Cause and Effect - my one wish

[sonak]

I don't think the Klingon ambassador's line was just about the circumstances in TSFS.

The dialogue speaks for itself:

KLINGON AMBASSADOR: ...Behold! The quintessential devil in these matters! James T. Kirk, renegade and terrorist! Not only is he responsible for the murder of a Klingon crew, the theft of a Klingon vessel. See now the real plot and intentions, Even as this Federation was negotiating a peace treaty with us, Kirk was secretly developing the Genesis torpedo, conceived by Kirk's son and test detonated by the Admiral himself! The result of this awesome energy was euphemistically called 'The Genesis Planet' ...A secret base from which to launch the annihilation of the Klingon people! We demand the extradition of Kirk! We demand justice!
SAREK: Klingon justice is a unique point of view, Mister President. ...Genesis was perfectly named. The creation of life not death. The Klingons shed the first blood while attempting to possess its secrets.
KLINGON AMBASSADOR: Vulcans are well known as the intellectual puppets of this Federation!
SAREK: Your vessel did destroy U.S.S. Grissom. Your men did kill Kirk's son. Do you deny these events?
KLINGON AMBASSADOR: We deny nothing! We have the right to preserve our race!
SAREK: Do you have the right to commit murder?
FEDERATION PRESIDENT: Silence! Silence! There will be no further outbursts from the floor.
SAREK: Mister President, I have come to speak on behalf of the accused.
KLINGON AMBASSADOR: Personal bias! His son was saved by Kirk!
FEDERATION PRESIDENT: Mister Ambassador, with all respect, the Council's deliberations are over.
KLINGON AMBASSADOR: Then Kirk goes unpunished?
FEDERATION PRESIDENT: Admiral Kirk has been charged with nine violations of Starfleet regulations.
KLINGON AMBASSADOR: Starfleet regulations? That's outrageous! Remember this well. There shall be no peace as long as Kirk lives!

It was specifically Kirk's involvement with the Genesis affair that the ambassador was referring to. He couldn't possibly have made that clearer. He didn't say "We want Kirk dead because he's this almighty cosmic hero who's more important than anyone else in the Federation," he specifically cited the events of the previous two films as his reasons for declaring Kirk a war criminal.




"Intergalactic?" Since when did the Klingons live in a different galaxy?

Anyway, glossing over the pervasive misuse of the word "intergalactic" to mean "interstellar," you're conflating two separate questions, a specific reputation with the Klingons and a generalized reputation as some all-powerful, godlike cosmic hero. The two are not equivalent.

Let's go to the transcripts again:



Kirk was chosen for several reasons. One, implicitly, is his connection to Spock, who was the chief negotiator of the conference. Another is that he's known for his hostility toward the Klingons -- as a result of the events of TSFS. He's a hardliner, and thus his willingness to participate in the negotiations would be symbolically important at persuading Klingon hardliners to participate. Note that the same goes for Admiral Cartwright, but he's not a starship commander, so he couldn't be the one to go. And yes, he's sent because the Klingons are aware of his reputation as an effective military commander that they'd think twice before attacking. But that's not the same thing as the whole galaxy being lost in fangasms about how wonderful James T. Kirk is. It's a military assessment of a known commander by his enemies. There are probably other Starfleet captains who have a similar military reputation among the Klingons, but Kirk was chosen because of a combination of that and other factors.

And whether the examples in GEN, DS9's TAT, etc. are "fanboy insertions" or not, they're on-screen evidence for my point that Kirk and crew are legends.

They're evidence that by the 24th century, Kirk's reputation has been built up to a legendary status by historians. It is grossly invalid to use them as evidence of Kirk's reputation as of 2278.

again, it's obvious that other crews have their adventures and stuff. But from the TOS movies onwards, it's pretty clear that Kirk and his crew are famous figures.

I have never denied that. What I have said, repeatedly and clearly, is that I don't accept the assumption that they're the only famous people in the 23rd-century Starfleet, that everyone who even heard the term "Kirk" or "Enterprise" mentioned would immediately begin waxing lyrical about their godlike magnificence.

After all, even fame is relative. Captain James Cook is famous for his "discovery" of Hawai'i, but would you seriously expect that every time you mentioned Hawai'i to any given person, they'd immediately begin raving about how awesome Captain Cook was? Every historical figure who's legendary to some is going to be unimportant to others, and probably criticized and discredited by others still. I'm sure that if I went to a bulletin board devoted to, say, the history of the English Civil War, I'd see posters praising legendary heroes that I've never even heard of, or have heard of in passing but never really given much thought to. It's a big planet, and it's only one planet. In a civilization as huge as the Federation, anyone's fame is unlikely to be universal. Someone who's admired and revered as a legend in some circles is going to be unknown to a lot of other people. That's the way it already is today in our increasingly compartmentalized pop culture (for instance, I've only recently become aware that there's a singer named Justin Bieber who seems to have been famous for a while, and I still know nothing about him beyond seeing a trailer for a movie about him recently). It's bound to be far more the case in an interstellar civilization.

