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

[Guy Gardener]

Agreed. And I don't buy Kirk hating an entire race of Klingons because of a small group of douchebags murdered his son. Kruge and those idiots don't represent the entire race but you wouldn't find that in this clunky movie. The climax of Star Trek III and Star Trek V would have to be ignored in order for this ridiculous sub-plot to work; remember when Kirk boarded the bird of prey in III, right before Genesis exploded, he aims a disrupter at a unarmed Klingon and his point of view he didn't deserve to live. Typical Kirk blew him off and mentioned he'll kill him later and off to Vulcan; Kirk already resolved his issue with the person who killed his son by kicking that @sshole into molten lava.

American propaganda was strong 1949 through 1989.

Every Russian was the enemy and every Russian was coming to kill us, and that's why we would cheer if a thousand ICBMs launched and struck the USSR.

We lived in fear of being nuked, and no second of the day was without worry that Russia would wig out and kill our children and parents.

They were a deadly monolith, and it was foolish to think otherwise.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Obviously the US government and Hollywood were lying, and treating us like stupid children, and my only defense was that in the 80s, I was a stupid child.

 

[fireproof78]

And only after Kruge rejected Kirk's minutes-earlier offer of saving his life because Kirk was still sincere and taking the high road despite it all. Kirk was complex.

There's nothing between III and VI that makes the line "I've never trusted Klingons and I never will" so immutably convincing. Unless Kirk was taking the high road to prevent interstellar war, especially considering the violations he racked up - including commandeering the Klingon ship. But Kruge was already batbleep crazy over the belief the Genesis Device was a tool of destruction, so if Kirk was trying to save his life just for him to tell the judge dude what really happened... On the plus side, with Kruge killed (in justified self-defence), Maltz would more likely tell the truth. Shame STIV glosses over some of those issues altogether.

It all could be read in any number of ways, people do gloss over plot elements as much as storytellers can or might, and some people pretend STV doesn't exist already...

I don't think Kirk hated all Klingons over the actions of a few nutters in the group, that's like how Scotty was said to hate all women because a woman caused an explosion that threw Scotty onto a bulkhead in "Wolf in the Fold" (which is no less cringeworthy). Yet Gene wasn't calling that episode "Apocryphal" either, but the number of Starfleet admirals-gone-bad hadn't had a high enough count for Gene to complain by then anyhow, oddly...

The line "I never trusted Klingons and I never will" was obvious hyperbole to anyone familiar with TOS and the films. Kirk clearly had a history with Klingons (Koloth, Kor, Bob) and there was a contentious relationship, even before Kruge. So, with that in mind the prospect of treating Klingons as potential allies probably sat crossways with him because trust is a big bridge to cross. There's a difference between cooperation and trust.

I like TUC because it works through the different layers of Kirk's history rather than just assuming he is just over his past problems.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

I guess, if you're willing to count ignoring a lot of Kirk's history.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Why would both Starfleet and Spock choose Kirk of all people to meet up with Gorkon?

Spock especially since klingons did kill David back in Star Trek III.

Even Kirk was shocked/surprised that Spock would just vouch for Kirk. For what exactly?

and what the hell was Sulu and his crew doing anyway where they were out in space anyway when Praxis sort of blew up?

Oddly, I think there's another angle to explore than the ones mentioned already in this thread. I think Spock actually overestimated Jim Kirk due to their longstanding friendship and career together. Spock assumes that Kirk will be able to see the historic opportunities for peace between the people as well as look beyond what he considers to be petty bigotry.

Spock seems genuinely surprised at the reaction that Kirk gives. It should also be noted that Kirk actually does TRY to put it all past him and mostly just insults his hosts a few times accidentally.

I think some people overstate Kirk's handling of the situation as he's not happy Spock has put him on this mission without clearing it with him first and he's not overly trusting but he really did make an effort.

Oh, well, I don't necessarily agree that firing a phaser is the problem.

