Review: Star Trek Continues – “Embracing The Winds”

Mere months away from a potential historic decision in the United States presidential election, Star Trek Continues seventh episode, Embracing the Winds, wades directly into the debate of gender, much like The Original Series did with race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At issue in the episode is whether or not a woman is capable of commanding a constitution class starship, something audiences could not see occur in the late 1960’s, despite Gene Roddenberry populating his bridge crew with a diverse group of characters.

Filming from an excellent script, written by James Kerwin and Vic Mignogna, the episode does not shy away from the difficult acknowledgement that individual bias towards gender as well as individual motivations may have lent a role in holding back capable female officers in the 23rd century. It is one of several nods to the TOS by the writers in this episode, in the 60’s network executives did not believe its audience would accept a woman serving as first officer on a starship. Although today, the series may seem sexist to its modern-day audience’s values, Roddenberry was limited in what parts of his agenda he could push (including the portrayal of openly LGBT characters), and yet was still able to make many social statements with the casting of his crew – most notably Nichelle Nichols’ Uhura and Leonard Nimoy’s Spock, who could also be considered a proxy for the female prejudice as he was an alien species.

Brave is the word to best describe the role in which Kerwin and Mignogna placed the episode’s protagonists, as Kirk and Spock address their own personal feelings in regards to their own bias and motivations. However, the standout and most courageous performance has to go to Clare Kramer’s portrayal of Commander Diana Garrett, who is appealing Starfleet’s decision to pass her over for command of her own starship, in favor of a man (once again highlighting the embarrassment of riches STC enjoys with its guest stars). While Commodore Gray, once again played by Erin Gray, acknowledges that decisions in regards to gender have been made in Starfleet due to its alliances, most notably the patriarchal society of the Tellarites, she offers another interesting view as a woman in a position of power as the episode proceeds.

Audiences may be quick to judge events as it unfolds, and sometimes the writing does appear to get a bit heavy handed, hitting viewers over the head with this issue. But, that is the beauty of the script, while Garrett, McKennah and even Spock all realize the issue at hand, all in the character’s decisions are not as simple as it seems, especially in the case of Garrett.

Brilliantly painting a seemingly-hostile Garrett in a corner, it is wonderful to watch the writers and Kramer wiggle out of it as the episode ultimately realizes its main theme. Sadly, Star Trek Continues is providing stronger story content than TOS did during its third and final season, which is a testament to Mignogna and his writing staff. It is interesting to consider whether or not the show would have dodged cancellation once again if the quality of writing was up to par with STC’s efforts.

Meanwhile, the episode’s “B” story, which does tie directly into the episode’s main plot itself, gives Wyatt Lenhart’s Chekov the opportunity to shine. Is it a subconscious nod to Anton Yelchin’s portrayal of the Russian whizkid? or just the ultimate evolution of the character’s arc? the audience and writers will get to decide the final motivations. Although, Chekov’s moment does come at the expense of (in a seemingly uncharacteristic moment) Scotty.

Easter eggs litter the episode like tribbles mating on K-7. First, the writing crew revisits its own past episodes, including Lolani – which would seem to be a direct prequel to this episode, as well as when Security Officer Drake lost his arm. Additional nods include the obvious to Garrett’s namesake, as well as planet references, a terrific nod to George Takei’s personal past, and more.

Any review of the episode would be remiss in not pointing out the dignified and restrained performance of Todd Haberkorn in the role of Spock. Mignogna has admitted in previous interviews that Haberkorn was looking to put his own spin on the role when he was cast. Mignogna however was adamant that the role be played consistent with Nimoy’s portrayal. Still, Haberkorn is given some terrific moments as he contemplates his own embarrassment in regards to motivation. There is also a superb exchange between he and a fellow Vulcan while the appeal trial continues that addresses Spock’s character origins.

Embracing the Winds does seem to be an excellent title, as it not only notes the potential social change Starfleet and the Federation is being forced to address, much like American society today, but also a subtle nod that STC has an expiration date. Mignogna’s stated goal of the series was to tell the stories of the fourth and fifth years of the Enterprise’s five-year mission, but also serve as a bridge between TOS and Star Trek The Motion Picture. With CBS/Paramount appearing to shut the door on fan productions that not do not meet a specific criteria, audiences will have to hold out hope that Mignogna and company will get to finish its own mission.

“Would you deny every individual’s character, judgement, strengths are in part shaped by his or her beliefs, heritage, gender?”

View the “Embracing The Winds” for yourself and tell us what you think:

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So is this the last one?

I would hope not. Maybe they got permission to continue (or at least, finish this episode)? One can only hope…

~Pensive’s Wetness

They are making at least one more. They have made a planet set. Who knows what will happen there?

Won’t say where I heard this, so consider it hearsay. The show will have to bring its storyline to a conclusion but will be allowed a few more more episodes to do so. The animus is directed at axanar, not stc.

This was an EXCELLENT episode. To me, it felt more like an original TOS episode than anything put out by Star Trek: Continues or their peers. Two thumbs up from me!

9 out of 10 Halflings.

~Pensive’s Wetness

I agree Simon. I felt that while I was interested in the characters and the situations they were in, I became acutely aware of the underlying sub-plot and deeper issues being played-out… And in retrospect, it seems that history does repeat. And that action or inaction both have risks… There was no pressure to believe this way or that way or either or and not at all… I felt very comfortable in exploring the issue and felt that was very liberating… Why it reminded me of the old TOS shows… I didn’t feel intimidated how it was framed – questioning society and progress…

great episode…

I kept on expecting to find a suggestion in the letter that they do a time travel story where Spock shoots JFK!

Yep. ;^) It’s ironic, considering how many Trek movies have tried to ‘copy’ Kahn yet none have come close. LLAP

….Khan…..(yelled liked the Shat)

That was a great read, thanks for the link!

Welcome JB.

” in the 60’s network executives did not believe its audience would accept a woman serving as first officer on a starship.”

Nope. This is one of those myths that’s grown around the show for decades. The executives had no problem with a female first officer. They had a problem with Roddenberry casting his mistress who’s acting talent was so questionable that one executive asked “Ok, who does she belong to?” and wanted the role recast….which put Roddenberry in a bind. Faced with telling his mistress she wasn’t going to get the role, he chose to concoct the whole “NBC couldn’t accept a woman as first officer” bs to save face with her. It also had the bonus effect of making him look like a champion of women’s rights.

Nope. That’s Herb Solow’s spin, and you swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Given that it’s now 52 years on and just about all of the participants in the filming of “The Cage” have passed, there’s no reason not to believe that the preview audiences in 1964 didn’t much cotton to the idea of a hyper-competent (and deliberately unlikable) female second officer and NBC’s understandable reservations regarding Barrett’s status as Roddenberry’s mistress (though not exactly an uncommon situation in Hollywood then or now), ultimately led to the decision to nix the character. Not that I’m defending Roddenberry, who was certainly not above telling a tall tale or two, and I’m certainly not claiming any special insider knowledge myself. But, like many fans you seem to think that a reading of Inside Star Trek gave you unprecedented access to key facts about the show’s production that were unbiased by the author’s own prejudices or fuzzy recollections. No; it didn’t.


Re:Herb Solow’s spin

Indeed, both authors had axes to grind:

“…in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Bob Justman is very direct about being hurt by the fact that Gene Roddenberry chose Fred Freiberger over him to produce Star Trek’s third season (in addition to confessing hurt that Roddenberry didn’t involve him in the production of Star Trek—The Motion Picture at all).” — Michael Kmet; “Credit Where Credit is Due: Producing Star Trek’s Second Season”; STAR TREK FACT CHECK; Sunday, November 1, 2015

I think both things about Number One have truth to them.

If you believe Shatner and Solow, it’s true that the execs hated that Gene had hired Majel. But it’s also true, from Shatner, that the test screenings were showing Majel’s character of Number One was hated…mostly by other women. And not for bad acting, but for acting outside the boundaries of “what a women should act like.” It’s an easy jump to “no one likes seeing a woman in change” from there (shades of “Turnabout Intruder”, after everyone who cared about such things from a productional POV had left the show?)

Now, all this is from people who are both…not known for the best recollection, and also, in some sad cases, not with us anymore. So I’d say Gene’s version has a lot of truth to it — give other comments about what the exes said around the 1st pilot, and what came from the 2nd pilot on, it makes a lot of sense. It explains why no one but Nimoy made it to the 2nd pilot, and Roddenberry had to fight for that!

And yes, there’s something to exes not wanting some hack producer to cast his lover in his new show. I’m not in a position to judge how ethical they really felt that was, but it makes some sense based upon what I know of Hollywood in that era.

