Watch: Nicholas Meyer Talks About His Gene Roddenberry Regret

Last night at a screening of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in Hollywood, director Nicholas Meyer spoke about his time with Trek. One of the more poignant moments was when he spoke of his regret over a specific meeting with Gene Roddenberry shortly before his death. Watch video clip below.


VIDEO: Meyer on final Roddenberry meeting "not my finest hour"

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry passed away a few weeks before the release of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Following Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Roddenberry continued to consult on the Star Trek films, but was not directly involved as a producer. At the Star Trek night for the LA Times Hero Complex Film Festival on Friday June 10th, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country director and co-writer spoke about tensions between himself and Roddenberry regarding elements of the film, especially the anti-Klingon racism displayed by Star Trek’s heroic crew who Roddenberry felt should be more evolved.

Meyer expressed regret on how he interacted with Roddenberry, especially at his their meeting. Watch the video clip below.

For a refresher, here is one of the scenes in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country which showed some of the Star Trek heroes being less than enlightened.

More to come from Hero Complex Film Fest Star Trek Night

Also appearing last night were the Star Trek writing team of Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof who spoke about the 2009 Star Trek film and a bit about the sequel. Look for a TrekMovie report with highlights and a clip soon.

Plus The LA Times will be posting (better) video for both full panel discussions between Geoff Boucher and Nick Meyer in a few days. Look for an update on that here.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thanks for the video, great stuff.

I must say that I felt the overt-racism felt a littel contrived and overblown in that film. The question on my mind was, What do we have to learn about these people from the way they’re reacting? What I did like was, Let them die! That seemed like an honest reaction from a man who’d spent more than half his life fighting these people and who’d lost his son to them. Maybe comments about how they smell, et al, are just other forms of that? Perhaps.

But I agree with Roddenberry to a point. The cool thing about Star Trek is that the people ARE more evolved in their views, and I was hoping for a more refined way of expressing their dislike and distrust than what we got in the transporter room after dinner.

It was forced and could have done with a subtler touch. Doesn’t sound like subtle was in Nick Meyer’s repertoire then.

I don’t think that Nick Meyer–a man I greatly respect–ever really got where Gene Roddenberry was coming from, in that Roddenberry didn’t believe so much in Mankind’s “perfectability” as our “improvability”–a concept Meyer resists, I think, as much for its incompatibility with the Western literary canon he treasures as for the lack of historical evidence of its possibility that he cites.

No doubt, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY is in many ways very much at odds with Roddenberry’s take on Trek’s optimistic future, so it’s certainly no mystery why he was displeased with it. Nevertheless, in a strictly movie-movie sense I consider it to be the best of the TOS-era films.

We all have moments in our lives when our treatment of someone was, in retrospect, less than exemplary. I’m sure that Gene Roddenberry had more than a few of his own. Kudos to Nick Meyer, so praised for his work on the Trek franchise, for being willing to publicly discuss his own regrets.

I on the other hand did not have much of a probllem with the Enterprise crew’s somewhat prejudiced reactions to the Klingons in that movie. I thought that it fit in fairly well with the expressions of distaste for the Klingons shown in the series. Go back and listen to Kirk’s description of the Klingon dictatorship in “Errand Of Mercy”. He does not paint a dispassionate picture. Rewatch the scene near the end of “Friday’s Child” when he tells Spock that one of them must “Get” the Klingon. Spock asks if it’s revenge he’s seeking…his answer, “Why not”.

While “Day Of The Dove” might not be the finest example, since an alien being is seen to be manipulating the whole situation, Spock notes that there are ‘basic hostilities’ between humans and Klingons. While those prejudices may have been exaggerated, they had some basis in existing feelings.

I thought the cast’s reactions in VI were fairly consistent with people that have grown older and become set in their ways. Kirk in particular has to learn the lesson of letting go of years of preconceived notions, built up anger and hatred, which is an admirable message for an audience.

I felt that Roddenberry’s objections, while heartfelt, were a bit wrong. I think that as the years went on, he really began to believe too much that “Star Trek” was being viewed by people ( and fans in particular ) as some sort of example of what humans should strive to be… a template for the future, and that he was a kind of oracle showing the way ( I don’t mean this in any disrespectful way ). While it’s true that lots of people rightly point to Trek for it’s positive and hopeful message for mankind, Gene seemed to lose sight of the fact that in the original series, no one – especially Kirk – was perfect, and what made them interesting and admirable was their ability to realize when they were behaving badly and rise above their baser instincts ( see “Arena” ).

I feel that Gene began to be influenced by the fan’s unerring devotion to his ‘vision’ of the future, and felt that he was responsible for showing us the way, so much so that he sometimes lost sight of what made the original series characters so compelling and indentifiable.

The flawed humans presented in TUC seems to me the first baby steps towards what would become Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise’s finer episodes, i.e. challenging Trek’s more “evolved humanity” by presenting them with certain people and situations where there is no easy answer, no quick fix in the last ten minutes before warping off to the next star system, all while having a good, evolved laugh at the pointy-earred science officer’s expense.

Drama without conflict is not drama.
It’s a speech.

What felt weird about Undiscovered Country was when Kirk said “We’ve never been this close”, and the crew acted as if they’ve never seen or talked to Klingons before, when we all know they’ve interacted with Klingons lots of times. Just in the previous movies the even travelled INSIDE Klingon ships and dealt with Klingons directly.

The way I viewed ‘The Undiscovered Country’ was that this was a group of people who inspite of their enlighted view of other species and worlds have been doing battle with the Klingons for 30 years. They’ve had so many confrontations with the Klingons some we have seen and many I’m sure we have not that of course their views of them would be sullied; paramount among them who would feel the most hatred and prejudice would be Kirk who had lost his son. It makes sense to me (always has) that they would lose themselves to reason when it came to the Klingons who up to the point of ‘The Undiscovered Country’, had been their continual and most deadly enemy.

To show them any other way would be to acknowledge that they weren’t really human feeling characters, but just cardboard cut-out heroes. Like ‘The Wrath of Khan’, Meyers strips away the gloss from Kirk and makes him a flawed human being; weighting him down with anger, hatred, and even prejudice…things that he comes to realize are there and must overcome. Does he completely? I don’t know…all I know is that when he his standing in front of Azetbur and speaks of his son you can see a peace come over him.

There is a reason ‘Khan’ and ‘Country’ are the best Star Trek movies made thus far…flawed, human characters who must confront their own weaknesses in the face of incredible odds. They’re not cardboard cut-out heroes in space jumpsuits. Meyers deserves a ton of credit for his contribution to Trek…his movies are outstanding!

I’ll be waiting …

OMG … a “bit” about the sequel …

:-) :-)

I think Meyer did a fine job adding color and pacing to Star Trek; they were missing form the very blue (colored) and very “metallic” TMP. But, and it’s a very big “but”, the anti-Klingon feelings were overblown, especially in Scotty’s case, and one can argue Kirk had never been so petty. Nichelle Nichols rightly refused the “guess who’s coming to dinner” line — her saying that would have obliterated everything her character stood for — but I think it went to Chekov. I totally respect Meyer and his talent, although I felt, listening to his STII DVD commentary, that he made contradictory statements several times concerning his views of Star Trek (can’t give specifics, that was my general impression). While I like STII, I always believed ess of a “reboot” might have been done — without 18th century uniforms, no smoking signs, etc., and the metamorphosis of the starship Enterprise from state of the art jewel to a cadet training ship. No new five year mission. I did enjoy “Khan”; wish more of the thoughtful stuff in the script had been left in (you have to read the script). As for Meyer’s regrets, we all have those.

It should have been somewhere in the middle I think. Some of the bits were over done, but at the same time I think if Star Trek had been done according to Roddenberry’s pure vision, it would never of lasted. I think as it is having to follow the rules he set forth hurt the newer Star Trek shows.

Don’t think Roddenberry was happy after he got dropped post TMP and think there were battles on every movie, however:

Nimoy, got something from Roddenberry in one of the last meetings, but it was too late to put it in:

“What made the Klingons so angry” to begin with.

So pleased 6 was made, it put the original crew back on the map and they all should have returned in Generations (what a missed opportunity)

I must buy Meyers book.

Nick was really off base just a tad. Gene embraced the idea the perfect human for TNG. His original Star Trek was chock full of imperfect crew members, racisim and all…only in TNG did the writers feel trapped, unable to craft good drama….that’s one of the reasons TOS veterans DC Fontana and David Gerrold abandoned ship in the first season.

There were always two versions of Star Trek; there was Star Trek as it actually existed in TOS and was initially conceived of by Roddenberry, a story about brave, heroic characters with recognizable humanity and human flaws out there dealing with the unknown, a “Wagon Train to the Stars,” “Horatio Hornblower in space”: a story of real human heroes, and real human villains, a universal story concerned with the basic human nature common to all times and places, both in its goodness and strength and in its weakness, ignorance, and even outright villainy.

And then there was the idea of Star Trek Roddenberry came up with in the ’70s, an idea of Star Trek as some kind of visionary tool for the propagation of progressive ideas to the masses, with Roddenberry as the head Prophet showing the way forward to benighted humanity by depicting a future where human flaws had been overcome totally by technological and social advances, and where a group of these logical, perfect Future People traveled around demonstrating how much superior they were to people in the past and other benighted alien races and god-substitutes. This vision of Star Trek, while it showed up a few places in TOS, really was only ever depicted in the first few seasons of TNG, which are rightly derided for their unrelatability and their pompousness. Meyer, in his own way, was far more in tune with Roddenberry’s original vision of Star Trek at this point than Roddenberry himself.

Though Roddenberry is not really the villain here; he was in many ways a pitiable figure, especially at this point, fighting with righteous fury to his last breath for what he considered the true Star Trek vision. Certainly, Meyer acted towards him less than respectfully, and he should not have done that. He is right to regret and feel sorry for treating an old, dying man with such little regard.

But Meyer was certainly right there; while some of the concrete expressions might have been over the top, the basic idea of the crew of the Enterprise, and especially Kirk, who have fought the Klingons and everything they stood for constantly for years and years and suffered losses at their hands, possessing prejudical feelings towards them and then over the course of the movie having to confront these prejudices, overcome them, and even work to defend their former enemies is a great, classic Star Trek story true in every aspect to the original vision of the show. It is certainly not just wanton prejudice for prejudice’s sake.

#14…Agreed! There seemed to be alot of revisionist history at work there.

by far, some of the most intelligent responses i’ve ever read on this site. i am loving the discussion, and agree that Roddenberry was too much in the TNG “perfect” mode, a mode that was inconsistent with TOS and made for bland, pompous storytelling without any real humanity. TUC was an excellent film, and the “racism” the human characters felt was equaled by the racism the klingon characters displayed – and always had for years and years since TOS. it made for a better story to have BOTH sides overcome their prejudice to defeat the true enemies who remained cloaked through much of the story.

Gee. I feel so much better now after arguing for so long about maintaining Star Trek’s consistency. Apparently Gene was arguing about the same thing until his last days.

This is his new story, he shared this last month at Egyptian theater I dont see why he should feel so bad, Gene was a jerk about his creation often, Meyer was a Jerk about his creation (movie era trek). Nothing wrong with it. And Roddenberry threatened a lawsuit over VI I would get pissed too!

If Gene Roddenberry had been still alive when “Deep Space Nine” went on the air, it would have been a very different show. It probably would have ended up as “TNG on a space station”.

Not glad that he died, it’s just something to think about.

I think Gene Roddenberry meant well, but he seemed to become naive in his final years. And the writers, during the early seasons at least, seemed afraid of disappointing and/or defying his rules. Not to say he was a bad guy (quite the contrary, people loved the man) but by the time of TNG, he was an intimidating, larger-than-life figure.

I think the same thing can be said of George Lucas, who hasn’t seen the need to step back even though it’s quite obvious that fresh blood was needed, especially in light of “The Phantom Menace”.

Though apparently Lucas doesn’t play as big a role with “The Clone Wars” cartoon.

Brave and big of Meyer to admit this story. The masses have such a way of turning on you for admitting such things.


“And then there was the idea of Star Trek Roddenberry came up with in the ’70s, an idea of Star Trek as some kind of visionary tool for the propagation of progressive ideas to the masses, with Roddenberry as the head Prophet showing the way forward to benighted humanity by depicting a future where human flaws had been overcome totally by technological and social advances, and where a group of these logical, perfect Future People traveled around demonstrating how much superior they were to people in the past and other benighted alien races and god-substitutes.”

Interesting that during the college lectures I attended back in the ’70s Roddenberry was often given to state that he never took Star Trek very seriously as a vision of the future, believing that it would resemble the real thing only in that humanity would ultimately overcome many of its problems. Since I tend to agree with you that he unfortunately wound up exchanging the role of artist/producer for that of a guru or even cult leader (however well-intentioned), I wonder when that began to change.