OK, but in your initial post, you implied that it was only Trekkies who engaged in "hero worship," implying that WITHIN the Trek universe, there was no reason to think that Kirk and his crew would be regarded as any more important and heroic than any other ship or crew.

I was pointing out that there's plenty of on-screen evidence to the contrary, that they were regarded as special within their own fictional universe.

(another among countless examples: "Admiral Harve" in TFF calling on the broken Ent-A to go to Nimbus III because "he needs Jim Kirk.")


And yes, I wasn't using intergalactic in the literal sense.

 

[Christopher]

OK, but in your initial post, you implied that it was only Trekkies who engaged in "hero worship," implying that WITHIN the Trek universe, there was no reason to think that Kirk and his crew would be regarded as any more important and heroic than any other ship or crew.

I didn't imply that, you inferred it. You're reading things into my words that I didn't intend. I've clearly and repeatedly explained how you misinterpreted my point.

And yes, I wasn't using intergalactic in the literal sense.

Then why use it at all? The way people abuse the word "intergalactic" is like walking down to the corner market and calling it international commerce. It's ridiculous.

 

[Gorn Captain]

"For some reason?" Why does there have to be a reason? They had him cast in the part because he's an actor who's capable of doing multiple roles, and they thought he was the right actor for this part. He's capable of doing far more than just playing Frasier Crane, and there's no reason why any given appearance of Grammer in another role should be reduced to merely a Frasier impression. Some people seem to think it's a laugh riot to have an actor in one role behave like he does in another, more famous role, but I think it's a lazy and obvious way to do an in-joke, and disrespectful to the actor's craft.

Wow, so much of this is unnecessary, at least in tone. First, why does there have to be a reason? Why shouldn't there be one? Isn't there a reason for everything?

Second, when has Kelsey Grammer proven successful at playing anyone other than Frasier Crane? Oh, wait, I forgot his Olivier-like turn in Down Periscope. Forgive me.

Third, "disrespectful to the actor's craft"? Really? I'm sorry, apparently I haven't got sufficient respect for the actor's craft to be able to post on a message board. I didn't realize that there was a set of ethical standards that I had to meet. I was under the impression that I could just have an opinion and express it. My mistake.

 

[Christopher]

First, why does there have to be a reason? Why shouldn't there be one? Isn't there a reason for everything?

Saying he was cast "for some reason" is needlessly dismissive, as if you can't comprehend why a professional actor would be cast in more than one role.

Second, when has Kelsey Grammer proven successful at playing anyone other than Frasier Crane? Oh, wait, I forgot his Olivier-like turn in Down Periscope. Forgive me.

Seriously? You've never heard of Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons? Stinky Pete the Prospector in Toy Story 2? Beast in X-Men: The Last Stand? Grammer is a Juilliard-trained actor who's been performing on stage and screen since 1980. He's done Shakespeare on Broadway, played Sweeney Todd on stage in Los Angeles. He got a Tony Award nomination for La Cage Aux Folles in 2010, and won an Emmy for playing Sideshow Bob in 2006, in addition to his multiple Emmys, Golden Globes, and American Comedy Awards for Frasier. I'm stunned that anyone would think he's merely a one-trick pony.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Side note: can we finally put to rest, once and for all, the question of this scene in ST:FC?

Admiral Hayes: Defiant and Bozeman, fall back to mobile position one.

Unknown: Acknowledged.

Some insist that the "unknown" voice is Captain Bateson. I say it's Worf.

 

[Cyke101]

Third, "disrespectful to the actor's craft"? Really? I'm sorry, apparently I haven't got sufficient respect for the actor's craft to be able to post on a message board. I didn't realize that there was a set of ethical standards that I had to meet. I was under the impression that I could just have an opinion and express it. My mistake.

Because no actor wants to be typecast into one single role. You go up to Patrick Stewart and he'll expect people to call him out as Capt. Picard or Professor Xavier, two wise, old men, but if you go up to him and gush about his Shakespearean work or his less conventional roles, he'll greatly appreciate it. Name an actor worth his/her salt and that actor will try to have as diverse a resume as possible, in comedy, drama, horror, stage, TV, etc.

I think you'll have to examine your disconnect between Grammar's work and what you wanted him to do in the OP. If you've got this respect for him that you wanted him to expand upon his cameo (which is understandable), why are you bashing his work, and why are you getting confrontational when other people defend his work? Is Kelsey Grammar only good when he does what only you want him to do?

 

[Gorn Captain]

Okay guys, I think I am done with this thread. I am either "needlessly dismissive" or "confrontational". This is fun.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Some insist that the "unknown" voice is Captain Bateson. I say it's Worf.

