Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by ConRefit79, May 6, 2013.
I thought only Roddenberry disavowed TFF.
Isn't that good enough? If others also disavowed it, so much the better.
If Spock had said "priestess" I wouldn't have complained. We saw previously that there were indeed priestesses, and no mention was made that they were forbidden to marry.
TFF has never been "officially" disavowed. Lord knows I've referenced it in my novels and nobody at Paramount or CBS has ever objected.And it's still included in all the licensed encyclopedias, chronologies, reference books,etc.
Okay, fine... Gene Roddenberry and I must be the only two people on the whole planet who think it was utter crap and should never have been made.
80's Roddenberry? Nope.
Was any Vulcan ever called a Priest or Priestess? ( IIRC, T'Lar is only called a Priestess in the credits) Is a Vulcan with a religious title any less in keeping with with what we know of Vulcans, than one with a royal title? Royalty and religion both seem to conflict with the Vulcan adherence to logic and non-emotion.
It was crap, but referring to a Vulcan Princess was the least of it's sins.
My point is that we saw a priestess in Star Trek III. Therefore, there would have been precedent for Spock to refer to his father's having married one. We saw no previous reference whatsoever to royalty, royal titles, etc. (no, Enterprise doesn't count since it wasn't around then); therefore, the writers should not have used that word.
I agree that it was not the worst of the problems with that movie - but it's one of the most noticeable (to me, at least).
And there were no precedents for a Vulcan Priestess until TSFS. So I don't understand the difference.
We SAW T'Lar. In fact, it might even be argued that the officials who oversaw Spock's Kohlinar ritual in The Motion Picture were some sort of priests/priestesses. Until that movie, we hadn't seen any more of Vulcan than what was seen in Amok Time and Yesteryear. And not one frame of it included anything remotely resembling royalty.
I saw the Kohlinar masters as teachers. T'lar could be a teacher, scholar or physician. She was never addressed as a religious leader in the film. Anytime we're given new information about Vulcan it's a first. There is an entire litany of firsts for Vulcans. None of which we had ever seen or heard of, until we did. I don't see why this is different than Pon Farr, inner eyelids, mind melds or Kohlinar.
And we didn't know about Vulcan mating rituals until "Amok Time" and we didn't know about the Katra business until The Search for Spock and we didn't know about Vulcan Alzheimer's until that episode of TNG . . . the writers make stuff up as they need it. So why is a random reference to a "princess" a deal-breaker?
It's not like there was ever an episode where Spock or Sarek explicitly stated that princesses are illogical . . .
All "princess" means is her lineage points back to another era when certain families held power or influence. There's a possibility it's a position voted on, using the trappings of a pre-democratic history like on Naboo as well. Vulcan is steeped in traditions despite the logic, there's no reason to believe there wouldn't be princesses, as frivolous as the word might sound.
The Vulcan word would have no disney connotations and no one would bat an eye at it.
In one Voyager episode, Tuvok's wife sent him this message:
My husband, we have been given the news that you are alive. Your children and I have asked the priests at the temple of Amonak to say prayers for your safe return.
There are references to Vulcan religion in different series, Roddenberry's own novelization of TMP in one chapter talks about it.
As for the existence of royalty, the Vulcans are presented as a very traditional people.
Spock and Kirk visit the Vulcan Princess.
To the posters saying Spock must mate every 7 years:
In "Amok Time", IIRC, it is mentioned, Spock tells Kirk he had hoped to be spared the Pon Farr due to his hybrid human nature (?). I looked, but have not found the exact passage.
IMO, this makes the most sense and, indeed, sets Spock apart from any set timeline for Vulcan Pon Farr.
Does Archer's crown say, "Home of the Whopper"? Because that would totally make him more appealing.
"Medieval Times" actually. Don't if you've heard of them. Its a theme restaurant where you get to watch knights in armor joust.
The pic is a 'shop from a caption contest from years gone by.
But you're not a fish, Mister Spock. You're ...
No. Nor am I a man. I'm a Vulcan.
I'd hoped I would be spared this,
but the ancient drives are too strong.
Eventually, they catch up with us,
and we are driven by forces we cannot control to return home and take a wife.
It not exactly clear if Spock thinks it's his hybrid human nature that's going to "spare" him, or something else, only that there is a possibility that he wouldn't have to experience pon farr for some reason. Conjecture on my part would be that a certain percentage of Vulcan males either don't go through pon farr at all, or they do not experience the "full meal deal."
There's also the possibility that Spock was basically being irrational in thinking he could avoid pon farr.
Spock could have been having his regularly scheduled pon farrs. The pon farr 7 years after Amok Time would have fallen about a year or so after TMP. The pon farr we see Spock experiencing in TSFS nicely fit with being 14 years after Amok Time.
Regardless of Spock apparent age in TSFS, he is having his chronologically "scheduled" pon farr.
The next pon farr is either prior to, or subsequent to, TUC. At some point in Spock's life he does become married to someone.
Separate names with a comma.