Review Text
"There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China."
So quoth the sage Spock early in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. It's a sublime line of dialog, cleverly appropriate, because it gets to the heart of what this film is about while at the same time issuing a wink to the audience. The line gets a laugh — not just because it's funny, but also because it conveys a certain cagey poetry. By the time this film has come around, as the original cast prepares to retire, Star Trek is a piece of Americana that has earned its right to be self-referential: Spock isn't really the one telling the joke, because he exists in a fictional mythos where Nixon perhaps is the inspiration for a Vulcan proverb. Spock delivers it straight and means it.
The line is said to Kirk, who has just been informed, much to his dismay, that the Enterprise will be commencing a diplomatic mission to meet with the Klingons, who have extended their own controversial olive branch under the initiative of Chancellor Gorkon (David Warner), a man genuinely interested in a historic negotiated peace. Of course, there's also the more pragmatic impetus: the catastrophic destruction of the Klingon moon Praxis, their key energy-generating facility, which has exploded in the film's attention-getting-with-a-bang prologue. The explosion was witnessed by the captain of the USS Excelsior, Hikaru Sulu.
Starfleet's military hard-liners are not moved, and believe this would be a good time to force the Klingons "to their knees." In a particularly interesting choice by the filmmakers, Admiral Cartwright (Brock Peters) makes an argument that predicts how in peace the Klingons will become "the alien trash of the galaxy." With the line being said by a black actor, Cartwright's prejudice has a disturbing, ironic dimension — even though his race is irrelevant in the movie itself.
Already, in its first 15 minutes, Trek VI has shown more legitimate and literate content than the entire sum of its disastrous predecessor, Star Trek V. Where The Final Frontier was simultaneously ambitious, misguided, and incoherent, The Undiscovered Country is focused and confident about something concrete and in tune with the spirit of Star Trek. As was the goal of many original series episodes, this is a story that exists in the Trek universe while also reflecting upon contemporary world events.
On the original series, the Klingons were often seen as stand-ins for the Soviets, and that definitely is an allegorical point here. In 1991, of course, the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, it was already well along in its wane, but the timing is still eerie. Star Trek VI was released on December 6. Amid the rapid disintegration around him, Gorbachev resigned as president of a dead union on December 25.
In the DVD commentary track, writer/director Nicholas Meyer explicitly admits that Gorkon was supposed to represent Gorbachev, hence the name. And the destruction of Praxis is a very obvious parallel to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. What most characterizes Star Trek VI (other than being the original cast's swan song) is that it's the only historical allegory in the film series.
It's also one of the more demonstratively literate of Trek scripts — even if the film's use of Shakespeare is mostly to spice up the taunting dialog of General Chang (Christopher Plummer). Although, it's Gorkon who says, "You've not experienced Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon."
For these and many other reasons, The Undiscovered Country ranks on my scale among the better of the 10 Trek films (at the high end of the three-star range, it ranks fourth behind Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and The Voyage Home). This is a good, solid film, although not powerful enough to rank as a standout.
The dinner scene provides a reasonable microcosm of the movie. It's a moment of good, classic Star Trek if I've ever seen one. Here we have Starfleet and the Klingons sitting down to a formal dinner on the Enterprise, which provides the opportunity for some expositional give and take — an arena for polemics. Good things are accomplished in this scene: There's Chang saying "to be or not to be" in Klingon; there's Gorkon's daughter (Rosanna DeSoto) criticizing Chekov on his use of the phrase "inalienable human rights"; and there's Kirk's humorously inappropriate blurting of "Earth, Hitler, 1938."
There's also a sense that the scene could've and should've said more. When McCoy, for example, refutes Kerla's (Paul Rossilli) allegation that peace means the annihilation of Klingon culture, the moment seems to be building toward an intriguing debate that never happens. What we end up with in the dinner scene is solid story texture, but a sequence that might've been even better with more arguments and specifics.
The subsequent siege on the Klingon ship is an intriguing new spin on standard Trek battle fare, showing what happens when a ship's artificial-gravity generators are disabled. Two unidentified assassins beam aboard the vulnerable ship and kill Gorkon in an attempt to derail the peace initiative. Gorkon's dying words to Kirk are those of an idealist with conviction: "Don't let it end this way, captain."
From here, with the plot well under way, we're supplied a lot of story elements — so many, in fact, that the movie at times resembles a pastiche. Not only is it the backstory for TNG's Federation/Klingon political landscape, it's also a Cold War allegory, a convoluted murder mystery involving forensic investigation (dried blood, magnetic boots, phantom ships, etc.), a courtroom drama, a prison movie, and finally a race against the clock to stop the plotted assassination of the Federation president (Kurtwood Smith).
Meyer combines these elements into an entertaining story that keeps on moving, even if some of the pieces feel a little conveniently manipulated or undercooked. The most obvious example would be the overall use of Valeris (Kim Cattrall), whose function in the plot comes across as a bit too obvious and at the same time not strongly enough motivated. This is clearly an example of the plot leading the character and not vice versa.
One problem might be the fact Valeris was rewritten from what was originally to be Saavik, reprised by Kirstie Alley, who was unavailable for the role. I'm not sure why the part wasn't simply recast, especially since the part had already been previously recast for Star Trek III. For whatever reason, we instead have this new Vulcan named Valeris, and the result is a character that shows all the indicators of having a legitimate history but nevertheless feels hastily inserted into the franchise. She has significant dialog with Spock, who is her mentor, but it might've had more natural impact coming from Saavik.
Since Valeris is the conspirator hidden in plain view, she also becomes one of those functional constructions whose actions must be maddeningly reevaluated after her true nature is revealed. It doesn't quite jell. Her motivation is sketchy, and her knowledge is sometimes too handily scripted. The way she has Kirk's personal logs used against him in court, for example, is a stretch (convenient that Kirk said what he said and she happened to be there to hear it).
Though the movie has its share of plot quirks, it covers a lot of ground relatively quickly, and most individual scenes work well. When Kirk and McCoy are arrested and put through a Klingon show trial, the results are darkly Kafkaesque, with great production design by Herman Zimmerman. (The scene is so effective as pure atmosphere that it became the basis for Enterprise's "Judgment" more than a decade later.) While the arguments over the case facts will not impress viewers of Law & Order, Meyer and his co-writer, Denny Martin Flinn, set a high bar for theatrics and charge the dialog with energy, as in one line shouted by Chang, repurposed from Adlai E. Stevenson: "Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!" The use of Michael Dorn as Colonel Worf, the defense counsel, is a nice generational tie-in.
Next it's on to Rura Penthe, the brutal, icy penal colony, presided over by a one-eyed Klingon warden who breaks down the situation economically: "Work well, and you will be treated well. Work badly, and you will die." In prison, Kirk and McCoy meet Martia (Iman), a shapeshifter who is suspiciously prompt in her willingness to help them. She's actually a plant to lure them into a trap, which leads to a scene where Kirk fights the shapeshifter, which takes on Kirk's own appearance. Twenty-five years later, it's shades of "The Enemy Within."
Even the warden is in on the conspiracy, and here there's an amusing moment of self-parody. When the depth of the conspiracy becomes clear, Kirk asks the warden: Who set everything in motion? The warden responds, "Since you're all going to die anyway, why not tell you?"
While Kirk and McCoy face their prison ordeal, Spock works on a plan to try to get them out, and launches an investigation to prove the Enterprise was not responsible for firing on Gorkon's ship. The search for the truth involves clues that lead to more clues, which lead to two bodies, which lead to Valeris. This is handled reasonably adeptly, although it's worth noting that the technology on Star Trek is often a flexible device that allows or prohibits whatever a plot needs. You'd think the disposal of evidence in the 23rd century wouldn't be so hard, but no — even the use of phasers to vaporize boots or bodies is circumvented by plot cleverness.
A subsequent ruse uncovers Valeris, which has a good payoff when Spock gets angry enough to smack a phaser out of her hand. I was less thrilled, however, by Spock's forced mind-meld on Valeris — in public view on the bridge, no less. This makes for a potent scene, yes, but the concept itself is disturbing, and seems to throw ethics and decency out the window. Necessary under the circumstances? Perhaps. But no one seems to acknowledge that it's wrong.
Among the conspirators is General Chang — no surprise there — but also Admiral Cartwright, which shows a corruption in Starfleet that is rarely seen in Roddenberry's universe. Indeed, this film strays from the Roddenberry "rules" a bit more than some, but of course it must, because it is about overcoming the problems that exist today so we might grow tomorrow. "Klingons and Federation members conspiring together," muses McCoy. Interesting, how those on both sides with the same military self-interests are willing to put aside the fact they are enemies in order to continue being enemies.
The film's climax is skillfully executed as a Ticking Clock Crescendo, crosscutting between the speeches at the conference and the Enterprise's battle with Chang's invisible Bird of Prey. Chang, the best Trek villain after Khan and Dukat, has an engaging flamboyance, quoting lines of Shakespeare to Kirk in between torpedo volleys. His eventual destruction is one of the great Trek death scenes — staged larger than life in its moment of realization and yet still acted with the right amount of restraint. And so satisfying.
Reverberating here and all throughout the film is Cliff Eidelman's dark and atmospheric score, which for Trek qualifies as avant-garde. It's one of the best Trek scores, and the most memorable in terms of confidently staging the mood.
Of course the assassination is stopped at the last possible moment, with a perfectly timed stunt. Of course Kirk makes a closing speech that moves everyone. Of course there is a standing ovation that employs the Applause Crescendo Cliché. Of course it's all obligatory. But the moment has been earned; the plot has paid its dues and told its tale, and Kirk delivers the moral of the story — and not a bad one at that. This is a dignified exit for this crew.
"Once again, we've saved civilization as we know it," Kirk says. The writers, and the franchise, have earned that self-aware line. One message of Star Trek has always been that we can become better as people, and maybe change the world. Kirk begins Star Trek VI with his own deep prejudices; he couldn't see past the death of his son at the hands of Klingons. He ends it by helping to realize a Klingon's vision. The film is high on optimism and sentiment and messages of making a difference. If that sounds like a Trek cliché, then so be it.
We should be so lucky that our own sagas end this way.
Previous: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Next: Star Trek: Generations
Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.
132 comments on this post
Thomas A. McDonald
Hello! I have been a fan for 30 years, & I'm sorry about the passing of DeForrest Kelly, Mr.Roddenberry, & of course, James "Scotty" Doohan, who made me laugh when I was very down, I am Glad to hear about Star Trek 11, I enjoy everything I have on Star Trek, Including this one, Please! contact me soon!
Jake
In addition to being a great send off for the original Trek crew(how I wish we could say the same for Nemesis, but at least we still have "All Good Things..."), this films serves as an epilogue of sorts to the "Space Seed"-II-III-IV storyline.
After all, Kirk's initial racism for Klingons comes from the fact that Klingons took his son from him in number 3.
When Valeris tells him "Did you not wish Gorkon dead? 'Let them die' you said. Did I misinterpret you?" you can tell from Kirk's reaction that those words are hitting him like a sledgehammer.
Katie
This is actually my favorite of all the Trek films--although the parallels are obvious, it makes for an engaging story independent of the allegory. Many of the Shakespeare references are quite subtle--my favorite is the Chameloid's remark "I thought I would assume a pleasing shape"--reference Hamelet II.ii.
Alex
This is the movie that got me into Star Trek in the first place. Strange that I started with TOS end. But it still stands out, great movie awesome adventure ride!
Many of the Klingon actors were excellent.
Brian
While WOK is the best trek film, the Undiscovered Country is my favorite and deserves 3.5 stars imo. I thought it was advancing and changing the trek world (even if TNG was already around and established that Klingons are OK people) and that's not something you see often in Trek, let alone a movie. What I like most about it, however, is seeing how people react to this change. Some people embrace it, some people embrace it grudgingly, and some people try to stop progress. Great material and a good story to boot.
Of course, I find the GOOD inclusion of Klingons in anything star trek to invariably help the episode/movie. So... UC probably gets a little extra worth from me because it includes Klingons and does so in a very good way.
Dan Z
When I was a kid, I owned two Trek books, and the novelization of this movie was one of them. In the novelization, it is made extremely clear how Spock's forced mind meld with Valeris is wildly inappropriate. Thus, I never noticed that the movie left this out until your review --- I've always just "known" that the mind meld was a deeply questionable act done because there were no other options. When I eventually rewatch the movie, I'll have to watch for the reactions and see how I think it's played.
levi
Great sendoff for the original crew, and it's a shame some of them returned to sully it with Generations. The plot does have some generously labled "quirks" that don't really hold up to close scrutiny (the motivations of the Valeris character seem pretty thin), but in the end it's so well-executed and entertaining you just don't care. I left the theatre on opening night with a big grin, and so did everyone else that night. This is a well done movie with a great concept and great dialogue that for the last time exploits this cast's chemistry to the nth degree, and also features the best special effects of the original movies. This is a movie that knows how to give its audience what it wants.
robgnow
I have to mention a disagreement with your review on this point: Necessary under the circumstances? Perhaps. But no one seems to acknowledge that it's wrong.
I find the reaction shots of Scotty and Uhura entirely telling... it may be necessary to get this information, but clearly they are both bothered, especially when it's obvious that Valeris is being is suffering pain by the forced meld.
robgnow
Funny. There are several comments about Valeris' shaky motivation... I've never been bothered by it in the least. She's a gun-ho Starfleet Officer and 'everyone' knows that Klingons are untrustworthy... now the Federation is trying to cut the corp off at the knees instead of remaining strong... sounds a lot like current arguments of "soft on terrorism" diatribes to me.
My problem is how Valeris tells them that any ship to shore communications will be intercepted... from the ENTIRE Federation?! Kirk couldn't dispatch a signal to every planet, every colony with instructions to find a way to inform Starfleet Command and the civilian authorities in the Federation? Really?
