 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 5:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
From what I vaguely remember, it is Sybok's disarming charisma and 'lawyer leading the witnesses on' enticing the crew to see his point of view. Kirk knows he's somewhat out on a limb and seems to go into 'observation' mode, letting each crew member 'snap out of it' in something like the way he did when deliberately angering himself in that flower garden.
A bad case of Stockholm syndrome is from The Island, when Caine's screen son (Justin) is given over to Warner's pirate guardian. There's the scene where Caine is made to hold up some object his son has been ordered by Nau to fire at, which he does when his father (Caine) steadfastly holds out the object while indicating confidence his son's aim will be true and he'll be left uninjured. The kid takes the shot and blows the thing in his father's hands away without sustaining injury to his dad. After that, the kid says to his father, "I could have hit you . . . if I wanted to." Normally, that kind of arrogant petulance would engender a hard swipe across the face, but Caine is under duress and he has to let the sarky remark from his son go by with utmost cool. Later, when the tide turns, he gets his boy back when the power of intimidation from the pirate no longer holds any sway over himself and the boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 6:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
From what I vaguely remember, it is Sybok's disarming charisma and 'lawyer leading the witnesses on' enticing the crew to see his point of view. Kirk knows he's somewhat out on a limb and seems to go into 'observation' mode, letting each crew member 'snap out of it' in something like the way he did when deliberately angering himself in that flower garden.
A bad case of Stockholm syndrome is from The Island, when Caine's screen son is given over the Warner's pirate guardian.
Wow, that is one generous tangent inre THE ISLAND. That sounds more like family relations than Stockholm syndrome. In THE HITCH-HIKER (1953), the same situation is set up between two friends by their captor, and it's pretty unpleasant to both of them.
It's too bad there wasn't more exposition about the Sybok Effect. Therapies like EST, Primal screaming, transcendental meditation, and John Bradshaw workshops did change people. They were probably the basis for Sybok, even to his name as a kind of anagram, like PsyPop from Pop Psychology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 6:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
But that is more like social conditioning, which again is impressed under circumstances in which the subject knows they are a prisoner and that if they don't comply with the orders they've been given will illicit some kind of pain response. This does not appear to be the way Sybok does things. He genuinely appears, at least initially, to appeal to some sense of logical perspective shared by both himself and the person he is attempting to win over. He does it by simply imparting the impression of being wholeheartedly reasonable and open with his subject. In the movie so far as I remember, it is as though he has recruited a handful of disciples who are willing to go along with him under his tutelage of their own free will at least until things turn pear shaped.
If you mean EST, I've heard they were locked in a room, but I didn't hear of any punishment. I'm thinking of John Bradshaw or transcendental meditation gurus who would liberate your mind from old shackles. But EST encourages members to recruit (probably to raise money) so it resembles a cult. In that respect, Sybok is similar since he has followers...but why? If they were truly made whole or happy, they wouldn't need to follow anyone.
I forgot, he needed their help so he could liberate God from the center of the galaxy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For all it's faults (and they really don't bother me), I do love the message of this movie. How does one cope with change in such drastic ways that it goes against your character? For Kirk, peace with the Klingons is absolutely unacceptable. Not only did Commander Kruge murder Kirk's son for no reason, but the Empire itself stood by Kruge's actions and labeled Kirk a conspiring terrorist. Wow. It's not hard to understand why Kirk would be ticked off about this.
And hats off to Nicholas Meyer for not recycling the same old story from The Wrath of Khan. Usually when you bring back talent to save your franchise, the standard order is to do the same thing that you did originally. That's not what we got with VI and I cannot wait to see what he's going to contribute to Star Trek: Discovery.
Back on VI, I simply love the theme of the movie. How do seasoned characters go through drastic changes that they feel are against their character? It's something that we're all too familiar with in this world since it's an ever changing one. And like Star Trek VI, real people oppose real world changes even when it's clearly a sign of positive progress. Using the phrase "The Undiscovered Country" is appropriate especially when you look at more of the quote.
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
And isn't that what the bad guys in this film are doing? These characters have been in conflict with each other for so long that they've let it define who they are. Just look at how Chang relishes in his warrior status. To him, a warrior with no enemies is a person with no purpose. That's a pretty unique character motivation, especially for Star Trek.
You neglect to mention that the above is from "Hamlet", Act III, sc. 1, and Shakespeare's "undiscovered country" refers to nothing less than life, itself, as no human knows what the life into whch he or she is dropped holds for him or her, and that once that life is over and one is, presumably, finally granted the omnicience denied in life, no one can, or has, come back to explain it.
It should also be moentioned that "The Unknown Country" was originally to be the subtitle of "Star Trek II," referring to Spock's death (and, somewhat ironically, giving the lie to Shakespeare by Spock's implanting his katra in McCoy's mind), but the studio wanted something they thought was less esoteric and more marketable, so Meyer re-used it four films on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 18, 2020 - 7:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
Is "the undiscovered country" a bit oblique for star trekkers to assimilate given it now seems to pertain to Shakesperean literature, or is it simply a restating of "the continuing human adventure is, well . . . sort of continuing . . ." because you can't quote the final line from TMP, "the human adventure is about to begin" with every outing thereafter?
It very much looks like the title is exhaustively, yet desperately saying, "here be new blood, after the old," when there really isn't any "new blood" after all. Just the next blip in the franchise. The problem of injecting new blood is the problem.
I don't recall what I or people thought at the time of the ST:VI release. Did people think this would involve a younger crew? Or that it was the final film with the original cast? I doubt a trailer or movie poster would have implied a young crew since there wasn't any, so you might be putting too much power in a title. And Next Gen was on TV, so there already was "young blood" in the franchise.
I just watched TUC again and loved it as usual, I don't have any problems with it, it's one of my favorite films.
I guess you mean ST:VI. Hopefully not medicated Tucks. I wonder if anyone knows what they meant when they revisit an old post with abbreviations. The only one that sticks with me is WTF because like "hope" it springs eternal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 18, 2020 - 2:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
henry
(Member)
|
Is "the undiscovered country" a bit oblique for star trekkers to assimilate given it now seems to pertain to Shakesperean literature, or is it simply a restating of "the continuing human adventure is, well . . . sort of continuing . . ." because you can't quote the final line from TMP, "the human adventure is about to begin" with every outing thereafter?
It very much looks like the title is exhaustively, yet desperately saying, "here be new blood, after the old," when there really isn't any "new blood" after all. Just the next blip in the franchise. The problem of injecting new blood is the problem.
I don't recall what I or people thought at the time of the ST:VI release. Did people think this would involve a younger crew? Or that it was the final film with the original cast? I doubt a trailer or movie poster would have implied a young crew since there wasn't any, so you might be putting too much power in a title. And Next Gen was on TV, so there already was "young blood" in the franchise.
I just watched TUC again and loved it as usual, I don't have any problems with it, it's one of my favorite films.
I guess you mean ST:VI. Hopefully not medicated Tucks. I wonder if anyone knows what they meant when they revisit an old post with abbreviations. The only one that sticks with me is WTF because like "hope" it springs eternal.
I hear you Last Child! Yes, I meant The Undiscovered Country. Actually I like it more and more the more I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For years I thought Sha-Ka-Ree and Shangri-La were synonimous with each other because they do sound so alike and both represent the same objective - namely the promise of some kind of an oasis paradise. La-di-da. 