But the dialog makes it clear that her powers are kaput, and the couple will both age normally now.
The Companion's Plan
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
But the dialog makes it clear that her powers are kaput, and the couple will both age normally now.
There's no way to verify that claim, of course. But it certainly serves a purpose - of stopping our heroes from trying to contact Cochrane again. If he's officially dead and wants to spend a happy second middle age with a pretty woman, Kirk has little business intruding. But if he's all that and immortal, sooner or later the "let the old man have his fun" angle would cease to matter and the urge to hunt down and interro... interview a figure of history would override the privacy concerns. And the Companion doesn't appreciate that.
Now, about the asteroid being the source of power for the Companion... The beast captured the shuttlecraft by physically flying there and towing the shuttle. So it is capable of leaving the planetoid and then exerting some unusual powers; the question just becomes how far and what powers.
If the environment is of the Companion's doing, then it could plausibly have moved Cochrane to whatever location it preferred, using Cochrane's defunct spacecraft or the planetoid as the platform and its own powers as the life support system.
So we can't readily argue that the Companion being stuck on the planetoid with Cochrane for a century is proof that it cannot leave, or even that it cannot leave with Cochrane.
We're really relying a lot on the beast's say-so here. Its benevolence or at least indifference is established by its leaving Kirk, Spock and McCoy alive when it had no pressing reason to do so and some reason to kill or otherwise negate them instead. But that's about as far as it goes.
Timo Saloniemi
Now, about the asteroid being the source of power for the Companion... The beast captured the shuttlecraft by physically flying there and towing the shuttle. So it is capable of leaving the planetoid and then exerting some unusual powers; the question just becomes how far and what powers.
If the environment is of the Companion's doing, then it could plausibly have moved Cochrane to whatever location it preferred, using Cochrane's defunct spacecraft or the planetoid as the platform and its own powers as the life support system.
So we can't readily argue that the Companion being stuck on the planetoid with Cochrane for a century is proof that it cannot leave, or even that it cannot leave with Cochrane.
We're really relying a lot on the beast's say-so here. Its benevolence or at least indifference is established by its leaving Kirk, Spock and McCoy alive when it had no pressing reason to do so and some reason to kill or otherwise negate them instead. But that's about as far as it goes.
Timo Saloniemi
Space burial is routine for Starfleet employees, despite starships no doubt possessing enough refrigerator/stasis capacity for hauling the cadavers all the way to whatever disposal ceremony the deceased or the relatives prefer. For all we know, civil servants get the same treatment.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
If the body is months away from family (on Earth?), and bringing her home would involve multiple transfers, then Kirk not producing a body would be considered a normal occurrence.
There would likely be paperwork declaring Hedford deceased, which McCoy would sign off on.
There would likely be paperwork declaring Hedford deceased, which McCoy would sign off on.
I totally reject cromwell's interpretation of the character. It was bad writing and bad acting in a bad movie. My opinion,my course. (Don't get me started on how bad TNG movies are.)
I think everyone is over thinking this episode. It was written in the 60s as a show about the meaning of love and sacrifices. It doesn't stand up to intense scrutiny but, if taken at face value, is one of the feel good shows of the original series.
Feel good? It's supposed to be "feel good" that the Companion was 100% responsible for killing Commissioner Hedford (and thus potentially condemning a world to war if they can't find a replacement fast enough), then taking over her corpse (there's little of Hedford in there) so she can be with someone who never picked up on how the Companion had feelings for him (despite being around her for over 100 years) and was disgusted at the revelation? A guy so shallow he forgot all about his disgust now that she was attractive on the outside?
That's "feel good"?
That's "feel good"?
It's a given that the Companion's interference doomed Hedford. I'm not going to argue that. The survival of "The Man" was all that mattered.
But I think the ending is pretty clear that there was no malice involved, and no plan to "possess" Hedford. It got the idea from Kirk right at the end, when the captain said this...
So Kirk put that idea in its mind.
Now, the moment the Companion joined Hedford, that was that, and it could no longer stop them from leaving:
Then it experienced loneliness and understood why he needed to go:
And, in fact, insisted on it:
Finally, neither were immortal at the end of the story. Both would eventually die:
But I think the ending is pretty clear that there was no malice involved, and no plan to "possess" Hedford. It got the idea from Kirk right at the end, when the captain said this...
...which convinced the Companion that if it "were human there can be love..."
So Kirk put that idea in its mind.
Now, the moment the Companion joined Hedford, that was that, and it could no longer stop them from leaving:
Then it experienced loneliness and understood why he needed to go:
And, in fact, insisted on it:
Finally, neither were immortal at the end of the story. Both would eventually die:
and
and finally...
I suppose I can see those attributes in Corbett's portrayal, Still, I view him in light of the common guy, ordinary Joe type that he usually played. Here, I've always though that he lacked the character heft and inquisitiveness appropriate for someone whose accomplishments were so vital. I sense a vacancy, and as Anwar vounteered, a shallowness as well. Perhaps being imprisoned for 100 years served to anesthetize Cochrane so he came across as the kind of dullard that he does.
On the other hand, despite his wild side disposition, I find Cromwell more convincing of a personality with the determination and iconclastic brilliance to achieve the seminal act that he did. He certainly is much more the vital personality, even given his significantly advanced apparent age than Corbett, though of course the latter had the experience and disposition, perhaps, of a near 200 year old.
This thread seems a bit speculative than most other analytical ones that I've encountered, but I know that isn't really accurate and that the impression is likely mainly because I've never been particularly fond of the episode.
Nonetheless, I do have a simple question for you, Anwar. When you say that the Companion is wholly responsible for Hedford's death, is your meaning the same as a number of other posters, specifically that it would have been an easy task for Hedford to have been cured, just as Cochrane had been, but the Companion chose not to do so as soon as it realized the clear benefit of abstaining to take that action?
I assume that's what you're referring to here, but I just want to be reconciled that's correct.
Last edited:
It's responsible for bringing them there in the first place, and thus away from the treatments Hedford needed. Then it refused to let them leave, which condemned her to death as well as refusing to cure her (which it clearly had the power to do). Then it furthers this by hijacking her dying form to use for itself (all indications are that it's the Companion in total control of the body).
So in more ways than one, it caused her death.
So in more ways than one, it caused her death.
Similar threads