Naturally I engage my 'suspension of disbelief' muscle and enjoy the ship-to-ship battle, instead. -grin-
Tim Carroll
My favourite in the series, although it's a *very* close tie with TWOK. Reason being that although TWOK is the definitive Trek movie, TUC gave us that most rare of all gems in the Trek canon: a dignified end. Trek has historically had problems in delivering satisfying payoffs to its bigger stories, no matter which part of the franchise you look at. (Even DS9 - bless its dark little soul - couldn't deliver a satisfactory resolution to its longest-running tale. Namely, Sisko's "destiny". Which as it turned out, was to push a guy and a book off a cliff. Wow.)
TUC gave the TOS characters a beautiful sentimental send-off, wrapped up in an exciting, fast-past plot. Even though it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny quite as well as TWOK, it's forgiven by the fact that this is *it*. The last adventure. There's a pervasive sense of finality throughout the film, and the closing "goodbye photo" and log entry where Kirk hands off to TNG is note-perfect.
Final chapters as good as this are a rare thing. A four-star outing for me, easily.
William
Did you actually watch this? It is by far the weakest of the films, with more holes in it than a net curtain. The whole Praxis explosion destroying an interstellar civilizations environment, the explosion hitting the Excelsior in deep space, the Enterprise being able to leave Earth and travel to the Klingon border in less than a day, anyone least of all the crew of the Enterprise being fooled into thinking the Enterprise fired at the Klingon Battle cruiser. No one noticing the huge tracking device Spock stuck in Kirk's shoulder, Uhura fooling Klingon Border security that a Federation Star Ship was a Klingon freighter by reading from a phrase book..........the stupidity of this film just goes on and on. Should have been given 0.5 stars.
Nick Illes
I just read this review, and I found it to be totally awesome! It was helpful, and really grabbed my attention the whole way through. You brought up some interesting points that I didn't consider. For example, when you mentioned the use of Valeris and why it would have been more logical to use someone as innocent as Saavik as a conspirator, I thought to myself, "yeah, that would have been interesting." However, I'm guessing the producers figured that since Saavik was such a well-liked character, it would be hard to see her betraying everything she fought for in the previous films. We've grown to like the character, and to have Valeris, a Vulcan we've never seen, nor will ever see agan, come in and drive the plot, that made things interesting.
Great review! I look forward to reading the rest of them!
Eric Dugdale
The "necessary under the circumstances" part of the forced Valeris mind-meld may hold up for getting the conspirators' names, but not for the later part of it in which she actually seems to suffer.
When Spock finds that she doesn't know the location of the peace conference, Kirk simply contacts Excelsior and gets Sulu to tell him where it is. So where's the "necessity" here?
Overall, though, I found this to be the deepest and best-done Trek film of all of them, for all the reasons others have put forward.
Gatton
I have to disagree with you Nick. I would have loved having the Saavik character be a conspirator. Maybe that would have seemed forced but it certainly would have made the scene where Spock confronts her in sick bay have all the more resonance.
One question. During the mind meld as Valeris names off the conspirators were there always flashbacks showing the faces of those she names with an accompanying gong sound? I watched this last night on the 2-disc special edition and I don't recall that being there. I was actually out of the room making dinner during that scene (hey I've seen it like 12 times anyway) and I heard this *GONG* sound and I thought what the heck was that? lol
Jammer
^ Those flashes were added for the special edition DVD. I find them kind of silly. It's as if they thought the audience was too dumb to remember who the names of the characters were and so they had to remind us.
Jay
I couldn't get past the notion that the Klingons were the sole reason for Starfleet existing, and that peace with the Klingons would somehow call for the end of Starfleet, as if it served no other purpose. I found it beyond ridiculous.
Eduardo
Finally saw it on Blu-Ray. It's been years since I last saw it. It was the first time I saw it in the theatrical 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Stunning 7.1 Dolby TrueHD surround.
Loved the original DVD commentary with Nick Meyer and Denny Martin Flinn. Flinn, who died of cancer a few years back, is really one of Trek's unsung heroes. Great energy and enthusiasm for the script and the story on the commentary.
Also loved the new Blu-Ray commentary done by Larry Nemecek (who did the TNG companion), and DS9's Ira Steven Behr. Interesting perspective having Behr commenting on one of Kirk's films. Also quite entertaining. Evidently, they both enjoyed Trek VI as much as I have.
Jeff O'Connor
I need to get this movie on Blu-Ray. It's my favorite of the bunch to this day, and the review nailed all the reasons for it. It's also sort of the piece that got me into Trek; I grew up in a household that was always watching TNG, and while I learned to love that show, when I was four it was just too stuffy and I didn't understand it.
Then comes TUC with its epic battle at the end and that's all I needed then. I'd watch it on VHS all the time and as I grew old enough to grasp TNG, around the time DS9 was entering its fifth and sixth seasons, I was still there watching TUC a couple of times a year and really digging into all its powerful statements about humanity. Love it.
DJ
One of the little things I like about the space battle is that the Enterprise and the Excelsior combine forces to take out Chang's ship. Always thought it was a nice way of coming back to the "rivalry" between the two that was presented in ST3. And of course, the scene at the end in which the two ships are flying together was perfectly done.
Also a nice touch to make Sulu captain of the Excelsior, given how much he seemed to admire it.
I do wish they'd found a way to bring back Robin Curtis as Saavik rather than create a new character.
dan
General Chang plays it perfect without the gruff voice. The guy who played Martok in DS9 would be a close second. But of course everyone loves Warf :)
Robert
A long time ago my father was on call in Stratford, Ontario. Stratford has the “Stratford Shakespeare Festival”. Christopher Plummer was performing. For some reason, my father had to go to the theatre and “stick a hypodermic needle in Christopher Plummer’s ass”!! The Kilingon cussing, according to my father, was unbearable!!
Jay
Odo, er, Colonel West's 23rd century presentation was printed on paper and he used a laser pointer. Really.
Ken
You mentioned that Brock Peters had to make a pretty racist comment in the film, and how ironic it was, since Peters is Black. Here's something else that's interesting. Peters also played the Black man in To Kill a Mockingbird who was wrongly convicted because of his race. It's little things like this that really elevate this film into something truly significant and special.
Patrick
Khan and Dukat? How could you leave out Q in that listing of Trek's greatest villains? (Admittedly, he's less "hands on" being a god-being)
Jammer
I don't really see Q as a "villain" per se. Certainly not in the same sense as these others.
Gatton
Misanthrope I think is the best word. Picard called him that in "Deja Q".
Mahoney
An OK flick....not the best. Here are some problems I have: Checkov looks like a total idiot and seems confused for the entire film. The shape-shifter keeps the same voice no matter who she morphs to look like...except when she looks like Kirk. Then she sounds like him. Kirk thinks shapre-shifters are legends? What about the Salt Vampire in "Man Trap"? The way Garth morphed his appearance in "Whom Gods Destroy"? Wasn't Excelsior doing research on gaseous anomolies? Why does the Uhura state the Enterprise has this equipment for researching gaseous anomolies?
Paul
@Mahoney: I think Marta was a type of shapeshifter considered legendary.
I've always liked TUC, but it's got a lot of little logical gaffes that put it below TWK or FC.
- Technology has somewhat regressed. The Enterprise has actual cooks and Colonel West's presentation was on paper. WTF?
- For all the dialog about Praxis's effect on Kronos -- that the planet would have to be evacuated -- Kronos is still the Klingon homeworld a century later.
- The line about mothballing Starfleet was particularly crazy. What about the Romulans?
- Why were there no other ships in orbit of Camp Khitomer at the end? How did all the dignitaries get there?
- Why couldn't the Enterprise scan the weapon signatures of the torpedoes that hit Kronos 1 and determine that they weren't from Starfleet? Archer and Co. were able to do that more than 100 years earlier. Did Cartwright and Valeris provide Chang with the torpedoes?
Last question, and it's more of a puzzlement than a criticism. What the heck have Kirk and Co. been doing since the end of Star Trek V?
The timeline indicates six years passed between STV and STVI. I can understand why they did this -- they needed to account for the cast members' aging, because it seems only about a year passed between STII (released in 1982) and STV (released in 1989).
It's too bad a line or two about the Enterprise A's mission between 2287 and 2293 wasn't mentioned.
mike
Undiscovered Country is may favorite for a lot of little nuances. The scenes on the bridge of the Enterprise are well done. We get to observe conversations between the crew without the constant cutaway for a close up. There isn't an overabundance of chirps and flashing lights cluttering the scene. Although I did find the prescene of so many extras just standing around bridge like mannequins a bit bothersome. If these people aren't doing anything, why are they here?
The Klingon courtroom was very effective in filling me with a sense of dread and fear of Klingon "justice". I wouldn't risk getting so much as a traffic ticket on the Klingon home world.
I found the Rural Penthe scenes a bit too prison movie cliche but tolerable anyway. I found Kirk's escape just a little too easy. Klingons are obviously eager warriors but they are so terribly slow witted and stupid it's a wonder they have spaceships.
The reason the script introduces Valeris instead of bringing back Saavik is simply that Leonard Nimoy and the producers didn't want to turn Saavik into a traitor. Bringing in a new Vulcan was necessary. I thought Kim Catrall did a marvelous job. I don't have a problem with the forced mind-meld. These were dire circumstances.
JoshB
Kirk's escape from Rura Penthe was supposed to be too easy. That's why Kirk himself gets suspicious and slugs Marta. Chang helped engineer their jail-break so that he could have them both "killed while attempting escape."
JoshB
Totally agree on the courtroom stuff of course. Chilling show-trial stuff. I loved the nod to Adlai Stevenson ("Don't wait for the translation; answer me now!") from the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Jack
Azetbur inherits her father's role as Chancellor here, but Redemption (which came out earlier the same year, but set a century later) had Gowron announcing that women can't even serve on the High Council...
Moonie
This is my favorite of all the movies.
Though I've also asked myself the question, as @ Paul above, about what happened to the planned evacuation of Kronos?
Still. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Latex Zebra
There isn't a series of Star Trek that shows the evolved human sensibilities to be wanting somewhat.
We have members of the Federation/Starfleet conspiring for war, members of the Enterprise crew not suing for peace.
Captain Kirk wanting a race to die, die no less, out of revenge for his son. Jesus. Sisko gets grief for doing a few nasty things to get the Romulan’s involved in the Dominion War, a cause that was just in the fact it could help win a war that was killing millions. But people turn a blind eye to this!
Face it, aspects of the Federation are not as squeaky clean or evolved as it purports to be, it fails on numerous occasions to live up to its own expectations…
But the actions of a few do not detract from the ideal.
So, with that said can we finally put to bed the constant bickering over the values of evolved humans in Star Trek because throughout every series and in this case a movie, it is wishy washy at best.
Oh, this is a great movie though.
Latex Zebra
That doesn't show... Jeez Dan, get it right mate!
NCC-1701-Z
The Khitomer battle sequence is probably one of the best battle scenes in the entire Trek franchise, purely due to the suspense/tension factor. I felt the battle was kept relatively simplified in terms of effects, which actually worked to its benefit, unlike many other movies being too overly dependent on elaborate CGI and stretching out battle scenes for way too long *cough Transformers franchise cough*
And Jammer hits the nail on the head - the moment when Chang gets blowed up is one of the most satisfying villain deaths in all of Trek - in fact one of the best villain deaths of all time. I cheered very loudly the first time I watched this movie.
NCC-1701-Z
Review: "With the line being said by a black actor, Cartwright's prejudice has a disturbing, ironic dimension — even though his race is irrelevant in the movie itself."
I read somewhere that the actor playing Cartwright had to shoot that in multiple takes because he was very uncomfortable saying those lines due to the racial undertones. Nichelle Nichols also refused to read some lines she considered racist so Chekhov ended up saying "Guess who's coming to dinner?"
Captain Jon
FULL EXPERIENCE REVIEW at captainjonreviews.blogspot.com
Summary
When a key Klingon energy production facility explodes, leaving the Empire with only 50 years of life, the Klingons pursuit peace negotiations with the Federation. The U.S.S. Enterprise and crew, only three months from retirement, are grudgingly assigned to escort the Klingon Chancellor to Earth for the negotiations. But when the Klingon flagship is attacked and the chancellor assassinated, Kirk and McCoy are arrested as the only two suspects, leaving Spock and the Enterprise crew to prove their innocence while discovering who is behind the plot to begin an interstellar war.
Review
Following the commercial and critical failure of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the future for the Star Trek cinematic universe appeared uncertain. Though Star Trek: The Next Generation was a hit on television, the producers weren't prepared to end their show to move that cast to the big screen just yet. With Star Trek's 25th anniversary on the horizon, Paramount sought ways of having a feature film ready in time. Harvey Bennett, who had produced every film since Star Trek II, wanted to revisit Ralph Winter's original idea for the fourth film; a prequel that recast the characters with younger actors meeting at Starfleet Academy.With Star Trek V writer David Loughery, Bennett wrote a script entitled The Academy Years. However, Paramount rejected the script and Bennett opted to leave the franchise.
Walter Koenig approached Paramount with a script that featured the Federation and Romulans going to war with the Klingons in which all the principal characters, except Spock and McCoy, would ultimately be killed. Paramount rejected the idea. Thus, Paramount chief Frank Mancuso turned to Leonard Nimoy to come up with a swan song for the original cast. Nimoy approached Star Trek II director Nicholas Meyer to come up with an idea. Gradually, the two originated what would become The Undiscovered Country, a story that would serve as an allegory for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because of the failure of Star Trek V, Paramount wanted to produce Star Trek VI cheaply, thus the producers spent two months battling the studio over the budget. Adding to the complications was Gene Roddenberry's dissatisfaction with the script, particularly the use of the character Saavik as well as the portrayal of his characters as being flawed and bigoted. Ultimately, however, Star Trek VI went into production with just about all of Roddenberry's concerns left unmet.
