I couldn't help but notice that Nimoy's stunt double is fatter than Nimoy.
MOMENT O' KUDOS: At the end of the show, we find out that T'Pau sent a message to Adm. Komack about requesting the Enterprise to bring Spock to Vulcan. Some may ask, ''How did she know that the Enterprise NEEDED permission to go to Vulcan?" The simple answer is, T'Pau found out everything Kirk did to get Spock to Vulcan by the mind meld that she did on Spock.
In the beginning of the episode, Kirk is climbing up one of those red ladders. Were ALL the Turbolifts full or something?
When T'Pring was explaining her actions, her last words were, "But if you did not free me, it would be the same. For you [Spock] would be gone and I would have your name and your property and Stonn would still be there."
I don't get it. Spock "would be gone" where? And is she saying she'd cheat on Spock with her boyfriend?
"Spock 'would be gone' where?"
Uh, aboard the Enterprise heading for Altair VI for the inaugaral ceremonies on that world or whatever other mission good ol' NCC-1701 ("No bloody 'A', 'B' or 'C') is off to next. The bottom line is that Spock would be back on the Enterprise and not on Vulcan.
"And is she saying she'd cheat on Spock with her boyfriend?"
I don't think that would be logical. I would guess that she meant that Stonn would be there as a constant reminder of what could have been. Or that Stonn wasn't a problem that was going to go away.
I think she did mean that Stonn would be her lover.
Logic can be used to give an illogical thing a logical purpose. Pon Farr is caused by Vulcans severely repressing their emotions, so wouldn't the logical thing to do be to not repress your emotions as much? I would think so, but the Vulcans prefer the 'go mad every seven years' thing to lightening up so they probably have a perfectly logical reason for why they haven't done so.
Also just because Vulcans must mate every seven years is no reason to assume they couldn't mate in between.
T'Pring didn't seem to be undergoing the same loss of emotions that Spock was. Could it be that by exercising some emotions for Stonn Pon Farr for her wasn't as bad as it would have been if there had been no Stonn?
I think she did mean that Stonn would be her lover.
Oh yeah. I don't care if she's Vulcan, Human, or Horta, when a woman uses 'has/have' in that context, that's what she means.
HOW did Chapel get into Spock's quarters anyway?
Beautiful Babe Bypass? ;-)
LOL..Kirk would be wondering how Spock got his hands on a B.B.B.B. (Beautiful Babe Bypass Button) thinking that's a "Captain's priveledge only!"
A doctor or nurse, like Chapel, could have a special bypass code to get into a room in case of emergency.
Uh, who's using my name here? (And not capitalizing the first letter?) Is there now another one of me here?
Live long and prosper,"
Shoot... them... both..., Spock!
Benn the real one , give the fake benn the Vulcan Death grip (Enterprise peoblo Incident) 
Live fast and prosper
If had to go to the cerimonies on Altair VI, rather then disobey orders, couldn't he have let Spock take a shuttlecraft to Vulcan? The Enterprise could continue on its merry way to Altair VI without delay and rendezvous with Spock when he finished his business on Vulcan. (Did Kirk think that given Spock's condition, that Spock would be incapable of piloting a shuttle?)
Vulcan may have been too far away for a shuttle flight. That's always been my assumption.
Live long and prosper.
Yeah. If it's that big a diversion at warp, then it would be impossible for a shuttlecraft (which were allegedly sublight -- note Metamorphosis(TOS) seems to debunk this).
On Vulcan, it is stated that T'Pring will be the "property" of the combat's victor. That always struck me as being a very sexist and illogical attitude for the supposedly logical and enlightened Vulcans. T'Pol from Enterprise doesn't seem as if she would put up with such an attitude (and she's from a much earlier time).
As if fighting to the death is logical
Well, Pon Farr is the one time when Vulcans aren't logical.
Odd, considering that this episode (and the original Trek movies) established that female Vulcans have long hair, Voyager and Enterprise (and the TNG episode "The Schizoid Man") have female Vulcans with the same mop-top hairdo as males.
"T'hande"? Does this mean you're female?
The hairstyles on Vulcan women has also bothered me. But then again, TOS and it's sequels all take place close to a hundred years apart. I would imagine hairstyles would change in the intervening years. Of course, it does kinda bug me that even in Picard's time, those "star-points" sideburns were kept. You'd think there'd be some kind of a change after all that time. Then again, the technologies between the two series (TOS and TNG) never seemed that dissimiliar to me. I got the feeling that by Picard's time, they had only improved on the technology that was available to Kirk and his crew. They hadn't seem to have advanced to the next level.
Live long and prosper.
I knew that was a mistake...no, I have the full complement of chromosomes.
And your argument would make sense apart from the fact that (what with Enterprise) it goes mop-top -> freestyle -> mop-top for female Vulcans. Not impossible, but certainly improbable.
Actually, given that hairstyles come and go in an almost cyclic manner, I could see the Vulcans going from the Moe hair-style to free-style back to the Moe haircut. Trouble is, it wouldn't be very logical. Perhaps during the time of Kirk, Vulcans felt there was no logical reason not to appreciate aesthetic beauty, an attitude that would change by Picard's time?
Live long and prosper.
Phil asks if Starfleet wouldn't have some sort of regulation to prevent acquisition of command by assassination. This isn't really assassination --it's a deeply held ceremony that is a tradition of one of the founding members of the Federation.
Kirk accepted (naively but willingly). It is indeed strange, but to not have the first officer as captain would be wrong.
This post has been copied to this topic by the Moderator. Originally posted on June 14, 2004 11:56am
Um, Mike? The fact that the ceremony is of a founding member of the Federation doesn't make it legal within the bounds of Starfleet. It is murder. To not have the first officer as captain would be wrong? Excuse me? To promote the first officer after he killed the captain would most certainly be wrong.
Why is it murder? This is, I assume, an entirely legal ceremony on Vulcan. It's not like Spock walked over and stabbed Kirk in the back and claimed the ship. This is a legal ceremony which Kirk, admittedly without knowing the ramifications, accepted to participate in. To not have Spock move up in the ranks would basically be invalidating one of Vulcan's central ceremonies as murder.
It is murder. What is legal on one planet is not relevant. What is relevant is that when you're a Starfleet officer, you are bound by the laws of the Federation, and more specifically, Starfleet. Starfleet officers cannot cannot just challenge each other to the death when they're on duty, and Kirk was most certainly on duty.
They got it right in Reunion(TNG) when Picard was furious with Worf for going over to Duras' ship to kill him for K'Ehlyr's murder, and when Sisko chewed him out for trying to kill his brother in Sons of Mogh(DS9), even though those acts were within Klingon tradition. If Worf were to take a leave, and go to some other planet or area not under Federation jurisdiction, that would conceivably legal. While Vulan is under UFP jurisdiction, both Kirk and Spock would have at least had to take a leave from active duty for this act to be legally inactionable.
I still don't see it as murder. I CAN see Kirk getting in trouble for callously getting involved in a life-and-death thing, and if HE killed Spock, I could see repercussions within Starfleet. But this is a Vulcan ceremony. It is on Vulcan. Spock is entirely within legal rights to do so. This is a legal ceremony. Kirk willingly participated in in it. Should we charge all Vulcans that participate in this ceremony with murder?
I would have to say that I am agreeing with MikeC on this one. It seems like if Kirk and Spock had been fighting on the ship or on a federation planet that didnt have pon farr rituals I could agree with Luigi but since it is legal on Vulcan, Kirk and Spock where on Vulcan, Kirk did willingly and knowingly agree to it in his right mind, and it cant be anyone's fault if Kirk didnt ask the right questions before agreeing to it. I was always kinda peeved with Picard for intefereing in Worf's right to claim vengence in accordance with Klingon law and tradition.It almost sounds like the argument the feds and Luigi are presenting is that your planet's laws and traditions dont count or matter in the federation. Sort of like the federal government trampling state's rights as well as individuals. To bring the real world into things.
In other words, if we agree with Luigi on this one, Quark was right. The Feds are worse than the Borg.
Sorry, Luigi, that didn't come out right. If we agree with Luigi's logic on this one...
I certainly didn't intend an ad hominem, Luigi, I hope you realize that.
Well it certainly does seem as if the Federation by the logic Luigi presents will take the approach of saying that to be a member you have yto play the game by our rules and drop anythign that we disagree with. Even on your own planet. I doubt that Starfleet members give up their homeplanet's citizenship so they are bound by two sets of laws and besides since Starfleet is a military organization there would be and should be regulations covering most things and if McCoy who is a member of the ships crew and who no doubt has had to be trained in some aspects at least of command to be the rank he is says that Spock is the new CO then he is no doubt the new CO. Since Kirk was "killed" in accordance with Vulcan law. We cannot apply US federal logic and laws to a multistellar, multi-species organization. For all we know the Federation may act like the Articles of Confederation (not the CSA of the civil war the ones before Washington) or the UN in which each member retains their rights and their laws but promises to play nice with each other. At least that is how I would hope the Federation would act and not like some kind of dictatorship where each member surrenders their soverign rights and laws to the greater whole of the Federation. And I am not attack Luigi personally just the way he called Kirk's "death" murder.
