STC Ep. 7: "Embrace The Winds" speculation and discussion....

If you visit STC's FB page you will see pretty much nothing but positive comments. Now we know there are some who post here involved with STC's production. One can wonder if they might repeat some of the critique posted here to the others in STC's production.

It should be noted the critique voiced here has been overwhelmingly specific and far beyond, "Man, that sucked."

"Sucked" is a word I wouldn't use to describe this episode. "Disappointing" is a more accurate description for my feelings based on the specific criticisms I and others have cited. And that disappointment also comes from comparing this episodes to previous ones STC has done much better.

 

I've always een Kir's response as:

"We've been over this before and this old argument was one of the main reasons we split up - better just agree with her here and avoid this old argument..."

And anyone in a long term relationship that ended over something like this KNOWS that the best way to keep the peace when interacting with the Ex is just not engage again (especially if she's already distraught over something else.)

 

Well, I don't expect to win the war of changing peoples' minds about "Turnabout Intruder." But, if I can just win the battle of getting people to agree that there's more than one line in the episode that needs to be addressed, in order to nix the interpretation that in Kirk's time women literally can't be assigned as captains of starships like the Enterprise, then today I'll be content.

 

I love STC but this episode was very bad. The whole plot of not having any women captains in Starfleet is ridiculous. The plot about Tellarites not allowing women captains even though there are women admirals was even more ridiculous. Scotty doing absolutely nothing and resigning to his fate was totally out of character. So was Kirk who looked very petty not wanting Spock to leave. The Hood destruction was a cheap resolution to the whole plot.

Having said that, in the end I've had fun for 43 minutes. And that's perhaps STC's (as was TOS') greatest strength. Even with a bad script/episode you enjoy yourself.

 

I think everyone who wasn't happy with the end result has managed to articulate why in a polite and contructive manner so far. And I hope all this feed back helps with future productions. The production values and effort involved are amazing for a fanfilm and I hope they aren't taking all this too personally.

And everyone in the thread has my permission to share or quote these criticisms if they need to.

Or do what even the studio has done and just pretend the entire episode never happened. Or rather, it's free to be contradicted by *any* production, official or otherwise.

 

Indeed.

 

This.

 

The bottom line is still that STC is good enough in all ways to GET criticism of this type of nitpicky level. Its so close, its borderline canon to some, so the moves made become more inviting to nitpick...

 

True

It's been a while since this kind of debate was common.

 

Hmmm, one of the reasons I wasn't a big fan of Trek during the Berman era was because of how regressive it seemed. This current episode of STC kind of showed that there was still work to be done even in the supposed 'progressive' future.

When we look at how far we've come today (in regards to who is our current president, and media depictions of certain groups - African Americans) we can say there is progress. Yet, there is a lot of work to be done (e.g. police brutality, Asian American representation, equality of women and men, skin privileges that still occur today).

In Trek, a lot of what was said in regards to 'progress' didn't always ring true.

Enterprise:
*Archer says at one point that Earth has put aside all their differences and focused on space travel...(or something to that effect). Yet, we see his crew isn't that diverse (even among the extras)....and Shran only sees humans as 'pink skins' (not a diverse crowd). On top of that, Archer seems to have a dislike of Vulcans.

*Starfleet doesn't seem to be that diverse.

*Captain Hernandez in command of the USS Columbia shows there were female commanders in the 22nd century or at least one female commander. However, even though it is a non-canonical novel series....her ship is lost during the course of the Destiny series.

TOS:
*Stiles from "Balance of Terror" has a dislike of Vulcans.
*In "The Undiscovered Country" there is a dislike of Klingons, and a combined effort to take out both Klingon and Federation individuals to maintain a 'Separatist' movement. (And no, Queen Amidala has no say in the matter).
*We saw our female -- first female -- starship captain with the U.S.S. Saratoga in "The Voyage Home." We also saw our dark-skinned Indian captain (of a ship I didn't catch the name of) in the same film. Both of them hit by the mysterious probe, but showing there are different faces in command. However, with the focus being primarily on Kirk and Spock rather than ensemble....get pushed to the side even more so than the supporting players: Uhura, Scotty, Chekov...etc. (Even though, those individuals actually got a bit more to do in the 4th film).

TNG:
*Picard has an uppity attitude at first which turns into a self-righteous attitude about his century. Granted, anyone living in their present may have an uppity attitude about their time period versus a 'barbaric' past, but there always was a question about when to step into a society when the Prime Directive was at play -- basically deciding who gets help versus who will suffer.

*Our first (and only) female commander of Enterprise (or the Enterprise) is seen with Rachel Garrett. Yet, she gets killed off. So far we've seen primarily individuals who are straight white males as commander of the 'flagship' of the Federation (e.g. Kirk, Harriman, Picard).

Ahhh, but Geordi was in command of the Enterprise for a small, small moment (in a pretty good episode from the 1st season)....but was given hell by a subordinate. We wouldn't see him in command again in the series.

*Ferengi were surprised to see Tasha Yar (supposedly) on equal footing with the male characters. Unfortunately, she later gets killed off.

*There even seemed to be a repression of feminity. If a woman wasn't covered up from head to toe, she wasn't deemed of respect.

DS9:
*Jadzia Dax owns her sexuality and is a badass in hand-to-hand combat.
*Kira is a badass in hand-to-hand combat and also owns her sexuality. Albeit, she tends to prefer combat-like or combat-ready clothing versus Dax who doesn't mind dressing 'sexy' at times (e.g. preferring to wear the 23rd century TOS outfit versus the tunic and pants which some female officers also wore).
*Ferengi believe that women shouldn't wear clothes, but at this point, they are the butt of jokes so they're not taken seriously.
*Sisko was upset that Starfleet and the Federation seem to turn a blind eye to other atrocities that might be happening far away from Earth because there is a belief that Starfleet/Federation is automatically a benign organization 'just because.' Yet, we do have the mysterious Section 31...and Admiral Leyton, whom Sisko relayed his concerns to, wanted to maintain an upper-hand not unlike those individuals from Star Trek 6.