With the help of cinematographer Hiro Narita, director Nicholas Meyer set out to create a darker, moodier and more dramatic setting for The Undiscovered Country. The results succeed, creating a film that is far different from any of it's predecessors. Even with a limited budget, Meyer manages to make Star Trek VI feel larger and more epic in scope. There are numerous characters scattered across multiple planets and ships with galactic peace at stake. Sprinkled throughout the screenplay by Meyer and Denny Martin-Flinn are numerous literary classics, especially Shakespeare, which give a sense of style to the whole affair. Meyer's direction keeps the story moving at a fairly brisk pace and successfully juggles the various plot points. The pace drags slightly during the Rura'Penthe scenes but immediately picks up once Kirk and McCoy execute their escape.
Despite the dramatic mood, the returning cast members seem to be having a blast. They slip so easily into the characters they've played for 25 years that their performances seem natural and comfortable. They allow that comfort to infuse plenty of humor throughout that's neither forced nor out of place. Walter Koenig, in particular, gets several good moments of humor.
William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley are at the top of their game, giving performances that are more reserved than what we're accustom to but remain at the heart of the film. Nimoy allows more of Spock's dry humor to come forward than before while Shatner and Kelley (who spend most of the film's run time isolated from the rest of the cast) display their strong chemistry. They part with the roles in a very dignified fashion.
The cast is filled with strong actors giving good performances. Having been wasted in a thankless role in Star Trek V, David Warner is put to much better use as Klingon Chancellor Gorkon. Though he doesn't get much time before being killed off, Warner succeeds at making Gorkon sympathetic while at the same time leaving the question hanging as to whether or not he can be trusted. Kurtwood Smith and Rosanna DeSoto both make the most of their limited screen time. Iman does well in portraying a shape-shifting prisoner who uses her good looks at charms to try to seduce Kirk.
Of course, the biggest additions to the cast are in Christopher Plummer's General Chang and Kim Cattrall's Lieutenant Valeris. Plummer hams it up with every chance he gets, chewing the scenery in a court room scene that's sold solely upon it's atmosphere and his performance. He's at the top of his game as he spouts Shakespeare to taunt Kirk while his cloaked bird-of-prey blasts away at the Enterprise in a heart-pounding climax. It could've been over-the-top but Plummer keeps his performance reigned in just enough that it doesn't go too far. He's by far one of Star Trek's most entertaining villains.
Kim Cattrall gets saddled with a role that's pretty transparent once the story's mystery begins to unfold. Cattrall brings sass and a certain arrogance to Valeris that's entertaining but the ultimate revelation of her true intentions false flat. Had Meyer been successful in using Saavik it's most likely that the character's betrayal would not only have been shocking but tragic as well. But with Valeris it's neither of those things as her role is pretty obvious and predictable early on. Cattrall does well nonetheless though she's no Kirstie Alley.
Thus brings our attention to the story. Due to the presence of Valeris, the crew's search for a traitor is fairly obvious though still entertaining and well-executed. The dinner scene between the Enterprise crew and Klingons successfully conveys the tensions between the two sides but feels like it's missing something. The scene tries to say something yet doesn't go quite far enough. The court room scene, too, is good but not great as far as trials go. What makes the scene is the wonderful atmosphere established by Meyer and Plummer's performance. There are some pretty big conveniences that take place to get the plot into the third act. It's pretty hard to believe that the Enterprise could travel so deep into Klingon space to rescue Kirk and McCoy from a prison planet without encountering any Klingons. I also find it to be a stretch that the one Klingon who does discover the Enterprise doesn't have the equipment to tell him it's not a Klingon ship.
Those points aside, the story is still strong and very appropriate for when the movie debuted. The characters are challenged to accept peace after decades of conflict and their private introspections are well written. Though the Enterprise crew had never shown such signs of bigotry or prejudices in the past, there's no reason for Kirk to not hate Klingons after the death of his son. Meyer again portrays these characters as imperfect and human. It's also nice to see events from past entries acknowledged, including the death of Kirk's son, Kirk being demoted for disobeying orders and a humorous reference to Spock's death. Once again, these references make Star Trek VI feel like another piece in a bigger picture.
Visually The Undiscovered Country is a big improvement on The Final Frontier. Most notable is the clever assassination scene where Klingons float without gravity and the floating Klingon blood is well-realized. The shots of the Rura'Penthe planet as Kirk and McCoy escape are also beautiful and enhanced by Cliff Eidelman's score. The climactic space battle is tense and thrilling as the Enterprise is shot up again and again while frequently intercutting with the assassin's preparations. It's a great climax with the destruction of Chang's bird-of-prey at the hands of the Enterprise and Excelsior a very cheer worthy moment.
Cliff Eidelman's score is also stellar and amongst the frenchise's best. It's brooding and dramatic yet sweeping with moments of romance and brilliance. Eidelman sets his score apart from his predecessors by making it different. It's very engaging and one of my personal favorites.
The Undiscovered Country's closing moments are both touching and bittersweet as the Enterprise crew bid farewell after 25 years. The final scene is very effective and incorporates a nice bit of humor. It's a good instance of less is more.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country not only serves as a great celebration for the franchise's 25th anniversary but also as a swan song for the original Star Trek cast. The crew receives a well-earned round of applause as the Starship Enterprise sails into the sunset.
Writing: 1.5 / 2.0
Characters: 1.75 / 2.0
Acting: 1.75 / 2.0
Entertainment: 1.75 / 2.0
Music: 1.0 / 1.0
Visuals: 1.0 / 1.0
TOTAL: 8.75 / 10
methane
I was in high school when this first came out, and I didn't much care for it. Some of my issues have been pointed out in the review & in the comments above. There are a few other things that bothered me:
- the inclusion of a shapeshifter already seemed like an "early 90's" cliche to me. There wasn't any particular reason why they needed a shapeshifter in the jailbreak scene.
- using Trek to make such a straightforward parallel to something that was happening at the moment seemed a bit jarring. I know that happened all the time in the 60's, but I didn't watch those episodes until nearly 20 years later.
-As others have commented, I would have expected some sort of more nuanced arguments. Pulling back forces from the border & starting commerce with Klngons makes sense, but the idea that you have some sort of large-scale disarmament when there are threats both known (Romulans) & unknown is an argument that could intelligently be attacked without racial slurs.
Anyway, I watched this on blu-ray recently. As I was watching it, I realized I probably hadn't viewed it in its entirety since that day I saw it in theaters (I've definitely seen bits & pieces since then on cable). It still has all the problems, but I accepted them & enjoyed the ride. And the shapeshifter gave us one last Kirk vs. Kirk fight, so I'm fine with it now, especially since the 90's is now retro.
A few more thoughts on the movie that haven't been remarked on above:
-Kim Cattrall was excellent as a Vulcan. It's a shame this was the only time we got to see her in that role. I never really had any problem with her character's motivations since it seems there may be logical reasons not to trust a long-term peace with the Klingons to hold. The pro-peace argument itself wasn't made detailed beyond the generic "wouldn't peace be nice?" (the answer, "of course, but at what risk?")
-I know it would have made the movie 10 minutes longer, but if they wanted to do a mystery, they should have introduced 2 more new characters to the crew. That way we could have been wondering which new person was a conspirator. It was just a bit obvious the only character we hadn't known for 25 years was the betrayer.
-The scenes where a bridge officer confronts someone during the investigation with 10 or more crewmen standing around in the background struck me as odd, but I think it gives the impression of a trial, with the crewmen there as a jury. There is an actual (show) trial with the Klingons, but everyone's beliefs are on trial during this movie.
Mike
I wasn't surprised that Brock Peters, a black actor, said the most overtly racist line. Trek directors love using that bit of irony. They did the same thing in Enterprise when they made black Terra Prime members who were as vile as Klansmen about Vulcans.
This is my favorite Trek movie but the script had way too much exposition in the dialogue. And forgive me but I'm really tired of how Trek ignores basic astrophysics. 1. If Rura Penthe is just an asteroid then it wouldn't have enough mass for Earth like gravity let alone an atmosphere. 2. How did the Excelsior feel the way shock of the explosion of Praxis from several light years away?
My problem with the plot was how they CONVENIENTLY find the two crewmen who wore the gravity boots right there dead in the hallway. Took them half the damn movie to find the boots and zero seconds to figure out who wore them because, hello, two dead bodies are right here where the dialogue needs them.
Dan
@Gatton @Jammer You are both so right about the newly-inserted "gong" shots of the conspirators, in which the face of each conspirator is shown with an accompanying "gong" sound). Time and again, Nicholas Meyer has said that "art thrives on restrictions," on not showing that which it would be more effective for the audience to imagine for itself. I would like to think that this material was inserted over Meaer's (proverbial) rwad body. If it was his idea, when did he start to think audiences became so stupid?
Outsider65
I thought the movie did show that Spock's forced mind meld on Valeris was a huge violation of her person. Look again at the crew's faces as the camera pans on them-most of them are horrified, Uhura looks almost like she's witnessing a rape. Spock and Valeris are both nearly in tears afterwards, it's clear he didn't want to have to do it and she's been horribly violated. No one says anything because he did what he had to, and none of them were Vulcan, so even though they could sort of sense how horrible what he did was, they probably didn't truly know the depth of it. What could they say, really? "Captain, I wish you hadn't had to mindrape that girl in order to save the galaxy"? What would that accomplish? I thought the more subtle reaction shots of the crew, as well as Spock and Valeris' reactions, we're enough to drive the point home.
JohnC
The whole "mindrape" accusation annoys me. As a preface, I believe torturing people in an attempt to gain information is unethical and immoral. That said, Spock wasn't torturing her. He was extricating information from her that he knew she possessed using a technique that was painful solely because she was resisting it.
It's Saavik's gender that has everyone squirming in their seats. If Saavik were male, this wouldn't be a topic of conversation.
Outsider65
@JohnC
I don't speak for everyone, but if you're referring to my comment, I call all "forced psychic entry into someone's mind" scenes that come up in Trek mindrape, because that's what it's called. It's portrayed as a deep violation of a person to do that to them without consent, force your way into their mind, and in the common vernacular it is referred to as "mindrape".
It has nothing to do with Saavik being female. There's a TNG episode where a guy mindrapes two female characters and one male character and it is explicitly called rape by the characters in that episode. A scene from the original series where Spock mindmelds with an unaware sleeping Kirk is often referred to as mindrape as well.
It's called mindrape because it's considered a horrible violation of a person, not because it's implied that it's saying something bad about Spock. The term is meant to make you uncomfortable, to emphasis what the writers are trying to get across: that it's a horrible violation and thus a truly last-resort when Spock does it. I don't use the term because I am accusing Spock of being a bad person, I use the term because in Sci-fi, that is the term used to describe the event that took place. It's not a 100% accurate term but it's the term used.
Outsider65
**Valeris, not Saavik
chamdnt
As the story goes, only 18 months or so passed between the time Meyer and Nimoy hatched out the movie's concept, and the premiere date. The production does appear to come off as rushed. Certain lines of dialogue appear to not have "ended" the way humans (or even Klingons) normally finish a sentence. The resolution murder mystery itself would probably give Nancy Drew a chuckel (expand search to include uniforms.... find uniforms... conveniently run into the wearer of the uniforms who had just been shot)... OK, so the plot isn't air-tight.
There is plot, though, and then there is story, and Star Trek VI, unique among all 13 of the Star Trek films, is actually ABOUT something from beginning to end. And unlike the other movies - for examlple, the overly referential III and VII - ir is not about the Star Trek universe - it is about something in our universe.
it's about the fear Kirk described when "the end of history" is perceived by a society to be upon it. " The "end of history" line came from phiolosopher Francis Fukuyama, who mused the end of history was upon us once the Cold War ended. He wondered, at that point, whether nations had reached the end point of their evolution, with certain nations with certain ideals to be forever history's "winners" and others with discarded ideas to be history's "losers."
As Fukuyama would admit, though, September 11 proved that , "We haven't run out of history quite yet."
I found the storyline of the Berlin Wall coming down in space to be compelling - uniike shopworn science fiction staples like the search for God or the Robot God, the fountain of youth, time travel, and so forth.
Also, for the first 45 minutes or so, this movie is a genuine curveball. We REALLY don't know what's going to happen once Kirk and McCoy are arrested. Sure, we know that in the end things will be OK, but the screenwriting in this movie was much less paint-by-numbers than in previous (or subsequent) entries. Even a pretty good movie iike VIII had a conclusion that was fore-ordained (we knew First Contact would indeed happen...., Again. Not much suspense there).
Director Nicholas Meyer is a crowd please who knows how to use the camera, how to frame the action, and how to tell a story in visua terms. There is nothing wrong with that. Every one of the regulars was given something to do. Uhura got a chance to save the day, as did Sulu, and Chekov and Scotty played important roles in the investigation. These characters were actually portrayed, for once, as competent - not as comic weaklings or burn victims.
The special effects hold up even today, the music fit the tone of the movie, the action scenes were reasonably well-staged, and at times, you even got the impression that the things in the movie that were happening, were indeed actually happening. For example, the scene where Spock, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu and Uhura deduce (in true Holmes fashion) how the attack on the Klingon vessel occurred. 3 minutes of just dialogue and characters thinking. Try finding that in an action movie today - or in any movie made for mass entertainment.
My one complaint (other than the cheap theatrical trick that was the Spock mind-rape scene, which demeaned the character and the audience) was that the movie did take itself a little too seriously.... Some of the time. That's an offense, to be sure, but the movie is in good (or bad, as it were) company here: The Motion Picture, III (which was staged with the solemnity of a funeral), VII (with that mind-bogglingly awful scene of Picard's vision of fantasy life in the Nexus), IX (with its shallo pontification about genocide), took themselves and their ideas at least as seriously, and their ideas were seriously crummier than the ideas in VI.
CJE
Always enjoyed this one, and brings back fond memories. The allegory is a little heavy-handed, but TOS never shied away from that. Nimoy, Meyer, and co. made a great team.
The Klingons' behaviour in this film seems more akin to the way it was in TOS, not in keeping with what previous films and TNG had begun to establish. It's not really a complaint, since the plot demanded it.