I always thought Spock was just interim Captain, and he would take the Enterprise back to homeport for a thorough investigation, with lawyers working out the details. (Wouldn't the captain of a ship be properly assigned by starfleet anyway? If he is incapicitated, someone else may take over and therefore move up in rank, but that's only temporarily, until confirmation from command comes through).
Spock would be the logical choice for interim command, since he is First Officer and highest-ranking. He isn't incapicated, and he's not on a murdering spree - so what would prevent him from commanding the Enterprise until Starfleet command has properly appointed the next Captain?
I can see it now...
"Doctor Crusher turned me down again, Captain. Can you believe it?"
"Turkana IV is a lawless planet. Set a course and we'll have our way with her, Number One."
I am with Luigi on this one. The "Well, that's just the way we do it here" doesn't wash.
Should we charge all Vulcans with murder? No. All Vulcans aren't a member of Starfleet. In order for an individual to be a part of Starfleet, then that individual needs to abide by Starfleet's rules, irrespective of a planet's or culture's own rules.
No one's saying that Spock would be tried and executed for his role... but he at the very least would be court-martialed and drummed out of the service.
Your example is completely different.
a. Kirk accepted the challenge and was not dragged to a lawless planet to be murdered by Spock.
b. Spock was engaging in a perfectly legal ceremony. If I recall, you can't just bail on this ceremony, so what Spock supposed to do? Let's say, for instance, that someone not part of the crew, Ensign McDoofus, volunteers to be the challenger and gets iced by Spock. Does Spock get court-martialed? Or is it just because Kirk's Captain?
I meant not part of the "bridge" crew.
No one's saying that Spock would be tried and executed for his role... but he at the very least would be court-martialed and drummed out of the service. - Darth Sarcasm
Why? My understanding of pon farr is that induces in Vulcans a state approaching insanity. Because of pon farr, Spock could not be thought of as being in his right mind. By your logic, Darth, Kevin Riley should have been court-martialed and drummed out of the service for his actions in "The Naked Time". To present but one example.
Live long and prosper.
MikeC: Should we charge all Vulcans that participate in this ceremony with murder?
Luigi Novi: If they're Starfleet officers on active duty? Yes.
R: I was always kinda peeved with Picard for intefereing in Worf's right to claim vengence in accordance with Klingon law and tradition. It almost sounds like the argument the feds and Luigi are presenting is that your planet's laws and traditions dont count or matter in the federation.
Luigi Novi: Why should the laws and traditions of other planets count or matter, but the laws and traditions of Starfleet not? Putting aside the fact that Worf is a Federation citizen, you cannot simply go and participate in a ritual or act that would be against Starfleet regulations if you’re on active duty with Starfleet, particularly if it involves something as serious as killing someone. There are rules of conduct in any society, and Worf, Kirk, and Spock chose to serve in Starfleet, which means they have to abide by their rules first and foremost. They are representing the UFP and Starfleet, and must adhere to those rules in order to uniformly represent an organization made up of many different races and cultures. You cannot just go around killing your fellow officers just because “Oh, well, we’re on another planet.” Starfleet vessels always go to “other planets.” But that doesn’t mean that Starfleet regulations simply become “suspended” every time they cross someone’s border, and take on the laws and traditions of that planet.
Could Picard simply go to Kronos with Riker, and if Riker pisssed him off, just chop his head off, and suffer no repercussions by his superiors, as if they’d have no problem with that? If they did, Federation and Starfleet laws would become meaningless, and you’d have murderous anarchy like the type seen in Mirror, Mirror(TOS). I’m sure that from the point of view of the Mirror characters, mind you, their system works fine, but is that really the type of system that you would prescribe for the SF guys in our universe? I also understand that Picard killing Riker is an extreme example that you might have difficulty hypothesizing, so let’s use another: In Eye of the Beholder(TNG), Pierce murdered Calloway when he caught her cheating on him, and covered up the evidence. In your proposed system, he could’ve waited until she took shore leave on Kronos, or some other planet with similar laws, gone down himself, killed her, and his superiors and fellow crewmates would be okay hunkey-dorey with that, and have problem continuing to serve with him. Does that make sense to you? Can you explain or defend such a system? What kind of moral relativist, paper tiger system would it be if SF Command just shrugged off such things and said, “Oh, you killed your fellow officer? Oh well. You were on another planet. Whatever.”?
