Balance of Terror - brilliant how Kirk didn't win by tactics

[Navaros]

It is brilliant how the reason that Kirk won in Balance of Terror was because the Romulan was beholden to his stupid underlings and had to obey their idiotic dictates to go back and attack instead of doing what he wanted to do (the right tactical decision), which was to go home.

If not for being beholden to inferiors, the Romulan Commander would have accomplished his mission, gotten safely home, and have beaten Kirk.

I find that this kind of clever writing is not done much in modern times. Nowadays it seems it always has to be a clear-cut case of the good guy winning just because he is indipustably better than the bad guy. The ambiguity of who is really better in Balance of Terror is amazing.

 

[Captrek]

It is brilliant how the reason that Kirk won in Balance of Terror was because the Romulan was beholden to his stupid underlings and had to obey their idiotic dictates to go back and attack instead of doing what he wanted to do (the right tactical decision), which was to go home.

If not for being beholden to inferiors, the Romulan Commander would have accomplished his mission, gotten safely home, and have beaten Kirk.

I find that this kind of clever writing is not done much in modern times. Nowadays it seems it always has to be a clear-cut case of the good guy winning just because he is indipustably better than the bad guy. The ambiguity of who is really better in Balance of Terror is amazing.

Eh, not really. We still have plenty of examples of bad guys getting beat because of their own decisions. For example, in Nemesis, Shinzon was only defeated because he wanted to look Picard in the eye through the blasted-away forward part of the bridge.

In Insurrection, Ru’afo was defeated in part because he was stupid enough and compassionate enough to wait for an effort to get the human shields out of the way, and in part because he was betrayed by his own second in command.

In First Contact, the Borg Queen wanted to gloat in front of Picard, and made the mistake of trusting Data.

In The Undiscovered Country, Chang could easily have destroyed the Enterprise very quickly, but he decided to draw out the process for fun.

In The Wrath of Khan, Khan ignored pleas from Joaquim to refrain from chasing the Enterprise into the nebula.

Yada, yada, yada... It’s actually an annoyingly common cliché.

 

[Navaros]

I see what you are saying captrek, but what I find better about BoT is that unlike in your examples, it's not stupidness on the part of the Romulan Commander that caused him to lose. He was forced into letting his stupid underlings call the shot, contrary to his own good judgment, rather than screwing up himself (as is the cliche).

 

[Anwar]

What happened in BoT was the inversion of what usually happens, instead of it being a competent crew and bad captain it was a competent captain and a bad screw.

 

[Doug Otte]

I always thought it was that the Romulan captain was hobbled by the strictures of the Romulan Supreme Command (whether that was just military policy, or government, or both). He was intelligent enough to realize that the policy was wrong in this case, but not bold enough to buck his orders. His crew were simply following orders as well, and we saw no evidence of their doubts. I don't see any incompetence on the part of the captain or his crew.

Doug

 

[Hambone]

...a competent captain and a bad screw.

That's how we know Kirk was a competent captain. No one ever accused him of a bad screw.

 

[Cakes488]

I always thought it was that the Romulan captain was hobbled by the strictures of the Romulan Supreme Command (whether that was just military policy, or government, or both). He was intelligent enough to realize that the policy was wrong in this case, but not bold enough to buck his orders. His crew were simply following orders as well, and we saw no evidence of their doubts. I don't see any incompetence on the part of the captain or his crew.

Doug

No he wasn't bold enough to buck orders...but if he did wouldn't he of been labeled a coward etc...and that is a fate that would be worse then death in the Romulan world....right???

...a competent captain and a bad screw.

That's how we know Kirk was a competent captain. No one ever accused him of a bad screw.

LOL You're going to get me fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[J.T.B.]

I find that this kind of clever writing is not done much in modern times. Nowadays it seems it always has to be a clear-cut case of the good guy winning just because he is indipustably better than the bad guy. The ambiguity of who is really better in Balance of Terror is amazing.

Not to take anything away from a great episode, but the reason it was written that way was because it was all lifted from The Enemy Below. The German submarine captain and his chief engineer were pragmatists trying to do their jobs, while being somewhat ambiguous about the politics of the war. The XO is a true-believer Nazi, which makes the captain uncomfortable. The captain does his duty because of his personal integrity, not for reasons of national idealism. In the end, this earns the respect of his pursuer, the US escort captain, who understands that they are more alike than he realized.

--Justin