• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Specter of the Gun

siskokid888

siskokid888

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
I watched this ep recently and it brought to mind a question I have had about it for a while - in all prior depictions of the OK Corral incident, such as "My Darling Clementine" and "Gunfight at the OK Corral", as well as the more recent "Tombstone" and "Wyatt Earp", the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday are portrayed as the "good guys" in the conflict, with the Clantons and McLaurys portrayed as the villains.

In the Trek ep, of course, this is reversed, and the Earps are portrayed as cold blooded killers hunting the group of innocent cowboys.

My question always was why this change in the story? The actual historical accounts not withstanding, were Trek writers making some kind of statement? In the context of the episode, was it that the Melkosians were using Kirk's fragmented memory of the story, and so the characters and events were twisted?

Or was it a counter-culture statement, presenting the law enforcement "heroes" as the bad guys and turning the story and legend on its head?

Has anyone else ever considered this? If so I would be interested in your opinions on it. (And I know I spelled "spectre" wrong in the title. Damn auto correct!)
 
I remember realizing this, that Star Trek had made the lawmen the villains, when I was nine. I loved Star Trek unreservedly, but at the same time I was a serious law and order man. I actually wrestled with it.

I think it was an anti-establishment statement by the show, but a mild one-- the good guys are also uniformed officers with duty and hierarchy.

I reconciled it as the Melkotians not giving a crap about right and wrong in human history. They were only interested in running a simulation to test their visitors.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I reconciled it as the Melkotians not giving a crap about right and wrong in human history. They were only interested in running a simulation to test their visitors.
Click to expand...
This. The Melkot could just as easily placed the landing party* in the Earps' shoes, but Kirk's motivations would have had to be different, and not necessarily one of escape.


* = My latest interpretation is they never left the ship at all.
 
Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, and that posse WERE almost just as bad as the Clantons.

It's ONLY because for the times they were relatively "media savvy" and because "the winners write the histories" that they've been glamorized.
 
The Melkotians needed a setting to place the Enterprise crew in which their outcome would be predestined. In other words, where they would all die. Even given this there is the obvious contradiction in the original gun fight Billy Claiborne survived. However I don't believe there was an anti-establishment message embedded in the script, I believe the writers simply chose a losing scenario for the characters.

I agree in reality they never left the ship. I always liked the surreal nature of this episode. Given the overall quality of season three, it was one of the better offerings.
 
You sure about that?

From Wikipedia:

Earp was at different times in his life a city policeman, county sheriff, teamster, buffalo hunter, bouncer, saloon-keeper, gambler, brothel owner, pimp, miner, and boxing referee.
Click to expand...


More:

An extremely flattering, largely fictionalized, bestselling biography published after his death created his reputation as a fearless lawman. As a result of the book, Wyatt Earp has been the subject of and model for a large number of films, TV shows, biographies and works of fiction that have increased his mystique. Earp's modern-day reputation is that of the Old West's "toughest and deadliest gunman of his day". Until the book was published, Earp had a dubious reputation as a minor figure in Western history. In modern times, Wyatt Earp has become synonymous of the stereotypical image of a lawman, and is a symbol of American frontier justice.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, "pimps" were considered disreputable.
 
While the "Cowboys" were definetly outlaws, Holliday was also a n'er do well with suspected homicides to his credit. And the Earps, like many "gunfighters" of that time, worked both as law men and engaged in various illegal activity.

Incidently, there was an apparent political component to the conflict that I was not aware of until recently. Apparently, the Clantons and McLaurys, along with Sherrif John Beehan and a good number of the Tombstone populace, were pro-slavery Democrats, while the Earp brothers were anti-slavery Republicans (at the time the Republicans were the progressive party). As the Earps began to insinuate themselves into the local business and government scene, it began to cause resentment and may have further fueled the eventual feud.

As to the Trek ep, the idea of the writer intentional going against tradition is interesting. It was written by Gene Coon (as Lee Cronin). Was Coon an anti establishment type?
 