And it’s also clearly true that the entire cast, save Nimoy, got tossed out on their ass for the new Pilot. Gene re-hired Majel in the Chapel role almost as soon as he could, and the Network execs knew it (at least according to another bit from Solow’s book.) So there was a lot going on there, and not a lot of primary sourcing on why decisions were made — so I can see where it might seem like myth, but be rooted in some tales that maybe don’t explain…everything.

What’s funny is that I was just watching the 1st half of “The Cage” (the actual pilot, not “The Menagerie”) last night. And I will say Majel is actually really good at playing a range of subtle emotions; I can see where Nimoy would have keyed off her performance (and Gene’s obvious character change request to Nimoy) for the re-tooled Spock we know and love. It’s all there, including an amazing bit of facial acting after Pike gives his “I can’t get used to a woman on the bridge” bit that says a ton about her emotional state without saying a word. I was honestly shocked.

You can honestly see the actress who would, decades later, finally get to dig into a character in TREK, during her DS9 episodes (apparently, she was originally supposed to be a major character for that series!) I suspect Majel had a lot more range that, due to circumstances, we never really got to see for extended periods.

I agree, and that was my sole point — that there was probably truth to BOTH versions of the story about Number One, and that none of the books written about Trek — mostly written decades after the fact — should necessarily be taken as Gospel.


Re: Majel in the Chapel role almost as soon as he could, and the Network execs knew it

I believe the network execs knew it, but not because of what Solow claims proves it, i.e. that they joked about seeing her in an episode as a blonde. Majel was a unique first name in Hollywood of the era. The Network had casting approval and knew how to adhere to a blacklist as evidenced by their antics in the previous decade. If she made it to an episode hire with that same first name, blonde headshot or no, it had to be because there was no network blacklisting of her in the first place for being his mistress.

Also, Solow contradicts himself in other tellings. He claims he saved Roddenberry’s job from Lucy firing him because she, still raw from her personal experience with philandering producer Desi, found out about NBC’s ban on mistress Majel, and that Gene had gotten around it with a blonde wig. So which is it Herb? Either he didn’t fool anyone at the network or did fool someone?

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.

s story was that Jealous self-hating women rated number one poorly & that did her in but considering Spock was the only Character to go on into the series I don’t think we need any conspiracy theories to explain why Number One disappeared.

“Gene’s Story was” They really need an edit option.

Mistress or no, Majel Barrett did so much better at acting No. One than she did acting as Nurse Chapel. Geeze, what a comedown that was.

Another home run for Vic and crew!
Please tell me I’m not the only one who noticed that the “male chauvinist pigs” in this episode were actual pigs (Tellerites)

Haha, thanks for the smile — I didn’t notice, even with my love of word-humor, but it’s been a long time since I used that terminology :-)

I enjoy how the team on Continues creates episodes as if we were in the 60s watching the show and dealing with the same themes that were controversial or in the hearts and minds of folks in the 1960s. I really appreciate that aspect. I dont think this fan adaptation would be as interesting if it was written within a 2016 mind frame and trying to show 2016 social and word view issues within this genre context.

I think this episode’s issue is still very much a 2016 social and world issue.

It is , but women in command positions is not … I mean in Star Trek we have have many strong female Captains no? so dealing with this within the Trek realm keep it to the date context of the show as well as the time period the show was originally made does it not.. My point is that it brings a nice degree of essence that this was a season 4 episode from the 60s .

Actually, there are not so many strong female captains in Trek as you may think. They are a minority c/w the strong male captains, and considering women comprise over half the world’s population, you’d think by Trek’s era there’d be quite a few more!

In the finest tradition and ideals of Star Trek…

Very very-relevant now and then also. This episode gives one time to reflect and ponder over those age-old duality of “change.”

While those afraid of “change” would see progress as inhibiting; but those who live-by “Embracing The Winds” of that very-same “change,” would see acting-in the word and deed of progress as liberating and necessary.

In the Star Trek Universe, Humanity would be best-served, by referring-to its ideals and traditions…

And to be stead-fast in “counsel and conscience,” which represents Humanity’s dreams and ideals, so we might one day, reach the stars.

But as with any ideal, if you do not “try,” then you never know what outcome may be made manifest…

Great Episode!!!

Great Message!!!

What is with these episode titles? They sound more like movies on the Lifetime channel than Star Trek episodes …

And I’m really trying to control the sophomoric child in me …

Hey, they all can’t be “Requiem for Methuselah.” :)

At least that sounds like a Shakespeare drama, which better applies to the kinds of themes we see in Star Trek.

Now if you said “City On The Edge of Forever” you might be on to something, but even that is not likely to be confused with a Harlequin Romance novel, or a Will Ferrell parody film …

Curious, Let’s leave the robbery of Shakespeare to Nicholas Meyer :-D

Hee! Curious, Now that I think about it, they DO sound kind of like Ferrell titles. Oh gawd!

Pretty good, but was far more interested in the unresolved sub-plot. This episode managed to be even more heavy handed than ‘Let that be your last battlefield’ – quite an achievement. STC is by far the best fan production out there, it looks very professional. I hope they have special dispensation to carry on.

James Today 12:47 pm

It’s hard not to notice the heavy hand in this story. How could it be that 23rd Century society, after unifying all cultures of humanity, overcoming poverty…yada yada…would have arbitrary and meaningless reasons for discriminating against women? It seems unlikely. Blaming it on Tellarites wasn’t a bad idea, but then they un-did that reason. So, what’s the remaining reason? Star Fleet Command is composed of chauvinist pigs who just don’t see the full value and potential of women officers? Seems at odds with the progressive society in which the story is set.

I think they did a good job balancing and addressing the issue as if it were modern day [a tradition of TOS]. Take, for example, the contemporary US position on women’s rights, and our delicate dance with traditionalist Arab nations regarding same. We are “friends” of Saudi Arabia, et. al., despite their abysmal records on human and women’s rights. I like that the Tellarites have a group who disagree with the old ways and are slowly working to change them, and that Starfleet is doing the same dance as the US. Made sense to me.

Marja Today 4:35 pm

Well, that’s just it. Blaming it on the Tellarites does make sense. But, the writers undid that reason by having the Commodore say that the Tellarites are all bluster and not likely to act on their threat, thereby implying that it’s really been Star Fleet, all along, that has chosen—for its own reasons—not to promote a woman to the captaincy, regardless of how the Tellarites feel about it. The Tellarites protesting the issue would have made sense, if only the writers had not subsequently emasculated them.

Cygnus, The Tellarites may be “all bluster” according to Commodore Gray, but it’s quite possible that despite her opinion, the Tellar government would have made a formal protest. That there was one representative of a minority Tellarite group who favored women’s rights over his government’s traditional view seemed immaterial to me for the story being told … it’ll take years, step by step, to convince the naysayers and win advancement of the cause, yadda yadda.

Marja Today 3:01 pm

I’m just going by what’s on screen. Commodore Gray does imply that it’s really not the Tellarites that have been keeping women from the captaincy.

Was it just me, or did that Tellar Ambassaor have Trump’s hair?

In the next movie, I hope Paramount has the good sense to send Chirs Pine in to the Nexus to find Shatner, end the alternate reality and then turn the conn of the movie franchise over to Vic and his crew. I’ve enjoyed the new Star Trek movies, but they don’t come close to capturing the essence of Trek as this last STC episode did.

I disagree that this was a good episode, let alone the best of Continues.

The subject matter is strong, but the plot goes nowhere and does nothing; Put another way, this episode did an amazing job of turning up the tension, but then cheated its way out of resolving any of it.

Kirk has to make a hard choice… then he doesn’t.

There is a tricky diplomatic situation with the Telerites… that it turns out wasn’t a problem to begin with.

There is a dark secret in Commander Garret’s past… but it doesn’t matter and remains buried.

A deadly mystery awaits on the Hood… that we learn nothing about before the ship destroys itself so the rest of the plot can become moot.

All setup, no payoff. It’s like the writers quit halfway through.

This story could have been told in 30 minutes – or less.

Jack Today 2:01 pm

Not even close. This episode clocks in at just under 44 min. Cutting 14 minutes of this story would, at the very least, have meant scrapping the whole B-plot. Then, what you’d be left with is not a TOS-like episode, but a vignette.

\’Drew Today 12:52 pm

Good observations and valid points about the story.

Though, I’m not sure what you mean about Tellarites. Wasn’t their cultural beliefs the main reason alleged for the lack of a female starship captain?

Problems with this story, certainly, but the technical achievement is outstanding. The performances, pacing, editing and everything else (with the exceptions of Chekov’s and Scotty’s accents, which take me out of the moment every time).

Cygnus, TOS Koenig’s Chekov sometimes takes me aback as well, but Jimmy Doohan always did a credible [at least to this American], if exaggerated, Hibernian accent. Both STC actors could stand to work with a dialogue coach ….

P.S. Oh, I think I remember what you mean. After the blame had been laid on the Tellarites, the Commodore (if I recall correctly) remarks that the Tellarites are all bluster and wouldn’t likely act on their threat if a woman should captain a Star Fleet ship. So, this revelation reverts the cause of the sexual discrimination issue back to Star Fleet command.

Yes, but.

We could reference the problem of women in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to bluster on their part and then refer the “issue” back to the State Department. It isn’t going to change their policies until the Arab countries are more amenable to women’s rights.

Marja Today 5:12 pm

Well, but, there’s a huge difference there. Arab countries don’t get an effective veto over women serving in the US military, or even in the presidency (as we are hopefully about to see). So, it’s never been an issue of whether or not to blame Arab countries for women not advancing to certain positions within the US.

Cygnus, If the US were one quarter of a group that included Arab countries as another quarter, with two other “equality” cultures, would Arabic traditions and feelings of offense be given more weight in our decisions pertaining to a service that served all four quarters of the federated governments?

Right now there is no world government, no federation, and the traditionalist Arab countries do not have a say in how the US military services are managed. Military services all over the world have female members, but not in traditionalist Arab countries.

Perhaps Captain Garrett is meant to symbolize all minorities today and the backward prejudices they face from so many quarters. Who knows.

Marja Today 3:11 pm

I’m sure part of the reason why the US does not enter into such “federations” with Arab countries is precisely because we don’t want to be bound by their traditions. One of the perks of being the most powerful nation on Earth is that we don’t need to confederate with any single nation in any way that might compromise our own values.

Reminds me of the best line of this episode: “Its more than past time for a woman to captain a constitution class starship – I’m just not sure she is the right woman” and Kudos to Vic and his writers for Garret’s response “would a man be subject to the same scrutiny?” And then later in the episode “we just don’t know” BEST TREK EVER!

I think that was Mckenna’s opinion, and not that of the Commodore. Even if that were the case, though, others in Starfleet, or the Federation Council, might feel differently, and so doesn’t invalidate the concern about the Tellarites at all. Finally, we really don’t know for certain if the lack of female starship captains (apparently they can and do command lesser vessels) is due to the Tellarites, or gender bias — or, with only seven Constitution-class vessels remaining, is a simple statistical fluke. That sort of ambiguity, which was frankly so often lacking in TOS, is a large part of what makes this episode so interesting. To my mind, anyway.

I agree that EtW is frustrating in its lack of resolution… on either plot. I don’t think the cause of women’s rights is served by showing an obviously squirrely woman who sues her way to the top. I would much rather have seen a strong, assured, well-balanced woman challenge Spock to a test. In fact, they each could have been assigned to learn what happened to the Hood; winner gets the ship. This Garret was simply a mess. Also, if Starfleet is against women commanding Connie’s, don’t blame the Tellerites. We know they’re pigs — literally, pigs. Dig out the sexism and fix it. I also didn’t buy: Starfleet has only 2 candidates for captain… Chekov’s console trying to kill him (no circuit breakers??)… or the almost humorous way Spock gets then loses command of the Hood TWICE! Anyway… I continue to enjoy STC, but wish the writing were a little stronger.

“We know they’re pigs — literally, pigs.”

I disagree with most of your post, but that’s pretty funny. :-)

I agree with you on Garrett. I did not like the character because of her defensiveness. How I would like to have seen a strong female character [and an actress who’s a minority instead of Yet Another Blonde Actress]. Your suggestion about learning what happened to the Hood is great, because I certainly am curious!

I wonder if STC accepts scripts from “outside” writers. I can think of a couple of good candidates right here on TrekMovie!

I thought the defensiveness aspect captured HRC to a T. And it is my fervent hope that Paramount will give STC a bye so we can see how “What worries” Scotty and the Chekov arcs develop, but at least we know Pavel ends up as a first officer on the Reliant.


I agree … the resolution of Hood’s command was quite conveeeenient. Although I disagree that the tricky diplomatic situation with the Tellarites wasn’t a problem. It will probably still go on until the majority opinion in Tellarite society changes, and as of this episode it had not. I was dying to know Garret’s Dark Secret, although it may be partially explained [I’ll have to rewatch].

I think the mystery on Hood was explained by the rift and the fatal danger it posed the crew. JMHO.

I loved that the episode made you think without overtly suggesting the “right” answer. It framed so many issues that we face today without taking sides. It was a close to perfect as free entertainment gets. Best 40 minutes of Trek ever (with the possible exception of the 40 minutes between “everybody remember where we parked” to “not now Madiine!” in ST IV).

Those were my thoughts as well. They set up a whole bunch of “mysteries” and explain not a single one of them. It’s like all the writers cared about was making their social points, and completely forgot about telling a good story.


Are you this curt with your praise as well?

Dummy alert!

Wow. A very well-argued and considered opinion


No Gender Ideology in Star Trek !:

Surprisingly good!

Another very enjoyable episode. I hope the unresolved questions about the Hood lead into future stories.

I hope Vic and the team have been able to find a way to carry on despite the new ‘guidelines’. I don’t think there’s been any announcement of what their plans are, but the production seems too well organised for them to be just trying to dodge the issue.

When did Drake lose his arm? I’m not remembering that at all.

It was apparently something that happened in the past (prior to STC) so they could use his robotic arm in Divided We Stand.

He had served in action and lost his arm [I remember his uniform sleeve being pinned up], so was working on the ship, not going on landing parties, and his new bionic arm arrived, soon installed by McCoy. As I recall this was a tribute to returning vets from the Gulf wars.

Is it me, or is there a bit of a Hillary Clinton subtext here.

It’s definitely you.

Jack, perhaps the “past record” bit, if you believe the R——-n and Tr— allegations.

Allegations. Not “truths” or “findings.”

This was definitely part of the intended point. Woman has a troublesome past in which nothing criminal was ever proven. People dislike her. It’s time for a female captain, but not this one. And the show doesn’t make a definitive judgement about whether or not Kirk would have or should have chosen her.

And perhaps she’s treated unfairly/differently because she’s a woman – compared to how a man would be treated in the same circumstances – and is, accordingly, defensive.

In true Star Trek fashion, the social commentary was ambiguous, as it should be. Do you put someone in charge with no due consideration to their background, gender, race, etc….or do we sometimes put people in power just to placate our own conscience? Star Trek was always on point in examining issues from all sides and stating uncomfortable truths that we often think but don’t discuss. I found Kirk’s statement of “I do think it’s time for a woman to command a starship, but I’m just not sure that this is the right woman” (paraphrased) to be quite poignant.

Yes, Mark, her defensiveness about her past record did her no favors there. I was curious to know exactly what she had done!


I wanted to know more myself — but it was the fact that we didn’t know which made the question about her fitness ambiguous and interesting. In that regard I think the producers made the right call.

I think that the weakest aspect of this outing is that the antagonist did nothing for me. I didn’t get to know her as a character or her motives. I also think that the destruction of the USS Hood was a cop-out, and that it didn’t really resolve anything. Also, the banter between Kirk and the Tellarite diplomat was too “cute”, and way to short to make an impact. Ideally, I think that Garret should have become the captain of the Hood, especially if this episode is a “bookend” to STC. Other than that, nice production values (though my overall complaint about the series is that the episodes of late are way to short, to be a proper ST episode).

I really liked this episode. Timely, topical, but not “bonk bonk on the head” and the message will continue to resonate once the timeliness has faded. Best of their recent episodes.

I’m very pleased to agree with author that this is largely an outstanding episode of STC, in spite of a couple major (and a few niggling) reservations. To get those out of the way: the story pretty ends up pretty much right where it begins, yet the issues of gender bias versus fitness feel, in the manner reminscient of many TOS episodes, too neatly resolved. Yet the straightforward mystery of what happens on the Hood isn’t resolved at all, which as a viewer left me very unsatisfied. (I suspect that the intention was to re-visit the issue in a later show, now most likely never to be produced given CBS’ draconian new guidelines for fan films, but it was an unfortunate creative decision in any case in what amounts to a standalone episode.) And Mignogna’s ‘Shatnerisms’ and rigid posture did take me out of the story once or twice — he’s really much better when he relaxes into the role of Kirk and just lets his performance be dictated by the beats of the story.

That said — man, does this show fire on all cylinders when it works, which is a good 90% or so of its running time. The acting, editing, dialogue, and musical selections are just about always spot-on, and the direction is mostly flawless. (The unaccountable exception is the scene where Chekov shorts out the board and faints into the arms of a couple of extras who seem mostly bored; I didn’t buy it for a second.) And while the story isn’t without its issues, it accomplishes the feat of taking a plot point from TOS that had long seemed as anachronistic as the Eugenics Wars and makes it much more plausible by using the ambiguity regarding Garret’s fitness and tying its gender politics into our own era, rather than those of 1969: yes, there’s nothing technically preventing women from becoming four-star generals or aircraft-carrier captains, but how many of those have you actually heard of? I think that’s a pretty amazing accomplishment, all things considered.

A few weeks ago some fans started passing around a petition imploring CBS to at least lighten-up a little on their absurd new restrictions for fan films, a well-intentioned effort that I’m guessing will go exactly nowhere. As an argument as to why these efforts should continue (see what I did there?), they might do better to forward a copy of “Embracing the Winds” instead to CBS instead. Put it this way: I’ve watched this show four times already, which is exactly three times more than I felt compelled to view STAR TREK BEYOND. As a way to gin up fan enthusiasm while awaiting Discovery, you could certainly do worse.

Sorry for the editing errors; I was typing on a phone in my car and missed them. Trekmovie, can we get an edit feature, pretty-please?

Michael Hall Today 4:13 pm

Have you not seen this?

They’re going to try to do 4 more episodes. The only difference in them being that they won’t be crowd-funded. They’ve maintained a good relationship with CBS, and the corporation has basically said that following the guidelines means that the fan production won’t be sued; but not following the guidelines doesn’t necessarily mean that the fan production will be sued. It’s up to CBS’s discretion who they choose to sue, and apparently they’re not going after STC. Though, I’m still sad that the end of the series has been announced. Vic’s original mission was to do Seasons 4 and 5 of the five-year mission. I took this to mean two full seasons, of 26 episodes each, if they ever got that far, meaning that the series would run indefinitely. I really hope they keep it going for a few more years after the final four episodes. It’s too good of a series to be cut down in its prime.

Thanks for the link. No, I wasn’t aware of their plans to shut down after four more. A shame, as you say: not all of the episodes have worked, but there are good moments in all of them, and at least half are really worthwhile. TOS didn’t do any better in terms of batting averages, so that’s a pretty decent legacy in any case.

Just to follow-up, having read the post you linked to. Kerwin makes it pretty clear in the comments that Lane didn’t quote him all that accurately, and that STC will do whatever CBS requests at this point, which I would presume includes shutting down completely. I certainly share your hope that we’ll get to see those remaining four episodes, but as another commenter pointed out, allowing STC to go forward could conceivably undermine their case in the AXANAR lawsuit. At this juncture, who knows?

Michael Hall Today 8:13 am

STAR TREK CONTINUES is the only official 501(c)3 non-profit Trek fan production company out there dedicated solely to TREK. We are awaiting further clarification, but I am optimistic about completing our planned series and I would like to ask all of our fans to remain optimistic with us. We have a plan to bring STAR TREK CONTINUES to a close with an outstanding final episode arc.

That’s great except for the fact that – on both that blog and on Facebook – both Kerwin and the other ST:C producers strongly denied that that was an actual interview/conversation.

Remember that Mr. Lane is an Axanar mouthpiece, its not surprising that he’d be liberal with his “facts”.

Jerry Today 4:57 am

I’m not even getting into the weeds on this. The STC blog more or less makes the same statement as in that TrekBloggers article:

Thx for such perceptive straigtfoward commentary on this excellent program. One thing is certain. ..everything changes.

A good one! Mignogna startles me sometimes. Occasionally he looks just like Shatner. And everyone in the cast, including Mignogna, is improving in their level of performance. Haberkorn has now fully settled in as Spock; Stinger is doing a great job, Doohan, ditto; as are “Sulu” and “Chekov” and “Dr. McCoy.” Bravo Zulu to the actors and the writers!

I really hope “Continues” can go on producing the same length of episode; it’s so fun to have a “fourth season.” The traditional TOS music and the occasional new music is very well integrated into the sound track.

I also hope the producers/directors reach out to more minority actors for guest roles and even background roles. The appearances of Latinos and South Asians would really demonstrate the ideals of Trek, along with the occasional alien or two … how about a background Andorian or Vulcan?

I wanted to mention I appreciated the gentle TOS-style humor as well. Well done!

I agree. Gene would have loved this episode.

A shout-out, too, to Doug Drexler, whose visual effects make you feel like it’s 1969 all over again, in the best possible sense. Mr. Drexler, if you’re reading this, you and I have an interesting acquaintance in common who turned 100 this year, whose ability to inspire hope for the future we both found to be so reminiscent of Trek at its best. I’d love to discuss your experience working with him, someday.

Drexler isn’t credited as doing the effects on this episode. . . Are you certain he did?

Yep, pretty certain. He’s been doing them for STC since their first show, and the fidelity to the original look of TOS is unmistakable.

He is listed in the credits as an Associate Producer, which probably covers the FX work he contributed.

I don’t see him listed as associate producer. And even if so, that isn’t VFX. He stated on Facebook in no uncertain terms that he stopped working on ST:C after episode 6. If you have evidence otherwise please provide it.

He’s definitely listed as a co-producer in the end credits. But I was unaware of the Facebook entry you mention, and it looks like the people listed as being responsible for the visual effects are Stephen Bailey, Marc Bell, and Matt Boardman. Outstanding work, in any case. Thanks for the correction.

My wife works in HR for a medium sized municipality. One of her responsibilities is interviewing potential employees in person to see if they warrant an interview with the boss. We watched the episode together. I paused it after Garrett’s one on one with Kirk. I asked if she would give this person a second interview. She said “Absolutely not. She’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

I collaborate pretty closely with HR in my line of evil, and definitely concur. :-)

Ryan Riddle’s review is a great counterpoint the one published here. I could make a whole bunch of points on why Rich is insanely wrong about this episode, but Ryan does it more eloquently than I ever could.

‘Insanely wrong,’ really? Why not just split the difference and simply say that you disagree?

Okay, I read Riddle’s review. Funny: I thought it was a well-written piece, actually agree with a fair chunk of his criticisms — and still think that “Embracing the Winds” is a great episode. (That said, I didn’t much care for his alternate scenario, which reminded me very much of “Court Martial,” and not in a good way.) I guess that just makes me insanely wrong, and not for the first time either. So it goes.

Riddle hates EVERY ST:C episode. He’s all over the TrekBBS talking about how he could do so much better EVERY TIME THEY RELEASE AN EPISODE. He’s got an agenda and can be summarily ignored, believe me.

I thought he made some good, substantive points, agenda or no, and have no desire to ignore him. We just have differing tastes in this case, and with all due respect to Big Jim Slade, I don’t personally believe there are right or wrong opinions when it comes to matters of taste.

Of course there aren’t “right or wrong opinions.” But this is a guy who has roundly insulted every ST:C episode for three years (episodes which have won every critical writing, directing, and producing awards on the books), all the while talking about how he’s such a “better” writer (while providing no credentials for his own “work”).

So yes, he can absolutely be dismissed. With prejudice.

If you say so. I still found some of his criticisms valid, irregardless of his motives. I’ll also note that he goes out of his way to laud the episode’s technical aspects even as he criticized the writing, so his review didn’t come off to me as a bitter hatchet job. That he didn’t care for any of the other STC episodes doesn’t invalidate his opinions either, no matter what other plaudits they’ve received.

That said, if he has indeed made the claim that he can do a better job, we’re completely agreed that such talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, as they say.

Micheal, I say “insanely wrong” because nowhere in the review does this guy talk about what the lesson of this high and mighty, issues based morality play is. There’s a lot of talk about how this or that is great and no why it is so. It’s actually a lot like the episode: vague with a lot of pretense but no substance.

Jerry, agenda? Really? What an odd thing to say. Does your ad hominem make what the reviewer said any less correct? I think you have an agenda to prop up Continues. Maybe they’re paying you to troll comments and accuse people of things. See how easy it is to make an accusation? Now, try to disprove me. What a waste of breath. Talk about why you disagree with something instead of attacking the person next time. It will be a more rewarding experience for everyone.

*sigh* This is when I find it difficult to be a Trek fan. The political propaganda was always so heavy handed and tedious. Yes, this is a fan series but the sanctimony is pure Trek. I also hated how Kirk was emasculated in THE WHITE IRIS; Making Kirk a blubbering, sentimental women who is tortured by his past relationships.