When you’re in an organization like Starfleet, which represents over 150 worlds and races, and whose activities therefore have HUGE political, military, scientific and diplomatic ramifications, you have to be extremely careful about the conduct of your officers. It is for this reason that when you serve, you willingly choose to abide by certain uniform rules for the good of the organization, in the same way you do when you join the military today, or for that matter, any other organization. If I work for a company, and a reporter asks me big questions about the company I work for pertaining to a sensitive matter, can I speak to them? According to the First Amendment, yes. But can I speak to them while on working hours and wearing the company’s uniform? Not necessarily. In the same way, Starfleet officers’ adherence to the need to represent Starfleet properly cannot simply be tossed aside upon the activation of a transporter beam or the opening of a shuttlecraft hatch. You take those Starfleet laws with you when you’re on active duty. Adherence to those laws cannot be negated by planetary borders, akin to tourists straddling the middle of the Hoover Dam (“Hey, look, I’m in Nevada! Now I’m in Arizona! Now I’m in Nevada again!”).
ScottN: Sorry, Luigi, that didn't come out right. If we agree with Luigi's logic on this one... I certainly didn't intend an ad hominem, Luigi, I hope you realize that.
Luigi Novi: Went over my head anyway, Scott. Don’t sweat it.
R: Well it certainly does seem as if the Federation by the logic Luigi presents will take the approach of saying that to be a member you have to play the game by our rules and drop anythign that we disagree with. Even on your own planet.
Luigi Novi: No, only if you’re in Starfleet, since Starfleet is patterned after certain laws that do not include dueling to the death. You wanna duel to the death? Fine. Resign or take an extended leave of absence from Starfleet, go to said planet on your own dime (so as not to associate a SF vessel with said ritual), and do whatever you want. Seems fair to me.
R: Since Kirk was "killed" in accordance with Vulcan law. We cannot apply US federal logic and laws to a multistellar, multi-species organization.
Luigi Novi: A Straw Man argument. I didn’t say anything about “US federal logic and laws.” You did. I repeatedly said Starfleet and the Federation. And yes, the rules and the manner of adherence to them that I described are most certainly logical, and do provide the best system possible, IMO, and while I did not mention the US, our military probably does operate by the same logic, and rightfully so. The system you propose invites immeasurable abuse. In your system, if two servicemen take shore leave in an Arab country, and one discovers that the other stole some money from his wallet, he could chop off that other guy’s hand, and not only would the Arab authorities not mind, but neither would the men’s superiors when they returned to the ship, simply because they were “in another country,” which is obviously absurd.
R: For all we know the Federation may act like the Articles of Confederation (not the CSA of the civil war the ones before Washington) or the UN in which each member retains their rights and their laws but promises to play nice with each other. At least that is how I would hope the Federation would act and not like some kind of dictatorship where each member surrenders their soverign rights and laws to the greater whole of the Federation.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about Federation members on their home worlds. We’re talking about Starfleet members serving on ships visiting those various worlds while on active duty. That has absolutely nothing to do with a “dictatorship.” It’s simply a necessary set of rules that is required to serve in such an organization so that rules of conduct are maintained and do not become relative.
One problem I constantly see cropping up is the application of how things are in the Original TREK era, to the later eras (and vice versa). Isn't possible that the stance that Picard and Sisko had regarding Worf's action were the results of later changes to Starfleet/Federation laws and rules of conduct? That is, it wasn't until after Kirk's era that Starfleet laws became paramount to the laws governing a planet (as far as Starfleet officers are concerned)? I mean, there is almost a hundred years separating to the two eras.
Live long and prosper.
But Luigi there is a big difference about Spock murdering Kirk on a lawless planet for sinister reasons and Spock killing Kirk in a legal ceremony which Kirk willingly accepted to participate in on a planet that is one of the founding members of the Federation!
In my opinion, Kirk should have ASKED, "Hey, what's the rules for this Kunak-Kali-Fee (SP?)" before deciding to participate.
MikeC: Should we charge all Vulcans that participate in this ceremony with murder?
Luigi Novi: If they're Starfleet officers on active duty? Yes.
Remember, though, Luigi, Spock didn't choose the ceremony, T'Pring did. And, if Spock doesn't take part in said ceremony, he will die.
MikeC: But Luigi there is a big difference about Spock murdering Kirk on a lawless planet for sinister reasons...
Luigi Novi: Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about the planet being lawless? I certainly didn't. I don't see that word anywhere in my posts. In fact, I do see that I said, he could’ve waited until she took shore leave on Kronos, or some other planet with similar laws... Funny how you need to switch the criteria from planets and their jurisdictions which have certain laws and traditions (the phrases that were being used here), to one planets that are "lawless."
Second of all, what do the motives have to do with anything? Starfleet Command will look kindly on the situation depending on whether it was sinister? How exactly is something as subjective as "sinister" codified within a law? To many societies today, killing over infidelity isn't "sinister" at all. Many believe it is perfectly legitimate. Who's to say the Klingons are some other planet don't as well. Again, how would this proposed system of yours work? Who decides what is "sinister"?