As orginally conceived, I would also have to agree that Trek was merely Roddenberry’s attempt to do what had never been done before on television previously: produce a weekly, adult-level space opera with enough production value to suggest something of the drama and thematic sweep of the pulp SF he had cherished during his boyhood. Visionary it was, for the time, but optimism about the human condition didn’t much figure into things, initially. The original outline for “The Cage” had a scene where Captain April unceremoniously tosses a crewman off the ship following a deadly incident caused by the man’s panicking after contact with “insect-like” aliens. The show’s reputation for depicting a positive future developed over three seasons for a couple of reasons: for one thing, all American TV shows presented largely heroic characters back then, and as Americans we saw ourselves reflected in the Enterprise crew–not so much who we would be in three centuries, but the best part of what we already were. And the show was produced during a singular time in our history that turned out to be all too brief, when just about any change in our lives for the better seemed possible if only we could believe in it fervently enough.

This all started to look pretty naive after Altamont, Challenger, and the wars, scandals, and disillusion that have followed. To someone growing up in today’s United States, I think it would be almost unimaginable. But I’ll die a happy man if as a society we could experience it again in my lifetime.

Ive never bought into this rascism garbage levelled at TUC. Its not as if Kirk and crew didn’t have reason to mistrust them. How often were they supposed to turn the other cheek?

I would also like to believe we will be more evolved by then- but not to the point of stupidity and naivety!

Kirk said going in that he didn’t want the job of escorting the Chancellor. He meant it too!

#7 I always took that to mean ‘we have never been this close (to peace with the Klingons)’. That moment was perhaps the moment that the seed of what they were trying to achieve germinated in Kirk’s mind. Which is why he kept the shields down and surrendered. He knew what was at stake by that point.

i think it was a good movie and the racism had to be “a little bit too much”, so the end – getting aware of how wrong they all were! – could function. so it was a story for the people of the 20th century. Otherwise it would have been a story for the people of … who knows… maybe never.

A show of good character from Nick Meyer.

#25. Good point. Kirk said “we will not be the instigators of full scale war on the eve of universal peace” just before beaming over to the klingon ship.

#14 Well put!

I’ve never seen the dinner scene as the “Star Trek heroes being less than enlightened.” I’ve always viewed it as the Star Trek heroes trying very hard to overcome the prejudices they know they have – and not being met even half way by most of their guests.
The remarks Nick Meyer mentions are made by the technicians who carry out the assassination.

Roddenberry was chugging too much happy juice if he thought the Enterprise crew could instantly get over 25 years of armed conflict and tension like that. Come on, Gene. Besides which, how boring would ST6 have been if the characters had started out perfect, and ended up with this perfect alliance? Where is the growth, the story arc? It’s a far better film for showing people overcoming their attitudes.

Although, the movie never did focus enough on Klingon culture. I definitely agree with Nimoy on that point – too much predictable political thriller stuff, not enough insight.

I do have to admire the way these guys are quite brazen about ‘borrowing’ other peoples idea’s and are open to ‘suggestions’!
It certainly take’s nerve!

#30 sorry- that should have gone in the other story about Orci and co.
I had a late night! lol
The comments stand though! lol

#7 – When Kirk said, “Never been this close…” I believe he was saying, “We’ve never been this close to peace with these people.”
The inherent trepidation (pulled off perfectly by Shatner) being an indication of at least subconscious fear of the future (echoed numerous times in the movie, “Are you afraid of the future?”)… And of course, Kirk admits that he -was- afraid at the end. The fear of change, of losing your identity because of it, finding yourself not only out of context with the times, but retired to boot. It’s a scary thing.

I love the racism in TUC. I think it’s perfect. A group of old soldiers who suddenly find that their enemy is suddenly a friend. Those old prejudices and fears don’t just go away. I think Roddenberry bought into his own myth a bit too much there in the end. If you look back at TOS, many of the humans were VERY racist against Spock and other Vulcans. TNG should have kept with the trend of flawed human beings over-coming their foibles, because perfect humans made for some rather, ahem, dry entertainment.

That’s one of the reasons I loved DS9 so much… haha… my friends and I say that when the word came down from the head office that human beings in Star Trek were supposed to be too evolved to get drunk, act homophobic, racist, or chauvinistic, Miles O’ Brien and Julian Bashir simply didn’t get the memo! X-D

I actually always thought TUC was a flawed movie, though it looked the best. My biggest problem was the scooby doo ending, and Spock’s mental rape essentially of Kim Catrall’s character. I also actually love the darker side of Trek, esp. DS9, but this to me was way out of character.