If you don’t like Trek’s liberal political perspective (i.e. what you refer to as sanctimony), why is it that you don’t seek out an SF franchise with one that suits you better? I certainly would.

No disrespect intended; it’s a sincere question.

Why should I do that ? I can still the enjoy the series even though I disagree with it’s politics. The same goes for movies as well. I can enjoy Battleship Potemkin and that is as red as a film can get !

Okay, but then why complain about having to put up with a perspective that has imbued this franchise since its very beginning? If I wanted to, say, watch “24” because I liked the action or Keifer Sutherland’s performance, I wouldn’t whine about the conservative politics of producer Joel Surnow finding their way into the show — because, well, it’s his show, and presumably he created it so that he could express those ideas and values to a wide audience (and, of course, make some money). That’s just the way these things work.

The good news for you and those who feel similarly is that in the SF genre there are any number of more conservative authors whose works could serve as the basis of a space opera whose politics might be more to your liking: Robert Heinlein, John Ringo, Gordon Dickson, Jerry Pournelle, and Philip Jose Farmer, to name just a few. It might be a good idea for some entrepreneurial conservative fans to get a Kickstarter together to get one of these works on screen, rather than endlessly complain about the politics of a franchise they don’t own and whose basic values they don’t much respect. That way, everyone gets to be happy, and Star Trek can continue to be Star Trek.

Since Mignogna is not even close to being a liberal, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Kerwin say he isn’t either, I’m not sure how anyone could interpret this episode as being “liberal.”

Fair enough. I’m actually very down with the notion that questions relating to the fair and equal treatment of individuals, or environmental protection, or any number of other topics that rational people of conscience should readily be able to agree on would be beyond the realm of mere politics, or outdated partisan labels. Unfortunately, in our current polarized climate, many don’t see it that way.

I never hear a rational or logic response from the left about these topics but whatever.

Yes, I know. The opinion of the the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is of “the left,” since the implications of what we might need to do to forestall disaster could possibly inconvenience a few oil and coal barons, and is thus the thin edge of the jackbooted wedge of world communist domination. Obviously we’d be much better off taking the word of such noted sages as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Trump on these matters.

That, I assume, is what you define as “a logic” (sic) and rational response. That’s okay; I certainly expected no better from you.

Unlike you, who probably defers to a clown like Jon Stewart and other politic pundits, I read. There is no general consensus about climate change among the scientific community. That “97 percent” myth came from a survey that only 79 people responded to. Antarctica has gained 112 billion tons of ice during the past decade and that’s straight from NASA. Also, improved technology had shown we have greatly underestimated Co2 emissions from volcanoes. That’s all scientific fact.

That’s from NASA, really? NOAA’s website seems to claim otherwise, and I had the odd impression that the two agencies worked hand-in-glove with each other. Can you provide some links or citations which don’t originate with the Drudge Report or the American Petroleum Institute, pleeze?

(While I wait, here’s an interesting article on sea-ice extent by NASA, which took me about a minute to find using that new Google thingamawhatsis. Yes, you’re quite the deep reader.)

Here’s the kicker from that very article you linked to above:

“But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Meanwhile, in the most recent NASA article I linked to, Antarctic sea ice actually stabilized in 2014. No more increases, while in the meantime, the Arctic ice sheet is suffering massive losses.

Ricardo Cantoral Today 4:14 pm

Please don’t do the cherry-picking evidence thing.

Either you believe in science, and in the data gathered by thousands of climate scientists, or you don’t. You can’t be skeptical about certain evidence and then decide that other evidence disproves the whole conclusion of anthropic climate change. There are scientific explanations for what’s happening in Antarctica, and they don’t refute the greater conclusion of anthropic climate change. You don’t know nearly enough about this topic to be arguing the merits of certain data vs. other data.

I don’t consider myself I Climate Change denier, BTW. I consider myself a skeptic.

Here’s Politifact’s run-down on the 97% figure, with all sources linked-to. While it turns out that the 97% figure is somewhat debatable, it’s pretty much at the margins. 97%, 92%, 90% — in any case, still an overwhelming majority, and the methodology for computing the figure is in actuality nothing like the absurd scenario you related. Still, I do appreciate your calling me out on this one, since I try not to approach this issue from an ideological perspective, being far more interested in the actual facts. Still, you’re really going to have to do much better than this.

Scientific fact from WHERE?? NASA has been widely criticized by those you purport to laud — the non-“liberal” media — for spreading the “lie” about climate change. I would be very interested to know what publications you read regularly. Because climate change is real, according to NASA. Check the water levels in Miami, by the way, and the dissolution of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic.

Ricardo Cantoral Today 11:07 am

Just so you know, you are completely, 100% incorrect in your statements about climate change.

That human activity is contributing to global climate change is the single most agreed-upon scientific conclusion in the 400+ year history of science. Thousands of scientists, in over a hundred nations, all around the world, of all different religions and political leanings, after painstakingly observing, measuring and studying climate data gathered over 100+ years, have nearly all arrived at the same, exact conclusion. The few climate scientists who are still “skeptical” are regarded in like manner as members of the Flat Earth Society. To put it simply: there is no meaningful debate to be had at this point over the issue of whether or not human activity is contributing to climate change.

Cygnus, not to mention that scientists “skeptical” of climate change report on their “studies” funded by carbon industry “foundations.”


Re:“studies” funded by carbon industry “foundations.”

Just as the tobacco industry did cancer research and now the just revealed Sugar Industry’s steering of 1960s’ research.

Yes, we pee in the Ocean. Pay no mind to that volcano that pre-empted a climate change summit while pouring more carbon in to the air in a week than mankind has done in its existence. The weatherpeople have a 50/50 chance of being wrong in telling me if its gonna rain this weekend, so lets not surrender civilization based on what they say is gonna happen 10 years from now. If we’d all just go back to using the aerosol hairspray we used when we were freaked about the next ice age, all would be well.

Oh god, since when did science come down to what a majority said? Show me a null hypothesis and how it was proven, that’s how science is supposed to work. Disclaimer, I grew up on Long Island which would not even exist if a glacier had now come down from Canada, melted and created it, long before there was any thought of an internal combustion engine (and that’s my own thought, not Rush or Trump’s).

Oh, hahaha! I could say the same of the people who get all their news from FOX “news” and “The Weekly Standard” … the “logic” of the Right is sadly lacking.

The Oppression of females by men as the excuse for male dominated occupations ? That’s as leftist as you can get.

Oh, really? Do tell, how so?

And it’s so “unreasonable” of us to complain about it. But we are, after all, “irrational creatures.”

The “excuse” for male-dominated occupations? Where have you been? They are male dominated. Nearly every one, except teaching and nursing and administrative assistant — secretarial, to you — positions.

Patriarchy is real. Male oppression is real. I’ve experienced it personally. So many traditionalist males have. no. idea.

Women take these jobs are purpose because they care more about raising their children than do about working hard. It is a fact that they take more time off work then men. It’s biology that they obey their maternal instinct and your personal experience is irrelevant.

Hahaha! Ricardo, I believe you are living in the last century. Parenting is a two-person job, not just for mothers. But fathers are not often given parental leave. I imagine your own mother worked pretty hard raising you. “Housewives” work quite hard, especially those with children. If they got paid for their labor they would make close to $25/hour.

The fact that women take more time off work than men is because usually the school calls the mother before they call a father, to report a sick child who needs the doctor, or to go home sick. Mothers, being female, often make less money than their male mates [especially if mothers and fathers are paid an hourly wage], and so it makes financial sense for women to take part of the day off to take the child to the doctor, resolve a childcare situation, and so on. The reason women take more time off from work “then” men is something you obviously don’t understand, because you don’t seem to have personal experience of present-day working conditions. So your personal experience is irrelevant.

Of course they call the mother because the mother is usually at home and if she’s employed, she is more willing to leave work early to take care of her child. Men on the other hand would most likely not take the rest of the day off, they would put in more work hours and take less time off. Men get paid more on average for a very simple reason, men work harder. They also take less time off, they don’t get as sick often, and they obviously can’t get pregnant.This is not the patriarchy at work or whatever bull shit conspiracy you speak of. Women obeying their maternal instincts and depending on men to lead, a majority of the US voters are women, are the facts of life. Secondly, I agree that raising a child is a two person job and we need to kill the substitute parent that single mothers depend on, welfare.

