of the posters who say it wasn't rape say so because "Spock wouldn't do that." So they are, to quote Spock, "Proceeding from a false assumption" if they base that ON HIS ACTIONS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANT.
Sorry, my lunch break is almost up. Seeya in a day or two.
Just to clarify this: There is no dispute about the Romulan Ambassador's name, since he was referred to as Nanclus earlier in the movie.
This is only about the mind meld scene. In the SE she only says "the Romulan Ambassador", then we get the flash of Nanclus instead of her additional words.
In all previous versions she says "the Romulan Ambassador, and others". Most people here believe that she said "Nanclus" instead of "and others", and I have given up on convincing them otherwise. But if you pay close attention and watch her lips, you should be able to clearly hear and see her saying "and others". Especially the "th" in "others" you can not ignore.
Even the subtitles on the single DVD edition say "and others"!
But if anyone prefers to hear "Nanclus", I don't care anymore.