Judge: "The defendant is charged with murder.
Laywer1: "Your honor, my client found his girlfriend cheating on him and killed her."
Judge: "That is considered 'sinister' under the law. The sentence is life imprisonment. Next?"
Laywer2: Your honor, my client killed someone he lent money to who refused to pay it back."
Judge: "That is not considered sinister. He is free to go."
MikeC: ...and Spock killing Kirk in a legal ceremony which Kirk willingly accepted to participate in on a planet that is one of the founding members of the Federation!
Luigi Novi: Again, what does the fact that it was a founding member have to do with it? What, Vulcan has more "prestige" because it's a charter member? What kind of Alice in Wonderland Logic is that? This is simply hairsplitting, just as the "sinister" argument is. Why would killing someone on a charter world be okay, and killing someone on a recent member or protectorate not? What is right and good and true in one place is right and good and true in all others.
ScottN: Remember, though, Luigi, Spock didn't choose the ceremony, T'Pring did. And, if Spock doesn't take part in said ceremony, he will die.
Luigi Novi: Now that is a good counterargument. The fact that Spock was in blood fever, that the duel was chosen by someone else, and that Kirk was free to decline but chose not to (despite Spock's objections) because he didn't think he could stand up to Stonn, would conceivably be factors, IMO, upon which I could see SF Command basing a decision not to hold Spock accountable for Kirk's death. I will add that alternate viewpoit to that nit's entry on my computer, Scott.
This would leave the diplomatic nit of why these customs are not made common knowledge when SF vessels visit well-known worlds, particularly one that is a charter member. That pon farr is unknown by this ep is questionable enough, but they can know about betrothal and duel rituals without revealing that pon farr aspect of it.
Another nit I noticed when reviewing the end of the episode:
The manner in which the plot unfolds at the end of the episode conveniently conforms to Bones’ plan, even though Bones could not know this outcome could occur. Bones gives Kirk this triox to help him breath during the duel with Spock, when as far as he knows, Kirk and Spock are going to be dueling with lirpas. After administering this drug, Kirk and Spock are giving slings, which Spock uses to apparently strangle Kirk. After returning to the Enterprise, Kirk reveals that Bones slipped him a neuroparalyzer to simulate Kirk’s death. What’s conveniently serendipitous about this is that had Kirk and Spock continued with the lirpas, Spock could really have slashed or stabbed Kirk to death, particularly if he delivered a blow around the time that Kirk began to feel the effects of the paralyzer. Instead, they switched to a weapon whose method of attack with which the effects of the paralyzer could be reasonably camouflaged.
My apologies, Luigi, I misread your post and thought YOU said lawless.
You are misinterpreting my position. I am not saying that because it was a Vulcan or because it was a good motive, it's okay for Spock to kill Kirk. It's okay for Spock to kill Kirk just as Scott said--Kirk ACCEPTED to participate in a legally sanctioned ceremony which Spock HAD to participate in.
Using your judge analogy:
ATTORNEY: Your honor, my client was participating in a legally sanctioned ceremony on a planet within Federation jurisdiction. He is a CITIZEN of this planet and did not venture there merely to pursue malfeasance. He, in fact, had to participate in this ceremony, as many males of his age do. The person that he killed WILLINGLY chose to participate in said ceremony.
I cannot see a comparison between someone schlepping down to Kronos to commit legal murder and Spock killing Kirk in a ceremony which Kirk himself willingly participated in.
Your example is completely different.
a. Kirk accepted the challenge and was not dragged to a lawless planet to be murdered by Spock. - MikeC
"Doctor Crusher, I would like you to accompany me and Commander Riker on the Away Team to Tarkana IV."
"Yes, sir."
Hey... she knew the planet was lawless... she was asking for it. (NOTE: Please forgive the potentially offensive humor for the sake of making a point)
b. Spock was engaging in a perfectly legal ceremony. If I recall, you can't just bail on this ceremony, so what Spock supposed to do? - MikeC
Putting aside the issue of whether Spock was in his right mind or not (since that has nothing to do with this particular argument), of course Spock could have bailed on it. Spock is a free-thinking, sentient being. During his court-martial, an argument could perhaps be made that Spock wasn't capable of making such a decision. But as long as he went down to the planet as a Starfleet officer, he is compelled to follow Starfleet's rules and regulations.
