STVI without the racism
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
McCoy also seemed fine with Vulcans in all other interactions, it was just Spock the individual that he needled. I think if there was any racism, it was the half-Vulcan race, as McCoy was truly a man of emotion, and the idea that any human, even a half-human, would so entirely reject all emotion was what really got him upset.
I remember one episode in particular (can't remember the title), Spock got taken over by an alien super-power, and the super-power liked the idea of invading Vulcan and turning them into warriors. McCoy looked aghast and emotionally shouted, "You can't! Vulcans value peace above all else!" He spoke as someone who viewed the Vulcans as members of his family (the big Federation idealism family-kind) and respected them and their ways.
It was just Spock the individual that annoyed the living hell out of him.
I always thought a great TOS episode would have been one where a full-blood Vulcan served aboard the Enterprise temporarily, and Bones got along with him swimingly, probably more so than Spock would.
Believe it or not, this exact idea was discussed for the Xon character in the Phase II series, only on a more permanent basis.
--Sran
The dynamic between Spock and McCoy was never racism. Yes, they got on each others nerves, but when it counted, their friendship mattered demonstrably. After all Spock entrusted McCoy with his Katra. Then McCoy basically pleads with the unconscious Spock to hang on, saying "I don't think I could stand to lose you again."
But why was it missing in Star Trek 5? He seemed pretty ok with them it that film. What changed between TFF and TUC?
Gene Roddenberry considered STVI to be apocraphyl, because he believed the Starfleet officers of his universe to be beyond racism - as we prevously saw in "Day of the Dove" (and at the end of V, which Gene disliked for other reasons)
STVI changed the characters, for the worse, to suit it's story. I've always throught it the most overrated of the movies.
STVI changed the characters, for the worse, to suit it's story. I've always throught it the most overrated of the movies.
Because TFF was poorly written and poorly executed. David's murder doesn't even get a nod in that film.
I respectfully disagree with the late Mr. Roddenberry. I don't think anyone can truly be beyond racism. I do, however, think we can be trained to curb those tendencies.
I agree. Biases and prejudices against people of other races, cultures, and sexual orientations will always be present. It's what people do to work around those things that's important.
--Sran
Society is all about prejudice anyway: about drawing a cordon outside which things are wrong and inside which they are right. The unfortunate thing is, "race" is such a vague thing that whenever you define a characteristic your society won't tolerate, you can also define a group of people, a "race", to go with the intolerance. You don't tolerate perversion, fine, that's a valid choice for a society (among others) - but you then invent the "race" of, say, homosexuals or Turks or Samaritans to go with that, and equate everybody who fits the extremely vague parameters of this made-up "race" of yours with the perversion you have opted to hate. You hate property theft - and you then invent a "race" of poor black youngsters and define property theft that way. That's racism, even though the original hatred is just the basic building blocks of society, and very welcome and not to be avoided.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Or because Kirk was capable of separating the actions of an individual Klingon(Kruge) from the responsibility of an entire race for those actions.
Why would he have brought it up in reference to Klaa or Korrd, neither of whom had anything to do with it?
Someone should have told that to Lt. Stiles.
I believe that was "Bread and Circuses" one of my favorite episodes.
In that same episode there is another great scene between McCoy and Spock when they are locked up away from Kirk.True dat.
I understood and agreed with Kirk's animosity, to a certain extent. But, my only gripe with Star Trek VI is that they carried that animosity too far. Especially with the other crew members.
It is still my second favorite Trek movie, but I can see that one blemish in it.
Exactly... so which is Kirk? The man capable of such an enlightened approach (STV) or the man incapable of seeing past the photo of his murdered son (STVI)? He brings it up even before he's even encountered Chang, Gorkon, and company, none of whom were involved with David. Seeing that depth of feeling from Kirk in TUC just makes me wonder where it was in TFF.
Touche
Both are Kirk. I don't think his behavior's inconsistent at all. Think of it this way (and I apologize if this example is offensive to anyone): given the social and political climate of the United States today, it's likely most people would answer they don't have a problem with gay marriage if asked about it. However, I have to question how many of these same people would be willing to be in the wedding party for such an event if one of their friends were marrying his or her partner.
How does that apply to Kirk and the Klingons? Well, anyone can tolerate a group of people for a short time if necessary. The Klingons were guests on his ship, but Kirk knew they would be leaving eventually. By the time TUC rolls around, Kirk is close to retirement from active duty. The Klingons have suffered a major ecological disaster that threatens the safety and security of their government. Kirk's closest firiend has opened a dialogue with their leader to facilitate a peace process.
From Kirk's POV, he's now facing the possibility of sharing the same space lanes with a group of people he's spent so many years fighting against. He might be able to respect them as fellow warriors across a battlefield, but to share the dinner the table with them? Invite them into his home (the Enterprise was his home away from home) after some of them killed his son and threatened his crew? A lot of people might raise the same objections he did if faced with similar circumstances.
--Sran
Written long before Gene Roddenberry started believing his own hype and seeing himself as the visionary behind a better future.
This whole controversy is actually addressed in the DVD supplements -- Meyer and Shatner both discuss the "Let them die!!" scene, bringing up Meyer sneakily trimming Shatner's final, "forget-I-just-said-that"-gesture in the final cut of the picture...and then it actually shows the entire, uncut scene itself. Great stuff.
This, exactly. In The Final Frontier, we actually see Kirk reminiscing fondly over a supposed enemy, General Korrd, as well as rather quickly forgiving (and then partying with) the very Klingon commander who'd just recently attempted to kill not only him, but also potentially his entire crew.
In the very next film, Kirk is a virulent, epithet-spewing near-racist, and it's clear that such an abrupt change in his character, while perhaps understandable in the context of his son's murder, largely comes completely out of nowhere when the events of Star Trek V are taken into account.
Wouldn't these same feelings (occurring much closer to the killing of David, in 2285) have manifested in equal strength during the events of the fifth movie, which takes place in 2287, as opposed to the sixth film, which occurs in 2293?
Or was it more of a critical mass-thing, with all the various things Kirk's witnessed across the decades building and building until he finally reached a stage of unfettered cynicism by the time period of Star Trek VI?
At least one novel, In the Name of Honor, attempted to reconcile this character discrepancy, with Kirk witnessing another wanton, unnecessary slaughter of innocents by Klingon forces (set just after Star Trek V), and reaching something of a final breaking-point in his attitudes.
But in real-world screenwriting terms, such a drastic shift appears almost contrived on the surface.
Last edited: