tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post289772129880526670..comments2024-03-28T14:49:36.133-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: Star Trek 50th Anniversary Blogging: "Return to Tomorrow" (February 9, 1968)John Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-68996779338465652732018-09-16T16:11:08.241-04:002018-09-16T16:11:08.241-04:00I adore Kirk's speeches, from "We're ...I adore Kirk's speeches, from "We're not going to kill <i>today</i>" to "In every revolution, there's one man with a vision," to "Risk is our business." Shatner's bad behavior during the series has sometimes overshadowed or tainted Kirk, but it's important to remember that the actor is not the character. <i>Shatner</i> may be petty and insecure, but KIRK is a great man, an incredibly inspiring person who shows us the best of humanity.Coryleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16961220703672521166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-11948919220196948542017-02-02T09:24:00.180-05:002017-02-02T09:24:00.180-05:00Excellent review John, of (as you pointed out) a v...Excellent review John, of (as you pointed out) a very underrated episode. So happy that you made special mention of the extraordinary Diana Muldaur. I also love her performance and character in another criminally underrated episode, season 3's "Is There No Truth In Beauty". She was also great in Gene Roddenberry's "Planet Earth" playing a very different character than either of her two classic Trek outings.James J. Caterinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01457868136494514710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-52627284482967538952017-01-31T23:15:29.232-05:002017-01-31T23:15:29.232-05:00John, thoughtful review of “Return to Tomorrow”.
...John, thoughtful review of “Return to Tomorrow”. <br />Sheri excellent comments too. I love the "Risk is our business speech" scene and always submit that scene to anyone that does not appreciate Star Trek. It gave me goosebumps when I saw it as a boy in the '70s and still makes me smile every time.<br /><br />SGB SGBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07137406272001346149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-68987795729015997432017-01-31T19:39:56.170-05:002017-01-31T19:39:56.170-05:00Another excellent and winning review, John.
That K...Another excellent and winning review, John.<br />That Kirk's "Risk" speech is the heart of this episode goes without saying, but it could arguably be the heart of not only The Original Series, but every iteration of Star Trek that has come since. Why do we, as human beings, continue? Why press on? "Return to Tomorrow" presents a multitude of answers, and is a wonderful statement on what motivates our humanity - both good and bad.<br />I, too greatly admire all of the performances on display here. William Shatner is simply brilliant, his words and emotions breathtaking, and I daresay courageous. How many actors could take the lines about "Heart pumping, arteries surging with blood again" and make them feel not only alive, filled with both power and pathos, allow them to be taken seriously, and make us believe they're being spoken by someone other than Kirk? Only William Shatner, that's who.<br />As for Nimoy, among the details you noted, he even changes the way he walks when Spock's body is occupied by Henoch. His gait becomes a kind of swagger, and it's definitely a conscious choice made by the actor. It reminds me of how Christopher Reeve literally changed his physical appearance for both Clark Kent and Superman (a choice which Melissa Benoist wisely echoes in her portrayal of Supergirl).<br />This was an "A-game" episode, and everyone brought it, from the director to the musical composer. Memorable and thoughtful, "Return to Tomorrow" is why we're aboard the Starship Enterprise.<br />SteveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13101722769411384962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-88042027874754605712017-01-31T18:09:26.985-05:002017-01-31T18:09:26.985-05:00I could swear that the reason Sargon refers to the...I could swear that the reason Sargon refers to the cast as "my children" is that he and his fellow beings not only visited, but actually seeded or colonized humans throughout the galaxy. This explains Sargon's undaunted altruism toward the humans for whom he feels responsible, in contrast to Thalassa's temptation and Henoch's total corruption. These three, in a slightly different way than with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, represent the Id, Ego and Superego of Freudian thought. Thalassa's struggle to resist temptation makes her the character to whom we can relate, as she represents Everyman in this trio. <br /><br />That "risk is our business speech" is absolutely an expression of man's essential aspirational nature, the need to DO, to seek, to find, to learn. I agree that this is the distillation of the very essence of Star Trek, the reason people watched it over and over and found it inspirational. And the soaring music that underlies that speech is used one other time for a similar speech: in "Mirror Mirror", when Kirk challenges Mirror Spock, saying, "In every revolution there's one man with a vision . . ." In both cases, we have the quintessential explorer (of both the internal and the external unknown) explaining who we are, what we are meant to do, and why we do it. <br /><br />Was there ever a character--a human character, not a superhero--created for television who so represented both the reality of human existence and the thrust of mankind's need to strive and learn? I don't think so. William Shatner has taken a lot of flak for alleged hamminess, but I don't think audiences would have responded so readily to a character meant to represent both the internal and external, the real and the aspirational, if the performance had been any flatter. Kirk is meant to be both life and larger than life. How boring it would have been if we couldn't have *seen* and *felt* why his own crew so readily responded to him! There was once a psychological study done of children (possibly autistic children, I can't recall) that compared the impact of various TV shows on them. The upshot was that Star Trek had penetrated their minds more readily than any show on television, and Mission Impossible did so the least. The reason was that every episode was as readily *heard* as seen, so they didn't have to be looking at the screen to absorb the action or the message. If Shatner occasionally went over the top, well, so what? Who was more memorable? Sherinoreply@blogger.com