There was a "Starlog" interview, IIRC, where someone in the production team told how they thought having Bateson's voice added to the audio in post-production might have been a fun idea, since Kelsey Grammer was such an avid ST fan. They decided to ring him on the spot. He was too busy to come into the studio so he did the line/word over the phone!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Hmm. I wondered why an actor as famous as Kelsey Grammer would lower themselves to doing a mere one word audio only cameo like that. If it was literally phoned in, I can understand that, sort of.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ My guess would be that he likes Star Trek, has a sense of humor, and isn't full of himself.

He might also have been favorably impressed by all the "name" celebrities who did cameo radio show call-in voices for Frasier.

 

[Gojira]

^ Hmm. I wondered why an actor as famous as Kelsey Grammer would lower themselves to doing a mere one word audio only cameo like that. If it was literally phoned in, I can understand that, sort of.

From my understanding he is a big fan. Just like Christian Slater is a big fan and was content with a cameo in Star Trek VI.

 

[USS Excelsior]

They could have had him come back from the TOS time period instead with TOS uniforms, and perhaps appear in a Constitution Class ship too.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They could have had him come back from the TOS time period instead with TOS uniforms, and perhaps appear in a Constitution Class ship too.

Which would require building sets and making uniforms.

 

[Alrik]

From my understanding he is a big fan. Just like Christian Slater is a big fan and was content with a cameo in Star Trek VI.

Add to that Mick Fleetwood, John Tesh, etc.... There are a lot of big names that have either done, or expressed a desire to do, cameos on Trek just to be a part of it.

 

[Dukhat]

They could have had him come back from the TOS time period instead with TOS uniforms, and perhaps appear in a Constitution Class ship too.

Uh, that was the original intention, which was axed by budgetary concerns.

 

[Timo]

However, the events of "Cause and Effect" put Bateman and the Bozeman as after TMP and around the time of TWOK.

What events?

All that connects the TNG episode with the second TOS movie are the uniforms. All that we observe beyond that is the design of the ship, which is of the aesthetic introduced in TMP, and the year she was displaced from, which is 2278 sharp.

But TMP might have taken place after that, not before. There are no timing cues in TMP that would tie it to other Trek events (save for minimum elapsed time estimates, such as 18 months of refitting, or 2.5 years of desk jobs for Kirk). However, there's the timing cue that it's "over" three centuries since the launch and disappearance of Voyager 6 - whereas Voyagers 2 and 1 were launched in 1977. And the movie premiered in 1979, at a time when it was fashionable to think of Star Trek taking place exactly 300 years after the airdate.

Kirk might not have saved Earth from V'Ger yet when Bateson sailed out; rather, he'd be Chief of Starfleet Ops, a Rear Admiral and a distant figure of authority unrelated to any of the USS Enterprises.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JB2005]

He should have said one of two things:

"Go ahead caller, I'm listening"

or

"Shatner your Toupee's slipped again"

 

[indolover]

I prefer to resist the idea that characters in the Trek universe are Trekkies -- i.e. that they all engage in hero worship of Kirk and the Enterprise and consider it the most important ship in the universe. In particular, I think it's a bit demeaning to other Starfleet crews to expect them to talk about how much better the Enterprise is than they are. Bateson says "Your vessel is not familiar to us," which is sufficient to convey his skepticism without giving him a gratuitous fanboy moment.

Also, keep in mind that the Bozeman was lost in 2278, about five years after TMP. We don't know whether Kirk was still in command of the Enterprise at that point; he might have already gone back to the admiralty.

So the idea that some officers would gain greater note than others is irrational? Is the fact that Nelson is far more known than COs commanding Royal Navy vessels of the coast of early 19th century India offensive also? What about General Lee in the Civil War, versus Joe Confederate officer defending Atlanta?

Kirk was at the centre of most of the major events of the 23rd century, as were Picard, Sisko and Janeway in the 24th century, or even Archer in the 22nd century. Surely that in itself denotes fame. In part Trek is supposed to show that the main characters in each series are heroes/heroines and legends in their own right.

 

[Mysterion]

Kirk was at the centre of most of the major events of the 23rd century, as were Picard, Sisko and Janeway in the 24th century, or even Archer in the 22nd century. Surely that in itself denotes fame. In part Trek is supposed to show that the main characters in each series are heroes/heroines and legends in their own right.

Well, those guys were in the center of the events we saw. The Federation's a big place and surely there was other stuff happening to other people while Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Archer, or Janeway were on tee-vee doing their thing. This is one of the reasons I am liking the Vanguard trek-lit series so much: it shows a storyline happening at the same time as the TOS episodes did, and the events in these stories have as muc potential impact on things as anything Kirk and Co. were up to at the time.