One of the great touches in this episode is the wind, how it gently starts to blow and dramatically intensifies as five o'clock approaches.

I'm willing to consider that they never left the ship, but I've got a question about the scene at the end on the bridge, which frankly raises questions either way.

The first thing we see is McCoy scanning Chekov with that little whirly scanner of his. What immediately proceeded this? Did they suddenly appear on the bridge, and McCoy went to check on the now-alive Chekov? If they never left the ship, I imagine McCoy would've 'reappeared' in sickbay. I don't recall McCoy being on the bridge in the teaser. If they never left the ship, the Melkotians would have had to transport McCoy to the bridge. And what happened to Scotty?! :wtf: Was he left in the dark as to what happened?
 
I always assumed the Melkotians cast Kirk and his crew as the outlaws because that was how the Melkotians saw them. The pattern of their death was seen as the execution of justice.

As for the idea that they never left the ship, I don't get that out of Kirk's words to Chekov at the end ("Where have I been?" "Right here, it seems.")... always figured that just meant Chekov was returned to the ship by the Melkot after his "death." We know they beamed down at the beginning.

This episode is unusual, though, in that it never cuts back to the Enterprise to show what's going on while the landing party is away.
 
They certainly act as if they had beamed down. But when we're finally back on the ship, the path is still blocked by the Melkotian buoy, even though we saw them go past it. The only conclusion I can reach is they never made it past the buoy at all, and were already in an illusion at the time, while still on the bridge. All the events in Tombstone may have taken place in only seconds. Sort of an 'Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' theory.
 
Melakon said:
They certainly act as if they had beamed down. But when we're finally back on the ship, the path is still blocked by the Melkotian buoy, even though we saw them go past it. The only conclusion I can reach is they never made it past the buoy at all, and were already in an illusion at the time, while still on the bridge. All the events in Tombstone may have taken place in only seconds. Sort of an 'Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' theory.
Click to expand...

This theory gives Melkots the same power as the Talosians-- power that got Talos hit with a costly travel ban. I think "Spectre" was just imperfectly thought out when they filmed it. Also, simply re-appearing on the bridge was a very inexpensive way to stage the conclusion.
 
Talos dictated its own terms via Pike, and the bubbleheads liked their privacy in the first place. Melkots might have been more open-minded about visitors.

Powers of illusion are pretty common in the Trek universe anyway. Actually, I'd think the Federation would be very interested in the 2260s in forging ties with somebody in possession of such powers but still amenable to doing business with mere mortals...

Timo Saloniemi
 
It could be that the Talosians were meant to be implied to be MUCH more telepathically powerful than the Melkots which would explain the ban.

In Menagerie, the Talosians were creating illusions such as an imaginary Star Fleet admiral light years away from their space, and actually participated in a kidnapping of a star fleet officer (Pike) and corruption of another (Spock).

Whereas the Melkots were more like "You leave us alone we'll leave you alone" and used their telepathy only when we actually intruded into what they considered to be "their" space.
 
Melakon said:
They certainly act as if they had beamed down. But when we're finally back on the ship, the path is still blocked by the Melkotian buoy, even though we saw them go past it. The only conclusion I can reach is they never made it past the buoy at all, and were already in an illusion at the time, while still on the bridge. All the events in Tombstone may have taken place in only seconds. Sort of an 'Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' theory.
Click to expand...

I think the flash from the buoy was the last thing that "physically" happened.

BoredShipCapt'n said:
I always assumed the Melkotians cast Kirk and his crew as the outlaws because that was how the Melkotians saw them. The pattern of their death was seen as the execution of justice.
Click to expand...

I think this explains it perfectly.
 
Sistrin said:
The Melkotians needed a setting to place the Enterprise crew in which their outcome would be predestined. In other words, where they would all die. Even given this there is the obvious contradiction in the original gun fight Billy Claiborne survived.
Click to expand...

As did Kirk's character, Ike Clanton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top