Voyager:
*It was always Janeway's 'way' or no way, even if she was wrong or questionable. (This happened frequently). And because she was the first female captain to have her own show....there was no one else (primarily a female captain) to balance this portrayal.

It's funny she eventually became an Admiral, since Admirals in the Berman era tend to wear their rank metaphorically on their sleeve and not listen to opposing views. There were definitely exceptions.

Miscellaneous:
As I mentioned in an earlier post: Crisis on Centaurus, Trek novel, didn't shy away from saying that racism between humans, due to skin color, still existed...particularly on a colony away from Earth.

I shy away from novels these days because they aren't canon and they're usually hit or miss for me (usually missing!). However, I thought that aspect of the novel was interesting.

***​

The current STC episode showing that there is still sexism, in this case 'institutional sexism,' isn't farfetched. It shows that even in the 23rd century, there is still progress that needs to be made.

 

No, no, no... you've got it all wrong, see: only 1/3rd is female because about 1/3rd is male, and the rest are aliens with other reproductive models (asexual, hermaphrodite, etc) and non-gender-conforming humans. They're not backward. They're actually very very progressive.

 

I realize that the winky might suggest that you're being sarcastic, but that is actually not what TMoST says.

 

1/3 is male, 1/3 is female and the final 1/3 are muppets.

 

Admiral Cartright: Get me the Yorktown.

 

Not sarcastic, but definitely facetious.

And yes, I'm well aware. I was saying that in the spirit of the Marvel No-Prize.

 

Don't bring Farscape into this.

 

Even though I am loathe to offer criticism about the efforts of the STC team, I'd like to see threads like these go dozens of pages rather than that endlessly self-flagellating Axanar thread in this same forum. To that end, what I would offer in defense of "Embrace the Winds" is the fact that it IS timely. Witness the scrutiny Hillary Clinton is getting for collapsing on the campaign trail. Or for "hiding" a health problem (both things that have happened with past presidents). I am actually not a fan of either major candidate for US president, but I do wonder if the scrutiny she is under for her health (a right wing friend of mine also "informed" me over the Labor Day holiday that she wears Depends undergarments) is particularly pointed because of her gender. Also remember she doesn't "look" like a president. 47 years after the last TOS episode aired, the topic of gender discrimination is a perfectly relevant social issue for Trek to comment on. Even If done a bit heavy handedly, it is still in the best tradition of Star Trek.

 

I have to say as well, Uhura telling her captain she was afraid with big doe eyes is not equivalent in my opinion to Kirk or any other male character admitting that he felt the emotion. In the instance(s) I am thinking of, she was seeking comfort and reassurance. The TOS writers guides are filled with sexist remarks and suggestions that women are weaker, more emotional and fearful. Recall the picture from the White House situation room when they got Bin Laden and the comments that were made over Hillary covering her mouth with her hand. Yeah, we've come far in 50 years. Sexism and racism are still with us, it's just more hidden from view (and not even all the time, not by long shot).

 

Thanks to the Axanar folks having (selfishly!) poisoned the well- Continues has to get our beloved Trek back to Space Dock by episode 11. Any arc they'd planned has to be shorter- and both character development and allegorical messaging each have to be much more direct. I doubt this affected the script/plot/directing choices on "Embracing the Winds" but it may inform some choices on the next four (planned) eps.

Perhaps Kirk needs to get tired, cynical and introspective- FAST!
Spock has to doubt whether his human half has served him well. ASAP!
Bones has to have an incident with a razor and swear off shaving. OUCH!

Tall order for four eps, given where they are now.

So to the tough constructive critics out there - (and we know who we are)- I suppose we have to begin to think along these lines:

Like it or not, our heroes are headed back to Space Dock/ep 11 at Warp 9.

Therefore, despite the excellent production values, we should expect continued plot turbulence.

 

It seems strange that people think depicting the future according to our present values is considered realistic. Here we are complaining that Star Trek was a product of its time yet we continue to make productions that are the product of our time. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. I think it is completely unrealistic that in 200 years human culture and values will resemble what we have now or an idealized version of our present values. That's because cultures are always changing. There is no such thing as cultural "progress." Progress can only be measured in relation to a set goal. For a culture that is a set of values and ideals. And those ideals tend to be arbitrary and change over time. What is considered "Progressive" in 2016 is going to be conservative and old fashioned in 2066. In reality using the term "progressive" to describe social change is really pointless. It only really is used as a way to shame those who value previous ideals.

Right now our culture values individualism. But maybe in 50 or 100 years our culture will change to value collectivism. And all this (from their perspective) "individualistic nonsense" will be old fashioned and archaic. You'll have Star Trek fans griping that Star Trek: Discovery was a product of it's time and presented an archaic view of the future. You'll have fans debating over two or three lines from an episode about whether it means Starfleet is individualist or collectivist. They'll ask why are the people who say it's individualist looking for the worst possible interpretation.

That's why I disagree with bashing the sexist elements of Star Trek's depiction of the future, or downplaying them. Maybe in 250 years human culture will again resemble that of the 1960's and Star Trek will be viewed as spot on. Do I agree with the sexist elements. No. But is Star Trek lesser for having them? No. And I wouldn't change it. And maybe, just maybe, in 250 years, women really will give up their careers once they get married.