The reactions--very much real. The selection of crew members with those attitudes before hand could have been stacked against Spock's advantage. Scott remains professional dealing with the very serious situation of getting the shuttle repaired throughout the episode. McCoy always gets away with a little more grumbling even with Kirk around. Spock expects that. McCoy does tone in down later in the series as their friendship grows. The others are never seen again after this episode (Boma, Mears) just like Stiles in "Balance of Terror" and Bailey in "Corbomite Maneuver." Kirk could have been "cleaning house" of questionable crew members while testing Spock. That's why he "has the best crew in the fleet."
The Galileo Seven
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
The only way I can think in that direction is remembering that it was supposed to be a simple survey mission. But that insubordination threatened everyone's lives once it turned out to be an actual dangerous mission. I can't see anyone stacking the deck against Spock like that.
But the episode, don't you think, is about how we need both, but also how we communicate and relate to one another even though we interpret events more logically or more intuitively. As someone more on the emotional side of the spectrum, Spock is the one that seems a little inflexible and unreasonable to me when I watch it. Trying to understand his point of view is a good exercise. I think the writers did a pretty good job of setting it up so that you were forced to consider the value in thinking like the "other" side (which ever that was to you).
As far as the "first command" thing goes, I always figured it just referred to completely independent command, without the captain on the other end of the radio and a short beam-down away. Where the responsibility for all decisions was his alone. That opportunity coming along somewhat late in his career might be explained by him coming up from a science officer background.
A writing mistake pure and simple, confusing second officer with second in command. The same thing happens in Alien, where Ripley is established as third in command, but is also called third officer. The intention in WNMHGB was that Mitchell was not second in command; scripts identify him as junior to Spock and his position as chief helmsman.
A writing mistake pure and simple, confusing second officer with second in command. The same thing happens in Alien, where Ripley is established as third in command, but is also called third officer. The intention in WNMHGB was that Mitchell was not second in command; scripts identify him as junior to Spock and his position as chief helmsman.
Let's face it, TOS got a lot wrong and was often contradictory. With canon today lots of you who are making excuses would crucify the other shows..they simply got the length of Spock's career wrong, end of story. Yes he should have had commands before but this is stated as his first..so that's how I rolled with it.
RAMA
RAMA
There's always that "Spock is an alien" and "Starfleet is futuristic" thing, too. We know there are ways for people in Starfleet to achieve high rank without taking all the steps we might think of as mandatory - there's Commodore Stocker without any experience in ship command, say. Why not accept that Spock has never commanded any sort of a detached unit without a superior officer breathing on his neck? Half of Starfleet probably thinks Spock is a suspicious character to be closely watched, a turncoat from a species of uppity pacifists whose ideas of loyalty often run contrary to human thinking.
As for the "Nth Officer" thing, Starfleet's surprisingly consistent about it: Data gets called second in command within earshot of Riker in "The Battle"... Are there any instances of correct usage in Trek? Perhaps the terminology has undergone a change there?
Timo Saloniemi
As for the "Nth Officer" thing, Starfleet's surprisingly consistent about it: Data gets called second in command within earshot of Riker in "The Battle"... Are there any instances of correct usage in Trek? Perhaps the terminology has undergone a change there?
Timo Saloniemi
I cut the early episodes of TOS a lot more slack on that sort of thing, as they were creating the Star Trek universe as they went along. The format of the show and the general terminology had more or less stabilized by the end of the first season.
Plenty. Spock was called second in command in Space Seed, The Deadly Years, Conscience of the King, Devil in the Dark, Return to Tomorrow and probably more. Riker was called both second in command and first officer in The Icarus Factor when he was considering taking command of another ship. And even if the term were never used it would still be obvious that first officers are second in command because they take over when the captain is absent.
Obvious because in English "second in command" is a well-established and commonly understood term for the person next in line after the commander.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second-in-command
"First officer" comes from the person's position among the captain's assistants, or the master's mates, originally.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second-in-command
"First officer" comes from the person's position among the captain's assistants, or the master's mates, originally.
Eh, I think it's pretty cool that they had the black guy be the most articulate and vocal of the shuttlecraft crew. YMMV.
That's part of the trouble with trying to achieve a nice racial mix in a cast -- People are always going to read in certain things that might not have been intended.
But in no way obvious unless one is familiar with the historical usage. That is, assuming that Riker is the Second Officer should be at least equally obvious given the premise - and that he is First is the sort of illogic that a future organization like Starfleet might well do away with.
And McCoy isn't "ethnic"?
Timo Saloniemi
Sometimes the best choice in terms of racial equality, or gender equality , is to let the black person or woman character be intolerant, or a "villain". Equality means a level playing field, the same chance to fail morally. However, I saw nothing about Boma's words or actions that played into any racial stereotypes.
I always feel like slapping around all the humans for most of that story...
I always feel like slapping around all the humans for most of that story...
I've said this before...the episode really didn't make sense. Why send a shuttlecraft full of people out on a non critical mission when you have a more important mission that should have taken priority? Deliver the drugs for the plague victims first then come back to investigate the quasar. Sure, Kirk tries to justify it by saying he has standing orders to investigate quasars but he's the Captain, he easily could have made a decision to deliver the medical supplies first.
