What's the Big Lesson in STXI?

[Franklin]

Okay I have to ask what was the original ending?

It was Spock who had to prevent Keeler from being rescued and allow the accident which killed her to occur, not Kirk. Kirk, hopelessly in love with her, could not bring himself to act and to let her die.

It's a little more complex than that. The timeline is altered when a Beckwith, a crewman who was selling drugs aboard the Enterprise, flees into the time vortex of the Guardians of Forever. Once in Earth's past, it is he, the vile, villainous person, who saves Edith Keeler from the truck accident.

When Kirk and Spock are present, Beckwith still tries to save Keeler.

Kirk is frozen, unable to act, paralyzed by his love of Keeler and the inner conflict within him over what to do. Spock is the one who stops Beckwith, allowing Edith Keeler to be run over by the truck.

Kirk, the hero, in an emotional lapse is unable to do anything. Whereas it is the "scumbag" Beckwith who, in a moment of heroism, saves Keeler. In the end it is Spock, the rational one, who does what's best for the universe.

Not everyone is what he or she seems. Not Kirk. Not Beckwith. Through the action of the characters, we see that human beings aren't always predictable from moment to moment. That even the best of us can succumb to not being able to make the right choice.

IMAO, that says more about human beings than any of the speeches on how "humanity has evolved"... blah.. blah.

Moreover, it ends with a quiet scene between two men who have shared much through this adventure. "No woman was offered the universe for love," Spock says to console his captain.

Had Roddenberry let that ending stand, imagine how much more of a biting, edgy drama Star Trek could've been. I don't mean in terms of the grit, dark drama of nuBSG, but stories which say something interesting about the psychology of our heroes, especially James T. Kirk.

Well, I gave the abridged version.

Not to turn this into a discussion of "City", but in defense of how it was finally done, if Kirk had acted as intended in that draft, I think he would've had to tender his resignation to Starfleet upon return to his time. Talk about being emotionally compromised at the critical moment. He could never be trusted in command, again.
As it is, Kirk finally finding true love and the agony having to give it up as he did made his act meaningful. The needs of the many, and all that. Keeler had to die, and he had to sacrifice real happiness.

 

[Sci]

It was Spock who had to prevent Keeler from being rescued and allow the accident which killed her to occur, not Kirk. Kirk, hopelessly in love with her, could not bring himself to act and to let her die.

It's a little more complex than that. The timeline is altered when a Beckwith, a crewman who was selling drugs aboard the Enterprise, flees into the time vortex of the Guardians of Forever. Once in Earth's past, it is he, the vile, villainous person, who saves Edith Keeler from the truck accident.

When Kirk and Spock are present, Beckwith still tries to save Keeler.

Kirk is frozen, unable to act, paralyzed by his love of Keeler and the inner conflict within him over what to do. Spock is the one who stops Beckwith, allowing Edith Keeler to be run over by the truck.

Kirk, the hero, in an emotional lapse is unable to do anything. Whereas it is the "scumbag" Beckwith who, in a moment of heroism, saves Keeler. In the end it is Spock, the rational one, who does what's best for the universe.

Not everyone is what he or she seems. Not Kirk. Not Beckwith. Through the action of the characters, we see that human beings aren't always predictable from moment to moment. That even the best of us can succumb to not being able to make the right choice.

IMAO, that says more about human beings than any of the speeches on how "humanity has evolved"... blah.. blah.

Moreover, it ends with a quiet scene between two men who have shared much through this adventure. "No woman was offered the universe for love," Spock says to console his captain.

Had Roddenberry let that ending stand, imagine how much more of a biting, edgy drama Star Trek could've been. I don't mean in terms of the grit, dark drama of nuBSG, but stories which say something interesting about the psychology of our heroes, especially James T. Kirk.

Well, I gave the abridged version.

Not to turn this into a discussion of "City", but in defense of how it was finally done, if Kirk had acted as intended in that draft, I think he would've had to tender his resignation to Starfleet upon return to his time. Talk about being emotionally compromised at the critical moment. He could never be trusted in command, again.
As it is, Kirk finally finding true love and the agony having to give it up as he did made his act meaningful. The needs of the many, and all that. Keeler had to die, and he had to sacrifice real happiness.

For my money, that would be a wonderful ending, but not as good as the one that was filmed. I think that the angst of seeing a man who is in love with a woman but still allows her to die for the greater good is much more painful -- and, frankly, is just as morally ambiguous as the original. After all, is it really moral to allow an innocent person, someone you love, to die for the sake of the so-called "greater good?" Especially since Kirk and Co. didn't really know that there was no Federation out there, only that the Enterprise was no longer in orbit of that planet in the new timeline.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Yes, but that angst is standard. The outcome expected. Kirk is still the hero. Nothing new. The other way around subverts our expectations and the emotion.

In any case, both are emotional endings. Like you, I happen to prefer one over the other.

Now back to your regularly schedule thread...

 

[Sci]

^Yes, but that angst is standard. The outcome expected. Kirk is still the hero. Nothing new. The other way around subverts our expectations and the emotion.

Not really. My expectation would normally be that Kirk, being the fellow who doesn't believe in no-win scenarios, would try to find some way out. Bring Edith Keeler back to the 23rd Century with him on the evening of her "death," for instance -- thus saving Edith and preserving history.

Instead, he lets an innocent person die. I don't know if that's really the expected thing to do -- or if it makes him truly heroic. And it's certainly a much more emotional, gut-wrenching choice for him to make.

But, there again, I also subscribe to an idea that was put forth in the novel Crucible: McCoy - Provenance of Shadows -- that after he allowed Edith to die, Kirk was never the same man; that that, combined with the death of his brother on Deneva soon afterwords, left him in a state of chronic depression for years afterwords that he never really recovered from (and spent all of TOS battling). So that's also probably coloring my view of the episode.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Yes, but that angst is standard. The outcome expected. Kirk is still the hero. Nothing new. The other way around subverts our expectations and the emotion.

Not really. My expectation would normally be that Kirk, being the fellow who doesn't believe in no-win scenarios, would try to find some way out. Bring Edith Keeler back to the 23rd Century with him on the evening of her "death," for instance -- thus saving Edith and preserving history.

Instead, he lets an innocent person die. I don't know if that's really the expected thing to do -- or if it makes him truly heroic. And it's certainly a much more emotional, gut-wrenching choice for him to make.

But, there again, I also subscribe to an idea that was put forth in the novel Crucible: McCoy - Provenance of Shadows -- that after he allowed Edith to die, Kirk was never the same man; that that, combined with the death of his brother on Deneva soon afterwords, left him in a state of chronic depression for years afterwords that he never really recovered from (and spent all of TOS battling). So that's also probably coloring my view of the episode.

Yes but the "no-win scenario" Kirk was not part of the character when COTEF was written. Neither was Provenance of Shadows.

I'm not saying that taking into account those things isn't a valid argument. In fact, those things add another texture to the event when considering Trek as it developed, and creates another interesting discussion.

But I was looking at the episode in the 1960s and putting it into that context, especially in terms of what Roddenberry would and wouldn't allow his characters to do, Kirk still does the "right thing." What we expect him to do. Save the universe. Save the Enterprise. And not to hesitate.

My previous posts were postulating what affect using Ellison's ending would've had on the Trek that followed.

But like I said, some prefer the aired version. I just happen to prefer the original scripted version.

 

[Anticitizen]

Bring Edith Keeler back to the 23rd Century with him on the evening of her "death," for instance -- thus saving Edith and preserving history.

Ha! It's funny to imagine him later realizing he could've done that and cursing himself silly. And then curse Spock for not suggesting it either.

 

[Cheapjack]

Star Trek's lessons aren't very deep or complex really. I think I got deeper life lessons during Sunday school when I was 8 years old. Trek's rep for teaching deep philosophy is way overrated. That stuff in an episode is more of a bonus than a main course. It makes the show a bit more interesting than Kirk getting in fist fights every 15 minutes or some lame comedy bit at the end.

QFT.

It really worries me that some folks have said - not just here, but in many venues, over the years - that they learned morality or ethics from Star Trek growing up. Good god...

Why on Earth should that really worry you? You get your ethics from all sorts of sources. I read Aesop's fables, I went to Sunday School, I watched Star Trek. I thought on my own.What's worrying about it? The fact that it isn't like organised religion, that it can't be controlled? If the moral's good, if it sounds right, the only people who would object would be the amoral or immoral. I can't see where you're coming from here. If people don't like the moral, they wouldn't watch it, unless they're too dumb to see there is a moral and just watch it for the action.

This, though -- it reads like a collection of bumper stickers: all half-regurgitated slogans, snatches of song lyrics and pseudo-moralistic nonsense, showing no evidence of original thought. What was the lesson you learned from Star Trek, again? What message?

M'Sharak, a few months ago, I offered to tell you the moral of any ST episode people cared to name. I did so, with the few that people put forward. I even gave the moral for 'Threshold'. There's no site you can go on, or book, that gives the moral for every ST episode, so the fact I did it shows SOME original thought, maybe? I even gave the moral for St11, even though it didn't apply to me.

It's so worrying to see people talk about morality like it's some sort of nasty tasting medicine, so bad you're better of without it. It doesn't have to be heavy, it can be implicit. It's a good thing.

Another thing that is deeply worrying is this idea that people have put forward, is that you can't moralise if you're not perfect. Of course you can. Everybody has flaws and even a hardened criminal may think of some life lesson that can be passed on to others. We all have something to offer.

'The Making of Star Trek', which was written in 1968, states that it was set of as a split morality/action show. Wikipedia says that. If that is lost, it's not Star Trek.

