Then again, wasn't Maltz already being held captive by the Enterprise survivors even before he beamed Kirk aboard?
Klingons & Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
He had his disruptor out and trained on them when Kirk imitating Kruge called down speaking in Klingon.
Kruge wasn't terribly bright in that instance either. "They're hiding." Klingon ships don't have sensors?
Are you sure about that? IIRC, when Kirk enters the bridge of the Klingon BOP, Maltz is already being held at phaserpoint by the rest of the 1701's crew.
The way I thought it went down is, Maltz beams the survivors up, they overpower him, then they force Maltz to beam Kirk aboard.
I'm pretty sure Maltz is holding his disruptor on the rest and tells them their captain is dead.
At which point Kirk walks in with his phaser in one hand and holding onto Spock with the other.
No, I remember it now. Maltz is never shown with his disruptor pointed at any of the 1701 crew, and he hardly ever speaks to them. It goes down basically like this:
- During Kirk and Kruge's fight scene, Kruge orders Maltz to beam up the survivors...all but Kirk and Spock.
- Kirk kills Kruge.
- Kirk does a half-hearted imitation of the Klingon language and orders Maltz to beam him and Spock aboard.
- The next time we see any of them, Kirk is holding the unconscious Spock as they walk onto the Klingon bridge. Maltz turns around to face Kirk, and the next shot reveals that all the rest of the survivors have their weapons trained on Maltz.
- (Implying that after Maltz beamed the rest of them up, while Kirk and Kruge were fighting, the others rushed Maltz and got the drop on him. Which makes sense, since Maltz was the only Klingon crewmember left on the ship, and he was outnumbered)
- The first time Maltz speaks to any of them is when Kirk orders Maltz to help and Maltz says "I do not deserve to live," at which point Kirk says "Fine. I'll kill you later."
- During Kirk and Kruge's fight scene, Kruge orders Maltz to beam up the survivors...all but Kirk and Spock.
- Kirk kills Kruge.
- Kirk does a half-hearted imitation of the Klingon language and orders Maltz to beam him and Spock aboard.
- The next time we see any of them, Kirk is holding the unconscious Spock as they walk onto the Klingon bridge. Maltz turns around to face Kirk, and the next shot reveals that all the rest of the survivors have their weapons trained on Maltz.
- (Implying that after Maltz beamed the rest of them up, while Kirk and Kruge were fighting, the others rushed Maltz and got the drop on him. Which makes sense, since Maltz was the only Klingon crewmember left on the ship, and he was outnumbered)
- The first time Maltz speaks to any of them is when Kirk orders Maltz to help and Maltz says "I do not deserve to live," at which point Kirk says "Fine. I'll kill you later."
Last edited:
We don't know whether Maltz was the last Klingon left aboard. There may well have been a transporter operator whom Kirk surprised/overpowered unseen, say.
Also, the sidekicks aren't armed. Instead, when the camera switches from Kirk/Spock through Maltz to a wide view, Saavik is suddenly seen holding a Klingon sidearm, presumably one previously held by Maltz whose holster is now empty. The rest of the team just stand clustered against the wall, a somewhat unlikely positioning if we're supposed to think they are in charge of the situation.
The sequence of events is ambiguous, then: either Kirk surprised Maltz, allowing Saavik to disarm him, or Saavik disarmed Maltz before Kirk entered the room, or perhaps even before Kirk was beamed aboard.
Timo Saloniemi
Also, the sidekicks aren't armed. Instead, when the camera switches from Kirk/Spock through Maltz to a wide view, Saavik is suddenly seen holding a Klingon sidearm, presumably one previously held by Maltz whose holster is now empty. The rest of the team just stand clustered against the wall, a somewhat unlikely positioning if we're supposed to think they are in charge of the situation.
The sequence of events is ambiguous, then: either Kirk surprised Maltz, allowing Saavik to disarm him, or Saavik disarmed Maltz before Kirk entered the room, or perhaps even before Kirk was beamed aboard.
Timo Saloniemi
I always felt that Maltz had his disruptor in his hand while guarding the crew. Kirk opens the door and is able to aim his disruptor at Maltz' back. Maltz spins expecting Kruge. Saavik disarms Maltz who had pretty much given up and was expecting to be executed once he saw he was the only Klingon left. Kirk promises "Fine. I'll kill ya' later." leading to the "I lied" tag later.