While I don’t accept all that you write as fact, Isn’t it true than men are less risk adverse than women? With risk comes consequences, both good and bad. I’d be interested in knowing if the “average salary” that is used when comparing gender inequality, includes those out of the work force completely because they took a risk and it didn’t pan out (like they died in war or on a rocket ship).

Last I checked, babies come out of vaginas and then more often then not, the people with vaginas take time out from the business world to raise them. From what I’m told, its a wonderful and fulfilling experience. So let me just ask this: Spock has 17 years as a first officer, Garret, has 14, because she took leave for 3 years to get her 2 kids (one of whom will go on to command the enterprise c) off to a good start. All other qualifications being equal, who gets the Hood?

Marja Today 4:21 pm

Nearly every one, except teaching and nursing and administrative assistant — secretarial, to you — positions.

Well, this isn’t exactly true, either. The communications field is dominated by women. If I’m not mistaken, sociology, too. There may be others. I recall a NY Times article, about a year ago, about a study concluding that women are better at working together and get more done in groups than men do, suggesting that women are biologically better suited to be politicians than men are. And the percentage of women elected officials has been steadily climbing over the past few decades. Whether you feel that these roles are valuable is entirely up to you. I deal with women in the financial industry all the time. They get paid a lot more than men in other professions. But, that doesn’t mean that their jobs are more important. Just that the financial industry happens to pay very well, for economic reasons that should be fairly obvious. Likewise with men in the tech industry. Tech isn’t any more important than communications or politics or nursing. Frankly, I’d say none of those is more important than nursing. As far as I’m concerned.

Cygnus, I was addressing that remark to Ricardo C, and I just skimmed the “female” professions that occurred to me. These were the prevalent “women’s jobs” when I was young.

I am curious to know if those female financial professionals are making as much money as their male counterparts ….

Marja Today 10:37 am

Women straight out of college earn more than their male counterparts, which is typical for urban areas around the country. Either way, 200k per year is pretty good. I don’t hear any of them complaining, male or female.

I don’t “endlessly complain” about what Star Trek does. Stop assuming what I do. I usually don’t like the episodes that are heavy handed with it’s politics, that’s all. Thankfully not every episode of TOS was like that. Many of them were just plain fun.

Yes, I would have guessed that you show up to check out the women in tinfoil bikinis, and to see cool-looking spaceships fight. That’s actually okay; on a certain level I derive enjoyment from the show myself for those very reasons. But none of that had anything to do with why Roddenberry created the Trek in the first place, or with its core values. So, I’ll repeat: if you don’t like those values, by all means go off and create your own space opera — I even helpfully provided some authors whose work might serve as a basis for such — where the mission statement may include touting unfettered capitalism, or endlessly fighting terrorists and other ideological foes, or promoting “traditional values,” or whatever else catches your fancy. It won’t be easy, but it’ll definitely be more productive than whining about liberal sanctimony or political correctness or whatever mindless groupthink buzzword happens to be in vogue this particular week. In the meantime, enjoy the bikinis and space combat all you like, but please have enough courtesy for the rest of us not to demand that Trek be anything other than itself. I think that’s more than fair.

Here we go, another Trek fan who takes it’s philosophy way too seriously. The fact of the matter is, Plenty of Trek episodes, shows, and movies are littered with action while telling great stories and character development. Roddenberry was not the be all, end all of Trek and many agree that the best of TNG, for example, occurred after Gene died. BTW, I also like the way you scoff at “traditional values” because you have no idea what those are and who was killed in order to protect them.

Oh, I think I have a pretty good idea of who suffered to protect what, Mr. Cantoral. My father, see, left a good chunk of his youthful bod behind in Korea and spent the next two years recovering in a V.A. hospital as best he could. He looked okay on the surface, but if you removed his shirt it was like something from a horror movie, and I never saw him a day in his life that he wasn’t in pain. Anyway, they pinned a Purple Heart to his chest — I still have the damned thing, somewhere — and sent him on his way. Many years later, not liking the thought of a new generation of nineteen year-olds coming back home the way he did, or not at all, he was participating in a peaceful protest in Century City, CA with a bunch of longhair types when Mayor Sam Yorty’s armored police force swarmed over them like locusts. Fortunately, my dad got off easy — just a single blow to the back — but he saw the blood flow in the gutters that day, and not one of the cops ever bothered to ask him about his Purple Heart. As for those traditional values, whatever he suffered and fought for, I can guarantee you this much: it had nothing whatsoever to do with demonizing illegal immigrants or homosexuals.

And again, I get that you don’t take Trek’s philosophy of peace, inclusion, and social justice (a risible phrase, I know) seriously. The question is: if you don’t, then why whine about it?

First of, I am the son of an illegal immigrant. Yes, I admit that. But do you know why my Mother was never kicked out of here ? Because she became a good citizen. She’s not a patriot but she is a good citizen. She assimilated and that’s what these people are not doing. They come here and many of them bring them crime. Just look at the statistics of rape in towns and cities near the US-Mexican border, they are astronomical. This has nothing to do with bigotry, this is purely about logic. As for the issue of homosexuality, I will shock you again by saying I am gay. However, I think transsexuals are mentally ill. A man who thinks he is a woman is no less disturbed than the man who thinks she is a six year old girl. Lastly, I feel that not every conflict the USA engaged in was always right but there is no question that America has enemies and our chicken shit President won’t admit to who they are. I don’t think Trump is what this country needs but we also don’t need a crook like Hillary Clinton in office. Lastly,I obviously don’t know your father but I find it hard believe he thought he wasn’t fight for anything. You tell me.

“And again, I get that you don’t take Trek’s philosophy of peace, inclusion, and social justice (a risible phrase, I know) seriously. The question is: if you don’t, then why whine about it?get that you don’t take Trek’s philosophy of peace, inclusion, and social justice (a risible phrase, I know) seriously. The question is: if you don’t, then why whine about it?”

For the same reason anyone whines on the internet. LOL !

Many illegal immigrants, like your own mother, work hard, pay taxes, and pay into Social Security [the latter, benefits they will never get because they are “illegals”. Trump has painted illegal immigrants with a broad and nasty brush, and people like your mom don’t deserve that kind of condemnation.

I would imagine Michael’s father was drafted, as many Korean War and Viet Nam war veterans were. They didn’t ask to be involved in such conflicts, but experienced huge personal losses anyway.

I am sorry you didn’t get to serve in the Navy. It might have enlightened you about military service.

Illegal immigrants contribute to 13 percent of the crime in this country. They deserve to be kicked out because they are nothing but a burden on our society. I say, keep the ones who are making the effort to learn the language and educate themselves. As for missing out on the Navy, I am sorry too. I am also frustrated that mentally ill transexuals are allowed to serve and I wouldn’t be permitted to do so.

Michael Hall, Thank you for saying this. I’m afraid I “went off” because of my personal experiences :-p

But it is my opinion and Ricardo is welcome to it ….

Ha. I served in the USCG with guys who thought “being a woman” was the worst possible thing ever; thus, many a Chief’s initiation featured a large hairy guy dressed in the most outlandish “woman’s attire” his fellow Chiefs could imagine, so that the new Chief was properly humiliated.

I have always found that ridiculous, not to mention hugely insulting. Kirk was not emasculated, he was humanized. But you’re a macho guy and can’t stand that idea. I get it. Guys who share that macho worldview are the reason a lot of people suffer.

I never said any kind of emoting is “unmanly”. I just find it ridiculous that he was inundated with ghostly visions of almost every single woman he was with. They should have stuck with one in particular.

Didn’t much care for “The White Iris” myself, for a lot of reasons — but just for the record, it wasn’t the women Kirk had “been with,” but rather the women he thought he’d failed. Not really the same thing at all.

I think these were women he genuinely loved and mourned, and the child Miramanee might have borne, and the missed opportunities he had for a long-term relationship in his life.

And I think your reference to Kirk was emasculated in THE WHITE IRIS; Making Kirk a blubbering, sentimental women …. is pretty clearly a put-down of “emotional women” and a statement that a man experiences and expresses sadness is unmanly.


I know it’s a cliche to say it, but thank you for your service. As for Mr. Cantoral, I make no assumptions. Maybe he singlehandedly fought the Baathists and pacified the entire city of Fallujah with Willy Pete for all I know. But I’ve been around the block a time or two, and I can say with certainty that if there’s anything these Keyboard Kommandos tend to have in common besides a plug-ugly willingness to kill foreigners by proxy and their curious notions of what constitutes freedom, it’s that none of them has been within a light year of putting on a uniform their ownselves.

