It matters to Kirk!
Undiscovered Country Dinner Scene
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
The novelverse tackled this subject in The Typhon Pact series, it would have made for an entertaining Deep Space 9 plotline. Just imagine after the Dominion war the Bajorans decide to go it alone and to hell with the Federation lol
Roddenberry torpedoed just such a story in TNG. "It would never happen" said the Great Bird.
(I forget the story. It became a struggle to leave another government.)I'd say none of it is propaganda for two reasons: 1) Kirk claims he is an eye-witness to Klingon worlds. We're supposed to take Kirk at his word. And 2) We see Kor employ the exact methods that Kirk described.
I'm always sickened by the ending where "it's all OK because no-one really died, so Kor is fine." It doesn't change that he thought he was having hundreds of Organians killed. He didn't threaten it, he carried it out.
The Klingons started out as an occupying empire obviously styled after the Soviet Union to at least a degree. Throughout TOS they were treacherous and expansionist. (They HAVE never been trustworthy. Day of the Dove is an exception. OK, ALMOST never.) Then as we moved into TNG and with the evolving metaphor of the Empire taking on the real world glasnost they became merely hot-headed biker vikings. We never saw any of the member worlds of the Empire. It became all about Qo'noS. Hence in TUC if Qo'noS then the Klingons are dying.
Another plot point in TUC that bugged the daylights out of me was people kept talking about "mothballing the fleet". Even given the (mostly incorrect) argument that Starfleet is ENTIRELY a defensive operation, there are other reasons to keep a defensive fleet. With TUC being rather transparently based on real world events the United States was making some reductions in force with the dissolution of the USSR, but hardly "mothballing the fleet".
To the topic at hand (the dinner scene) I always felt that it made the Klingons look more foolish than it intended. TUC takes a lot of short cuts (in a very J.J. Abrams manner). There feel like a lot of places where the script had a scratched in note "So and so says something offensive or ignorant" and when they went back to fill in the actual dialog they didn't get much past the temporary note. The two knuckledraggers in the transporter room are a good example. "They all look alike." Ohhhhh. They must be RACIST. The fact that the performers are terrible makes it worse.
The whole debate of the word "inalienable" and "human rights" is clumsy at least. If Azetbur was meant to be a more ignorant character then I might buy it. As it is she comes of as being offended because she wants to be offended. I also don't see Chekov using the word "human" in this context.
The only moment that really lands is Kirk and Chang and "Earth, Hitler, 1938." (Kirk must have been doing some studying since City on the Edge of Forever.)
Oh, and to take it full circle, I hate it when Klingons are discussed in terms of "race". They are an entire culture and government behaving in ways inimical to the Federation's interests and ideals. If they were blue eyed blonds from Space Kansas the relationship would not be any different. (OK, the original TOS Fu Manchu makeup might not have helped.)
TUC always felt like one or two drafts away from being the perfect Star Trek movie. And the dinner scene (and the heat seeking torpedo) are probably the most emblematic of this.
I will pick up on this element because as an outsider in my culture I can understand where Azetbur is coming from. Words matter, especially when one is treating another culture as 'the other'. The fact that for whatever reason TOS and its movies had all but one of its Heads of department and crew, human beings working for an intergalactic Federation, whose main defensive arm, Starfleet, seems to have 99% human beings from North America (Ok I exaggerate) as its employees, says to an outsider there is not much of a Rainbow coalition taking place in Starfleet or the Federation. Note, there was not one nonhuman Starfleet Admiral in that top secret meeting.
Chekov was speaking from a position of Terran privilege, since humans are the top dogs in the Federation, its not an equitable alliance and it takes an outsider to point it out.
It was an ignorant and offensive statement to make, humans are not the default sentient species of the Federation. I am glad she called him out on it.
Well, we're given two groups, the Federation / Starfleet delegation and the Klingon one. No, Humans are not the default sentient species of the Federation. We see a range of species on the Enterprise and if not for real world budgets I imagine we would see more. The Klingons are the default sentient species of the Empire.
Once we leave the Enterprise and the Excelsior and go to Khitomer we do see a Rainbow coalition as the real-world production breaks out every non-human they can (as they did in Star Trek IV) and the Federation is led by a non-Terran. The only place we see non-Klingons in the Empire is in jail. (And guarded by Klingons.)
As I might imagine an old country doctor phrasing it: "Lady, you got a a lot of nerve."
I might also add to Brigadier Kerla: go take it to the Romulan Star Empire and see how much help they'll be. For that matter, if tables were turned and it were the Federation facing extinction, how much do you think the Klingons would have been interested in an "olive branch".
(Is this the same 'old country doctor' who spends part of his career racially abusing his colleague/friend for comic relief?)
Anyway in the Star Trek franchise the real life pattern for the Federation was an idealised image of the USA, the pattern for the Klingons was the United States stereotype image of the then Soviet Union. The TUC was a blatant Star Trek version of real world politics. In the franchise the Klingons never claim to be the arbitar of racial/species harmony and democracy. The Federation, however is often portrayed as the good guys; evil, dodgy human Admirals being the exception to the rule, which is why I suspect the audience is meant to find Kirk and his crew's prejudicial behaviour shocking, so shocking that is said Nichelle Nichols refused to say one of the lines that was too close to home for real life, racial politics and Brock Peters was uncomfortable with some of the lines his character had to say. These are two pioneers who lived the real experience that the idealised USA portrayed to the world. Chekov's statement was about as welcome as a 'Make America great again' speech, just replace 'America' for 'Humans' in that scene and that is how it comes across.
The onus is not on the Klingons to show themselves as worthy, since they never claimed to be, the onus is on the Federation to show an outsider those noble, 'we are the world' Federation values they claim to have. In that scene Kirk and his crew blew it, and Chekov's statement shows us why.
As Gorkon wisely observed, 'we have a long way to go'.
Last edited:
Christopher Plummer was good, but all the Shakespeare stuff was way over the top.
Instead, they should have brought Korax back and had another good fistfight....or food fight....or a food fight that becomes a fistfight.
Instead, they should have brought Korax back and had another good fistfight....or food fight....or a food fight that becomes a fistfight.
Was that Chekhov's "Guess who's coming to dinner?" Pretty sure that's a really loaded quote from somewhere??
It was the title of a movie where a white woman introduces her (rich) black fiancé to her vaguely racist parents. I believe the line Nichelle actually refused to say was, "Would you let your daughter marry one?"
What a startling concept.
"We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable human rights."
Chekov's statement was made to apply to the Klingons as much as anyone and Azetbur rather churlishly snarled at him over translation. (Which the script very clumsily decided that the scene needed. Which is kind of what this thread is about.)
There is a scene in Diane Duane's Spock's World where Sarek wonders at the idea of being on a world where others will call themselves "human beings", indicating that the word is more about "people" than homo sapiens. Kirk's summation that "everybody's human" backs this up.
Again, TUC relies unfortunately on race. How can our stalwart Federation heroes rub elbows with all manner of otherworldly critter from Vulcans to Tellarites to Hortas to Efrosians (the Federation President) and Ensign Dax (no, not that one) but everyone suddenly gets the screaming heebie jeebies over Klingons?
The objection is not to the head bumps, it's that they are an untrustworthy and authoritarian culture with a history of invasion and the killing of Federation citizens. Kirk is somehow a backwards drooling racist for not trusting Klingons as a government. Day of the Dove stands out as the ONLY time in 25 years where that would have been OK. Even in The Time Trap when he had offered his and his crew's hand in friendship and cooperation they tried to kill him.
They ask Kirk if he would be willing to give up the Starfleet. No one asks Kang (or Kerla if you want to pick a possible non-conspirator) if they are willing to give up theirs. The Federation would hold together without Starfleet (although it would be vulnerable). How do the Klingons maintain an Empire without a navy?
In universe if I was non human, a member of a Federation world I would find that line racist, especially if I was an Andorian, Tellarite or Vulcan, fellow founding members.
It implies the way humans live is morally superior to others, he should have said "We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable sentient rights" even if he said "We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable Federation rights." It would be less clumsy.
Another arrogant statement.
Last edited:
Based on that dinner scene, it appears for decades, some of the humans of the Federation treat the other Federation members as honorary humans, Chekov's statement was a slip of his subconscious cultural mindset. It was not one of his everything comes from Russia jokes.
I hope he is not one of those humans that tell his non human friends that he does not see colour, or antenna or whatever non human features they might have.