The Romulans could have been substituted for the Klingons with almost no changes required, right down to sending Kirk and McCoy to Remus instead of Rura Penthe. Valeris could have easily been a Romulan spy, which would have explained a lot. Kirk's personal history with the Klingons makes it essential that they are the main antagonists in this film, but if Star Trek III had gone the way Harve Bennett originally intended (with Romulans as the antagonists) then VI would have worked beautifully that way too.
Sooty
Without a doubt my favorite Star Trek movie (sorry khan). I just find I can watch again and again. Kirk is bit too old to fight etc but apart from that its very well done.
Cody B
Not sure how you could give Star Trek The Motion Picture the same rating as Search for Spock and Undiscovered Country. Of course ratings are subjective and differ between everyone but not many people are going to watch Trek 1 and then Trek 6 and say “I don’t know, I liked Trek 1 more or atleast the same”. No when asked to compare the two it would be trash (pretty looking trash though) against treasure. I think you MIGHT be looking at Trek 1 with nostalgia goggles on. I’m not saying it deserves to be torn apart, I myself seem to enjoy it more than most people, but giving it the same rating as Trek 3 and Trek 6 seems to be a bit crazy to me
ZITA CARNO
I have not yet seen the entire movie, but I have seen several film clips---including the one about which there has been so much controversy that I have to comment on it. We all know that Valeris was subjected to an extreme interrogation. What most people do not know is that she asked for it, and she got it in spades, and here is the reason: she represented a perfect example of something that was told to me a long time ago by a New York City homicide detective. He said, "There is nothing worse than a lousy one of your own." He knew whereof he spoke. And Valeris was just that, a lousy one of her own, a Starfleet officer turned bad apple, a turncoat who not only betrayed the Federation but also proved a terrible disappointment to the one who had trained her and all that---and one has to feel for Spock, for Captain Kirk who presided over the interrogation, for his crew, for just about everyone present. I for one could feel only sympathy for all of them, and although they all recovered from that episode it was never the same after that. And so, even after all things were resolved, I had a sour taste in my mouth, and so if I ever get to see the entire movie I will do so with that uncomfortable memory. A shame, too.
Other Chris
Just saw this again for the fifth or sixth time. Boy, do I love this movie! It's the best retirement these characters could ever get, and the Cold War commentary is so very inspirational. Everything about it just works, especially that boldly different soundtrack. What a joy.
Silly
The clocks are annoying, and the phaser storage in—- the galley??— are goofy.
This is no WOK, but there is a lot of very good stuff here. Kim Cattrall is wonderful. I’m aware that they wanted this to be Saavik, and that Mr Roddenberry vetoed it.
I can see that it feels like a plausible arc for Saavik, and obviously lines here were meant to echo WOK. But at the same time, especially in light of recent shows attempting Trek, I’m really respecting Roddenberry’s vision.
Silly
I’m amazed they used the title “Undiscovered Country.” It’s fitting in several ways, but it doesn’t really sound like a fun movie to go to.
The use of Shakespeare throughout is very well done.
Chang asking Kirk 'Have we not heard the chimes at midnight?' is great because Kirk himself grins about it.
Chang yelling “cry havoc!” is one of my favorite quotes.
Plummer’s Chang was a very nice twist on a Klingon.
Nolan
Rest in Peace, Christopher Plummer.
"Cry havok, and let slip the dogs of war!"
Yanks
R.I.P. Mr. Plummer.
Started in 1953. Everything from 'The Sound of Music, to Star Trek The Undiscovered Country, to Danny Collins. What a life.
I've never heard a bad word uttered about the man.
"Oh now, be honest, Captain. Warrior to warrior..."
Chard
I’m torn between which is my favourite Trek film - this or Wrath of Khan. The Undiscovered Country has some great scenes - anything with Chang in, the whole ‘let them die!’ scene. Unfortunately I don’t see the point of the whole Kirk fights Kirk scene which I thought was naff. The only reason for it I can fathom is that it teased viewers in the trailer with ‘Kirk’ being shot to get them in the cinema perhaps? But that aside it’s a top notch film - and one I always end up watching yet again whenever it’s on telly!
Pat C
If the Klingons were just 50 years away from collapsing, how come they seem pretty strong and prosperous in TNG? Did the Federation offer so much aid in such a short time? And they must have decided not to eliminate Starfleet since it’s still doing quite well in TNG.
Chrome
@Pat C
If you want the historical comparison, the disaster at Chernobyl led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the future of NATO was uncertain. Of course we know now that NATO, like its fictional allegory Starfleet, is still an important strategic coalition.
As for the Klingon Empire not falling like the USSR, perhaps Federation aid did prevent that. However, this too is comparable to a strong but different Russia prevailing even after the USSR dissolved. Certainly, the Klingons we see in TNG are culturally different than their TOS counterparts - more like Samurais than Soviets. Thus, despite the Klingon Empire surviving there was noticeably some sort of shakeup.
Booming
I don't think that NATO was the inspiration for Starfleet. They have nothing in common.
The Federation is an idealistic version of the UN and Starfleet is the idealistic version of the blue helmets/peacekeepers+NASA.
Chrome
“I don't think that NATO was the inspiration for Starfleet.”
Indeed, GR wasn’t very happy with this movie. :-)
Booming
Oh you meant for this movie. What were Roddenberry's feelings about the movie?
Stevensa128
I'm sure the Federation would've provided aid but I also took it that the problem the Klingons had was their economy was entirely focussed on war and conquest. So making peace with the Federation and its allies meant they could put those resources into helping themselves instead.
As for Starfleet being shut down, while a character did question if that's what would happen, didn't someone else mention that Starfleet's primary mission has always been exploration and that would continue.
Chrome
@Booming
From what I gather, Roddenberry disliked how this film overmilitarized Star Trek. He lobbied in vain to get the script changed.
The Praxis/Chernobyl allegory is for sure a bit clunky both from a historical and scientific perspective. However, I think the evocation of events such as these adds great weight to the movie's story.
Booming
Yeah, the ship seemed more militaristic. Me always bugged the racism. That seemed kind of weird. It's a good movie overall but Kirk being all "let them die" was too much. I guess it is his ark but his racism, and that of other officers, still should have been a far bigger deal then it was. Valeris was far better in a Trek universe logic because her actions were motivated by a rational threat analysis. Sure, she was wrong but it made sense in the universe.
Pat C
@Chrome and @Stevensa128
That makes sense. Thinking of Russia under Putin now being 30 years removed from the fall of the USSR I can see the Klingons having recovered and developed to that extent.
This also provides interesting context to the first Klingon episode on TNG, Heart of Glory (I think that’s the name) where those two rogue Klingons want to hijack the Enterprise battle bridge and go off and wage war.
Top Hat
You know what I've really never understood in this film: what are the Romulans doing here? What do they contribute narratively? Not much more than on extra contributor, as near as I can tell. I don't really understand what their delegation to the Khitomer Conference is there for; just as observers or something? And how do they fit into the film's political allegory? Do they stand in for China here or something?
Peter G.
@ Top Hat,
"You know what I've really never understood in this film: what are the Romulans doing here? What do they contribute narratively?"
Just within the confines of the film, they simply represent their own interests, which are that they will be in trouble if faced with a Klingon/Federation alliance. Naturally they would try to undermine this effort. I think they are present in the Khitomer Conference in the same spirit as the major factions are present in ST: II-IV at Starfleet headquarters. Their ambassadors are always involved in important interstellar affairs, both as witnesses and to give their imput.
"And how do they fit into the film's political allegory? Do they stand in for China here or something?"
I never thought there was a literal comparison being made here. In fact even the USA/Russia parallel is only applicable in broad strokes, in light of Spock's analogy of "only Nixon could go to China" in reference to peace with the Klingons. So to the extent that the Klingons are a perennial antagonist, they are Russia, China, or whatever other analogy sparks our imagination. Romulus is just those forces who stand to lose from peace. You can imagine they are the military industry, or states like North Korea, or anything else that helps. Personally I've always thought ST: VI highlighted the traitors within Starfleet much more than the Romulans, so to me it's more relevant that internal factions within Starfleet exist than the precise nature of who they are working with to disable the peace process.
Top Hat
"Naturally they would try to undermine this effort."
You think the Federation President would think of this; instead he takes military briefings while the Romulan ambassador is hanging out in his office.
Peter G.
@ Top Hat,
"You think the Federation President would think of this; instead he takes military briefings while the Romulan ambassador is hanging out in his office."
Don't forget that of the various Starfleet people advising him, a strong contingent of them are no doubt purposely giving him false advice. To the extent that they may openly argue against peace talks, they would keep a possible Romulan involvement to themselves since they would not want to inadvertently reveal that they've had clandestine meetings with the Romulans.
The UFP President seems to be shown as not being totally aware of all elements of the military/strategic side of things. Maybe he's akin to what we later see in Homefront in DS9, more of a peacetime President.
Silly
The parallels with the Coke War were very clear when the movie was released, certainly as perceived in the West. Much less was actually known about the internal USSR until it actually collapsed. There were many factors leading to its collapse, but Chernobyl was most likely the straw that broke its back.
Chernobyl was actually far worse for the USSR than this incident for the Klingons because of the negative externalities, like spewing radiation all over Europe.
Anyway, as for the 50 years, well, that was one projection from Spock with a certain agenda. But it's just a projection. 50 years is a very long time in Trek to fix a technobabble problem with all those famed Starfleet Engineers running around.
Romulans: well, the Romulans would have at least an ambassador there on Earth, so their absence would have been very strange in a matter involving the Feds and the Klingons. And he's pretty Obviously Evil.
@Booming
I've heard Kirk's "let them die!" was followed by him immediately dismissing it as silly, but the dismissal was cut, severely annoying Shatner. And I agree, that didn't sound like Kirk, even with his deep grudge over David.
I also thought the racism angle was way overdone and didn't seem consistent with anything prior. And it was annoying to see the officers basically being racist, then Valeris jump on two grunts for doing the same thing moments later.
The Soviet/US parallel would have been stronger without it, because, obviously, race absolutely zero to do with that rivalry.
Booming
@Silly
" but Chernobyl was most likely the straw that broke its back.
Chernobyl was actually far worse for the USSR than this incident for the Klingons because of the negative externalities, like spewing radiation all over Europe."
I disagree. The Afghanistan war was far more significant, combined with a completely oversized military budget. Infrastructure crumbled, investment in education and technology was lacking. Empires normally fall because they overstretch. Then there was glasnost and perestroika which tried a crash course in liberalization and democratization. The Soviet constitution was one of the most democratic and modern ones when it was conceived but never really implemented because of several restricting laws like enemy of the state laws. Gorbachev tried to give power to the constitution but the reality of the Soviet system made this basically impossible. Intelligence and military were too far entrenched and powerful. The beauracracy was not inefficient. So after a time of economic and political upheaval the state security apparatus led a coup which was successfully countered by a popular uprising led by Jelzin after which the Russians just decided to dissolve the Soviet Union.
Chernobyl was certainly a very hurtful event but far less significant. Sure, it was costly but if the Soviet Union hadn't drained it's resources in the graveyard of empires aka Afghanistan it could have stomached one huge catastrophe.
In the movie they say something like 50% of the Klingon energy production was on Praaxis. Chernobyl was not that significant. To quote from wiki "and the four together (the Chernobyl reactors) produced about 10% of Ukraine's electricity at the time of the disaster." So maybe 2% of the electricity in the Soviet Union.
But for a 2 hour movie it is far easier to say. There was a boom and now we have to negotiate and Chernobyl was an event an American audience could easily connect with.
Booming
@the bureaucracy was inefficient.
Peter G.
I don't see the racism as coming from nowhere. In ST III we are given plenty of up-close reasons to find the Klingons animal-like, and Kirk says "You Klingon bastards, you've killed my son." The animosity towards them *as Klingons* was already canon for him. Where things get weird is in ST V, where a series of supposed changes come over the crew, making them reassess their lives, the meaning of meaning, going on a quest of personal inner healing, and of course making new inroads with the Klingons...and ST VI seems to leave all of that out as if it was, if I may, "like a dream". Sort of like how some movies (like Terminator Genisys) will deliberately ignore some of the films in the canon and continue on from others. ST VI seems to have ST V out of its head canon and continues Spock's story directly on from III (Saavik, renamed as Valeris) and IV (his embracing of his own humanity and rejection of pure logic), and Kirk's directly from III, more or less. And from that standpoint it plays very, very well. All you have to do is pretend V never happened, which...well, that's what I do anyhow.
Booming
Yeah, not that his animosity isn't understandable but I always thought that all these things like racism were basically a thing of the past. In this movie it is presented as fairly widespread. I just don't like it.
Chrome
Re: The racism of this movie
Yes, it's stretched thin to meet the movie's metaphor, but it makes for such a great payoff that I think the audience can suspend disbelief of it. There's this amazing moment in the film where Kirk realizes that his bigotry towards Klingons was part of a greater evil that seized elements of the Federation:
KIRK: Bones, are you afraid of the future?
McCOY: I believe that was the general idea that I was trying to convey.
KIRK: Some people are afraid ...of what might happen. I was terrified.
McCOY: What terrified you, specifically?
KIRK: No more Neutral Zone. I was used to hating Klingons. ...It never even occurred to me to take Gorkon at his word. ...Spock was right.
McCOY: Try not to be too hard on yourself. We all felt exactly the same.
KIRK: No! Somebody felt a lot worse. ...I'm beginning to understand why.
If you don't have Kirk starting out prejudiced, you simply can't have this realization. Then too, the moment is juxtaposed with Spock's own realization that his bias towards Vulcans made him blindly trust Valeris.
The thing is, in order for a film to really succeed as a film, it should push our characters into situations we're not used to seeing them in where they start to question their own values. This is one reason why say, ST: Insurrection is so mediocre compared to this movie. Was Picard really challenged as a character to question Federation values or was he just doing his same old thing rooting out another badmiral? Many would say the ladder and that's precisely why Insurrection feels like another episode of TNG. It really lacks the punch a two-hour movie needs.
Anyway, I could go on. One day I'd really love to do an Elliott-style review of this movie. There are just so many rich scenes for the audience to discuss.