Regarding Kirk’s prejudice, I can accept that he was programmed over years of experience to have disdain for klingons, and it wasn’t out of character for him. He recognizes as much in the movie that he may be more of a hindrance to peace than a help in this case.

How many episodes in the original ST did Kirk shoot first and ask questions later? That “vision” of ST is somewhat overstated.

@ 34 – Yes Kirk was a cowboy, but in the series Kirk et al were also enlightened, often citing the equality of races and individuals as the central theme to many episodes.

Aside from the action scenes and acting (Christopher Plummer!) ST VI was not a great film. Nick Meyer wanted to put his stamp on it and in doing so erased a lot of established precedents:
– no food replicators (why was such a rookie mistake allowed?!?)
– uncomfortable quarters (light shining from ceiling into your face when you’re lying in bed – really!)
– unfinished ship details (exposed ductwork in corridors – this ship is supposed to be comfortable for five-year missions!)

And of course characters we have known and loved suddenly turning racist (Scotty: “I bet that Klingon Bitch never shed a tear) – actually cringe inducing dialogue.

Finally, lifting a plot directly from current events (Berlin wall coming down) – not exactly original.

@35 Trek VI was a great movie, it was better than V, IV, III and I and frankly beside the great Ricardo Montalban in II it was better than the much lauded II. It was also better than anything TNG pulled and Trek 11. I recently saw it on the big screen with Nick Meyer at the Egyptian Theater during their Star Trek weekend (dont know why it was not covered? Takei, Koenig, Meyer were all there) and it is a lot different to see this and TMP on the big screen, the other films fall flat. Trek VI was a great sendoff, the story was poignant and the music was fantastic. The ‘racism’ was fine and would have been a natural reaction especially since Kirk’s son was killed by them. The mid rape scene was great, and Spock only did it when he was left with no other options. As for ‘lifting’ a plot, have not all Trek films done this in one way or another? This film has aged well, where many of the other Trek films especially IV have aged poorly. If I were to rate the films:

Trek 11

“I bet that Klingon Bitch never shed a tear. “I could be wrong but I don’t think that line was in the original release, and it probably should have stayed that way.
Have to agree with those who point out what Trek truly was versus what some, including Roddenberry, remember it was. As SW episodes I, II, and III showed, characters that not are relatable tend to make for less interesting storytelling – something critics of TNG often cite, with its often interchangable dialogue. The human condition is often best illustrated when we are forced to overcome our own failings. Even in religious texts the figures are not portrayed as being perfect.

The scene was heavy handed and out of step with what we already know about these characters. I just watched “Metamorphosis” (Google it) again and I think of the scene dealing with Cochrane’s sudden disgust at learning that The Companion is a female lifeform that is in love with the human. The reaction of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, space explorers who have dealt with several species in their careers, just pass The Companion off as “another life form, you get used to that.”

Also, I have a problem with Kirk having a deep seated hatred of Klingons as a whole. Yes, David Marcus was killed by Klingons, no doubt about it, but he wasn’t killed by every Klingon. I think Kirk is “evolved” enough to get this. This is different than the Kirk who once said, “I’m not going to kill, today.”

“Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge.”

– Kirk to Stiles, after he implies that Spock could be a Romulan spy

James T. Kirk‎: Captain’s Log, Stardate 9522.6: I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy.

i think rodderberry has a point about meyer and trek 6 altering the TOS crew on the tolerance issue.

““Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge.”

– Kirk to Stiles, after he implies that Spock could be a Romulan spy ”

Ah, but that was in defense of his friend, and a trusted colleague… not necessarily the Romulans. Also, this is a younger, more idealistic Kirk, who has yet to experience various angers and frustrations, such as the death of his son ( whom he had just begun to reconnect with ).

“James T. Kirk‎: Captain’s Log, Stardate 9522.6: I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy.

i think rodderberry has a point about meyer and trek 6 altering the TOS crew on the tolerance issue.”

– Perhaps, but I still think that Kirk would feel that wound deeply, and added to other perceived injustices at the hands of the Klingons ( such as their interference on the planet of Kirk’s friend Tyree ), would make an older, less idealistic man less tolerant.

Yes, it may have been a bit over the top and arguably a bit out of character, but so was Kirk’s overwhelming guilt and passion to catch and destroy the vampire cloud in “Obsession”. TUC is not the only entry in Star Trek’s canon to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into characterization for the sake of a story.