Let's say, for instance, that someone not part of the crew, Ensign McDoofus, volunteers to be the challenger and gets iced by Spock. Does Spock get court-martialed? Or is it just because Kirk's Captain? - MikeC
First of all, Ensign McDoofus would likely be a part of the crew... or did you mean command crew? In any case, it doesn't matter who Spock killed or attempted to kill... even if it was a civilian. As long as he was an active Starfleet officer, he's compelled to follow Starfleet's rules and regulations
Actually I beleive Spock couldn't have bailed on this as he would have died. Now I admit choosing to die for something is still a valid choice but hey who would want to do that? But anyhow Spock went on the Planet as a Vulcan not a starfleet officer. Kirk went down as a human citizen and the friend of Spock. None of them where representing Starfleet or the Federation. None of them where acting in an "official" capacity. And for that matter Kirk had already broken regs by just going to Vulcan so one of her citizen's could perform a legal and required ritual. And the arguement about Arizona and Nevada is not quite the same as both are required to abide by Federal laws and do not have enough freedom to change things enough. now between canada and the US would be a more adept argument. And as for how the service operates, according to the Navy regs us navy sailors are bound by US laws whereever they go. Of course they break many of them (especially the more draconian sex and drugs ones)and their superiors know about it but look the otherway unless there is a problam. But this is one petty little planet out of 150 in the federation and our laws probably dont mean much to say andorians.
If a US citizen travels to a country with lax laws regarding sex with underage prostitutes, I've heard they can be charged with statutory rape upon returning to the US, even if it wasn't a crime in the country where it was committed.
So it's not totally illogical to think charges could occur for acting against Starfleet/Federation laws even if not acting against local planetary laws.
Is it a crime in Starfleet to kill someone in a traditional/quasi-religious ceremony?
And that is a good zinger, Darth Sarcasm, but it's still not quite the same as what happened in this episode.
Moderator? This entire board, IMO, would probably be more appropriate for the Amoke Time board. Mike's first post that starts off the board should remain, but a copy of it should also go to the Amok Time board for context because the subsquent post by me is responding to one of the nits therein.
MikeC: I am not saying that because it was a Vulcan or because it was a good motive, it's okay for Spock to kill Kirk. It's okay for Spock to kill Kirk just as Scott said--Kirk ACCEPTED to participate in a legally sanctioned ceremony which Spock HAD to participate in.
Luigi Novi: Kirk didn't know it was a duel to the death until after he accepted it. Only then did Lord High Doofus T'Pau essentially tell him, "Oh, by the way, it's a duel to the death. I'm gonna go get some popcorn."
Is that T'Pau's fault? Or Spock's?
Is it a crime in Starfleet to kill someone in a traditional/quasi-religious ceremony? - MikeC
Crime? I'm not sure how or even if Starfleet law defines a "crime" or even "murder." But it is certainly against Starfleet regulations. And as such, Starfleet would most certainly (or should, anyway) court-martial him for his actions.
Note, though, that a court-martial does not necessarily mean that Spock would be drummed out of Starfleet or otherwise punished. A court-martial is simply a military trial, a trial in which a person's guilt or innocence is established. As already mentioned, the extenuating circumstances of Spock's condition may be sufficient to exonerate him of any malice or wrongdoing.
Okay, I can see an investigation.
If a US citizen travels to a country with lax laws regarding sex with underage prostitutes, I've heard they can be charged with statutory rape upon returning to the US, even if it wasn't a crime in the country where it was committed.
Which is part of the problem of the problem with this country. Too many anal retentive laws. But to put this back into trektextualization: Starfleet probably does have rules and regulation for interacting with the various cultures and such they encounter. Judging from the non-interference directive being caled the "prime directive" most of the regs probably say stuff like play by their rules as much as possible but dont take advantage of them or let them take advantage of us.
Laws against exploiting children (often as young or even younger than 10) sexually are anal retentive and a problem? WTF?
Sorry, but I don't even know how to get back on topic after reading something like that, so I'll just back out of the topic slowly right about now.
I never said anything about 10 or younger, I was talking about 16 and up which are the ones I have heard the most about in Europe. Where most of the age of consents are set at and I was referring to the age of consent. And you never said anything about children, just underage which to most of the zealots in this country can mean 17 1/2. As for back on topic you are right about this. It has probably gone about as far from talking about Star Trek as it can. So I am done.
CG enhancing: Following up on an idea in the Space: 1999 threads, if Star Trek the Classic Series could be enhanced with CG, these are ideas I have for this episode.
When Kirk orders Spock to report to Sick Bay, the inner (beige) turbo lift doors close, but the outer (red) ones remain open, but are instantly shut in the cut to Spock. Possibly animate them moving as well?
There's a cutting error of T'Pring walking forward before a close up of her standing next to Stonn.
At once point when Spock is standing at the science station, you can see a piece of tape holding the bridge railing together.
When T'Pau's sedan chair is carried down the stairs, the guys carrying it must freeze for a few seconds. As the first guy reaches the bottom of the stairs, the scence cuts to Kirk and McCoy ("Bones... you know who that is?"). When it cuts back, they haven't moved.