 

[Cheapjack]

I'll tell you something even more worrying:

Orci and Kurtzman are 'looking online, at forums' for guidance on ST12.

God help us!

Let's hope they look at forty years of success as an inspiration, hundreds of episodes, show respect for Roddenberry, even though he may have picked his nose at times, and don't turn the whole thing into s***.

 

[An Officer]

What is the message of Trek XI? Well, one of Hollywood's favourite sayings, as voiced by Sam Goldwyn is: "Messages are for Western Union."

 

[M'Sharak]

This, though -- it reads like a collection of bumper stickers: all half-regurgitated slogans, snatches of song lyrics and pseudo-moralistic nonsense, showing no evidence of original thought. What was the lesson you learned from Star Trek, again? What message?

M'Sharak, a few months ago, I offered to tell you the moral of any ST episode people cared to name. I did so, with the few that people put forward. I even gave the moral for 'Threshold'. There's no site you can go on, or book, that gives the moral for every ST episode, so the fact I did it shows SOME original thought, maybe? I even gave the moral for St11, even though it didn't apply to me.

My post was in reply to a specific post of yours; to omit it here and imply that what I said was directed at things you've said months in the past is a just bit disingenuous. However...

It's so worrying to see people talk about morality like it's some sort of nasty tasting medicine, so bad you're better of without it. It doesn't have to be heavy, it can be implicit. It's a good thing.

Another thing that is deeply worrying is this idea that people have put forward, is that you can't moralise if you're not perfect. Of course you can. Everybody has flaws and even a hardened criminal may think of some life lesson that can be passed on to others. We all have something to offer.

'The Making of Star Trek', which was written in 1968, states that it was set of as a split morality/action show. Wikipedia says that. If that is lost, it's not Star Trek.

No one here is talking about morality as if it's something better done without and no one has suggested that only the perfect should be allowed to moralize; that's just you twisting words again. (I think I've spoken to you about that before, haven't I?) What a number of people have said is that while there have undoubtedly been episodes with messages, the primary purpose was to entertain; this was first and foremost, and did not automatically require that there be a message or moral.

What a number have people have also said is that when there was a message built into the story, Star Trek was sometimes rather heavy-handed about getting it across. You'd get "Here!" *WHAM!* "Look, this is The Message! *WHAM* "No, I don't think you've seen it yet!" *WHAM* "Look closer!" *WHAM!* "Okay, and just in case you missed it..." *WHAM!* "...here it is again!" *WHAMMITY-WHAM! WHAM!*

I don't think most of us object to there being a message or moral in a story -- sometimes we've had very good message stories, in fact -- but we do object to a message being delivered with hammer blows, as if we're stupid and would miss it otherwise. I mean: what kind of a show is it that presumes to be intelligent, but seems to be implying that it thinks its audience isn't? (Think about that for a minute. Is that the sort of moralizing you endorse?)

I also don't think every single story needs to have a clear message; sometimes it's perfectly alright to leave the message part alone and just go for a good, entertaining ride -- it's okay to have Just Plain Fun™ once in a while, isn't it? Surely, you're not opposed to that? Looking back at TOS, it should be clear that the people making it weren't.

Entertain first. If a story also presents an opportunity to enlighten, well then, that's another consideration, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) a requirement.

Edit:

Oh, and one more thing:

If people don't like the moral, they wouldn't watch it, unless they're too dumb to see there is a moral and just watch it for the action.

You might want be careful about statements like that. People might get the idea you're calling them stupid.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

 

[An Officer]

^ Great definition. I actually agree with that.

 

[Devon]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

And that's a wrap folks.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Another goodlesson this movie teaches is when in doubt about the future of the Star Trek franchise Kirk and crew will always bail you out.

 

[Jeyl]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

 

[Franklin]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

And that's a wrap folks.

Yep. It was spoon-fed to us in the movie, and it only took 211 posts before someone here got it. There are obviously waaaaaay too many graduate students and pseudo-intellectuals posting here.

 

[Trilliam]

I think the Big Lesson™ of STXI was best summarized by Sarek: "You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide."

Both Spock and Kirk had choices to make about their own destinies.

And that's a wrap folks.

Yep. It was spoon-fed to us in the movie, and it only took 211 posts before someone here got it. There are obviously waaaaaay too many graduate students and pseudo-intellectuals posting here.

I take great exception to being characterised as a pseudo-intellectual... I'm currently undertaking my 3rd (2nd graduate) degree.....Nothing "pseudo" about it, Sunshine.

 

[pookha]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

we saw both in tos, your point???

back to the topic..
chosing your destiny is one but also the concept of idic itself.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Military articles of discipline and law no longer apply to the Federation. This includes assault and disobeying orders.

Are you familar with a show called Star Trek? Breaches of military discipline and law are handled with a slap on the wrist and a return to business as usual. (sometimes a hearty laugh is included)

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I think the biggest lesson in Star Trek is that it should have rebooted a long time ago.