posted
In the times of The Original Series, starship captains did seem to wield a good deal of authority. As some support, we can look to the events in the Excelsior's history that were revealed in Voyager's "Flashback." Captain Sulu did not report his failed rescue attempt of Kirk and McCoy and lied about the causes of the damage to his ship. As an explanation, Janeway spoke about the difference in the times and how captains were more independent back then (and could presumably get away with a lot more).
I'd be willing to bet that Kirk did eventually tell Starfleet about exiling Khan and company on Alpha Ceti VI. He did say that he'd wander how they would do in fifteen years, so it seems like he may have eventually travelled back to check on Khan. This seems realistic as it did seem there was a mutual respect between Khan and Kirk in "Space Seed." If it was reported, it may not have been deemed important enough an issue for everyone in Starfleet to know about. Add to that, there's the possibility that Terrell forgot over the long passage of time.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Captains of "The Original Series" certainly did seem to yield a great deal of power, so Kirk may have, indeed, had the authority to maroon Khan. Thus, we are back to the original question. Was that a reasonable decision? Timo makes the point that it may have been unreasonable to do anything else; the nearest Federation outpost could have been months "out of the way," and Ceti Alpha V may have seemed a St. Helena at the time.
However, barring those circumstances, I still think it was a rather poor decision. Leaving a highly intelligent and resourceful man unsupervised is, at best, slightly irresponsible, and, at worst, immoral, say, if it leads to the near destruction of "Enterprise," the deaths of many cadets, the death of Spock, the untimely detonation of the Genesis Device, and the eventual collapse of a pending peace treaty with your government's enemy. I guess the second question is, if one agrees that Kirk made a poor decision, do you hold this against "Star Trek II," or not? If so, is the plot fatally flawed?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
As much as i worship the character of Kirk, he is not omniscient. Leaving Napoleon on Elba worked quite well, and the Federation would have been hard put to find a better solution to Khan, since his strength and intelligence was imprisoning him a questionable plan.
This would have worked. Kirk's real mistakes were taking the cadet ship into danger and not raising the shields. 'Getting caught with his pants down' as he admits it. The original mistake was compounded by the later mistakes into the situation you describe.
(Fans of the non-canon could trace mistakes back further, as when Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln blew up Chrysalis Project in 1974, they decided to transport the genetically modified four-year olds to orphanages rather than kill the as-yet innocent children.. even though Seven tried to redeem Khan by training him, it ended up being a horrible mistake as Khan decided that, in light of the horror faced in his life, that he should rule the world. And again, when it was decided to launch them into space rather than kill them.) In fact, Khans whole life would speak to the fact that, each step of the way, he was shown mercy and punished those who did so.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
"I guess the second question is, if one agrees that Kirk made a poor decision, do you hold this against "Star Trek II," or not? If so, is the plot fatally flawed? "
No, and here we get the reason why Star Trek II is so well liked. Instead of the infallable heroes of TOS, we hav an old man reading a book and wearing glasses. We have the leader, the captain, James T Kirk, cock up badly. Badly enough that several people die because of it. And it's a great change.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: Leaving a highly intelligent and resourceful man unsupervised is, at best, slightly irresponsible, and, at worst, immoral
So is also trying to haul him back to Earth or a penal colony for a trial when the man has already captured and taken control of your ship. As far as Kirk was concerned in "Space Seed", he most likely felt that he needed to get Kahn off his ship as fast as he could, lest he lose control of the ship again and thus most probably lose his life.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
quote: If it was reported, it may not have been deemed important enough an issue for everyone in Starfleet to know about. Add to that, there's the possibility that Terrell forgot over the long passage of time.
Rather like Giles and Gwendolyn Post... "I'm sure there was a Memo..." :�)
posted
To summarize, it seems a number of posters agree (with me) that Kirk may have made a bad decision, but no one (other than perhaps myself) considers it a plot problem for "Star Trek II." I just do not know that I can be so forgiving of Kirk, when all of the disasters in the movie may have been avoided if Kirk did not "grudgingly respect" Khan years earlier.
If Osama bin Laden captured a United States Navy ship, her crew took the vessel back, and the Captain released Osama on a deserted island because "I respected his guts, and what harm can he do in the middle of nowhere?" would we welcome that Captain with a parade down Broadway? And years later, when bin Laden escapes and wreaks more havoc, would the movie made about the events portray that Captain as a hero who made one little mistake?
posted
Or you could just wait for another Navy ship to stop by, and make contact with you, because that other Captain never told anyone what he did . . .
posted
No offense intended, Cadet (and I do feel very passionately about this subject, so please forgive me the following rant , but I feel that you are missing the primary theme of the episode and an principle concept in the film.