Booming
I know I have come down pretty hard on this movie but it is actually my favorite star trek movie which probably makes me a hypocrite.
I think Star Trek's greatest time was when the Roddenberry idealism was still strong enough to have significant pull but talented writer could test it a little. It is the same with DS9 which was a great show but it gave writers the freedom to more and more and more dilute what Star Trek was at it's core, a future were humanity had made it. Sure, for us primitives it might look a little boring but for humans living today any kind of paradise probably would. In the end it all lead us step by step to the horrors of NuTrek where it is just "anything goes, but be nice if it is not too inconvenient or whatever".
Tomalak
Great post, Chrome. I would add - and many won't like this - that Kirk's attitude makes a lot of sense in the Star Trek universe. Clearly, across all Star Trek series, species makes an enormous difference. You see the odd Ferengi who isn't interested in latinum but on the whole everyone acts like being Ferengi makes you greedy and exceptions to this rule are curiosities. And that is how the Ferengi are presented, too. You name your species, you have your stereotype that all its members mostly live up to. In the case of Klingons, it's obsession with violence and killing and battle. Even if Kirk hadn't lost his only child to them, it's not some great indictment for him to notice this.
Peter G.
I know ST: VI is drawing a parallel between racism and the Human-Klingon situation in the Trekverse, but I'd like to point out that in addition to me recent post about how ST:VI continues nicely - almost seamlessly from III-IV in Kirk's relationship with the Klingons, I don't even think racism is directly implies. This is especially so given that the Klingons are Soviet stand-ins here, and there is essentially no race-based issue between Americans and Russians. There's a *cultural* divide, especially in regard to personal values, types of government, and of course the "In Russia hamburger eat you" memes. But an American hating or distrusting Russians is not racist, it's just a garden variety of prejudice backed up by years of actual evidence and conditioning. It's not even "prejudice" in the sense of cultural stereotypes that are perpetuated in rural areas with no basis in reality. The American distrust of the Soviets was *entirely earned*.
And in Trek's recent history up until this point, Kirk not only spent years in either war or detente with the Klingons, with them looking for gaining the balance of power at every turn, but even in the feature films they apparently attack and try to kill humans on sight just to entertain themselves. While meanwhile John Schuck stands around Starfleet headquarters lying through his ass about it like a coward and grandstanding. So this is neither racism nor unreasonable prejudice, nor is it even an animus based on intolerance of any kind. Basically it's their mortal enemy who, when they are anywhere near a Klingon ship, they can expect to be in hostilities almost by default. And we should be surprised that people have trouble trusting them? And these are the pre-honor type Klingons that we later see in TNG. These guys have no problem playing dead and then attacking Earth. So if anything we should be surprised that Spock is so gullible as to trust them immediately. It's nothing short of a miracle that someone like Gorkon was even chancellor, and if anything the film understates to the extreme how unlikely a leader he was for the Klingons, especially right at that moment. He really was a visionary, and it took Spock and him to take an incredible risk for even a chance at peace.
Again, this is all provided we forget ST:V exists, which I think this film does.
Peter G.
Sorry for a few typos early on my my post just now. But in conclusion, I think the racism bug is going around so strongly that it risks becoming an umbrella term for anytime you have a problem with someone who's different from you. I don't really think there's a racism angle in this film, even though there are of course strong themes of pride and animosity. The only direct mention I can think of in ST:VI involving 'racism' is when Kirk coyly tells Spock that "everyone's Human", to which Spock replies by calling him 'racist.' And yet this 'racist' is actually tongue in cheek. We could debate precisely what is implied by this exchange, but I don't believe for a second it's meant to address actual racism issues.
Booming
Kirk literally says that Klingons are like animals. Valeris specifically picks the two yeoman as assassins because she overheard them using racist language. Checkov says "Guess who is coming to dinner" a reference to a movie about racism. Cartwright says:"I must protest. To offer Klingons safe haven within Federation space is suicide. Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy."
Samno, one of the assassins says:"They all look alike."
while Burke, the other assassin remarks:"only top-of-the-line models can even talk..."
How much more clearly could this be about racism?
Jeffery's Tube
I love this film, but man, it really could have used a larger budget. The scale just seems . . . smaller than it should. They do a lot with what they have, smartly. But all the meetings in all the rooms are small and cramped, with a limited number of people in them, and Rura Penthe is obviously on a soundstage, and they're obviously reusing TNG sets, and even the final battle (while very well done) feels abbreviated. It's still great, but you can see the box the story has been constrained by.
Tony
It is supposed to be shocking and sad to see the Star Trek crew be so blatantly racist. There are a couple of things going on in 'Undiscovered Country' with the racism.
The first is about age. "Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and inflexible that we've outlived our usefulness?" Here to be "old" is less a physical condition than a mental outlook, a lazy (or to be more charitable, weary) cynicism masquerading as wisdom. The crew's racism is a parallel/ byproduct of being "old."
And like age, racism sneaks up on you. How can the crew of the Enterprise be racist? Didn't you see their idealistic young 60s selves? Didn't they have a party with the Klingons in the previous film? "I can't be racist, I have Klingon friends!" It happens. It happened right under their noses, but the crew has become old.
You want to know when you've really grown old, when it's time to pack it in and retire? It's when your experience becomes a liability rather than a benefit. The crew's experiences with the Klingons now work against them, which ties into the second thing TUC is doing with the racism...
Tony
The thing that really hammered in for me why Star Trek VI was important was when I read that Rodenberry's initial reaction to the story was that the crew couldn't be racist... it had to be *the Klingons* who were struggling with their prejudices, and the Federation would show them the error of their ways.
Because, you know, the Klingons. They're not enlightened like the Federation. They need help, sort of like children. They're the bad guys, not the Federation. It has to be that way because Star Trek isn't racis--bwahHAHAHahaha, come on now!
'The Undiscovered County' lays bare the hypocrisy of Star Trek and works to correct it. The Klingons were the villains, an example of everything the opposite of humanity's ideals, to be wrong at every juncture, and to top it all off they looked and sounded like a hodge-podge of every "scary foreigner" stereotype all in one. The Klingons as originally conceived were a Bad Race.
The crew couldn't hope but to grow racist against Klingons... Star Trek was freakin' racist! And I for one am glad that the series didn't just try to pretend that wasn't the case but rather tackled it head on and had the courage to be self-deprecating about it. It turns what could've been an embarrassment to be ignored into a part of a larger and meaningful story arc.
Tony
On another note, I'll disagree with fans and Nicholas Meyer about Saavik being the traitor. It would have been shocking and hurtful, yes--largely because it isn't very believable. Saavik is not conniving or duplicitous. I can see her perhaps objecting to peace with the klingons, but she'd make her opinion known, and she'd either refuse the mission or, like Kirk, suck it up and do her duty.
Valeris, on the other hand, has a coldness to her that informs her treachery. She casually bends the rules when it suits her (suggesting Romulan ale; firing a phaser in the kitchen) and is not very forthcoming (of her presence outside Kirk's quarters; of her misgivings to Spock), a combination that makes it very, very believable when she's found to be a conspirator.
In short, Valeris being the villain is a betrayal to the other characters. Saavik being the villain would have been a betrayal to *her* character.
(I also think it was a touch of brilliance that Kim Cattrall shaved her sideburns for the role. It makes her look slightly "off" in exactly the most appropriate way.)
Booming
@Tony
"Because, you know, the Klingons. They're not enlightened like the Federation. They need help, sort of like children. They're the bad guys, not the Federation. It has to be that way because Star Trek isn't racis--bwahHAHAHahaha, come on now!"
What kind of argument is that? The core of Star Trek is that the Federation has reached a point of development and cooperation that has turned the Federation into an ideal form of a state with a population that approaches the world in an enlightened way. Arguing that presenting it this way automatically means that it is racist, is another way of saying that you can only make shows or movies where either everybody is racists or nobody because everything else would be racist towards the made up races. I guess Roddenberry has to call the Klingon ambassador and ask for forgiveness.
If you take the idealized Federation out then you rip out the core of the concept that is Star Trek. So what you are complaining about is what made Star Trek unique.
Tony
An allegory about human racism and why it's wrong doesn't work if the racism is true and justified. A story in which the enlightened people teach the bloodthirsty savages the error of their ways would have been a cringe-worthy earnest endorsement of white man's burden (not to mention sounds like a really tedious film to watch). The best you could probably hope for is one where the Klingons reform themselves independently of the Federation, but then you've rendered the latter rather superfluous the and that story would best be told form the Klingons' perspective.
The story that Nimoy and Meyer went with is the one that feels truest if it's going to be a commentary on contemporary humanity (which is explicitly what they were going for): the Federation and the Klingons discover they were both wrong about each other.
Booming
"An allegory about human racism and why it's wrong doesn't work if the racism is true and justified."
eh what??
Let me ask you more directly. It is your view that if the Federation is portrayed as not racist and another state-like entity is portrayed as racist, and the Federation then helps that entity to overcome that racism, then that story is in itself always racist?
Tony
"Let me ask you more directly. It is your view that if the Federation is portrayed as not racist and another state-like entity is portrayed as racist, and the Federation then helps that entity to overcome that racism, then that story is in itself always racist? "
The answer's no. The issue is that the Klingons were specifically invented to be a bad race and that Rodenberry insisted that they again be the bad guys in a story about how racism is bad. The trouble (and irony) with that seems lost on him.
Peter G.
I think it's fairly straightforward to see that a piece cannot be "about racism" if the objects of the so-called racism deserve each and every presumption made about them. Thinking of the Klingons and bloodthirsty, untrustworthy, and villainous, can't really be called racism if they are, in fact, bloodthirst, untrustworthy, and villainous. So for a piece to cover the issue of racism they cannot really be that. Or at least, that perception has got to be objectively problematic. For instance Gorkon does not fit that mold, and the failure to recognize that resulted in a disaster.
Booming
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I agree that the Klingons in their earliest representation had quite a few problematic aspects but I still think it was a step in the wrong direction to make the Federation so racist.
Booming
The one above was addressed at Tony.
@Peter
I think racism is never justified.
Jason R.
"I think racism is never justified"
What about against the botfly?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wired.com/2013/10/absurd-creature-of-the-week-botfly/amp&ved=2ahUKEwi0n6yIrbjyAhWvT98KHU9eAuwQFnoECEwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0k5jdm7Du7szgz2e4HHMds&cf=1
Peter G.
@ Booming,
The point is that it's not racism if it's actually accurate and important information. 'Don't approach the Jem'hadar or they will kill you' isn't racist, it's common sense. Where it becomes 'racist' in the modern sense of the word is when you're marginalizing a people who (a) don't have the power to resist, or (b) don't fit that mold and are being subjected to false assumptions. But as Chekhov said, if the shoe fits...
Booming
@Peter
I guess we have different interpretations of racism. For me it means that somebody has the view that another race is inherently evil. That this race will always be evil. Furthermore a strong negative emotional reaction towards this race no matter how they act.
Knowing that the Jem Hadar are dangerous right now doesn't mean that they always will be. I agree with Julian's view, I guess. In my view the Federation was beyond racism and that Federation people who develop a negative outlook towards a race work actively against that or maybe cannot even perceive a racist perspective.
This movie was the first little crack which came to fruition in Star Trek Picard where journalists of major news organizations could be openly racist during an important interview which seemingly bothered nobody and entire worlds are racist enough to say:"let hundreds of millions of Romulans die". For me it all started here, in this movie.
Booming
@Jason
The botfly is different. They are a vile species that deserves to be hated and we should try to murder them all. #love
Tony
Put another way, racism is wrong because for us humans here in our reality, it's a concept that is fundamentally not true. In fiction, though, you can make circumstances where it is true: it's not immoral to be prejudiced against the Borg collective, or the creatures from 'Aliens,' or any number of fantasy "races" consisting of demons or monsters who are by their nature malicious.
That's the way TOS treated the Klingons, and honestly that wouldn't even necessarily be that terrible of a thing except it *also* wanted the Klingons to be analogues for various modern real-life human peoples, usually Russians and "Orientals" (it would've helped immensely if the villainous Klingons were specifically a political group rather than an entire race/ species - Nazis rather than Germans - but alas...).
While I think deep down Kirk still knows better (which is the saddest part), you almost can't even blame Kirk's attitude when all his life the only redeemable thing Star Trek has shown him of the Klingons is the time they grudgingly apologized (for hunting him down for sport) and managed to behave themselves at a cocktail party to make up for it (again: for trying to kill him, out of boredom).
It's good that Rodenberry was committed to showing that the Klingons could be something more than barbarians, but he wanted to do so in a way that proved them inferior to the Federation/ Humanity (Star Trek's analogue for "the West"), which is, well, racist, and exactly the kind of framing that created the problem in the first place.
Tony
On a positive note: how wonderful is it that Dr. McCoy is the *least* racist member of the crew here? He recognizes Gorkon's sincerity right away and wants to see it all work out. And even when he objects at the suggestion that Klingon culture will be annihilated, he insists that it's not true rather than getting defensive about how maybe their culture really ought to be annihilated. I get the feeling that for Bones racism is old hat, been-there-done-that, and he knows better than anyone that it's all BS. It's a really underappreciated way to sendoff his character.
Tony
@Silly
"The parallels with the Coke War were very clear when the movie was released"
Indeed, in particular I recognized the allusions to the Pepsi Peace Accords almost instantly!
Booming
@Tony
I never watched much TOS, so I didn't know the what the story purpose of the Klingons was. This discussion with you made me read up on then and yes, I agree, using the Klingons would have been problematic to tell the story Roddenberry wanted to tell.
" it's not immoral to be prejudiced against the Borg collective, or the creatures from 'Aliens,' or any number of fantasy "races" consisting of demons or monsters who are by their nature malicious."
If a species is actually malicious without any hope of every coming to an understanding with us, then acting based on that knowledge is not racism or prejudice, just rational behavior. Only because a lion will eat me, given the chance, doesn't mean that I hate lions for that.