I think it's clear from the premise of the movie that it goes off if phasers set to kill are fired but not phasers set to stun. Hence Valeris kills the two men with phasers at close range. Presumably, this means that phasers can be used a

Sarek was quite familiar with the old concept of the "Vulcan hello," meeting the Klingons with a show of force. For hundreds of years the Vulcans considered this to be essential in dealings with the Klingons. So maybe sending in a battle-hardened soldier like Kirk was the diplomatic equivalent to that.



Kor

This is also true because Kirk is someone the Klingons would respect. Worf is in this movie so we've already established "Klingon warrior culture" as a thing for TUC.

I do think the complaint about "an entire team of diplomats" forgets that SPOCK is the diplomat that is meeting with them, not as a member of Starfleet. Also, Federation captains are expected to perform the role of diplomat when the time calls on it.

Agreed. And I don't buy Kirk hating an entire race of Klingons because of a small group of douchebags murdered his son. Kruge and those idiots don't represent the entire race but you wouldn't find that in this clunky movie. The climax of Star Trek III and Star Trek V would have to be ignored in order for this ridiculous sub-plot to work; remember when Kirk boarded the bird of prey in III, right before Genesis exploded, he aims a disrupter at a unarmed Klingon and his point of view he didn't deserve to live. Typical Kirk blew him off and mentioned he'll kill him later and off to Vulcan; Kirk already resolved his issue with the person who killed his son by kicking that @sshole into molten lava.

I think reducing Kirk's dislike of the situation to racism was a failure on the part of the movie because there's a difference between disliking a man became of his species or ethnicity in Star Trek and disliking someone because they are a member of a hostile authoritarian government. Gorkon isn't just a random Klingon, he's the head of the conquering imperialist and slavery-filled TOS Klingons.

People also say American propaganda but some of my relatives are Eastern European and their opinion of the Soviet Union is, well, pure and undying hatred for very real suffering. Kirk knows people like "Private Little War" and of course Star Trek III that the Klingon government has engaged in many-many war crimes as matters of policy.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

I think reducing Kirk's dislike of the situation to racism was a failure on the part of the movie because there's a difference between disliking a man became of his species or ethnicity in Star Trek and disliking someone because they are a member of a hostile authoritarian government. Gorkon isn't just a random Klingon, he's the head of the conquering imperialist and slavery-filled TOS Klingons.

People also say American propaganda but some of my relatives are Eastern European and their opinion of the Soviet Union is, well, pure and undying hatred for very real suffering. Kirk knows people like "Private Little War" and of course Star Trek III that the Klingon government has engaged in many-many war crimes as matters of policy.

I really like this take, but think you're asking for a lot more nuance than that ham-fisted script was capable of.

That's what's so frustrating; there's a really great and meaningful story there, but they weren't able to find it.

 

[Yistaan]

Although it's not officially canon, the PC game Starfleet Academy has Kirk lecturing cadets that you can't hate/stereotype Klingons etc. I think. Basically that was Kirk's official and public stance and only we the audience get to see what he really feels in the movie, that he blames them for killing David, regardless of if he's intellectually aware that an entire race can't be blamed for one incident only a few took part in.

Also keep in mind we don't know what Kirk's experiences are during Discovery's Klingon war. That may also contribute to his hatred of Klingons. Perhaps Strange New Worlds will go into this.

 

[Airmandan]

The impression I got from the movie was that most of the senior staff were moving on to other roles in the fleet and were all thrown together for the mission. McCoy apparently has no idea the Sulu was a captain, Uhura was in instructor at the Academy. I think Spock was the one tasked by Starfleet to do the mission, and he requested his friends be included. When the conspirators did their planning, the idea was probably that Kirk would never surrender and would never willingly go abord the Klingon ship. He'd tell the Klingons to go to hell, shots would be fired, and the war would be on.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess, if you're willing to count ignoring a lot of Kirk's history.

I don't see how.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

The impression I got from the movie was that most of the senior staff were moving on to other roles in the fleet and were all thrown together for the mission.

Honestly, the clear implication is that the whole crew is retiring when the ship is decommissioned. Kirk says about as much to Spock at the beginning.

Which doesn't make a lick of sense, but that's The Undiscovered Country for you.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

I don't see how.

You have to ignore Star Trek III, where he quite deliberately refuses to hold Maltz responsible for the death of his son.

You have to ignore Star Trek V, where he expresses admiration for Koord (as does the whole crew, which makes the "Guess who's coming to dinner" line even more reprehensible). Where the resolution in the third act is that you can't hold the Klingon government or all Klingons responsible for the actions of a single Klingon captain.

Heck, you have to ignore the part of Star Trek IV where the Klingon Ambassador is clearly shown to be hyperbolic when he claims Kirk is prejudiced against Klingons. Where Kirk is strongly defended by the Federation Council President and Sarek.

So sure, if you're willing to ignore everything that happens in those three films, if you're willing to overlook those years of character development, then The Undiscovered Country does indeed "work through the different layers of Kirk's history".

 

[fireproof78]

You have to ignore Star Trek III, where he quite deliberately refuses to hold Maltz responsible for the death of his son.

You have to ignore Star Trek V, where he expresses admiration for Koord (as does the whole crew, which makes the "Guess who's coming to dinner" line even more reprehensible). Where the resolution in the third act is that you can't hold the Klingon government or all Klingons responsible for the actions of a single Klingon captain.

Heck, you have to ignore the part of Star Trek IV where the Klingon Ambassador is clearly shown to be hyperbolic when he claims Kirk is prejudiced against Klingons. Where Kirk is strongly defended by the Federation Council President and Sarek.

So sure, if you're willing to ignore everything that happens in those three films, if you're willing to overlook those years of character development, then The Undiscovered Country does indeed "work through the different layers of Kirk's history".

I don't think you have to ignore anything. I think it's just layers inside the character.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

It could have layered the character.

It should have.

But again, that would have required a lot more nuance than The Undiscovered Country was either interested in or capable of. Instead of layering, we have a Kirk who has suddenly become openly and virulently racist. To the point of genocide? Instead of building on what has come before, we have to ignore all his character development to that point.

 

[Yistaan]

It could have layered the character.

It should have.

But again, that would have required a lot more nuance than The Undiscovered Country was either interested in or capable of. Instead of layering, we have a Kirk who has suddenly become openly and virulently racist. To the point of genocide? Instead of building on what has come before, we have to ignore all his character development to that point.

I saw it as Kirk taking Nolan Batman's line "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" in regards to his "Let them die" feelings regarding the Klingons.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I saw it as Kirk taking Nolan Batman's line "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" in regards to his "Let them die" feelings regarding the Klingons.

I saw it as Kirk clearly being out of character. Following that his Captain's log was bizarre and unprofessional... this is not the character.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

Yeah, it was clearly out of character. Nothing in his history led up to that.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Why would it, the man had dedicated his life and military tour of duty to find the better of people and risked his life for those betterment of races, defend those who didn't think better of themselves and strived to seek what they couldn't see or endeavor within themselves... including Klingons. The non-sense of VI beloved by fans is a sign of their admiration for the filmmaker than what he actually presented on screen.

 

[suarezguy]

You have to ignore Star Trek III, where he quite deliberately refuses to hold Maltz responsible for the death of his son.

So sure, if you're willing to ignore everything that happens in those three films, if you're willing to overlook those years of character development, then The Undiscovered Country does indeed "work through the different layers of Kirk's history".

He knew Maltz wanted him to kill him which was as joke part of why he didn't "You said you'd kill me later" "I lied" That he's not gratuitously murderous to a lackey doesn't mean he doesn't still think quite badly of him, definitely isn't inconsistent with thinking that there's not an obligation to save Klingons. And while VI didn't showing his look of regret after saying "Let them die!" his next line changing the subject still feels like regretful, like trying to de-escalate from the position.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

I don't know, that's a real stretch.

You have to really tie yourself into knots, ignoring what we see on screen and inferring things that we don't ever see, to make that level of racism seem even vaguely appropriate for Kirk's character.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

And then again, we haven't even begun to deal with the reprehensible racism shown by the rest of the characters.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I might've agreed, but as we've seen in the present day, racism tends to go underground when things are good. When things are not so good, it comes bubbling back up.