If I were non-human and living in the Federation, I would find this statement completely fine. Language has certain idiosyncracies and there's nothing strange about a human language using the word 'human' to mean 'people'. And the statement should by rights be translated into all the other languages relevant to the occasion, so each person should read/hear it in their own idiom. The only situation in which I would have a problem is if English is actually the default language in the Federation, and not just the language that the audience hears most of the time. In that case, the language should go through a period of adjustment to make it more appropriate for everyone. But I see no reason to believe that's the case.
Perhaps you would, however if your real life experience is one where historically you have to make waves for the right to be culturally seen and heard, where your appearance is not considered a default of humanity, you might think differently.
From what I recall the official language of Earth and the Federation is 'Standard' or maybe this is a novelverse concept? Standard seems to be American English, considering in RL it is a language used in the aviation industry and commerce I can buy a United Earth having it as one of the official languages (there is no way the French will not say something about excluding French lol). Maybe English is an easy language for aliens to learn? If the Head office of the Federation was on Vulcan, then one of their languages would be the Standard.
Last edited:
I don't believe 'Standard' is American English at all, I believe it is something completely different that the audience hears as American English, just like the audience hears dozens of totally alien languages as American English.
That, of course, is the entire point. If Chekov is speaking Standard and the 'standard' phrase is actually comparable to 'inalienable human rights' instead of 'fundamental rights' or something similar, then that is a problem and I would agree with you. But if Chekov is speaking English and his words are being translated by the UT to Standard (or to Klingon, maybe?) which generally seems to be standard practice on ST (everyone speaks in their own language and understands each other anyway), then the ethnocentric element of the idiomatic phrase should not be translated at all, and it would be ridiculous to pull out his original english statement and criticize that for including a standard english idiom that has existed since before humans even knew non-human civilization existed.
Last edited:
That's why it's a problem with the WRITING. Pavel Chekov didn't quote the United States Declaration of Independence verbatim, Nick Meyer did. There's either a language problem (which would show up a heck of a lot more often than in that one exchange) or there isn't.
There would be plenty of ways for these totally separate cultures to get on each other's nerves. One is a warrior expansionist culture that has been causing trouble for its neighbors for a hundred years or more. Another has been tsk tsking and playing the saint for the same period.
And they fight about race and word choice. (And aren't the Feds pretty damn polite to let the Klingons appropriate Shakespeare?)
If this is really supposed to be an end of the cold war parable with the Fed standing in for the U.S. and the Klingons as the U.S.S.R. then why the hell is race an issue? If it were really EARTH and the Klingon Empire then that might be OK.
OTOH maybe the racially homogeneous Klingons are projecting? (I wonder what The Merchant of Venice is like in the original Klingon?)
There would be plenty of ways for these totally separate cultures to get on each other's nerves. One is a warrior expansionist culture that has been causing trouble for its neighbors for a hundred years or more. Another has been tsk tsking and playing the saint for the same period.
And they fight about race and word choice. (And aren't the Feds pretty damn polite to let the Klingons appropriate Shakespeare?)
If this is really supposed to be an end of the cold war parable with the Fed standing in for the U.S. and the Klingons as the U.S.S.R. then why the hell is race an issue? If it were really EARTH and the Klingon Empire then that might be OK.
OTOH maybe the racially homogeneous Klingons are projecting? (I wonder what The Merchant of Venice is like in the original Klingon?)
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
But seriously, I agree writing in this manner was odd and somewhat undermines the scene. As an 'in-universe' interpretation, I'm basically left to assume that these Klingons have taught themselves to understand English (apparently by reading Shakespeare) and are completely ignoring the fact that English isn't a language anyone expected them to understand and the conversation was intended to be understood in Standard, which obviously seriously impacts the connotations of what is being said. They are deliberately taking offense for the sake of taking offense.
Having said that, Star Trek has made similar logic gaffes dozens, maybe hundreds of times. It's kind of part of the franchise at this point.
I can't argue with that.
I've come to call it the Space: 1999 effect: When your high-minded 2001 level movie turns into 1960's TV before your eyes.
To me that's the difference between TWOK and TUC. I don't see the holes watching TWOK. I can if I look for them. But the story and the writing caries me past them. In TUC I always know what they mean, I just don't think they get there.
I think Meyer had more people saying "No" to him on TWOK. (Other than money. He had a lot of people telling him "No" on TUC about money.) As a writer and director who speaks often about the advantages of limitations I'm not sure he had enough on this.
Or maybe it was all Nimoy's fault.
I'll say it again: If TUC had had the grace and sure footedness of TWOK it would have been the superior movie.
Similar threads