But, as you mention, these are all products of Human fantasy, to give people in movies a justification to murder them without remorse. Let's wait until we actually find out that such species exist before we allow ourselves to hate them. ;)
Tony
@Booming
All good. I think we all are more or less on the same page and just haven't found the-one-size-fits-all description of the concepts we're talking about. :)
Nicolas Meyer has said that his final conversation with Rodenberry just before he died was a heated argument over the film, something he deeply regrets. From what I understand this lead to a small compromise: the theatrical cut removed the scenes featuring Colonel West (his proposal of a starfleet military operation, and the reveal that he was the "Klingon" assassin in disguise) so that Starfleet would look less warmongering and corrupt (and by extension the conspiracy feels more Klingon-involved), and then Meyer got to have his preferred cut on the video release.
Tony
(I've been commenting here a LOT, I'm taking a break after this one, I promise!)
Both of Nicholas Meyer's Star Trek films are these meta deconstructions of different aspects of the TV show:
TWOK is about Kirk having to deal with long-term consequences now that his problems can't just be wrapped up and left behind in convenient weekly "episodes."
TUC is about the inevitable nasty implications of simple black-and-white, Good Guys and Bad Guys tropes of episodic genre television when you try to run them through the complexities of a real-life geopolitical event.
Meyer's very well-read (to the point where I can imagine him being kind of a snob, even) but I wonder whether this was all intentional or if it just sort of happened because that's where his interests lean.
navamske
Jammer quotes the captain:
"'Once again, we've saved civilization as we know it,' Kirk says."
To me, citing that line is incomplete without also citing McCoy's response: "Yes, and the good news is, they’re not going to prosecute."
Silly
One thing this movie did really well was portray the Klingon leadership as competent leaders you can actually believe run an interstellar empire. This is very seldom the case in TNG or DS9.
TheRealTrent
"Art thrives on restrictions and on things left out. Paintings do not move. Music has no image. It is in every case the imaginative participation of the reader, the viewer the listener, that completes the circle that makes it art. Movies have a tendency to do too much for you; too much. They can tell you where to look, they can tell you what what to hear, so as a director I'm always curious about what movies can leave out and to the imagination." - Nicholas Meyer
"My favorite things have nearly always been extreme and fantastical, involving some kind of visual effects." - JJ Abrams
Peter G.
What a spectacular film. It's even better than I remember, and it helps that I watched it on a larger screen than the last time I did years ago. Nicholas Meyer brings back his action-packed directing style from WoK, but much, much better employed here. The story in WoK might be very compelling, and Khan himself sells so much of the film that he's a special effect unto himself. But what ST: VI has that WoK doesn't is that Meyer directed his own screenplay. He knew exactly which lines would do what, how to pace the dialogue based on his directing style, and how to have scenes with few lines that say so much because he knew exactly how he'd shoot them. I'll give a few examples of how his directing and camera technique are so far beyond the more conventional shooting done in WoK:
-The change between quiet and loud; between still and tumultuous, is a constant interplay in the film. We open with still coffee, which turns into ripples and then an energy wave crashing. The initial conference at Starfleet is filled with tension, and ends quietly with just Kirk and Spock in a darkened room. There are many more like this. Even the tonal contrasts when Chang is attacking the Enterprise are interesting, with him relaxed and even enjoying himself while blasting the Federation ships; his calm smile and casual gestures to go along with the frantic efforts by Bones and Spock.
-The economical camera movements during busy scenes: watch the shots as crew members are searching the ship for gravity boots and then uniforms. How the entire search is choreographed like a dance, with entrances perfectly time, people moving past each other, and never dwelling on any of it for a single moment longer than we need to just see it. Meyer managed to make a ship-wide search for missing uniforms extremely exciting. HOW!? It's just amazing. The same goes for when they're trying to translate their destination into Klingon. Considering how little they really had to say the business going on in the scene made it seem quite busy.
-The sheer amount of old-school TOS material in this film may exceed I-V combined. This screenwriting team really knew their Trek. Chekhov gets his customary Russian fairy tale line, just as an example of sticking to their roots and writing dialogue the way they used to speak on the show - but with more flair and authority (since the main cast are all at least Lt. Cmdr's). Discussion scenes finally have the entire cast involved bouncing comments off each other rather than just the captain making all the decisions like tended to happen in the previous films. It felt more like the show. Kirk even gets a random kiss and gets ribbed about it.
One more thing about the cast - they all get A LOT of screen time, and it is extremely high quality screen time. Chekhov is worth way more than just one joke here (his pretend schtick in ST: V), and even seems to have an important job for a change. Scotty and Uhura are around a lot, chiming in and participating. Sulu had a funny role in relation to the others but even he was quite prominent. The big 3 of course get a lot, but even Valeris and some of the Klingons get quite a lot of screen time, making this the most highly functional ensemble piece in probably all of Trek.
I needn't go into all the Cold War references, but it's clear the Klingons have been re-cast in their TOS conception as the Russian Cold War opponents of the Federation. Chang even literally calls he and Kirk "Cold Warriors", as if it wasn't already clear enough. The Praxis explosion is an obvious reference, so yes, this is a Cold War story, but one that gives more credit to both sides than we could imagine happening in our real world at the moment. And even for them there are serious fears in play.
Kirk and Spock continue to give excellent performances, and Valeris is a welcome addition, who turns out to be on the more engaging, even peppy, Vulcans we've ever seen. I would not have said no to having her be a central main character in a spin-off TV show. Throwing the Shakespeareans into the cast just adds class to the whole thing.
I won't even go into the terrific costumes, great ship locations, terrific use of extras to make the ship feel even more populated than we've ever seen before, excellent FX, a thrilling story, and a climax that's actually inspiring rather than just being melodramatic (such as the end of ST:IV, which is bittersweet in a lovely way but fleeting).
It's pretty much perfect, I don't even know what I'd do to improve on it if I could. Top tier Trek of any era.
Peter G.
Just some extra thoughts about Valeris and the conspiracy, I've ruminated about since my previous post. The matter of the role of Saavik being changed to Valeris seems to have changed a lot within the story. As Jammer mentions, there's the lack of character history here, which if it was Saavik would have been more shocking given how the film ends. And her bond with Spock would have made more sense, since Saavik was a science officer and could legitimately take over Spock's actual role (both literal, on a ship, and meta, in future Trek material maybe). Valeris, on the other hand, seems to be on a different officer track, as there is little sign that she's a science officer. So we lose the connection with Spock's legacy in this re-casting as well. I tend to agree they should have just made her Saavik v3.0. We'd have understood.
But the bigger loss to the film is on the side of the conspiracy. I think we are meant to sympathize with the conspirators a bit more than we do. As things stand Chang is a fun villain, but has no real point to make other than being evil. Cartwright, likewise, is just a hard-liner and finally a traitor. Valeris seems the most guilty in a way, maybe because of how enthusiastically logical she is about the whole thing. But beyond Kirk's remarks in his recorded log entry, and the general lack of enthusiasm for the crew to dine with the Klingons, there are some other signs in the script that almost anyone would have agreed with the conspirators at first. Uhura at the end even says that if they're going to arrest Valeris they should arrest all of them, because they all agreed with her. The thing, is, though, we in the audience didn't, and I think we were supposed to a little. When Valeris makes her plea to the bridge crew that she did the logical thing, that the Klingons could not be trusted, I think she means it earnestly, and yet her conduct is never accepted as being an honest expression of her logical conclusions. Spock seems positively offended by her conduct, but perhaps it would have been more interesting for there to be some acknowledgement that despite having made a bad choice, she still had the goal of helping of the Federation in her core. Something like that. And this is why it would have helped to have Saavik play the traitor, because we already knew and respected her, and it would mean more coming from that something was terribly wrong with the peace process. If someone with a reputation for honor and even compassion says it, we might take it at least a little seriously. And Valeris was right, Gorkon and his daughter were practically the only Klingons actually trying for peace; Chang and no doubt many others would have preferred to fight to the death. Who could have known that Gorkon was actually a visionary? That would take faith; but logic may well have suggested that the Federation was just being set up for invasion.
Another minor but interesting effect of losing Saavik is that we lose the Romulan connection, since she's half Romulan and it would have assisted in explaining the involvement of the Romulans and how they managed to make a go of working with the Klingons to develop the prototype ship. There was little point as it was, but had Saavik been involved the script would have had more room for at least a short scene or two with Ambassador Nanclus and his part in it.
Black Oatmeal
I've long thought that this was the second best Trek movie. However, I watched it again recently and I have completely changed my opinion. It's terrible. The dialog is atrocious. The acting by the regulars is shockingly bad at times. . Plummer is wasted playing a very silly character; 90% of his lines are Shakespeare quotations - and most of them don't even make sense in context! They go way too far in creating parallels between the Klingons and the USSR. Their are too many cliches in the plot too. Kirk's slo-mo last second save of the president followed by always cheesy "audience slow clap" bit is an example of this.
Positives: Iman is cool af. The make-up was good, too.
Clavain
I find it odd that the Federation has prepared for zero-g combat but the Klingons are completely defenseless without their grav plating or whatever tech keeps them on the floor of their ship. Nobody's got magnetic boots on a ship full of warriors?
Idh2023
Here we arrive at the swan song for TOS, and what a perfect final act it is. The cold war loomed large in the allegorical world of TOS, so it’s quite apropos that the death of the Cold War marked TOS’ final allegory. It’s like history conspired to give TOS a proper send off. The Klingons being general stand ins for 20th century communist powers broadly speaking, it makes absolute sense to use the specter of their collapse and a transition into an uncertain future as the basis for the final outing for our intrepid heroes, mirroring in an unusually direct way the near realtime events of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even the industrial disaster that sets the stage here has its real world counterpart in the Chernobyl catastrophe. It’s some kind of crazy art imitating life imitating art dovetailing together pretty perfectly. And as such this is definitely the most allegory heavy film in the series.
The movie seems to return continuously to a common idea delved into throughout the TOS feature films, one of death, self-reflection, and the prospect of rebirth, but in this case the focus is as much on a world building stage as it is on an introspective level. We get some of the most cohesive articulation of the Klingon perspective in the entirety of Trek as far as I can recall, for the first time there’s both diversity and depth to their point of view, and Chancellor Gorkon is as sympathetic a figure as any of our heroes, possibly even more enlightened than our own James T, able to look beyond his own horizons in a way most of the Enterprise crew struggle with.
We also get a charismatic villain in Christopher Plummer’s General Chang, a true renaissance man of the future, soldier, diplomat, kangaroo court prosecutor, Shakespearean quote cherry picker, the guy’s a dynamo! He drops so many bard one liners I lost track, but it seems his overall sentiment is one of joyful lament at his own impending obsolescence, and in Kirk he sees a kindred spirit. Two aged warriors defined by their mutual antagonism facing the prospect of being put out to pasture. “Have we not heard the chimes at midnight”, Chang’s parting dinner date quote to Kirk from Henry IV, is perhaps as direct a declaration of this position as one can get, two adventurers who must come to grips with adventuring no more. Chang seems to have accepted that he’s a relic of a dying era, and basically taunts Kirk with his intentions to go out in a blaze of peace talks sabotaging glory. Kirk stands upon the precipice, his gut telling him to cling to the familiar revels of the past like Chang, but his soul calling him to join Spock in the undiscovered country of the future, “parting is such sweet sorrow” indeed. This is perhaps Kirk’s greatest test, the final character definition for our most imperfect of protagonists, his chance to join Chang and “sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings”. But the easy path of despair isn’t in Kirk’s makeup, instead choosing to face his own culpability in the persistent venom that remains between the alpha quadrant’s biggest powers. He reflects on his being blinded by his own hate, “it never even occurred to me to take Gorkon at his word” he laments. Letting go of that hate is a great final character beat.
It seems that many folks found the racist(if you want to call it that, I think bigoted is more appropriate) attitude expressed by Federation personnel to be jarring. But I think it’s a crucial part of the story and allegory. It might appear unTrekkian to express such crude sentiments, but I think it would be less effective if the people of the future weren’t capable of reacting or thinking like, well, people. Overcoming one’s failures and learning to step past the intellectual shortcuts of broad categorization is far more meaningful than never having such struggles.
The pacing of the film is a little off, at times feeling a bit rushed. Events happen in what seems like hours that really should take weeks if not months. And I would have liked a bit more perspective from Valeris. Her motivations remained obscure. But such are the limitations of ambitious cinema. Overall, this is a pretty great movie that can be enjoyed on both a straight forward adventure level, and a more analytical character journey level.
3.5/4 floating blobs of surprisingly fuchsia blood.
Some random thoughts:
-I love the opening sequence, even if the science is out to lunch. That snippet of footage from Praxis always captures my imagination.
-Valeris was the first Vulcan to graduate at the top of her class? Really? How weird.
-Clear the moorings, lines away, dock master, etc… these sorts of technical tidbits are invaluable, they make the world feel mechanical and real, less magic more science/engineering. Nutrek writers really should take notes.
-There’s a noticeably lower budget at work here, but that seems appropriate. After all, isn’t that the TOS way?
-Emily Post? Pretty old timey reference there Kirk.
-Damn Valeris, you crazy lunatic! I hope you brought a mop, if I worked in the galley I’d be pissed. Also, why is there a galley?
-Mixed feelings about Michael Dorn here, performance is good, like the little TNG nod, but I’m allergic to small universe syndrome.
-Watching Spock express anger is like having your dad be mad at you.
-A last note on the mind meld scene: I found the reactions and non-reactions of those on the bridge to be indicative of witnessing a deeply unpleasant thing, more along the lines of shock and standing aghast. That it was underplayed and conveyed through reaction shots made it more effective in that regard to my mind.
Peter G.
@ Idh2023,
I love your point about Kirk and Chang and about how Chang is in fact completely correct in what he says about him and Kirk being in the same boat. Well, he's not correct about them being the same in every way, particularly since they each end the story in different directions, but in terms of their ability or willingness to hang up their armaments Chang is correct. Kirk doesn't see it, but he's going through some of what he did in Errand of Mercy, stuck in a habituated mindset which isn't necessarily valid.