What is odd about this scenario overall is why the sidekicks are at the Klingon bridge. Regardless of whether Maltz was aboard alone, or with a single transporter operator, Maltz must have marched the sidekicks to this location at gunpoint (scenario A), or Saavik must have marched Maltz to this location at gunpoint, along with the other sidekicks (scenario B).
Why the bridge? Surely it would make more sense to put the prisoner(s) in a brig or some other non-bridge facility, since there is marching involved and a range of destinations is available. I mean, there was no beaming-directly-to-bridge action involved, obviously, because if there were, then Kirk and Spock would have been beamed directly there, too.
I can't think of any rationale for scenario A. Perhaps in scenario B, Saavik would try and coerce Maltz to fly the ship for them, but the timing makes no sense: if she were in control before Kirk tried the Joooichu! routine, the routine would have been unnecessary, Saavik would have hailed Kirk back with "Gesundheit, Sir!", and Maltz would not appear surprised in the slightest. If OTOH she gained control after this, but just before Kirk arrived, we're back to scenario A, and in any case Maltz would have to react to his would-be savior bursting through the doors but turning out not to be his savior after all, which is not what we see.
Overall, I personally favor the "Kirk was vital in surprising Maltz, allowing Saavik to subsequently disarm him" model (I mean, it's in Kirk's contract to be vital!), but this does nothing to help explain why McCoy, Scott, Sulu and Chekov are standing there. They are clustered, unarmed and helpless, dangerously in the line of fire of Saavik, so "them being in control" doesn't befit the situation. But if they were prisoners of Maltz just moments before, why are they there specifically?
Hostages? But Maltz wouldn't need to risk having all of them there simultaneously.
Forced labor? Perhaps the ship is so shot to pieces that Maltz needs a few pairs of semi-skilled hands. But would the sidekicks count? And Maltz would need a separate set of hostages for that, probably.
Any ideas?
Timo Saloniemi
Why the bridge? Surely it would make more sense to put the prisoner(s) in a brig or some other non-bridge facility, since there is marching involved and a range of destinations is available. I mean, there was no beaming-directly-to-bridge action involved, obviously, because if there were, then Kirk and Spock would have been beamed directly there, too.
I can't think of any rationale for scenario A. Perhaps in scenario B, Saavik would try and coerce Maltz to fly the ship for them, but the timing makes no sense: if she were in control before Kirk tried the Joooichu! routine, the routine would have been unnecessary, Saavik would have hailed Kirk back with "Gesundheit, Sir!", and Maltz would not appear surprised in the slightest. If OTOH she gained control after this, but just before Kirk arrived, we're back to scenario A, and in any case Maltz would have to react to his would-be savior bursting through the doors but turning out not to be his savior after all, which is not what we see.
Overall, I personally favor the "Kirk was vital in surprising Maltz, allowing Saavik to subsequently disarm him" model (I mean, it's in Kirk's contract to be vital!), but this does nothing to help explain why McCoy, Scott, Sulu and Chekov are standing there. They are clustered, unarmed and helpless, dangerously in the line of fire of Saavik, so "them being in control" doesn't befit the situation. But if they were prisoners of Maltz just moments before, why are they there specifically?
Hostages? But Maltz wouldn't need to risk having all of them there simultaneously.
Forced labor? Perhaps the ship is so shot to pieces that Maltz needs a few pairs of semi-skilled hands. But would the sidekicks count? And Maltz would need a separate set of hostages for that, probably.
Any ideas?
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
Even Worf seems to approve of WMD-like effects when it suits him - triggering the solar eruption to destroy the Dominion shipyards is considered a great way of getting Jadzia's spirit into Sto'vo'kor. Klingons may approve of delivering WMDs when such involves great risk. Mind you, that incident didn't target civilians, even as collateral, so Worf may see it simply as a war action.
In general, war in Trek is pretty bushido - soldiers shoot at soldiers, even if it's with big guns. It's the peace that involves action against civilians: once Klingons get hold of a planet, that's when blackmail with mass executions ensues. Bioweapons and the sort are tools for crowd control rather than inflicting of casualties. Except again in a bushido manner where they carefully target the enemy military leaders only (and some Feds have problems even with that much).
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
No, it didn't go down like that. The clear implication is that after Maltz beamed up the survivors, they (offscreen) overpowered him. That's probably why Kirk was able to get beamed up, since Maltz was under their control at the time.
There's no way any normal Klingon warrior would have fallen for Kirk's attempt to speak Klingonese - at the very least, Maltz would have know that it wasn't Kruge and thus would have ignored the order.