Great moment: Phil mentioned the beam-in in "Space Seed" where they nearly got the blinking lights to match up. There's an even better one here. As Spock beams up from Vulcan, there's a steam plume in the background. It doesn't jump or freeze at all during the beaming. (Unlike the smoke in the Guardian of Forever, which freezes and jumps around when the closing credit appear.)
John asked, a while back: In the beginning of the episode, Kirk is climbing up one of those red ladders. Were ALL the Turbolifts full or something?
Haven't you (or anyone else in Nit Central Land) ever taken the stairs instead of an elevator because a) it was faster, or b) maybe you need the exercise? Actually, I worked in a dumpy building for 15 years, and the staircase between floors was locked (no re-entry permitted on any floor.) This was, of course, a fire hazard. However, the owners of the building were politically connected hotshots, and our management kissed their asses to the extremus, so I guess it wouldn't have mattered if we all burned to death.
One thing I found out from the DVD set: In the first season, there was a sound coming from the ship's engines; it could be clearly heard. I thought TPTB did away with that for the second season. But, the engine noise was clearly audible on the DVD. Admittedly, I was listening through my hi-fi set, but I'm glad this nice subtlety was not done away with.
there are quite a few posts here questioning why spock didn't prepare for his pon farr, what he died seven years ago and so on... actually i think this is his first time, because he tells kirk 'i hoped i would be spared this' i think he didn't know if he would get it, because of his human part.
this actually pops up more than once, but mccoy tells kirk in this ep that maybe vulcans pay the price 'for not having emotions the rest of the time' with the pon farr. i think vulcans do have emotions just like humans, but they control (and hide) them very well. for instance, when spock gets 'drunk' in 'the naked time', he tells himself repeatly 'i'm in control of my emotions'. or in 'this side of paradise', that woman tells him she knows he loves her, and he never denies it.
one thing i never got about spocks pon farr is that, well...there's this 'growing chemical inbalance' in his body, and it can be relieved by an ancient ceremony around 'mating'. wouldn't that essentially mean he should have sex? he never does. he only fights with kirk and later tells him that, after the fight, he'd had lost all interest in the 'girl'. (i think this is a nit, spock using 'girl'. true, kirk and mccoy have a tendency to call all women 'girls', but spock usally doesn't, and she's his age, too). anyway, does this mean, next time this time comes around, spock can simply go to the gym and have a good workout?
in the scene where spock finally tells kirk what's it all about, he asks kirk wether he'd ever wondered how vulcans choose their mates. kirk
replies he always thought it would've been done 'quite logically'. spock answers that it's not. i know his trying to explain something he has trouble talking about, but i'd assume, that when spock's and parents choose t'pring as his future wife (when spock and t'pring were seven years old), they did made this decision on a logical basis. in the marriage ceremony seen in the ep, spock never has a choice, and t'prings only choice is to marry spock or have him fight someone - which also means she has to become the victors property. after he owns her, spock decides to give her away to stonn, but this isn't the same as if she were his wife.
and one more...i think t'pau should have spock executed next time he returns to vulcan. he pledged his life for the well-behaviour of his friends, and mccoy is really violating that ceremony with that drug he gives kirk!
i think vulcans do have emotions just like humans, but they control (and hide) them very well
This is canon. See Sarek(TNG).
Welcome to NitCentral!!!!!
BTW, your posts will be easier for the rest of us to read if you capitalize better. Thanks!
Welcome to Nitcentral, Nina!
Nice to have you beam aboard, Nina
There are quite a few posts above here, discussing whether or not Spock committed a crime supposedly killing Kirk while on active duty.
Excuse me but isn't he actually on shore leave? He asked for it several times earlier in the episode. Kirk even says at one time: "I'll get you this shore leave," or something to that effect. Does it change anything? I don't know. I only wondered why it hasn't been mentioned.
I believe that according to military law, it wouldn't matter that Spock was on leave. He would have still committed a crime while he was a Starfleet officer and thus still subject to Starfleet military laws. The only way out I see is further intervention by T'Pau. I mean, if she got Kirk off the hook for taking the Enterprise off her scheduled course and assigned task, she could have surely persuaded Starfleet to drop the charges. Not to mention that I'm sure Kirk, the "dead man" in question, would probably not be very interested in pressing the charges.
"Live long and prosper."
"I shall do neither. For I have killed my captain and my friend."
Well, at least Spock perceives it as a crime: he is going to abandon the mission and proceed to the nearest starbase to hand himself to the authorities... I suppose it counts for something :-)
To walk or not to walk, that is the question!