About Valeris, we've mentioned it before, but don't forget that if it had been Saavik there would have already been some backstory for her in place. For all intents and purposes I think you should assume Saavik's backstory is essentially canonical for Valeris within ST VI. Her violation of her oath to Starfleet is mirrored by her violation of her tutelage under Spock. Here, Spock's vision mirrors that of what the Federation is supposed to be. Betraying him is betraying everything, which also includes logic and what comes beyond logic (that he alludes to in the film). And I think this is relevant about why she might have been the first Vulcan to come first in her class.
At first glance this would seem to be unlikely: aren't Vulcans the smartest race? But it seems to me Starfleet is more than just academic memorization and physics exams. It also involves moral assessments, being ambassadors for all Federation citizens, having not only an understanding of why Federation values need to be upheld, but a passion for these values. And these are areas where I could see Vulcans lacking. We already saw in Journey to Babel Sarek's acerbic manner causing friction rather than smoothing it. He may have understood what Tellarites believe, but he didn't know how to handle them, or perhaps just didn't care to. And I can also see Vulcans logically reasoning that Federation values work, but not being excited to persuade races from strange new worlds what a grand thing it is to join a galactic community. And in fact we already know from TOS that attending Starfleet Academy was mostly shunned by Vulcans, and although even at that time there were Vulcan ships with Vulcan crews in the service, it appears they preferred to keep to themselves and only work with Vulcans. This jives with how the crew in The Galileo Seven seem to have so little experience with Vulcans and don't undestand Spock at all. Mix all that with Valeris having Spock's intellectual aptitudes and a Romulan's passions (she is half Romulan, as Saavik was) and you might just get a perfect mix for academic brilliance and fervor for Starfleet life. She's the single successor to Spock in every way - a half-Vulcan dedicated to logic but knowing there's more to life than just that. Without her all Spock has left is a fleet of people who really don't get him, other than his personal friends. And when he retires (which seems imminent) there will be no one like him left in Starfleet to 'passionately' champion logic. But instead of becoming another Spock, a hero of the fleet, she chose to oppose peace and be a traitor. The final scenes of the film don't even do justice to what a disappointment this is supposed to be, but honestly the film would have had to be mostly about her to achieve this. It's great the way it is, as the important bits are at least implied.
Idh2023
I was kind of watching the movie with the mindset of ignoring Savvik and treating Valeris as a standalone character, given that that was the creative decision chosen for the film, but I agree that if we make that connection Valeris makes a lot more sense. I imagine that they chose to introduce Valeris because a third recasting of Savvik ran the risk of confusing the audience, but i actually think it was a smart move. Had they kept Savvik the story would have demanded more from her perspective than the narrative focus could handle, she just has too much history for such a turn to go unarticulated. Not only because of her betrayal of the Federation or Spock, but because of her betrayal of Kirk. I mean, she very deliberately participates in a conspiracy to get the poor guy shipped off to a death camp! And it’s her lurking outside Kirk’s quarters that lands some of the key “evidence” at his show trial. Savvik would have needed some character justification for so thoroughly throwing Kirk under the bus, it would have felt somewhat personal and there’s a lot of baggage that would need unpacking with what happened to David, but Valeris has no history there that we know of and thus it’s reasonable that she could compartmentalize Kirk as a mere means to a logical end, and as such be relegated to a servant of the plot as opposed to the focus of the story. Of course it unfortunately takes some of the sheen off of Spock’s tragic betrayal. So it’s sort of a conundrum.
Peter G.
Clearly they missed the opportunity to release Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Part 1 and then a sequel! I would have eaten that up.
Anyhow, even putting aside the screentime problem, the film didn't even really address her being half-Romulan, although the novelization stressed how it's the connection as to why she was conspiring with the Romulan ambassador among others.
Black Oatmeal
I'm reading the novelization right now, and there isn't anything in it about Valeris being half Romulan. I may not have gotten to that part yet.
SPOILERS
So far, her origin is that her Vulcan mother was killed by Klingons and her Vulcan father went a bit mad and rejected a lot of Surek's teachings. She was raised after that by a (presumably) human housekeeper. At some point she moved to Vulcan to learn the ways of her people. I neglected to mention that she didn't grow up on Vulcan initially.
The author of the novelization, J.M. Dillard, does a very good job of filling in a lot of the weaker aspects of the movie's script, imo, but about halfway through it reaches a point where it's like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The rough spots become so big that there just isn't any way to smooth over them.
For those of you who are fans of the movie, I highly recommend the novelization.
Random trivia: there's a snippet of an interview in Voyages of Imagination with the guy who wrote the screenplay, Denny Martin Flinn, and he says that his only knowledge of Star Trek was gleaned from watching the first five movies over a two day period.
Bryan
"...his only knowledge of Star Trek was gleaned from watching the first five movies over a two day period..."
Sounds like he did for TOS what Kurtzman & co. attempted with TNG, only with much greater success and renown.
Peter G.
"I'm reading the novelization right now, and there isn't anything in it about Valeris being half Romulan."
Well, read on! But as a small disclaimer, I read the book when it came out, so...
Black Oatmeal
Nothing about her being a Romulan, I'm afraid. I think maybe you got this one mixed up with Saavik's backstory in The Search for Spock novelization or maybe The Pandora Principle. Not a big deal. It gave me an excuse to read a Trek book that I'd never read before.
I thought the novelization was much better than the actual movie. The mind meld scene and the Klingon translation scenes for instance were handled much better, imo. And there were a ton of little things that made the story better.
Still, there's only so much you can do and I think there are just too many problems in the original script for me to ever be a fan of this one. Ironically, just like with the novelization of III, the fixes that the author introduced just made me notice more flaws in the movie.
Peter G.
Wow sorry about that! I did read the Search for Spock novelization before too. But it's weird, borderline Mandela effect, but I had a clear memory of there being a direct connection made to Ambassador Nanclus being connected to Valeris in the coup, rather than it coming from the Starfleet side, like through Admiral Cartright.
William B
@Peter G.,
I read the Memory Alpha backstory (from William Shatner's memoir) on why Meyer went with Valeris instead of Saavik in the final film -- Roddenberry objected to Saavik being a traitor, but Meyer didn't care; but then Meyer wanted Kristie Alley back, didn't want Curtis, and didn't want to recast again, so made a new character. According to the page for Valeris, one version of the script was going to have her be Spock & Saavik's daughter (!).
I know your take is more or less, Valeris is Saavik, and we just have to look past that she has a different name. Now my question is: why do you think Saavik join in the conspiracy to take down the alliance? This isn't a gotcha -- I think I just don't know her character that well. If we take Saavaleris to be half-Romulan, then maybe that factors in -- wanting to work with the Romulans to destroy the Fed/Klingon alliance. She also does mention the Klingons killing Kirk's son, and if we take Star Trek III in here then she also personally witnessed, and may have been deeply scarred by, Kruge's murder of David.
As far as I can tell, this is where her character's turn is foreshadowed in STVI proper:
SPOCK: You've done well, Valeris. As your sponsor at the Academy I've followed your career with satisfaction. And as a Vulcan, you have exceeded my expectations.
VALERIS: I do not understand this representation.
(referring to a painting on the wall)
SPOCK: It's a depiction from ancient Earth mythology. 'The Expulsion from Paradise.'
VALERIS: Why keep it in your quarters?
SPOCK: To be a reminder to me that all things end.
VALERIS: It is of endings that I wish to speak. Sir, I address you as a kindred intellect. Do you not recognise ...that a turning point has been reached in the affairs of the Federation?
SPOCK: History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.
VALERIS: Faith?
SPOCK: That the universe will unfold as it should.
VALERIS: But is this logical? Surely we must...
SPOCK: Logic? ...Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end. ...This will be my final voyage on board this vessel as a member of her crew. Nature abhors a vacuum. I intend you to replace me.
VALERIS: I could only succeed you, sir.
Then at the end:
VALERIS: I did not fire. You cannot prove anything.
KIRK: Yes I can. At my trial my personal log was used against me. ...How long did you wait outside my quarters before I noticed you?
VALERIS: You knew? ...I tried to tell you but you would not listen.
SPOCK: Neither of us was hearing very well that night, Lieutenant. There were things I tried to tell you, about having faith.
VALERIS: You have betrayed the Federation. ...All of you.
McCOY: And what do you think you've been doing?
VALERIS: Saving Starfleet. Klingons cannot be trusted. Sir, ...you said so yourself. They killed your son. Did you not wish Gorkon dead? 'Let them die.' you said. Did I misinterpret you? ...And you were right. They conspired with us to assassinate their own Chancellor. How trustworthy can they be?
McCOY: Klingons and Federation members conspiring together.
KIRK: Who is 'us?'
VALERIS: Everyone who stands to lose from peace.
Valeris does not understand faith; Valeris does not aver that there are other things than logic; Valeris does not understand Earth religion and art, and so the fact that all things end. Valeris was the first Vulcan to perform at the top of her class, and fears the death of *her* Federation, the expulsion from the "paradise" of a world that she believes she fully understands and can operate within. The world she trained for is going if she does not stop it, and she would rather be the perfect officer in a Federation at war than, even as a lieutenant, a fossil in a wholly new era, but because she denies the existence of her emotional side, she believes that it is cold logic that leads her to make this determination that she should assassinate, murder, and lie to keep the universe as she once knew it.
There is also the Valeris/Kirk thread: she openly admires him, and listens in to his log (and steals it). And she believes more strongly in protecting Kirk-the-idea than Kirk-the-man, willing to let him go to space Siberia (and presumably die) to protect Kirk's hawkishness about the Klingons. And this, too, makes a bit more sense if she was the one who was with David when he died.
I think this is what's going on. But I was wondering if there's something you think I'm missing, in terms of how Saavik and how her Romulan heritage plays into the story, in the read where Valeris is Saavik. Certainly Romulans seem to have this deep inclination toward betrayal and espionage, which I think is not *genetic* (except that their emotions are, like Vulcans', so intense) but a kind of cultural norm.
Black Oatmeal
"why do you think Saavik join in the conspiracy to take down the alliance?"
This question wasn't addressed to me, but my answer would be "because it's logical." Just like T'Pring's actions in Amok Time were logical. If you proceed from the perfectly understandable position that Klingons can't be trusted, then her actions make sense.
Not wanting to get into a geopolitical debate or anything, but considering how this movie tried to parallel real world events, Valeris seems to have been right after all. Yeah, it's a lot more complicated than a movie, but, whatever.
William B
@Black Oatmeal,
"Not wanting to get into geopolitical debate or anything" indeed!
Sticking to the movie, I think we're meant to see Valeris as being in the wrong in some way, but it's worth digging down why she's wrong. I think that you're correct that "the Klingons are not trustworthy" is meant to be a reasonable position, though perhaps an emotion-tinged one. But:
VALERIS: Saving Starfleet. Klingons cannot be trusted. Sir, ...you said so yourself. They killed your son. Did you not wish Gorkon dead? 'Let them die.' you said. Did I misinterpret you? ...And you were right. They conspired with us to assassinate their own Chancellor. How trustworthy can they be?
Her argument is that Klingons are untrustworthy because they conspired with them to assassinate their chancellor, but ultimately Valeris' own conspiracy involves killing Starfleet officers, sending Kirk and McCoy to be imprisoned/killed, and even the attempted assassination of the Federation President. I am, at the moment, not 100% sure whether Valeris knew about the last part, but assuming for the sake of it she is, the Klingon capacity for betrayal is no more (or less) damning than the Federation capacity. It may be that the logical endpoint of their arguments is that the Federation cannot be trusted either, but I suspect she does not want to make that case. I think once she uses the participation of Klingons in the conspiracy as justification for the conspiracy she's lost the high ground that her position is based on logic alone.
That said, I'm not opposed to the story idea of a ruthlessly logical officer deciding to carry out assassinations for what she perceives to be the greater good, but I think the movie is meant to show that there's a hole in her logic and so her motivation, or part of it, may lie somewhere else.
William B
To put it another way:
TUC sides with Spock against Valeris -- this isn't a flaw in the film, or (necessarily) stacking the deck, it's just the film's POV.
In the read where Valeris is 100% logical, the film's position would be because Spock's position is now, "Logic is the beginning, but not the end, of wisdom; you must have faith," and Valeris lacks Spock's perspective that logic is not everything.
In the read where Valeris *claims* to be 100% logical, her flaw is slightly different. Here Spock has already learned that logic must be in the service of something, and that people, even Vulcans, cannot and really *do not* operate on logic alone. What is the motivator beneath logic? Valeris believes her actions to be 100% logical, but she deliberately or accidentally misses the flaw in her logic, and she is motivated by (probably) fear. (I say fear more than hatred, because I don't see a particular reason she should hate Klingons, unlike Kirk -- unless she's Saavik, and then, maybe because of STIII....) Spock, who no longer completely rejects his emotional side, motivates himself with hope, faith, and loyalty, while still using logic.
Peter G.
@ William B,
I take Valeris' position to be entirely illogical, and what she's doing is trying to *rationalize* what she's done, which is a completely different thing. The don't think TUC is trying to enter the sphere of philosophy of mind as such, so I try to take its story beats as being about character. Spock knows from TMP, from ST: II, and from ST: IV, that there's more to motivation than logic. You have to want something, to need something to manifest itself that your logic brings about. The question is what your goals are. Spock seems in TUC to realize his goals should be more than just service, that he needs to go further, to take risks for something. That something appears to be a chance for peace, but that's just one event that came his way. The dialogue with Gorkon is more than just an opportunity with the Klingons, but a realization that two people can merge in some way, exchange something, and maybe change each other. It's hope, but not the hope of a fantasy. More like the hope that what you lose in letting parts of you die ends up not just being a loss. And Kirk has to go through this exact process in TUC. Kirk's hand is forced by his friend to an extent, but in the end he does realize he needs to let go of his hatred. Valeris doesn't. I think the two of them simply go in opposite directions as a result of the same trauma. Now this comparison really loses steam if Valeris is just some random Vulcan/Romulan who happens to conspire with Ambassador Nanclus because he's a Romulan too. It's like, what, they're the only two Romulans on Earth and so naturally they're going to form a conspiracy? So to me this story's weight somewhat relies on her being Saavik. Otherwise her story and Kirk's only intersect vis a vis the text you quoted above. Her admiration for him (let's say) becomes a vague pretense for saying she believes in what he believes, but lacks any shared experience.