This is just speculation, based on what can or cannot be heard over the comms line when a planet is falling to bits on the background. It's in no way supported by what's shown, even if it can be made to match what's shown after a fashion.
Maltz shows no signs of having been overpowered; he stands triumphant at the center. Scotty, McCoy and the rest show no signs of having overpowered him; they cower in front of him. Maltz would have no reason to be surprised by Kirk's arrival in your scenario, yet he does a double take there. Why would the director tell "Maltz, look surprised" here, if not because he's supposed to be expecting Kruge to arrive?
Timo Saloniemi
Maltz shows no signs of having been overpowered; he stands triumphant at the center. Scotty, McCoy and the rest show no signs of having overpowered him; they cower in front of him. Maltz would have no reason to be surprised by Kirk's arrival in your scenario, yet he does a double take there. Why would the director tell "Maltz, look surprised" here, if not because he's supposed to be expecting Kruge to arrive?
Timo Saloniemi
0:49: Maltz has his disruptor in his hand (arms crossed).
Kirk points his weapon and says, "Don't."
In the long shot that follows, the hand that had been holding the disruptor is empty, and Saavik is holding a Klingon disruptor on him.
It seems that a beat of Saavik relieving Maltz of the disruptor was the victim of shoddy editing.
ETA: At about 0:51, when it cuts back to Maltz, you can see the disruptor being taken on the left of the screen, but it's quick, obscured in the edge of the shot, and easy to miss.
You need to watch it again. When the door opens, Kirk points his phaser at an armed Maltz as Maltz turns to face the door. Saavik steps forward (ONSCREEN) and disarms Maltz. Somehow Sulu ends up with the disruptor, I think Saavik hands it to him. Scene progresses from there.
On the subject of Klingons and WMDs, Kruge seemed to think in terms of a Genesis contest: if the Feds have it, Klingons must have it, too. Stealing it would not take it away from the Feds (except it would, as Kruge by happenstance managed to kill or capture most of the people in the know), but the Empire could at least attempt to close the Genesis Gap.
However, Kruge never thought Genesis would be a WMD. After watching the report, he thought the Feds would use it to create more colonies; the Empire might wish to do the same.
When in the next movie the Klingons call Genesis the horrible weapon it is, they are just trying to blackpaint the Feds in order to defend their own actions now that they were caught red-handed. They aren't demonizing the concept of WMDs as such. If anything, they're saying that planets are pawns in 23rd century warfare, with the Genesis Planet being a "base" for attacking.
But Klingons seem to believe that planets are pawns worth capturing rather than killing. Even the pitifully primitive Organia had "strategic value" to them (although not necessarily to the Feds). This might work well with the idea that DSC again tries to push, of Klingons as primitive brutes themselves, in desperate need of things the Feds no longer need.
Would this affect their thinking on WMDs? Well, combat gases would go well with that: remove the annoying population but leave the precious planet intact. It's not as if prepared military units couldn't protect themselves from theragen while civilian populations disappear, as far as we know (it's not "metaphasically" going to seep through space suits or anything).
Timo Saloniemi
However, Kruge never thought Genesis would be a WMD. After watching the report, he thought the Feds would use it to create more colonies; the Empire might wish to do the same.
When in the next movie the Klingons call Genesis the horrible weapon it is, they are just trying to blackpaint the Feds in order to defend their own actions now that they were caught red-handed. They aren't demonizing the concept of WMDs as such. If anything, they're saying that planets are pawns in 23rd century warfare, with the Genesis Planet being a "base" for attacking.
But Klingons seem to believe that planets are pawns worth capturing rather than killing. Even the pitifully primitive Organia had "strategic value" to them (although not necessarily to the Feds). This might work well with the idea that DSC again tries to push, of Klingons as primitive brutes themselves, in desperate need of things the Feds no longer need.
Would this affect their thinking on WMDs? Well, combat gases would go well with that: remove the annoying population but leave the precious planet intact. It's not as if prepared military units couldn't protect themselves from theragen while civilian populations disappear, as far as we know (it's not "metaphasically" going to seep through space suits or anything).
Timo Saloniemi
Why rely on memory? According to Star Trek Transcripts:
http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie3.html
The transcript has has all the dialog, but is not so complete about the action. A script might describe the action better.
The Old Building & Loan does it best in post # 34 by including a video clip of the scene. And discussion of this scene doesn't have much relevance to Klingon ideas about WMD.
Last edited:
