Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
- MA files from this episode (27) • MA remastered files from this episode (39)
- Template:Titles/Court Martial yields Court Martial (TOS 1x14)
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TOS forum at The Trek BBS.
FA status Edit
Nomination (06 May - 17 May 2005, Success) Edit
- "Court Martial" -- Self Nomination. This is what I've become accustomed to calling a "Defiant-class" episode article. (I think some of you know what I mean ;-)) As I watched the episode, I believe I caught all the information, minor or major. I now offer my work, unto you...-AJHalliwell 02:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I agree this article is very well written, and I also agree that it's up to "Defiant-class" standard!. zsingaya 06:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Although we all look to Defiant as the user with the standard to model all future summaries after, it isn't always realistic. This summary fulfills the expectation of what the summary needs to contain. -- Dmsdbo 12:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support, agreed on quality issues. — THOR 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support - summary is well layed-out with good pictures. Very extensive background info and quotes (IMO, the best part of the article). This is an example of an excellent summary and episode article. Keep up the good work! --Defiant | Talk 22:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Nice layout and fitting use of pics. Great write-up. Certainly comparable to Defiant's write-ups or his and my joint effort on "Relics". --Scimitar 17:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I was going to add megalyte survey to the references (Spock performs one on the Enterprise computer at Kirk's request), but I don't know the correct spelling. Megalight? Megalite? --Josiah Rowe 06:43, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- After watching the episode with subtitles, and filling in a large "defiant-class" summary (you either do, or don't understand the punn, lol) Its confirmed "MEGALYTE" is the spelling. Also, curiously, Chandra/Chondra is spelled several different ways in the episode. -AJHalliwell 23:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
another background note that doesnt quite make sense:
- In "The Menagerie, Part I", Kirk questions the authenticity of Spock's playback of the events from "The Cage" because no starships keep records of such detail. This is a direct contradiction of events in this episode, in which we are even able play back records which can zoom in on Kirk's finger pushing buttons on his chair!
the playback record in "The Menagerie" was much more detailed than the playback in "Court-Martial" -- for one, the playback in "The Cage" showed a pan that started in deep space, and zoomed in through the bridge dome transparency, and again showed the exterior of the vessel, as well as following main characters through their own hallucinations. There isn't any contradiction, because the "Court-Martial" playback didn't do that -- and therefore isn't really as detailed --precisely the point of the line in "The Menagerie" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
- Foul! It is a clear contradiction-- Kirk was questioning the footage of the starship only-- remember, this was before any of the Talosian illusion footage. He told Scotty to stop the playback only a minute or so into it. We can ignore the zoom in from the ship from outside-- obviously this was retained for its dramatic effect and to give additional footage for Nimoy to talk over with background data while the scene is set up. Kirk says, paraphrasing, "No starship provides records of that detail-- what were we watching?" He's even framing it in terms of the here and now, not based on records from 20 years previous.
- The footage in "Court-Martial" is FAR more detailed-- we not only change camera angles, as in "The Menagerie", but we can pinpoint Kirk's fingers on the control panel of his chair. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything but a contradiction, especially coming only one filmed episode after "Court-Martial."
I'm not sure you read what i said -- the "detail" of the record tapes was questioned immediately after it showed the pan in from outside the ship on the screen. Obviously this is one of the things considered to be in extra detail. i'm not sure what about this you don't understand. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Let me make this a little clearer: If I had cameras in my house that were programmed to record from a couple different angles, and were designed to be high-resolution enough to zoom in on the arm of my chair and make out what my hand was doing on a keyboard, i would be very much surprised if someone played a tape that started down the block and slowly zoomed in my window! -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:04, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- My point is, Kirk did not say, "Your tape is phony, Spock, because your camera zoomed in from outside the ship." He questions its authenticity because he says the record is too perfect and detailed. If we're going to start including the zoom in on the ship, then we also have to talk about the way Mr. Lurry is somehow able to zoom the view of his office out on cue to reveal Koloth and Korax, or talk about the stylish direction of the Metrons in "Arena", with convenient close-ups of Kirk's cannon construction interspersed with suspenseful out-of-focus approaching Gorn shots. I think you are being too much of a purist if you include that zoom into the ship-- it was included in "The Menagerie" only to allow Nimoy more time for an explanatory lead-in. He already ended up talking over a lot of the "Cage" dialogue as it was. Anyhow, it doesn't bother me that my comment was removed, since most of the rest of the page's background info. was written by me and hasn't been found wanting, for the most part, but there is a definite contradiction between Kirk's words in "The Menagerie" and the detail of the records from the "modern" 'Enterprise' seen in "Court-Martial." --Kurt of North Bend
The script for this episode was revised more times than any other in the series, and was also constantly re-written during the filming. This explains many of the omitted scenes, and continuity errors.
Background notes Edit
I have been re-writing background notes for this one. A lot of re-writing here, and some removals:
- The cut-outs of the starbase buildings seen through Stone's window are much more realistic here in a "nighttime" view than in their reappearance in "The Menagerie, Part I".
(A year later) I had a crack at tightening up background (mainly moving information into sections). I removed the following for being first POV, then restating what should go on the character page and summary (Cogley's defence of books), then more POV:
- In addition to being a good defense attorney, Sam Cogley also provides a rousing defense of books in the face of modern technology, claiming he never uses the computer in his office. Some have criticized Cogley for being a fairly weak attorney, as he is ready to give up at one point, but as Kirk says, the evidence against him was damning.
I removed the following as it is more appropriate to Stone's page itself (which it is on already):
- According to the non-canon reference book Star Trek Concordance, Commodore Stone's first and middle initials are "L.T."
– Cleanse 03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Has it ever been confirmed that Spock, being a Vulcan/Human Hybrid, has his heart in the same place as a normal Vulcan? 18.104.22.168 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
nitpick removal. Edit
I removed the following nitpicks from the article, based on MA policy.
- Spock takes all of the audible sounds from the ship and plays them back all at once amplified loud enough to make heartbeats uncomfortable to listen to, yet the voices of the people on the bridge are not booming over the speakers when they talk.
- Although Kirk mentions that they're awaiting the arrival of the trial board, all of them were previously seen during the first scene at the bar, wearing their dress uniforms. This incongruity is the result of the reordering of scenes for the aired version. In the script, Act One begins in Stone's office with Stone's long line of questioning of Kirk, then the bar scene is next.
- When eliminating Spock's heartbeat from the total of all sounds on the ship, McCoy places the white sound device over his chest. Vulcan hearts, however, are located where a Human's liver would be.
- I agree with the removal of the first and third points, as they are mere nitpicks.
- However, I think the second one has merit. It contains relevant information about how scenes were rearranged from the script. I think, however, it should be rephrased to focus on this legit info rather than the nitpick. – Cleanse 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen the episode in a while. I will go ahead an see it, then properly rephrase the second point. If anyone has a way to do it right now, please be my guest. --Nmajmani 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following as a nitpick after additional info was added- it may be "odd" to us, but it might be normal in the future.
- Kirk's reference to amplification of sound "on the order of one to the fourth power" is odd (14 = 1). The line in the script is "one to the tenth power", also one. This may have resulted from the writer misinterpreting the standard scientific notation for numbers; the intended figure was most likely 1 × --31dot 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Questionable background note Edit
- * Kirk refers to the silver-haired officer at the bar as "Mike." Another character named "Corrigan" is sitting at a table nearby and nods coldly to Kirk. The credits refer to Corrigan as being played by Tom Curtis. Since it is a speaking role, it seems likely that Tom Curtis played "Mike." This actor supplied the voice of Captain Daily in "The Conscience of the King" and the voice of "Starbase Operations" in "The Menagerie, Part I". Other characters include "Teller," who's sitting at the table with Corrigan, and "Timothy," who tells Kirk that "Ben Finney was a friend of ours."
First of all, the credits don't refer to anyone playing Corrigan or Mike. Both roles went uncredited, so I don't know how it's "more likely" that Curtis played Mike just because it's a speaking role. We simply don't know who played Mike. The second part, about Daily, is in direct conflict to other pages on the site, which suggest that Frank da Vinci or Curtis may have provided Daily's voice. The last bit, about other characters seen, is superfluous. - Bridge 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Jame or Jamie? Edit
I changed a Jame to Jamie before noticing a few other Jame's. I'm not sure which spelling is "accurate" but they should be consistant. TheHYPO 08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Added an extra Edit
I added Lewis to the "unknown actors" list--he appears in the bar scene at 3:45 into the episode --22.214.171.124 01:49, October 3, 2009 (UTC)Jim in NYC
- "Well I had to see it to believe it!"
- "They're about to lop off the captain's professional head and you're sitting here playing chess with the computer!"
- "That is true."
- "Mr. Spock, you're the most cold-blooded man I've ever known!"
- "Why, thank you, Doctor...(McCoy turns to leave before he does anything stupid)...I've just won my fourth game."
- "That's impossible!"
- "Observe for yourself...(Spock proceeds to easily defeat the computer as McCoy looks on)...Mechanically, the computer is flawless - therefore logically its report of the captain's guilt is infallable. I could not accept that, however..."
- "So you tested the program bank?"
- "Exactly. I programmed it myself for chess some months ago - the best I should've been able to obtain was a draw."
- (Now well aware of Spock's motives)"Well why are you just sitting there?"
- - Dr. McCoy and Spock, discovering the tampering with the computer system
- "Mr. Cogley is well-known for his theatrics!"
- (to Shaw) "Is saving an innocent man's career a theatric?"
- "Counsels will direct their remarks to the bench!"
- "Oh, I'd be delighted to, sir, now that I have something HUMAN to talk about! Rights, sir – HUMAN rights! The Bible. The Code of Hammurabi. And of Justinian. The Magna Carta. The Constitution of the United States. The Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies. The Statutes of Alpha III. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of RIGHTS! Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him – a right to which my client has been denied!"
- "Your honor, that is ridiculous. We produced the witnesses in court. My learned opponent had the opportunity to see them, cross-examine them –"
- "All but ONE! The most devastating witness against my client is not a Human being. It's a machine, an information system. The computer log of the Enterprise. I ask this court adjourn and reconvene aboard that vessel."
- "I protest, Your honor!"
- "And I repeat, I speak of rights! A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the :level of the machine! Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us! I ask that my motion be granted. And more than that, gentlemen. In the name of Humanity, fading in the shadow of :the machine, I demand it. I DEMAND IT!!!"
- - Sam Cogley, Areel Shaw, and Commodore Stone
- "Captain, please describe for the court the steps you took to find Lieutenant Commander Finney."
- "I instituted a Phase 1 search."
- "A Phase 1 search?"
- "It's a painstaking, thorough attempt, in and around the ship, to find a man who's unable to respond."
- "It presupposes, does it not, that a man wishes to be found."
- "I beg your pardon?"
- "Well, when you search for a man, you assume, don't you, that he wants to be found – that he's not hiding?"
- "On a ship of this size, could a man... evade such a search?"
- (Seeing where his lawyer is going)"Possibly!"
- (to the court's member judges) "Gentlemen, I submit to you that Lieutenant Commander Ben Finney is not dead!!"
- - Cogley and Kirk
- "Better luck next time."
- "I had pretty good luck this time. I lost, didn't I?"
- - Kirk and Shaw, as they part company
Possible "props and sets" nitpicks Edit
I removed these two
- The "white sound device" is a very 20th century microphone.
- A 20th century open-end wrench appears in the engineering room and Ben Finney uses it as a weapon.
First, every prop in TOS is from the 20th century. Second, why is it worth mentioning these, other than to nitpick? We use certain tools from 200 years ago (eg, hammers), so it's not inconceivable that ca. 200 years from now, people might still use the some of the same basic tools. And how do we know this wrench (in-universe) is from the 20th century? — Cepstrum (talk) 15:01, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a trick question? The answer is: every prop in TOS is from the 20th century and, therefore, it must be. ;) Seriously though, I didn't know that interesting nugget of info (that no prop was made, from scratch, for the show). Maybe the editor who added those two background notes didn't know it, either. I'd say, "Remove!" :) Your decision was a good one, IMHO. On the other hand, though, I do have a problem with your point about "we use 200 year-old stuff now, so why should it be any different 200 yrs from now?" That doesn't seem to be taking into account the stylizing of a tool and the changes therein; for example, we use knives now but they're bound to be different, while still being the same tool, from ancient stone ones (as in "stone knives and bearskins"). --Defiant 15:24, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your wit, Defiant. ;-) But look at their shoes: Picard's look like shoes from today (eg, no attempt was made to make them even appear "futuristic"). Still.... I see why you took my comments that way. I didn't realize I'd worded it so... "goofy"! Oh – I now see the benefits of putting removed text on the talk page. Thanks for the feedback; I was hoping someone would weigh-in. — Cepstrum (talk) 00:25, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Your observation about the modern-looking shoes brought a smile to my face, so thanks for that! :) (I also agreed with it, by the way; some but not all things are modernized.) --Defiant 00:35, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
lawyer's executed Edit
Am I missing something here? Werent all lawyers executed according to TNG, "Farpoint"? So why are there lawyers here? And for that matter, why were there lawyers in "The Measure of a Man"? Under the article lawyer it says "On Earth after a nuclear war circa 2079, lawyers were, for a time, abolished by execution. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint") However, in the Federation, lawyers existed in the 23rd and 24th centuries.". Did we ever find out anywhere what exactly lead to lawyers being welcomed back to society as a profession? If there is an explanation in canon for this shouldnt there be a note in the background section? Distantlycharmed 05:00, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Lawyer is a profession, not a genetic trait or a profession that is passed down from father to son, and only father to son. That all the lawyers were executed during a specific named time when we also had mob mentality courts of dwarfs with pitchforks and the like has no real relevance to the existence of lawyers in the civilized period of time after everything stabilized. I'm really baffled by the intent of your question here. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:42, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
I am really sorry you dont understand my question. I think it was pretty clear what I meant. To clarify: during that time it appears as if it was the whole profession of lawyers that was done away with rather than certain lawyers during a period of chaos and unrest. So if that was the case (or not, either way) I would like to know if there was any explanation given as to why and what the details thereof where. The "after which everything stabilized" you said, is that mentioned somewhere? If so, my question was where and if we should/coul insert in this article or the one about lawyers as background info. I really dont understand what you dont understand about my question and intent. If you dont like it, that's another story. Distantlycharmed 08:40, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Well... if we knew anything about that transition period, we should note that information in the article Lawyer, yes. If we don't know anything, there's no need to speculate by adding a background note - and one that just reiterates what has been stated before ("First, all lawyers were dead - and now some are alive again - and we don't know why.") would be pointless, too. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that there is no canon info about the transition period - but feel free to search for it yourself. -- Cid Highwind 09:24, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Article protection Edit
- Kirk claims the auditory sensor will be boosted "on the order of one to the fourth power." Mathematically this means not boosted at all, since one to the fourth power equals one.
- I only added that comment one time, or one to the fourth power, which according to your math constitutes repeated addition. I wasn't aware that similar comments had been removed. Maybe the reason you have to keep removing that info, is because you keep removing that info. If you just let it be, people will stop adding it. But your brute force method of locking the page works too.--126.96.36.199 03:15, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
If you'll check the article history, you will see that it has been removed before. My "brute force" method is necessary because we have a policy prohibiting nitpicks, of which that type of comment is exactly, that is being either accidentally or intentionally ignored. 31dot (talk) 09:55, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I repeat, I only added that comment one time. Other people may have had similar comments removed by you, but my comment is the one and only contribution I have ever made to this site. I charge that the definition of "nitpick" is very subjective. I think a nitpick is just pointing out mistakes that others might have missed. What's wrong with that? Are you worried you might offend Captain Kirk? Clearly other people feel that it's an interesting bit of trivia that ought to appear on this page. Prohibiting this information causes new people like me to be baffled at its omission, which causes us to add it, which causes you to delete it, which causes us to hate your guts. Why not have a section on each page for pointing out goofs? IMDb has it, and they are way more popular. --188.8.131.52 00:57, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
I repeat, I didn't say otherwise- I said that it was removed before after others put it. We don't deny that what is and is not a nitpick is sometimes subjective, but we made the decision as a community that nitpicks were not something we wanted to cover, for precisely that reason, among others. A separate section to point out "goofs" has been proposed and rejected many times in the past, for various reasons- with the exception of goofs that have documentation to back up that they were indeed goofs- such as statements from Trek staff or reference books.
I won't further debate what a nitpick is on this page; if you wish to discuss it further I would suggest doing so at Memory Alpha talk:Nitpick. Reversions are a common wiki practice, and if they cause people to "hate our guts", that, frankly says more about those people than it does about us. Issues should be discussed. 31dot (talk) 01:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Punctuation "corrections" NOT corrections, but instead reinstatements of wrongnessEdit
The supposed "corrections" in the punctuation which reversed certain edits were NOT corrections at all. They are and remain the reinstatements of WRONG punctuations that had BEEN corrected in the FIRST place.
Parker Gabriel (SCC-47106) 11:51, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain how it was "wrong". 31dot (talk) 12:05, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Looking through, most of the correction changes were correct for MA. In your edit, you reversed the quoting style (from "''text''" to ''"text"''). You also used punctuation entities rather than the preferred HTML codes. In addition to this, you put punctuation inside ship names, something else that MA makes pains to avoid.
- I have fixed a small handful of errors that were made in the latest edit, but now the punctuation meets and agrees with MA's stylistic choices. -- sulfur (talk) 12:08, April 23, 2016 (UTC)