I definitely agree that III is more important than II wholeheartedly; as you say, it essentially cements and reconfirms the emotional heart of all the original Trek, which previously wasn't much on official display (and which is really the engine of movies IV and V). For my taste, Khan is a bit psychologically overdetermined, as well as slow-paced at times; Spock manages to keep things moving along, and juggles its heaviness and its lightness fairly effectively.
Morrow seems older than Kirk, and I'd wager that he worked his way up through the Starfleet ladder in a staid, rational (dare I say "careerist" manner)--I imagine one would have a very different perspective on the galaxy if one hadn't commanded a five-year mission of exploration out on the final frontier, and so on that level (and also because Kirk has to have been one of, if not the, youngest people ever to attain flag rank) Morrow is perfectly justified; heck, as the CNO of Starfleet, he basically has no choice but to deny Kirk, at least if he wants to keep his job, and it's got to be annoying to see a guy who breaks all the rules get what he wants, and all the glory, time and again.
I would imagine there's a definite tension between the more fast-and-loose elements of Starfleet epitomized by people like Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise and the more by-the-book elements that Morrow (and most of the Admiralty throughout Trek) seems to belong to. In my view, some of this tension has to be a result of the fact that Starfleet is both a military and a scientific/exploratory force, and I think the various and attitudes and emphases almost certainly wax and wane over time--Picard was more by the book, but also very much about exploration and science, while Janeway and Sisko recall Kirk in some of their attitudes (and Sisko's career, like Rachel Garrett's, I might imagine, is very heavily militarized compared to other people's). All in all I think Bennett's Starfleet is much more realistic, and much more interesting, than Roddenberry's (in TOS Command isn't above court-martialing people if circumstances warrant, but there's almost no consequences to violating the Prime Directive, the Neutral Zone, whatever).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-08 05:12 (UTC)Morrow seems older than Kirk, and I'd wager that he worked his way up through the Starfleet ladder in a staid, rational (dare I say "careerist" manner)--I imagine one would have a very different perspective on the galaxy if one hadn't commanded a five-year mission of exploration out on the final frontier, and so on that level (and also because Kirk has to have been one of, if not the, youngest people ever to attain flag rank) Morrow is perfectly justified; heck, as the CNO of Starfleet, he basically has no choice but to deny Kirk, at least if he wants to keep his job, and it's got to be annoying to see a guy who breaks all the rules get what he wants, and all the glory, time and again.
I would imagine there's a definite tension between the more fast-and-loose elements of Starfleet epitomized by people like Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise and the more by-the-book elements that Morrow (and most of the Admiralty throughout Trek) seems to belong to. In my view, some of this tension has to be a result of the fact that Starfleet is both a military and a scientific/exploratory force, and I think the various and attitudes and emphases almost certainly wax and wane over time--Picard was more by the book, but also very much about exploration and science, while Janeway and Sisko recall Kirk in some of their attitudes (and Sisko's career, like Rachel Garrett's, I might imagine, is very heavily militarized compared to other people's). All in all I think Bennett's Starfleet is much more realistic, and much more interesting, than Roddenberry's (in TOS Command isn't above court-martialing people if circumstances warrant, but there's almost no consequences to violating the Prime Directive, the Neutral Zone, whatever).