The essence of the episode is the pitting of two 'Supermen' against each other. Khan is a eugenically engineered, hyper-educated fascist prince from a war-torn bygone era of human past. Kirk is a clever and brash product of a comparatively peacful society in the form of Starfleet. Their clash is not merely of men, but of philosphies and eras. Who will suceed, the past of violence and viciousness, or the future of peace and exploration? Although it may not be immediately obvious, the two men are actually very similar: clever and powerful leaders, physical and passionate men in peak condition at the fore of their society. Where Khan deems himself above all men (including this 23rd century excuse for a superman), Kirk can see an aspect of himself in Khan. It is a distorted and extreme image, but Kirk recognizes it, and even admires Khan's resourcefulness (Albeit to a lesser extent than McGivers). At the end of the episode, Kirk has finally bested Khan (Though to Khan's credit this would not have been possible without the betrayal of McGivers). Kirk has superseded his past and now stands ready to deliver the death blow. However, Kirk has become more than that. Were the situation reversed, Khan would not have hesitated. Kirk would be dead on the floor without a further thought. But Kirk MUST be better than that if he is to truly defeat Khan. If he is to truly be more than Khan, he must not destroy his enemy. To do otherwise he would become his enemy. That is a reality Kirk cannot escape. True to form he devises a clever workaround. He presents Khan the option: Death or Life on an untamed world isolated from the rest of society. Kirk does not do this lightly, or flippantly. He forces Khan to choose between his past of violence and a future of world-building. He knows that Khan's relentless amibition will not let him choose death. He forces Khan to cede. It is the only way Kirk can win and still retain his humanity. In hindsight, it may not have been the best decision, but it was the right descision. There is no flaw, that I can see.
I think Kirk would inform Star Fleet of his decision, but that Starfleet might keep it on the down-low. It would not be a popular decision, but that's because most would never understand how fundamentally important it was that it unfold in this way.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
posted
Methinks that an excellent and in-depth analysis of the episode. I agree with you, thus, I do not think I missed the point of the episode, per se (and no offense was taken). My point here is to criticize the episode's ending, and, by extension, the choice of Khan for Star Trek II. The episode writer pitted two great men of different times, and he proved Kirk the truly superior man by Kirk's decision to spare Khan. However, the writer did not give any thought to other improvements in the 23rd century. Would not it be reasonable to think that the "penal system" of Kirk's time would be truly rehabilitative; a rehabilitated Khan, if possible, would have been a great contributor to society.
(Unfortunately, no other writer has the vision to reform the prison system, either; the Tantalus penal colony was more or less a prison. Even in the 24th century Bashir's father, a non-violent man, is sentenced to jail time. Surely required "indoctrination" on the dangers of genetic resequencing would have been more productive then sending him to New Zealand.)
Kirk's decision really is not a problem until "Star Trek II," though. Had Khan lived and died on Ceti Alpha V, I would have been fine with that. Perhaps it could have even become a thriving colony. However, the writer(s) of "Star Trek II" decided to choose Khan, out of all the antagonists of the original series (if the had to use a known antagonist), who was stranded because of Kirk. Thus, Kirk bears the responsibility for the events of the movie, and, as I said before, that is a problem for me.
posted
P.S. As for the informing Starfleet issue, whether or not Starfleet was informed, Chekov could have at least discreetly scanned Ceti Alpha V, or asked Commander Kyle too (what a scene: the two "Enterprise" veterans exchange knowing glances as they wonder about Ceti Alpha V).
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Or better yet, they could have...oh, I don't know, bothered to count how many planets were in the system? That's a far more troubling issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed it is. The writers would have us believe that "Reliant" sensors cannot tell how many planets are in a system (kind of important given the mission); that "Reliant" sensors cannot tell when a planet is the planet they think it is; that those "gun" tricorders are crap; among other beliefs that do not normally have to be suspened. All of this to use Khan. They could have come up with a different way to get to Khan, but they did not. Which is why I think the story is not as good as many hold it to be, which was one of my original points (mind you, I am not criticizing the dialogue).
[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
, but I feel that you are missing the primary theme of the episode and an principle concept in the film.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
