History of Star Trek having no "money"
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
- Status
Could be worse. Could be the angle of the bridge.
Ahhh, James. Kirk's Dad must have been a pretty open minded guy. (In GR's TMP novel Kirk is named James his mother's first "love instructor". Ok, I just re-read it. It was also the name of his father's brother.)
Obviously the intent is that this is Sulu's partner / significant other / whatever. Because we live in the early 21st century then the signals are pretty clear. I guess it's the 21st century equivalent of the candle by the bed burning down?
Because I'm a nerd and I also read the news I was very aware that this was the scene where we found out that Sulu was gay and fulfilled the promise of Roddenberry's 23rd century (against the wishes of troglodyte throwback George Takei).
Out of context OTOH, the only thing we know is that this is a man who is important to Sulu. If they weren't meant to be gay and they were meant to be brothers then the scene would have played exactly the same, wouldn't it? I only saw Beyond once, so I if it was more direct then I just didn't remember it (because I really don't care that much).
It is far less direct of a plot point than when Uhura and Crusher BUY SOMETHING WITH MONEY.
OMG... Winona's father James was her first love instructor?!?!?!?
I can almost see Roddenberry going for something like that.
Nope, prime universe.
How was Kirk any more (or less) of a racist than he was in Errand of Mercy? Kirk had decades of experience with the Klingons and their barbaric ways. The later TNG era did nothing to make Kirk's comment of "they're animals" untrue. Kirk was being honest and un-PC, two things always to be admired.
Spock and crewman Dax don't understand.
That happen in the previous movie, TUC just carried that theme forward.
Inspite of events in the movie, Kirk likely still didn't have a high opinion of Klingon intelligence.
While that might have been the "intent," it certainly didn't come across as that in the scene.
Let me guess, you're someone who approves of the SJW label?
The fact is that Kirk was stereotyping. He used he experiences to justify a bigoted opinion that no Klingon was capable of being anything other than an "animal". While the obvious analogy is US Soviet relations, it's also the attitude we've seen against Jews and blacks throughout modern history and that we now see against Muslims in the modern age in a dangerous legitimising of stereotypes.
The whole point of the movie is Kirk overcoming his prejudice. Knowing that the actions of one do not necessarily inform the character of another simply because they are from a similar domegraphic.
I think you started that post with a generalization based on demonstrated group behaviors and then railed against generalization based on demonstrated group behaviors.
Impressive.
But Kirk isn't judging an individual's behavior. He's judging the group. And accurately. His generalized judgement in Errand of Mercy is that the Klingons will occupy the planet and start exterminating the dissenters. Which they then do. Culture. Not race.
If Kirk was such a racist (especially in a Meyer movie) then when he found out Saavik was half Romulan he would have had her booted but good.
And then she would no longer have been paid by Starfleet with the Federation's MONEY.
As I understand that label, no.
First off, not prejuice but instead accurate observations over the course of decades.
Second, when during the movie was Kirk supposedly to have "overcome" his past convictions concerning the Klingons?
When the Kingons arrested him for a crime he didn't commit?
When the Kingons tried and convicted him of a crime he didn't commit?
When the Kingons imprisoned him for a crime he didn't commit?
When did this revealation occur? Kirk's viewpoint on the Klingons was most likely exactly the same at the end of the movie as they were at the beginning of the movie.
Kirk's actions above and on Kitimer (sp?) was Kirk performing his professional duties, and not the result of any "overcoming" he experienced. He saved the president's life because it was his duty to do so, he expose the conspiracy for the same reason.
Very much so, I watched the Tribbles episode last week, Uhura bought that Tribble the trader was working out a price for her to pay. And the Starbase was a Federation one.
Does this mean that TOS is the only one that ISN'T contradictory?
He thinking of his ex wife and alimoney
Yes, but chances are not all his customers are Federation ones. He may prefer to be paid in something that he can use to buy other stuff he wants/needs from those who still use/accept money.
I agree. But continuity is broken on this issue, and it goes back to "First Contact". After decades of Trek characters having money, someone who didn't remember any of that, but only remembered (and arguably misunderstood) the scene from TVH, wrote this scene:
And this led to DS9 "confirming" something that was contradicted by most previous Trek:
The joke of this scene depends on undermining something that was already a misconception.
If we can just ignore these two scenes, the problem goes away.
Last edited:
He overcame them because the conspiracy helped to demonstrate in his mind that Gorkon's peace overtures were genuine and not part of a set up...and let's not forget that he was arrested and tried by the key Klingon conspirator. It also demonstrated to him that the conspirators were holding the same prejudices he was, when his duty as a representative of the Federation was to behave like Gorkon, not a man of prejudice and fear.
Why does he tell Azetbur that she has restored his son's faith? Because she pushed ahead with her father's attempt at peace even in the face of what she thought was a Starfleet led assassination. In other words she never let herself succumb to prejudice...and that is ultimately unwittingly vindicated when the conspiracy is revealed.
EDIT:dp
Which generalisation was that?
Nazis. Vikings. Americans to their slaves. Basically all humans of pre-history. You right now saying Kirk's "Let them die" mentality was ok. Barbarism is not an excuse for racism.
Kirk was being weak. And in that, human. "Political correctness" can be a pain in the ass when it goes too far, but it's always deemed too far by anyone unhappy with its legitimate attempts to make things better. Your racist ol' grandpa isn't admirable for being a bigot, regardless how honest he was about it, or ignorant of his ignorance.
Star Trek V used the same uniforms (and deeper ridges) used previously in ST:III and afterward in TNG-era. ST:VI created all new uniforms that were created as a bizarre in-between and not reused in later movies/series.
The whole point of the movie was that Federation and Klingon individuals were similar in their villainy. Kirk was framed for a crime (that's never happened in a human court!) with the help of Valeris, Cartwright, and others. His change happened (to his credit) after he'd been tried, convicted, and laying in his prison bunk talking to McCoy about if he'd become rigid and bigoted in his old age. When the Klingon Chancellor asked what was going on here, he didn't say, Ask Chang, he said, "People can be afraid of change."
That wouldn't be surprising if the no money idea was come up with after it aired. It does though make it the most anachronistic. But given all the other contradictions in the series, I know I'm used to just rolling with it.
... which doesn't change that Uhura specifically talks about buying the Tribble ("How much are you selling them for?"). And the Barman gives her a price. No mention of "But we're with Starfleet, we don't have money...."
Tallguy said:
Given the confusion caused by the Voyage Home exchanges, despite TOS stories both before and after it making apparent mentions of economy, then unfortunately not. It's as contradictory as the rest.
It is ironic that the Klingon Azetbur was less prejudiced than the enlightened hero Kirk. Either that or she was just a pragmatic, sensible politician.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