Kill foreigners ? Where are you getting this bull shit ? You are a classic example of an hysterical lefty. If I acknowledge the very fact that there are Muslim extremists want to kill us and Illegals aliens contribute to an alarming amount of crime, I am some kind of savage. BTW, I wanted to join the Navy but I couldn’t because of my past history. I am sure you will try an insult me because of that.

It was a nice story but not great. To me it felt too compressed. Might have been better to do a two parter

Loved the ‘Vulcanian’ joke.

Though it’s typical of Star Trek to delve into social issues of the day, it always did by couching such issues in sci-fi terms. It’s a trick that they did to make otherwise close minded people accept ideas they would not normally be open to. However, this episode did not couch such issues in sc-fi terms. It dealt with the issue right on the nose and so became a little too heavy handed.

That said, to me this episode was a little off because they are dealing directly with issues that have long been resolved by the time of TOS. The issue of prejudice via gender is one of those things that humanity has outgrown by this time. Women were commanders and nobody made an issue of it, except writers of this episode who are still immersed in that culture of prejudice we still have today.

Um — did you happen to see the final TOS episode, “Turnabout Intruder,” which features an embittered old flame of Kirk’s who states that starship command is foreclosed to women, an accusation that Kirk does not deny? As for the social issues of TOS always being couched in SF terms, how did that work in “Court Martial” again? I must have missed it.

Good episode. I like the reference to Takei’s experiences and the continuing political repercussions from ‘Lolani’. Nice job on the effects for the starbase. And who or what is taking out all the starships? I look forward to finding out in upcoming episodes. Good spot-on political commentary on our current presidential election. A few things were clunky, like Marina Sirtis’ computer voice and the feedback zapping Chekov, but overall pretty good.
I can’t wait for the next one!

Haberkorn, Mignona, and Doohan were great as usual. Imahara is an acting disaster, and the Counselor character continues to irritate by her uselessly forced insertion. All-in-all a very good episode that could only have been improved by a more definitive ending that would accurately reflect this years’ election…. “it may be time for a woman, but it’s not time for YOU, because you’re a shrill manipulative phony who probably got people killed through incompetence.”

If you must insist on hijacking this thread by outright politicizing it, you might have mentioned the Klingon fascist that the incompetent woman was up against. Fair enough?

Tell me that the female candidate in the episode was not portrayed as “a shrill manipulative phony who probably got people killed through incompetence.”. Maybe she needed to communicate some Starfleet secret information on an unsecured open channel for you to see the parallel? Or maybe she should have gotten where she was through marriage to a disgraced former officer?

And yet you whine that this obvious parallel wasn’t on-the-nose enough for you? How ungrateful!

If I understand your garboil correctly — maybe running it through a universal translator might help — no, I don’t believe this show was about HRC (whom I don’t support, not that it matters), or Donald Trump, or Madame Curie, or Susan B. Anthony for that matter. But here’s a suggestion: why not cool your bluster for a moment, write a note to Vic Mignogna, and ask him? Five hundred quatloos says he’ll deny any such intention, but I’m more than willing to be proven wrong.

Since Mignogna neither wrote nor directed this episode, I’m not sure what a “note to Vic” would accomplish.

Mignogna is credited as the teleplay’s co-author. In any case, as STC’s creator, star, and executive producer, you don’t think he’d know whether or not the character of Diane Garrett was meant to be a stand-in for HRC?

The subtext (heck, the text) is definately there – we are currently having people say things like “we’re ready for a woman, just not this woman.”

Yes, it’s not a direct parallel to exactly what’s happening – there’s no Trump – but that may be by design. Here, the choice is oddly clear – Garrett appears to be tainted goods, especially compared to Spock (although even he seems to admit that she’s more qualified – or, is it the historical/ethical argument that compells him to consider resignation.)

Heck, it was written a while ago – it could be looking at the primary. Again, not a direct Gorkon/Gorbachev parallel – but not exactly subtle. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Regardless of the creators’ intent, stated or otherwise, it’s there. And it’s certainly something we’re talking about now.

And, people also deny that sexism is a factor with Clinton, instead saying she’s made mistakes and has been evasive/hostile/not been entirely honest – in situations where male politicians likely wouldn’t have been seriously tainted at all.

And within the story, Garrett has, arguably, earned her defensiveness – she’s not treated fairly in Starfleet because she’s a woman (and worse, nobody acknowledges that unfairness and/or pretends/believes that gender isn’t an issue because of progress). Wouldn’t you be defensive/angry?

Whee, witzend, you seem very well informed!

by FOX news

Had to haul out that old chestnut ‘NBC executives didn’t want a woman as Number One’?

NO. NBC executives didn’t want Gene Roddernberry’s girlfriend, who was not that good an actress to be number one.

That assertion was by Herb Solow, who is now deceased. It was in response to the oft-told tale by Gene Roddenberry, also dead. So far as I know, neither ever actually provided any documentation to back up their respective versions of what actually happened (some ancient surveys from Preview House demonstrating that test audiences in 1964 were totally cool with a female second-in-command would have been nice), but what I do know is that there was apparently bad blood between the two men for years prior to Roddenberry’s death. I know that you ponied-up the bucks for Inside Star Trek and all — so did I — but aside from that, what would be your reason for taking sides in a factual dispute between two dead men?

So what you’re saying is NBC as OK with a woman as #1 – just not that one. Plenty of woman I woud be happy to vote for to be president, will not be voting for HRC.


Re: what you’re saying is NBC as OK with a woman as #1

No, what we are saying is the NBC execs were OK with their mistresses as #1, and were uncomfortable with Roddenberry thinking he deserved the same perks.

NBC executives did NOT want a woman as Number One. Period.

BTW, Todd Haberkorn has been doing a fantastic, top-notch job in the Spock role since around the second episode in this series. Not that was never bad in the role, mind you, but he grew into it rather quickly and made it his own. Haberkorn effectively found the sweet spot between imitating Nimoy’s Spock, and inventing his own characterization that might stray too far from the original, and he’s been playing in that sweet spot since Lolani. All of the acting performances have been solid for a while now, for that matter (apart from a few accents). Vic’s performance in this episode is about as Kirk as he could get without appearing to overtly imitate Shatner.

Agreed about Haberkorn. I think he certainly gets Spock better than, say, Zachary Quinto, whose line delivery has always struck me as more petulant than aloof or reserved. I also thought that his interaction with the Vulcan Admiral was one of the very best things about this episode.

I think Quinto’s portrayal has been excellent. Unfortunately, it’s the scripts that demand that he be angry instead of reserved.

No problem with Quinto; I just think that Haberkorn gets the character better, possibly because he’s starting off as a fan. But I’ve always noted that for me, the best thing by far about the KT films has been the cast.

Michael, Quinto is portraying KT Spock. A Spock who has lost his mother and all the people on his home planet. I do think that has affected Spock’s character somewhat — at least in private moments and at times of stress. There are plenty of times in the movies when he’s the cool, calm, collected Spock.

I agree on the cast. I love each and every one of them.

My gosh, Ricardo — we agree!

Michael Hall Today 12:15 am

There’s a palpable sagacity and wisdom to Haberkorn’s portrayal of Spock that is missing in Quinto’s. And this could entirely be attributable to the way that Spock has been written in the BR movies. But, where Quinto goes petulant, Haberkorn goes reflective—even more so than Nimoy did, I think. Which is an example of how Haberkorn has made Spock his own, without straying too far from the defining attributes of the character.

Well, in, and since, “Lolani.” At first I found him difficult to accept as Spock. But he’s got it now.

it’s a good start but ultimately a waste of 50 minutes – this should of been a story about the first female captain. instead the ship blows up and we get a “oh well, back to square one!” outcome. and then that weird ENT ending where they spell out the obvious reference at the end. my friends and I JOKE about putting that into fanfilm scripts but we never do it. lost potential. i hope the series doesn’t end on this note.

Disappointed. This was nothing more than a ‘elect Hillary’ commercial.

Done with this series that I used to enjoy.

Really. I got the opposite impression from the episode: it is time for a woman just not THIS woman.

@CD, and also, I think you could argue that there’s also an “all conservatives aren’t as conservative as you think” argument to be made about the way the Tellarites react. Whether it was intentional or not – it’s there. And I think it’s really current.

Incidentally, I’ve become a (Hillary) Clinton supporter after previously thinking she’s never honest/clear about what she stands for – but I’ve read a few good stories about how she built relationships, made compromises, listened to people and actually got things done as a Senator. And she has very, very detailed policy ideas. She’s not naturally likable or charismatic, but I do think she’s qualified.