When T'Pau points to the gong & says, "Kali-Fa", Spock turns and walks towards it. Just then, T'Pring takes one step behind Spock...like she's following him. HOWEVER, in the following closeup of T'Pring, she is standing still.
(I think the woman playing T'Pring got too anxious & started her walk prematurely)
I thought of something just now. T'Pring seems to indicate she'd have no problem having an affair with Stonn while being married to Spock, correct?
Well, in Star Trek V, one of the "proofs" people use that the movie is apocryphal is Sybok. The movie says Sarak and a Vulcan princess had a son named Sybok and TNG's "Sarek" establishes that Amanda is Sarek's first wife. They view this as a contradiction.
Since Vulcans have no problem with adultery, as T'Pring proves, why would pre-marital sex be a problem?
The movie says nothing about Sybok's heritage beyond him being Spock's brother. The Vulcan Princess thing comes from the novelization, IIRC.
Live long and prosper.
Benn...Spock did say in the Brig that Sybok was the son of Sarek & a Vulcan Princess. It's not just in the novel.
Benn, I think you are wrong. I'm sure that Spock says "Sybok's mother was a vulcan princess".
The debate about how Nurse Chapel got into Spocks quaurters in the teaser was pointless. I watched the DVD today, and after stopping to talk to McCoy and Kirk in the hallway, she walks over to Spocks door and RINGS THE DOORBELL! Watch the episodes more closely folks!
The text comentary on the DVD had some interesting facts.
We wasn't talking about that scene, John-Boy. We were talking about later in the episode in which Chapel is in Spock's quarters when he's in bed.
Ok, I admit I was wrong on that one John A. Lang, but who's to say she didn't ring his doorbell that time too. As out of it was Spock was, he could have told her to come in and not realized it. Earlier, he had told helm to change course and go to Vulcan, and claimed that he was so out of it, that he didn't remember it.
That may be true. But it's funnier the other way.
If the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee (sounds like a songtitle for a Mary Poppins movie) is so ancient and these Vulcans are so keen on the ritual, even if it involves ceremonial murder, why, I wonder, do they speak in English and not in Vulcan... (could be an Universal Translator thing of course, they speak Vulcan but it gets translated to Kirk and Bones).
I think T'Pring has gotten a bad rap.
Spock, her betrothed, had left many years ago to pursue his Starfleet career and presumably would have left again soon after the marriage.
He apparently had no desire to come back to marry her: "I hoped I would be spared this." I think his disinclination to marry could hardly have escaped her notice.
With telepathy playing such a large part in Vulcan personal life, it seems to me a marriage between these two would have been a travesty, especially when there was another man who wanted her and she wanted him.
It's too bad she had no way of ridding herself of Spock except by the kalifee (which is a bit extreme). I don't think Spock would have minded a bit if she had just written him a Dear John letter.
He apparently had no desire to come back to marry her: "I hoped I would be spared this."
I've always taken that comment this way - that Spock hope he would be spared the whole pon-farr stuff because of his human half. But, having been married (and divorced) once myself, I can see your point.
BTW, watch the A&E series Gene Simmons' Family Jewels. Simmons has been with his partner, Shannon Tweed, for about 23 years; and they have two kids. But, they're not married, and Simmons is so against marriage. Perhaps he feels that the only way that marriage will lead is to divorce.
Well, if Spock and T'Pring had just gritted their teeth and gone through with the wedding, they soon could have gone their separate ways and lived happily ever after with just the occasional stargram. Seems logical to me.
But then we wouldn't have had the great irony of two men who were the best of friends having to fight each other to the death for the possession of a woman neither of them wanted.
I haven't seen the Gene Simmons show, but last night I watched Dog the Bounty Hunter marry his longtime companion Beth. I actually teared up.
Last night I watched Dog the Bounty Hunter marry his longtime companion Beth.
He did? I saw previews of that show, but I didn't think he'd go through with it.
And, I'm not saying that Simmons should marry Shannon Tweed; that's his choice. But, a wife (or a husband) has more rights to make decisions for the spouse than a partner can, particularly in the area of medical treatment (if the spouse was unable to speak for him-or-herself) and distribution of assets upon his/her death. (Especially if one of those KISS stunts and theatrics go wrong. I would think that after over 30 years of doing that stuff, Simmons and the gang would have it down pat. But, you never know.)
But then we wouldn't have had the great irony of two men who were the best of friends having to fight each other to the death for the possession of a woman neither of them wanted.
And Amy, I like your take on this episode. To be honest, in almost 40 years and countless viewings of it, I never thought of Kirk and Spock's situation in this episode like that.
Unless he's given her a written power-of-attorney.
Didn't think of that one. Thanks, Scott.
Time for Part 2