Also, what's the point in sending out 7 people to investigate? What exactly were they going to do? Yeah they were specialists in their field but it's not like each of them had a lot of equipment for their individual investigations. Aside from a tricorder, what else did they have? Were they just going to fly around and give their opinion on things? What's the advantage of sending 7 people instead of a probe? It just didn't make any sense. Kirk should have sent out a probe or 3, delivered the medicine, and then come back if they wanted to investigate further. It's like Kirk deliberately made these bad decisions just to show Commissioner Ferris who was boss.
Also, what's the point in sending out 7 people to investigate? What exactly were they going to do? Yeah they were specialists in their field but it's not like each of them had a lot of equipment for their individual investigations. Aside from a tricorder, what else did they have? Were they just going to fly around and give their opinion on things? What's the advantage of sending 7 people instead of a probe? It just didn't make any sense. Kirk should have sent out a probe or 3, delivered the medicine, and then come back if they wanted to investigate further. It's like Kirk deliberately made these bad decisions just to show Commissioner Ferris who was boss.
But Kirk doesn't have spare time. The very fact that nobody has visited Murasaki before suggests that the unusual shortcut Kirk took in order to deliver the medicine would be rare indeed. And since nobody indicates that Murasaki would be news to Starfleet (it can no doubt be seen from a distance of hundreds of lightyears at least), the failure to investigate it at close range before this must be blamed on lack of resources.
The time window built into the medicine delivery mission is the only one available for studying Murasaki. That Kirk would do it before rather than after delivery is just his judgement call: health issues and science opportunities are both important, but can be simultaneously accommodated here. Perhaps Kirk has already been told to head to direction X when his time window closes, and doubling back to Murasaki would make that inconvenient?
Note also that Kirk is headed for a rendezvous, not a delivery. It makes no difference whether the medicine arrives in the first day of Kirk's time window, or the third - it won't continue to the end users until after the third.
Personally, I feel the writer handled these issues very well indeed, making the overall scenario plausible. The technobabble on why exactly the shuttle got stranded leaves a bit to be desired, but it's a fun thing to rationalize away. What the plot fails to properly establish is why there is hurry - the castaways are in no danger of perishing any time soon. The inability of Kirk to return to this location after his time window closes could no doubt be overruled if lives were at stake...
And conversely, he could easily make the decision to survey the quasarlet first, and so he did.
It seems even Kirk didn't really know. There were four star systems that the team might have surveyed, and Kirk would probably head for the one at the #1 slot on their schedule when hearing of their disappearance - but Kirk indicates no familiarity with such a schedule.
No need to assume they didn't send a probe. Probably they sent two dozen. Plus a shuttle, for tasks probes weren't good at.
The one thing that did seem implicitly ruled out was sending the ship herself, either for the survey or the rescue job. Apparently, mini-quasars aren't good for the health of starships! Which also helps explain why Kirk ordered just warp 1 and not maximum warp when finally departing the region with the survivors on board.
Timo Saloniemi
When I don 't understand a few basic facts in an episode, I figure I'm just missing some information that would make it make more sense. Basic facts like who would be necessary on the mission and who wouldn't be, why a shuttle, why not go to the rendezvous first, etc etc, are not what the episode's about, and they shouldn't be allowed to ruin the episode for anybody. The human situation and people's ways of dealing with it, and each other, are the point. Though it's helpful when all those background details make sense.
It does touch upon this particular episode exceptionally heavily, though, that this specific bunch of characters was onboard. These people are taking sides, so it would be nice to learn a bit about where everybody is coming from, literally and figuratively.
Is Boma there for a reason other than fomenting of mutiny? Is he perhaps more crucial to the survival of the team than McCoy or Scotty? Or should Spock's logic dictate leaving Boma behind to save weight? When people die, what does the team lose (or gain)? With a team this small, every character and line counts, yet it can't be an all-hero team lest everybody be immortal. So why not take a bit of time to introduce the expendables?
Timo Saloniemi
Is Boma there for a reason other than fomenting of mutiny? Is he perhaps more crucial to the survival of the team than McCoy or Scotty? Or should Spock's logic dictate leaving Boma behind to save weight? When people die, what does the team lose (or gain)? With a team this small, every character and line counts, yet it can't be an all-hero team lest everybody be immortal. So why not take a bit of time to introduce the expendables?
Timo Saloniemi
It's not historical usage, it's the standard usage. A writer who uses the terms in a non-standard way has likely just made a mistake, as I said before.
But what is your position here? That writers intentionally used "second officer" once for the character established many times as "first officer," and used "second in command" once for the equally well-established "second officer" character to eliminate some sort of problematic "illogic" in the use of those terms? Do those two lines qualify as "surprisingly consistent" usage of the terms when there are so many others that use them the other (standard) way?
I guess my point is that the writers surprisingly consistently make the same kind of mistake. Which stems from the fact that the standard usage is so counterintuitive, and thus something a show depicting a bright future might decide to do away with. Clearly, Star Trek has not done so, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
