Episode of the Week : Spectre of the Gun

[Timo]

I'd argue that with the Melkotians being as advanced as they are, they would not need or wish to dish out "punishment", certainly not in the form of nightmares applied on a random landing party rather than

a) a more justly defined party of actual culprits, such as the command crew,
b) the entire crew, or
c) all of mankind (and half of Vulcankind?), Kevin Uxbridge style.

OTOH, the explosion of the buoy would appear to be the last of their tests, as it is after the crew's reaction (or lack thereof) to this explosion that the Melkotians declare the trials over and open the dialogue. The landing party was tested first; when Kirk triumphed on a personal level and refused to kill, the Melkotians faked a loss of their buoy and watched whether this triumph would prompt Kirk to act more violently. When phasers stayed on standby, Kirk passed the test.

Significantly, Kirk originally left the buoy behind and flew to the Melkotian planet. At the conclusion of the episode, we learn this was part of the illusion: the ship has not reached the planet, and must proceed at warp two to get there now that the course is clear. It's not as if the Melkotians were dealing with an actual border violation, then, only a failed attempt.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Scotchy]

I always wanted one of the Melkotians to join Starfleet. A large, floating paper mache head with twinkling Christmas tree eyes would make a very good security chief. He might have trouble getting around the ship however.... maybe he could change into Doc Holliday when he needed to. Get Val Kilmer on the phone.

 

[J.T.B.]

This episode is of course plagued with numerous historical inaccuracies in depicting the events of Tombstone in October 1881. The most obvious of these is in the overall portrayal of both the Earps and the Clantons. The Earps are depicted as swaggering, corrupt bullies while the Clantons are viewed by the townspeople as folk heroes. In real life, the Clanton Gang, or the "Cowboys" as they were known as, were a bunch of thugs that the townspeople desperately wanted to get rid of, and they for the most part sided with the Earps, who were all respectable citizens and reliable lawmen.

Accused horse thieves, jail breakers and pimps were not generally considered "respectable" in the late 1800s. It's true, though, they did represent the law and the local respectable citizens were not too concerned with details of their past lives, as long as they kept order.

As for sacrificing historical accuracy for the sake of a good story, that was old when Shakespeare was doing it. And the real story of what happened in the gunfight was hard to get at because no one paid much attention to it for almost 50 years, when the self-promotion of the elderly Wyatt Earp brought it to wide public attention.

Portraying the Earps as corrupt or even just less than honorable was fairly novel for the time and puts this episode more in the territory of the revisionist Westerns which really hit their stride in the '60s. Hugh O'Brian had spent six years playing Wyatt as unfailingly lawful, moral and incorruptible, versus the Clanton gang who were inveterate criminals, always scheming no matter how many times their members were jailed. That was a pretty strong impression for the TV viewers of the time. The movie Hour of the Gun had a more morally ambiguous Wyatt in 1967, and Doc would follow in 1971 with a still darker portrayal of the Earp side.

Methinks I typed "miles" when I meant "blocks".

It was all within the same block. The streets in downtown Tombstone are still the same as back then, you can walk the whole thing in a minute or so.

I think it is pretty widely known, but since it hasn't been noted in this thread I'll mention that DeForest Kelley played Morgan Earp in The Gunfight at the OK Corral, 1957.

I give Star Trek a lot of credit for the approach they took in this episode and really like the setting and mood. 7/10.

 

[Drone]

I'd argue that with the Melkotians being as advanced as they are, they would not need or wish to dish out "punishment", certainly not in the form of nightmares applied on a random landing party rather than

a) a more justly defined party of actual culprits, such as the command crew,
b) the entire crew, or
c) all of mankind (and half of Vulcankind?), Kevin Uxbridge style.

OTOH, the explosion of the buoy would appear to be the last of their tests, as it is after the crew's reaction (or lack thereof) to this explosion that the Melkotians declare the trials over and open the dialogue. The landing party was tested first; when Kirk triumphed on a personal level and refused to kill, the Melkotians faked a loss of their buoy and watched whether this triumph would prompt Kirk to act more violently. When phasers stayed on standby, Kirk passed the test.

