Star Trek VI. the stupidity of Starfleet and Spock for choosing Kirk to meet with Gorkon

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

Not sure that's actually true. Valeris herself points out that Chang is untrustworthy and dishonorable, since he conspired with her to kill Gorkon.

And as far as Gorkon goes, he doesn't advocate genocide. He doesn't hold an entire species responsible for the sins of individuals. He doesn't toss around racial slurs. That puts him a step above Scotty, Chekov, and well above Kirk.

 

[fireproof78]

Not sure that's actually true. Valeris herself points out that Chang is untrustworthy and dishonorable, since he conspired with her to kill Gorkon.

And as far as Gorkon goes, he doesn't advocate genocide. He doesn't hold an entire species responsible for the sins of individuals. He doesn't toss around racial slurs. That puts him a step above Scotty, Chekov, and well above Kirk.

Which is my problem-there's no acknowledging past Klingon problematic behaviors in the past, stating that anyone who opposes it is wrong.

 

[Charles Phipps]

And as far as Gorkon goes, he doesn't advocate genocide. He doesn't hold an entire species responsible for the sins of individuals. He doesn't toss around racial slurs. That puts him a step above Scotty, Chekov, and well above Kirk.

Yes, Gorkon has to die to show that he's sincere.

Even so, would the story be remotely satisfying if Kirk reacted to the proposal with nothing but, "Yes, this is great! Peace is awesome. Klingons are good!"

I say thee nay.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

For Kirk to have hatred towards Klingons for the death of David after fully avenging the people responsible, made his position off base.

Reaction to murder of a loved one does not work in so simple a manner; killing Kruge and most of his crew was not being "fully avenged" / going to ease the unimaginable pain of David's murder; at the point of his decision to destroy the Enterprise, Kirk was in survival mode / plotting to do whatever was necessary to escape, but the deaths of the Klingons was not going to settle his deep, more than justified hatred of the Klingons. The fact he had decades dealing with the unrelenting evil the Klingon's imposed on others (brought to the brink of galactic war on a few occasions) were just underpinnings of Kirk's animosity toward them, but David's murder was no political matter--it was personal, leading Kirk to conclude the Klingons were evil beyond any notion of redemption or understanding.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Animosity. Of course Kirk had shown that from the episodes dealing with certain Klingons, and was displayed in V but for Kirk to want all Klingons to die because of his son's murder after clearly avenging it doesn't make any sense. Could an event where innocent Federation citizens were victimized by Klingons draw those kinds of feelings? Absolutely. I needed context before Kirk's introduction in TUC to present justification for him to want all Klingons killed. From the scenes in the beginning of the movie through the assassination, the Klingons were portrayed as victims while the Enterprise crew were seen as ill fitted for such an important assignment and were conspirators. I didn't buy into it, the movie required more context, and it desperately needed a moment where Kirk meet Klingons who were not what he thought of them in the context of TUC.

 

[Maurice]

Animosity. Of course Kirk had shown that from the episodes dealing with certain Klingons, and was displayed in V but for Kirk to want all Klingons to die because of his son's murder after clearly avenging it doesn't make any sense.

One more time, with feeling...

Oh come on. Kirk's "let them die" is just the anger of the moment, and you can see from the look on his face he immediately regrets saying it.

 

[JamesRye]

The answer to the OP is that Starfleet and Spock want 'brand recognition'. What better way to make a statement and advocate for peace than by sending the enemy of the Klingons to meet with their chancellor and escort him through Federation space. After all, they think it's glorified escort mission. And what a way for Kirk to retire.

Kirk is upset that he is to be the first olive-branch to peace as he is so close to retirement. Spock retorts with the line “Only Nixon could go to china…” meaning that as Kirk is infamous in the Klingon Empire, no-one could accuse him of being sympathetic to the Klingon cause or doubt the sincerity of the Federation towards peace.

I love this scene, Kirk and Spock are at opposite ends of the table, never further apart. Shrouded in darkness (a budget limitation maybe). It's very powerful and Shatner is awesome in it.

I happen to unabashedly love TUC - I think it's a masterpiece and even better than TWOK. Here's a nice article for those who want to dig a little deeper:
https://ew.com/article/2016/06/07/star-trek-vi-undiscovered-country-geekly/

and my own take (back when I used to blog about such things):
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/star-trek-vi-the-undiscovered-country-film-review/

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

Which is my problem-there's no acknowledging past Klingon problematic behaviors in the past, stating that anyone who opposes it is wrong.

The film is also way too ham-fisted and amateurish to develop the kind of nuance you're looking for. That would have required a fairly extensive rewrite.

This is where I really mourn the loss of Saavik in the film. She as a character could have straddled the line and offered a deeper and more pointed criticism of the Klingon Empire than the "they're evil subhuman creatures who deserve to all die" garbage we got.

Saavik could have had a real justification to hate the Klingons for David's death, since unlike Kirk we never saw her move beyond it. The last time we saw her was in the throes of her grief, and it makes sense that she could have remained trapped in the amber of pain and vengeance. Kirk's racism made no sense for the character, but hers absolutely could have. And using a beloved established character instead of cardboard cutout that was Valeris would have given her argument actual weight. Cartoonish moustache-twirling evil would have been a deep moral conundrum. Saavik might even have been right to do what she did.

I maintain that once they decided to ditch Saavik, they should have also ditched that whole treason/conspiracy plot. But now again we're getting back to the whole "ham-fisted and amateurish" problem.

 

[fireproof78]

The film is also way too ham-fisted and amateurish to develop the kind of nuance you're looking for. That would have required a fairly extensive rewrite.

I find it just fine.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

but for Kirk to want all Klingons to die because of his son's murder after clearly avenging it doesn't make any sense.

Again, killing Kruge did not "avenge" David's murder. There is no "one for one" satisfaction for the death of someone who murdered a loved one. It simply does not work that way. TUC realistically depicted Kirk as someone who had justifiable hatred for the Klingons for the ultimate, unforgivable crime (and a history of barbarism that left no self-correcting light at the end of the tunnel).

 

[STEPhon IT]

<Snickers>, Trek_God_1, realistically--really??? There was nothing realistic about Kirk's depiction in TUC; it was more as an exaggeration of blind hatred, and that's okay. The movie's weakness is its lack of support from Kirk's antagonists, or so called antagonists; the Klingons were not displaying hatred - just him and his cohorts. Decent movie btw but the substance was lacking, great SFX tho. At least that doesn't get old.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

<Snickers>, Trek_God_1, realistically--really??? There was nothing realistic about Kirk's depiction in TUC; it was more as an exaggeration of blind hatred, and that's okay. The movie's weakness is its lack of support from Kirk's antagonists, or so called antagonists; the Klingons were not displaying hatred - just him and his cohorts. Decent movie btw but the substance was lacking, great SFX tho. At least that doesn't get old.

Centering hatred of a group who count a murderer of a loved one among their number is more realistic than you can imagine, and has happened time and again, no matter the culture or region. Kirk's realistic reaction was just one of the reasons he was the most textured, relatable lead characters (certainly among captains) in the franchise's history. He's not standing on the steps of an ivory tower, droning professorial, soulless BS shared by no one else. Instead, he represented a familiar balance--of the troubles of heart and mind, which is just one of the reasons he's as much a representation of ST as anything or anyone.

 

[fireproof78]

Centering hatred of a group who count a murderer of a loved one among their number is more realistic than you can imagine, and has happened time and again, no matter the culture or region. Kirk's realistic reaction was just one of the reasons he was the most textured, relatable lead characters (certainly among captains) in the franchise's history. He's not standing on the steps of an ivory tower, droning professorial, soulless BS shared by no one else. Instead, he represented a familiar balance--of the troubles of heart and mind, which is just one of the reasons he's as much a representation of ST as anything or anyone.

Yup. The psychology of Kirk, regardless of the film's other failings Kirk's complexity is perfectly on display. Kirk is a flawed man and will take that as part of growing.

 

[JamesRye]

Everyone changes over time. In general, people get more conservative as they age (in general). Who knows what else happened to Kirk between V and VI. In the novel, Carol Marcus is also killed by the Klingons at the beginning! making his hatred more understandable.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

Everyone changes over time. In general, people get more conservative as they age (in general). Who knows what else happened to Kirk between V and VI.

It was set just a couple years after TFF. That's one of the problems. The second problem is that we shouldn't have to extrapolate and make up events to fill their plot and character holes; the film itself should have done that.

In the novel, Carol Marcus is also killed by the Klingons at the beginning! making his hatred more understandable.

If only they had put that in the film, Kirk wouldn't have been so wildly out of character. But unfortunately, we can only go with what they gave us. And what they gave us was both clumsy and insufficient.

 

[fireproof78]

It was set just a couple years after TFF. That's one of the problems. The second problem is that we shouldn't have to extrapolate and make up events to fill their plot and character holes; the film itself should have done that.

Kirk's half-hearted acceptance of Klingons at a light reception on the Enterprise is about as indicative of a change of heart as Kang and Kirk laughing at the end of "Day of the Dove."

Everyone changes over time. In general, people get more conservative as they age (in general). Who knows what else happened to Kirk between V and VI. In the novel, Carol Marcus is also killed by the Klingons at the beginning! making his hatred more understandable.

I agree that would add one more motivator, but I don't think he needed more. Watching Trek from TOS to the films makes his hatred understandable from the jump. The only difference is that the Kirk in the film contradicts prior fan assumption of a rather flawless hero with a winning smile.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Everyone changes over time. In general, people get more conservative as they age (in general). Who knows what else happened to Kirk between V and VI. In the novel, Carol Marcus is also killed by the Klingons at the beginning! making his hatred more understandable.

TUC did not need Carol to be killed by Klingons to justify Kirk's hatred--his son was murdered by Klingons, and that was more than enough to support Kirk's feelings. Again, it was one of the most realistic reactions / motivations for behavior in the franchise's history, as it parallels real world reactions / emotions.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Actually, Carol was just badly injured in the novelization and recovered in the end. But it didn't help Captain Kirk in trying to make peace with the Klingons.

 

[JamesRye]

TUC did not need Carol to be killed by Klingons to justify Kirk's hatred--his son was murdered by Klingons, and that was more than enough to support Kirk's feelings. Again, it was one of the most realistic reactions / motivations for behavior in the franchise's history, as it parallels real world reactions / emotions.

I agree with you on this. Like I say, such grievances can fester over time. I hear and understand people's complaints that his hatred seemed out of character after V. But in V, the situation was somewhat different, and don't forget, he aint exactly pleased to see them, when the ship appears, he says:
so, its me you want you klingon bastards!

Then he has a dinner with them - which I guess he felt he had to do after being rescued from 'God'

 

[JonnyQuest037]

IIRC, early drafts of the script had Carol Marcus either killed or injured during a Klingon attack.

No, I don't believe that's true. Nicholas Meyer and Denny Martin Flinn had a scene that opened with Kirk in bed with Carol Marcus before Kirk is called away by a mysterious Starfleet messenger with a glowing hand. That's what was cut from the film. (It was never shot, as STVI was on a very tight budget and the gathering of the crew scenes would've cost about $1 million to shoot.) Flinn later recycled these scenes in his Star Trek novel The Fearful Summons.

J.M. Dillard had a scene in her STVI novelization that had Carol injured in one of the Klingon's secret test attacks with Chang's cloaked Bird of Prey, but that was Dillard's own invention, not something she drew from the script.

Yes, but that's impossible to reconcile with what we saw him experience in the film immediately before. From what we just saw with Kirk, with Scotty, with Chekov, to have them learn respect for Klingons and learn to see Klingons as individual beings (some worthy of respect) in one film and then flip to genocidal racists in the next film beggars belief.

We have no indication that everything was hunky dory with the Klingons after STV. For all we know, the reception aboard the Enterprise-A at the end of the film ended with a gigantic bar brawl, or there was some heinous diplomatic incident that soured Federation/Klingon relations soon after. All we really need to know is that the Klingons and Federation aren't in a great place diplomatically at the beginning of STVI, and it's not hard to imagine any number of reasons as to how or why that happened.

It was set just a couple years after TFF. That's one of the problems.

Star Trek V is set in 2287 according to the official ST Chronology. STVI is set in 2293. That's six years. A LOT can happen in six years.