So then IMO the reason Valeris tries to sabotage the peace is simple: she hates the Klingons. "Let them die." We might be tempted to even wonder whether working with the Klingons (and Romulans) might not actually be a good sign, that her conspiracy is a sort of cooperation. I have a feeling that for her this group of conspirators serves a merely instrumental purpose, and, like her, Chang would go his own way once the damage was done.
There's another clear reason why Valeris is wrong and knows she is: it's illogical to undermine the ethics and values of the Federation in order to 'save it.' And we're not even talking about an immediate crisis like the Jack Bauer nuclear bomb scenario. We're talking about a mediation which might turn to violence. Her entire position is irrational if she values Starfleet's ethos and rules. And we can even see how easily she suggests lying, e.g. the suggestion the Enterprise go radio silent pretending sabotage. She has no qualms about breaking Vulcan values. We see this motif in her dialogues with Spock:
VALERIS: Commander Uhura is experiencing technical difficulties, sir.
SPOCK: Curious. Very well. For twenty-four hours we'll agree this conversation did not take place.
VALERIS: A lie?
SPOCK: An omission.
--------------
VALERIS: I do not remember.
SPOCK: A lie?
VALERIS: A choice.
She why is Spock's answer ok, but hers isn't? Presumably both of them are stretching the bounds of what a full Vulcan would do in this situation. Presumably she thinks her conduct is just the same as Spock's in this regard. But Spock's "omission" is to help save his friends, whereas Valeris' "choice" is to destroy peace. So the goal is the issue, the logic (even of lying) merely ends up as servant to it.
We also know that Valeris wasn't thinking clearly when she signed up for this plan, because of this:
SPOCK: I assume command of this ship as of zero two thirty hours. Commander Uhura, please notify Starfleet Headquarters. Tell them precisely what has taken place, and request instructions.
UHURA: Aye sir.
VALERIS: But we cannot allow them to be taken back to Kronos as prisoners.
She assumed that hostilities would begin immediately, or that perhaps that the entire peace effort would be scuttled and that would be that. She never considered that Kirk would voluntarily allow himself to be arrested by a defenseless Klingon ship. Chang and she no doubt 'agreed' that he'd arrest Kirk, as from Chang's part this almost seemed rehearsed. But I think she was surprised that Kirk didn't find a way out of it as he always does. At this point she's improvising, and maybe she really did want them to try to rescue Kirk. despite the fact that she hoped the peace effort would fail. She's still Saavik (I say) after all, and cares about the Enterprise and its crew. So once again her logic was flawed when conceiving this course of action, naive even, to think that she could control the outcome of such a dirty set of events. Given that she's not stupid, the only logical explanation is that she was operating on an emotional level and rationalizing her choices.
It's my interpretation, anyhow, that deep down she knows she's wrong. Look at her face when she sees Spock is trying to meld with her. Now yes I know this scene doesn't age well in the modern era, because one feels that this has connotations of 'rape for a good cause.' But we should remember that melding merges their minds, there's no domination as far as we know. It's the revealing of the truth. Granted, the actress was subject to a fierce grab by Nimoy which could trigger a fear response, but then again if she's a logical Vulcan why would she have this emotional reaction? I suggest that her logic doesn't govern her as she pretends, and she's afraid to meld because Spock will see what's really in her heart. Yes, she wants to guard the details of the conspiracy too, so there's conflicted emotions as well.
Anyhow that's my take on it.
Peter G.
PCP THIS IS NOT FOR YOU
But it isn't a spoiler either.
After checking air dates I just realized that Unification parts 1 & 2 came out roughly a month before ST: VI! So Spock's reference to the Klingon peace effort, explaining his desire to keep the Unification plan to himself this time, was actually a tease to promote The Undiscovered Country, which had already concluded filming and was schedule for a Christmas season opening. Wow! I had no memory of that, and had been watching Unification all these years treating it as a follow-up rather than a soft spoiler. Very cool! It's also incredibly cool how what I take to be a very important but subtle subtext between Spock and Valeris turns into this major life turning point for Spock when he turns he gaze to Romulus as his life's work. Either this is an enormous coincidence, or someone in production saw the same subtext I see and took it very seriously.
William B
@Peter [SPOILERS PCP]
Yes I knew about that teaser in Unification being released before STVI. Pretty slick.
It also means - and I just realized this now - that we last see Sarek (or, if we count the Abrams/Kurtzmann era, last time we see Mark Lenard as Sarek) in his prime, in STVI, rather than at his deathbed in Unification I, which is touching and something of a gift.
Peter G.
@ William B,
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What a whiplash for Sarek fans!
William B
@Peter,
In addition to the Valeris subtext, I think we can see his overture to the Romulans as an extention of his mission to protect the peace with the Klingons in STVI. The Romulans are treated as the "silent partner" in both the peace and the conspiracy, and so Unification is Spock attempting to finish the work of STVI.
Sela is kind of a stand-in for Valeris/Saavik, even - a half-Federation, half-Romulan who identifies with Romulan values and betrays her connection to the main cast - though Sela's kind of goofy backstory/connection to Yar doesn't play out directly in Unification.
Peter G.
@ William B,
You're right that Spock's two peace processes seem to mirror each other in a way, but I guess based on the content of Unification, along with the Saavik/Valeris arcs, I see the Romulan unification as being much more personal for Spock than the Klingon one was. With the Klingons it was like he was continuing in his father's footsteps to an extent, and I could see Sarek very much approving. In fact his rapprochement with Sarek at the end of ST:IV (which I think is the most amazing moment in the movie) seems to me to perhaps usher in his openness to see peace as not just a result of service but of extraordinary service, that it's not just duty but personal risk that must be put on the table. The turn to smuggle himself to Romulus, though, is so much in Spock's character, because as much as reaching out to the Klingons would be a move his father would see as Vulcan, flying to danger on Romulus in the hope of igniting an underground movement would seem to Sarek as being Spock swinging the other way again, just like running off into the hills as a child. So Sarek indirectly says he admires Spock for this move, but at the same time it's a very not-Vulcan type of adventure. So just like dying to himself, discovering a new life, and integrating them, Spock can finally find common ground with his father, explore it, but then go further and find the Spock way to go all the way with it in Unification.
So I guess that's why I feel the Unification incident is more important, riskier, and more personal to Spock. And at least in my head canon it's a way of dealing with his painful failure with Saavik/Valeris at the same time. That failure was indeed his failure, a failure to realize that the Vulcan/Romulan divide isn't a merely political one as the Federation/Klingon divide was. For both races it was personal, and about the connection between logic and emotion.
William B
@Peter,
That's nice. I don't have a lot of time to process this at this very moment, but it occurs to me that it also splits Kirk and Spock nicely. The Fed/Klingon peace is *very* personal for Kirk, but not as personal for Spock, so that Spock can be an enlightened relatively objective participant -- not in the sense of being purely logical, because as you pointed out, he's using logic in the service of ensuring peace and protecting his friends, but his feelings about Klingons aren't threatening to overwhelm them the way they are with Kirk. And also Kirk partly has these strong feelings about Klingons not just because of his son, but because, as Kor pointed out way back in "Errand of Mercy," Kirk is, or can be, another warrior, more so than Spock (who is, true, still capable of military thinking). The Klingons putting away their warlike nature is connected to Kirk letting the inner soldier in himself die away. The Romulans mean something more personal than Klingons to Spock, because of Saavik/Valeris, because of his internal Vulcan emotion/logic battle, and perhaps also because of "Balance of Terror" (Spock being able to see himself in his enemies, and being persecuted briefly by a crew member because of it) and "The Enterprise Incident" and his relationship with the female Romulan Commander. Romulans mean less to Kirk overall (except for the connection to the "BoT" commander) than the Klingons mean to him, or than the Romulans mean to Spock.
Andrew
I also prefer Valeris just being a new albeit quite similar character than reusing Saavik. Mainly from that the traitor character's and Kirk's main point of disdain for the Klingons coming from the exact same incident, over killing the exact same person, that we saw just a few films ago would have made the series feel way too self-contained/obsesssed small-universe and OTOH the film understandably, almost unavoidably feels very busy, the two or three scenes we get reacting to Valeris's betrayal feel brief but sufficient, had it been Saavik who we had gotten to know and like a lot who did those shocking actions there would have to be a lot more reaction and regret but the film just doesn't, wouldn't have room for it, let alone given that it, as is, effectively transitions to overall real happy (even though with some acknowledgment of regret) and triumphant ending.
Peter G.
@ Andrew,
That's a really fair point. I think the film did have room for more regret mixed with joy at the end, particularly because if Spock's own decision to broker peace had been the sole reason for Saavik's betrayal, it would have created the inescapable conclusion that his logic failed to foresee or understand her reaction. I would have really liked him to have seen that he truly didn't realize what he was setting in motion. Don't forget, all of this conspiracy business was a direct reaction to Spock's dialogues with Gorkon. Like it or not, all of the events in this film were triggered by his initiating something with enormous consequences.
Jonathan
Been rewatching the series and then the movies over the past few months, and just ended with STVI the other night.
Enjoyed it once again, but that's not the reason for my posting now.
I just felt the need to point out, with respect to the Valeris/Spock forced mind meld discussion, Spock almost did this for another character in TOS that I don't think was pointed out by any previous commenters.
In "Elaan of Troyius" when Creighton is caught sabotaging the ship, Kirk calls on Spock to do a mind meld on him to forcibly extract the information on who he was working for and to determine what sabotage he had committed. And the only reason the meld didn't happen was that Creighton then proceeds to kill himself by shooting himself with a phaser to avoid giving away this information.
Just pointing that out is all...that this type of interrogation technique was apparently considered acceptable in the ST world prior to ST VI.
And it probably doesn't "count" for the purposes of this debate since it was not done by our "good" Spock, but mirror Spock did this also to McCoy in "Mirror, Mirror." Or maybe it does...since in that case, it was done by someone who was presented as an "evil" character or at least one that did not adhere to our established norms.
Again, an interesting debate to be sure...not sure which side I come out on, but it is true that this perhaps immoral act did save a lot of lives in the final analysis.
Jon
Noni
I'm rewatching Voyager and just got to "Flashback" last night, which prompted me to rewatch ST6, given that I hadn't seen it in years. And I realized two things as I was watching it again: first, that I'm pretty sure I'd only seen it once before; and second, that it's really damn good.
The first 50 minutes or so, up to Rura Penthe, are basically PERFECT. I agree that the dinner scene could have delved a little deeper and ran a little longer, but it's excellent as is, regardless. The whole assassination sequence on "Kronos One" (love that they named the Chancellor's ship that, btw) is just pitch perfect and really kind of genuinely unsettling! I'm not sure there's a single other incident of the artificial gravity failing in any other Trek story - if someone knows of one, feel free to point it out, but I certainly can't recall that concept ever being used outside of this film, and it's done to great effect here. Granted the SFX of the blood floating in the air hasn't aged GREAT, but it's a very striking image nevertheless. Odd that this is the only time Klingon blood is shown to be purplish-pink, at least that I can recall. I like it.
David Warner is always great, and his work here as Gorkon is no exception. It's kind of a shame that he dies so quickly. And of course, Christopher Plummer's Chang is incredible. I'd go as far as saying he's the second-best villain in the entire film series, after Khan. I do wish we got a little more of him and Kirk debating philosophy, trading insults, etc., but I'm glad he never gets into a physical fight with Kirk, which would have just felt trite IMO. And the trial scene is gold - Chang badgers Kirk and McCoy with an almost Khrushchevian intensity. Also I find the use of Michael Dorn as Colonel Worf legitimately charming rather than immersion-breaking - seems like every head of the House of Mogh can't help but be an honorable man who believes in the rule of law.
Now, the second half of the film loses some of the steam built up in the first, and that's a tad disappointing. Rura Penthe is a cool setting, but Kirk and McCoy are barely there for very long. I think an additional five to ten minutes showing them having to work the mines or getting roughed up by the overseers might have been a good way to raise the stakes, cuz as it is, they basically just got to an unpleasant summer camp (er, winter camp) for a few scenes.
Meanwhile, the search onboard Enterprise for the conspirators is pretty well-executed, but I agree with Jammer that Valeris being the traitor lacks a bit of impact based on the fact that we've never seen this character before. It definitely would have been better if they'd made her Saavik instead.
The final battle between Enterprise and Chang's bird-of-prey is pretty good, but it concludes rather abruptly. I think a little more trading of blows between the ships before Enterprise's ultimate victory would have been a bit more satisfying. I also don't mind Excelsior arriving to save the day, but as it's shown in the film, it does make the victory against Chang feel a little less earned.
So I'm left with the feeling that this is a film with a near-perfect first half and a more or less "serviceable" second, and that left me feeling just a bit underwhelmed. Regardless, I think it's a great movie overall, and I'd honestly say for me it's the second-best Trek film after Wrath of Khan.
It's no surprise that Nicholas Meyer directed both 2 and 6 - his style is very distinct for these films, and I love that he treats space combat more like legitimate naval battles than we typically see in Trek. His touch is appropriately gritty and grounded, and I really dig it.
It honestly makes me wish we could have gotten a DS9 film, directed by Meyer and written by, say, RDM. Imagine how good that could have been? Sisko returns from the Celestial Temple and has to take Defiant out on one last mission against, say, a rogue Cardassian warship that refuses to accept the new Cardassia post-Dominion. Man, that could have been an incredible film. If only.
Anyhow, I was impressed overall rewatching ST6 for the first time in years. But, given the somewhat lacking second half, I agree with Jammer's rating: 3/4.
Still, I'd nevertheless like to suggest that a good nickname for this film would be "The Underrated Country." :P
Submit a comment