Significantly, Kirk originally left the buoy behind and flew to the Melkotian planet. At the conclusion of the episode, we learn this was part of the illusion: the ship has not reached the planet, and must proceed at warp two to get there now that the course is clear. It's not as if the Melkotians were dealing with an actual border violation, then, only a failed attempt.

Timo Saloniemi

Just because they were advanced, and we don't know anything about how much more of that is manifest, other than the power of their telepathic abilities, that doesn't mean that they might not be truly a truly convicted xenophobic race that doesn't have any compunction of using their powers to make sure they are left quite alone. Can we make any valid statement on the level of their morality, to the extent that it can be perceived at all in the beginning of the episode, that would preclude such punishment was exactly what their aim was?

You refer to the unlikeliness of such an intention being carried out on a random random party, but as it was constituted, it was the command crew. Was that Kirk's actual decision, or the result of manipulation by the Melkotians? I would ask, how many times did we see a party put together with this set of personnel? The Big Three sure, but Scott as well, not to mention Chekov, part of the bridge crew, but a representative of youth and innocence? Without checking, not very often during the show's run I'd warrant. Also, if the landing party succumbed to their trial, it probably wouldn't be much of a challenge for the Melkotians to influence the crew to take actions that would destroy the ship, leaving Enterprise's fate a mystery, similar to what the Providers threatened do in Gamesters of Triskelion.

I'm not sure if i understand your point in identifying the last test that was successfully negotiated. How could Kirk have responded with violence after the buoy self-destructed? What would have been the target of such a reaction? There was no other Melkotian object present and the image of one of their kind appearing on the viewscreen immediately afterwards, was simply that, an image. So, I would contend that the actions of Kirk and the others had already sufficiently answered the Melkotians' test to their satisfaction, Kirk's boilerplate response to the question of the Federation's non-violent orientation, simply representing a reassuring reiteration of what the Melkotians had already observed.

 

[Timo]

You refer to the unlikeliness of such an intention being carried out on a random random party, but as it was constituted, it was the command crew.

Well, it was a selection of main heroes. I don't see how McCoy or Scotty had any role in deciding whether to violate Melkotian borders or not. Certainly if the Melkotians chose the accused party by scanning Kirk's mind, they'd know if McCoy were innocent.

If Chekov is taken, why not take the man who actually piloted the ship across the border? Why not take Uhura who failed to show proper respect to the hails?

It just strikes me as utterly random. Good for testing, indeed great for testing (although perhaps Melkotians don't believe in female sentience?), but no good for judging or punishing.

I would ask, how many times did we see a party put together with this set of personnel?

Just about as often as any other set?

I'm not sure if i understand your point in identifying the last test that was successfully negotiated. How could Kirk have responded with violence after the buoy self-destructed?

Not after - during. The buoy, until then neutral, now acted in a hostile manner, spewing radiation and exhibiting energy buildup. Kirk readies his weapons, but doesn't fire. And then the buoy just blows up, leaving everybody rather surprised: they apparently didn't think they were witnessing a malfunction, but rather a deliberate and potentially hostile action. And yet they held fire.

So, I would contend that the actions of Kirk and the others had already sufficiently answered the Melkotians' test to their satisfaction, Kirk's boilerplate response to the question of the Federation's non-violent orientation, simply representing a reassuring reiteration of what the Melkotians had already observed.

Then why blow up the buoy?

Kirk on the planet was weaseling his way out of a predicament. Perhaps he was being completely dishonest about mercy, having figured out what lies he would have to tell in order to return to his ship and her mighty guns?