I did not like TUC as much as the other films. There were too many aspects that seemed out of sync with what we had seen before. From the cramped living quarters, no food replicators, the rude comments made after the meal about how the Klingons ate – at least Kirk realised that none of their behaviour was exactly exemplary “go down in the annals of diplomacy” (I think were the words), and Spock’s behaviour – not once but TWICE speaking for Kirk – good God, what was that about? Then you had Dr McCoy knowing nothing about Klingon physiology – you’ve got to be kidding. At times they had been in hand to hand combat, they had killed Klingons and it didn’t occur to McCoy to study Klingon biology? And Uhura – she never knew anything about Klingon language? Seriously? What about the notion of knowing your enemy? I’m certain that many Soviets spies, and others in positions of power knew English and vice versa.

The other aspect was that their encounter with Klingons in Star Trek V did go in some small way to soften harsh attitudes between the two parties. That was totally ignored in TUC. It’s like everything had gone backwards in time – behaviours, technology, medical and linguistic knowledge. Seriously, it was a WTF moment.

The scene with Uhura not understanding the Klingon language really killed the movie for me. I love the movie except for that scene. I’m glad that the Abrams movie fixed it by having his Uhura be a human translator.

It’s funny how one scene can ruin an entire movie.


A very honest and heart felt reflection by Nicholas Meyer.


I vary depending what time of day it is, which Star Trek film was the best.

Nick Meyer will be very pleased to know those two are The Undiscovered Country and The Wrath of Khan.

VI because it was the first one I saw in cinema, so there’s probably a sentimental attachment there. I was fortunate enough not to have seen V, although I queued up on the day of release to buy the video. VI went down brilliantly in every house I saw it in. Everytime… mates of mine stunned by the opening Praxis explosion, gasping at Gorkon’s murder, laughing at Kirk v Marta and whooping with joy when Chang got his comeuppance.

Maybe it was a backwards step for the Enterprise crew to be seen as prejudice… especially after V. But it worked in terms of TNG being on TV and most of the characters being largely self-righteous and moralising. The film was a backwards step from that, to a Federation not in a cosy relationship with the Klingons but an on/off conflict during which Kirk’s son had been brutally killed and a crew largely resisting the future TNG will take for granted.

No need to defend the racism. It was a creative choice, it made for an interesting and damaged crew that needed to overcome it. But it was certainly out of character for the Trek ideal. There was no uncertainty in my mind that Trek was against racism and heightism and classism. So maybe more important than that they were acting like bigots in TUC was that they recognized it, and overcame it.

Meanwhile, I wonder what Roddenberry’s take would be on the dumb hicks that only have sex with farm animals… hmm… from Uhura’s mouth… Probably would have liked it, no? I know I ate that stuff up! hahaha… Please note the sarcasm. :)

Could a line like that even be justified for drama’s sake? No, it’s just a throw-away, low-ball, supposed-to-make-us-laugh line with no purpose or context or value. But what’s shocking, is it also sets a precident in the new Trek. Youch. People are going to refer back to it as justification for more and worse racist remarks.. as we see happening here, people justifying comments on Klingon smell and all looking the same with obscure spots of poor writing in the original series. Maybe next time in Trek we’ll see strange, racist robots with overbites and familiar accents acting like dullards for laughs … Data?? Is that you? hahaha..

Star Trek can be better than this. Don’t be lazy.

humanity can evolve but will never be perfect, a perfect human is a robot. I don’t like TOS or the TOS-era films (they seem like a Star Trek spoof to me) maybe because I grew up with DS9 and Voyager, better graphics, acting, storytelling and action. I do love the darker themes, Trek does gritty character drama so well at times.

@36, 42

Uh, you guys do realize there’s a TNG-style replicator right smack in Kirk’s quarters? Just because you have a galley doesn’t mean they don’t have the tech too–maybe they just want some good cookin’ on a trip too!

i think he got away with it because it because of a few different reasons. all through tos, the klingons were the “indians” to their the fed’s “cowboys” (as much as i hate that comparison). they were never “friends” and after the events of trek 3 especially, it made sense that kirk would harbor a hatred for them. i dont care how evolved humanity would be, to learn he had a son after all those years only to have him ripped away by the most infamous villains in trek, would cause that reaction from that specific character. was picard out of line for his dark character turn in first contact? it was along the same lines.