Either way, it’s interesting that the reaction here – even from Gray – is very visceral. Is “just not this woman” a cop out? And would Garrett have been treated differently had she been a man? It’s, well, gray (and Gray is pretty great as Gray in this – although it seems ridiculous to see any officer have to work in those miniskirts, regardless of age [although Gray pulls it off])

It’s interesting – because you don’t get a clear understanding (and I admit I was writing a story while this was on in the background and may have missed parts) of whether Garrett is really qualified or not (although they say she’s qualified, and she certainly has commendations and awards galore). Her defensiveness and speculation from an incident from long before seem to be the biggest strikes against her.

Leo, Leo, Leo. You really ought to compare notes with ‘witzend’ (‘wherewitzgotodie’ would be more accurate) upthread, since he/she is utterly convinced that this show was a deliberate hit job on HRC, and is actually delighted with results, excepting he wishes that it hit even harder. So it goes. My take? Vic Mignogna, whose politics I gather are considerably rightward of my own, did his best to honor TOS by addressing a complicated moral issue evenhandedly, and with some subtlety and finesse. The episode is not perfect, but it’s a fine effort nevertheless, and that certain individuals can apparently only assess it, or any other work of art, through the lens of America’s current grotesque political carnival is a genuine pity.

Michael, Mignogna may be a conservative who believes in women’s equality. Some even [gasp!] believe in a woman’s right to control her own body. But they seem to be rare birds these days.

Imagine what would have happened if Garret had caught wind of Spock’s “Deep Dark Secret” (that little business of kidnapping Pike, Hijacking the Enterprise, and violating General Order 4 by going to Talos IV – inviting the Death Penalty)

If that’s something you can have on your record (even if it were covered up by Mendez) and still be “the best candidate for command”, then that goes along way to explaining why all the other captains in TOS are such incompetent boobs. – no gender related puns intended

That’s pretty funny. I love “The Menagerie” — in fact, it’s my all-time favorite episode — but there’s no doubt the conclusion lets Spock off the hook all too easily.

You never know, maybe the writers took that example of a Deux Ex Machina as a blueprint for the ending of “Embrace the Winds.” Sad if true though.

I wonder if the Hood mystery will be part of this story arc someone on the production team mentioned?

When the Tellarite started interrupting Kirk with “Oh please…”, I was half-expecting him to say: “We stopped caring about this since decades ago, didn’t Starfleet get the memo?” Such a “hilarious” misunderstanding would have been a rather odd ending for an episode with this quite serious topic… Thankfully of course, they didn’t go that route.

No, seriously, I liked this episode. It showed that guaranteeing equal opportunity for everyone can sometimes get rather complicated. How can you objectively access if two different individuals with different pros and cons are indeed equally qualified for the position they apply to? (The prerequisite for applying an affirmative action policy to the individual belonging to the group that usually gets discriminated.) And can anyone truly make such a judgement with 0 % conscious or unconscious bias?


I like that concept a lot, actually. As Homer Simpson would say, D’oh!

Loved the last episode, this was such a disappointment.
The idea that there were or would be no female Starship captains in the 23rd century is ridiculous, it was never said in the series that there were no Female Starship Captains, the idea comes from a scene in Turnabout Intruder where Janice Lester voices her insane paranoia where she says it was being a woman that stopped her getting a captiancy, Kirk does seem to agree with her but he would hardly want to start an argument with someone who has mental issues that he has obviously dealt with in the past.
To validate this myth is such an insult to Star Trek. they could have resolved this issue in the dialogue after their remaking of the end of Turnabout Intruder without wasting a whole episode on it.
The issue is important but should have been explored through an alien species not by throwing Starfleet under the bus.

“The idea that there were or would be no female Starship captains in the 23rd century is rutidiculous, it was never said in the series that there were no Female Starship Captains, the idea comes from a scene in Turnabout Intruder where Janice Lester voices her insane paranoia where she says it was being a woman that stopped her getting a captiancy, Kirk does seem to agree with her but he would hardly want to start an argument with someone who has mental issues that he has obviously dealt with in the past.”

Sorry, guy, but you’re wrong. When Lester makes her pronouncement about no female starship captains, Kirk merely replies “You always blamed me for that,” not “What about Captain Louisa May Alcott of the starship Farragut? The line is canon, and Gene Roddenberry, much to his credit, fully accepted the blame with no excuses or rationalizations, merely admitting over the years that the script and the concept were just sexist.


This was the third season. I would hardly hold Gene personally responsible for what was essentially a Paramount guided realization of his story idea turned about. I always imagined that if Fontana and he were still both on staff that his shooting script would have evolved less in that sexist direction. However, refreshing after years of hearing of his credit hogging that he didn’t shy away from the blame.

Actually, even if Starfleet had a glass ceiling firmly in place on captaincies, with female second-in-commands also canon it stands to reason that some of those women would be breaking through with field promotions on their captain’s untimely demise. So tell us more about Captain Louisa May Alcott who took over for Garrovick.

Trekboi, I agree that it’s ridiculous, but Lester says, “your world of starship captains wasn’t open to women,” now perhaps [I say facetiously] she meant INSANE women, but the implication of sexism regarding the promotion of women to captain was pretty clear in 1969.

I believe the statement refers to the fact that there were no women captains among the remaining Constitution class starships. Folks have a hard time remembering that this is supposed to be an era when there were only 12 true “starships” . this doesn’t include lesser classes of warp capable ships, just the “big guns” so, yeah, not to have 1 in 12 be captained by a woman is a big deal, but less of a big deal when you have to spread those opportunities among all of the member races. We saw three other white guys ( Tracy, Decker, Bob Wesley) serving at the same time as Kirk. We can presume they were all human although one or two could have been from Alpha Centauri and only look human

Kinda gives weight to Azetbur’s comment that Starfleet was a “homosapiens only” club

If CBS really wants me to pony up for All Access, they should hire this team, raise the budget, recast a few parts, shore up the writing staff and create more 13 episode seasons of Star Trek Continues. I have high hopes for the new Trek show but love the care and quality of what Vic and his team have accomplished. I may have quibbles with some of the writing and performances but I am always damn excited to see a new episode pop up.

“Sadly, Star Trek Continues is providing stronger story content than TOS did during its third and final season, which is a testament to Mignogna and his writing staff. It is interesting to consider whether or not the show would have dodged cancellation once again if the quality of writing was up to par with STC’s efforts.”

Good writing in season three would not have mattered by that time, as the network put TOS in the Friday night graveyard slot of 10:00. TOS was expensive, had apparently not impresses with ratings, and they wanted to kill it. Everyone knew that slot meant the end of a show–any show.

Good writing by that time would not have helped save it, as the the audiences at that given time slot were not there to view the show.

(But there were some good episodes in season three. It wasn’t all bad.)

It was a very good episode. If this is the last one, STC did themselves proud.

Not taking jabs at any other “fan production” but MY GOD THIS WAS GOOD! Sometimes, it’s easy to say we’re making a fan series that’s Trek but it ends up not really feeling like Trek. That’s okay too depending on what the mission of the series or film is but I watched this episode while watching SciFi’s TOS season 1 and 2 marathon this past weekend. There was an episode on that I wasn’t too fond of so I switched over to youtube on my tv and watched this and it felt like I was watching another episode from the season. The hearing, the acting, the reference to the Enterprise C captain, the message, the acting which was better, the different characters getting their chance to shine on and off the ship…this falls right into place with the Original Series. Again, that’s not a jab at others who do TOS fan series, but I suggest more fans take a look at this particular episode.

Just can’t stand Vic; his awful, smug overacting makes Shatner come off like a shy, shrinking violet.

Kudos. For these pro-fan-film productions, this one was completely in the tone of what all the “documentaries” always says Star Trek was about… topical social issues. Executed the way it would be executed in the 60’s. One of the few pro-fan-films that didn’t make me cringe. I was entertained.

I like this very much, very good work and just like watching an original TOS episode.

I must say though, in my country, we would say that Erin Gray has an ‘Okinawa’-style body. Very, very nice…

Okay watched. Liked a lot. Though sometimes the dialog dragged. Not the words. The deliver. And a few edits are needed on reaction shots.

I really like the way this episode inspired this discussion here. Interestingly, the comments on the youtube version is disabled. Maybe they do that often.

In a strange way, this feels more like an episode than anything else I’ve seen. It doesn’t try to do too much, so what it does it does very very well. The only really wrong note was Scotty’s seeming fatalism on board the Hood. I didn’t get that all.

Honestly, this episode bored me. I’m for Hillary, and I get it… it just wasn’t as good as any of the other episodes. I like all the other ones. Great show!

Great eppisode. I enjoyed it from start to finish