Now (seemingly) returned to his seat of power, the environment that actually matters to the Melkotians in practice, does Kirk revert to his barbaric ways? Turn tail and run? File a complaint? Commit suicide out of shame? Satisfied with that answer, the Melkotians let him proceed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Drone]

You refer to the unlikeliness of such an intention being carried out on a random random party, but as it was constituted, it was the command crew.

Well, it was a selection of main heroes. I don't see how McCoy or Scotty had any role in deciding whether to violate Melkotian borders or not. Certainly if the Melkotians chose the accused party by scanning Kirk's mind, they'd know if McCoy were innocent.

If Chekov is taken, why not take the man who actually piloted the ship across the border? Why not take Uhura who failed to show proper respect to the hails?

It just strikes me as utterly random. Good for testing, indeed great for testing (although perhaps Melkotians don't believe in female sentience?), but no good for judging or punishing.

If the whole exercise was a test to gauge the Federation's worthiness to have actual contact with, it might make sense to examine the values of all the senior staff, as well as a less seasoned, but significant member of bridge personnel, to assess if there was a common sharing of values among all of them. In the punishment scenario, it wouldn't matter how culpable some of the personnel involved were in the original transgression. If the group failed to survive, as the Melkotians might have anticipated, the entire ship and crew were almost certainly condemned anyway, as I suggested.

I would ask, how many times did we see a party put together with this set of personnel?

Just about as often as any other set?

All four senior officers, plus another bridge staffer? Are you sure about that? It might be a bit tedious to verify your contention, so as you are making the affirmation, it would be nice if you could supply at least a few examples.

I'm not sure if i understand your point in identifying the last test that was successfully negotiated. How could Kirk have responded with violence after the buoy self-destructed?

Not after - during. The buoy, until then neutral, now acted in a hostile manner, spewing radiation and exhibiting energy buildup. Kirk readies his weapons, but doesn't fire. And then the buoy just blows up, leaving everybody rather surprised: they apparently didn't think they were witnessing a malfunction, but rather a deliberate and potentially hostile action. And yet they held fire.

I don't think that anyone expressed a specific interpretation as to what this meant, only the facts and figures of its deterioration, which seemed to be irreversible, so solely for the potential threat that such a continuation posed to the integrity and safety of the ship, did Kirk have weapons readied. I'll accept your explanation here that the crucial point happened during the crisis, not after, it's just that the way you expressed it earlier didn't seem to communicate that slant.

So, I would contend that the actions of Kirk and the others had already sufficiently answered the Melkotians' test to their satisfaction, Kirk's boilerplate response to the question of the Federation's non-violent orientation, simply representing a reassuring reiteration of what the Melkotians had already observed.

Then why blow up the buoy?

Kirk on the planet was weaseling his way out of a predicament. Perhaps he was being completely dishonest about mercy, having figured out what lies he would have to tell in order to return to his ship and her mighty guns?

Now (seemingly) returned to his seat of power, the environment that actually matters to the Melkotians in practice, does Kirk revert to his barbaric ways? Turn tail and run? File a complaint? Commit suicide out of shame? Satisfied with that answer, the Melkotians let him proceed.

Timo Saloniemi

I questioned above in responding to Marsden, as to why the buoy exploded on its own. As he suggested, the object was the Melkotians means of effecting telepathic contact and simulating the entire episode without anyone having left the ship. Perhaps, having fulfilled its mission, its destruction allowed the crew to once again perceive events as they were really happening. In this instance, why didn't they merely deactivate it? As facile an explanation as it may seem, the ability to work in an ever popular explosion into the episode, may have felt difficult to resist. In that light, your explanation of this part of the incident, as the final part of the test, might make about as much sense. However, I think you're being a bit needlessly gratuitous in suggesting that the Melkotians might even suspect any of this litany of negatives out of Kirk. Perhaps, incorporating information that they could have gleaned from the ship computer about Earth's savage past, that type of concern might remain. But I would still think that given the number of instances that they saw during the simulation of the apparent importance of employing non-violent methods to counter a lethal situation that were displayed, the necessity of a further test would really be superflous.