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

[Firebird]

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.

I think they've already been starting to lay down some of those tracks to the finish line, at least with Kirk. With the mentions of the downfall of the Lexington at the beginning of Come Not Between the Dragons, we saw him processing the sadness of the loss. The destruction of the Hood, and Kirk's amazement at the list of ships lost or decommissioned, points to another indication that makes me think we're seeing the start of his movement towards taking the promotion and leaving the Captain's chair.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

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.

Relistic? Star Trek? Star Trek TOS was supposed to be about placing 1966 man into the future. I think that may even be a quote from TMOST or "The World of Star Trek" or some other early TOS-based book. Point was to make the protagonists identifiable to the audience. Same goes for any show about the future made today; it is going to be a product of / reflect the values of it's times. How can it not be and hope to find any kind of mass audience?

 

[Warped9]

Stepping away from the story's subject matter there is something else that caught my eye in this episode. I need to check who did the f/x for this episode.

The ship and space f/x didn't look like Doug Drexler's work to me. Both the Enterprise and the Hood looked somewhat different. And that bit where the Enterprise warps away from the exploding Hood didn't look like something Drexler would have done. It certainly didn't look like what TOS would or could have done. It reminded me of something similar in TFF when the 1701A warps away from the incoming Klingon torpedo.

 

[Christopher Miles]

Agree about the purpose of the big board o'lost ships... but Ouch! Kirk/Spock saw a lot of that loss first hand. How about we tweak the scene for more impact?

Tellarites are key to making key/irreplaceable starship systems fast... Kirk and Spock are about to make the point that the best person be placed in command (woman or man) Wilma Deering then activates the screen... "Jim, you of all people should know why we need the Tellarites" BAM! We the audience then get to see the call back, and it says several things to us at once. Oh, and you wanna send Kirk to a desk job in 4 Eps? That would have been a start.

Kirk and Spock still need to be divided by TMP, perhaps Bones finds himself disappointed with them both. Next 4 should be a wild ride.

Oh, and yes the effects did look slightly different, but I would have assumed Mssr Drexler would allow any younglings to use his wireframe/ Maya/model/ imagery

 

[mos6507]

The ship and space f/x didn't look like Doug Drexler's work to me. Both the Enterprise and the Hood looked somewhat different. And that bit where the Enterprise warps away from the exploding Hood didn't look like something Drexler would have done. It certainly didn't look like what TOS would or could have done. It reminded me of something similar in TFF when the 1701A warps away from the incoming Klingon torpedo.

Doesn't seem STC wants to honor the guidelines beyond no longer taking crowdfunding but....the guidelines dictate that nobody who has ever worked in Trek can work in fan-films.

 

[Warped9]

^^ They are guidelines--not rules or laws or commandments.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I don't understand the controversy to this episode. Maybe I missed a line somewhere, but it seems, up until early in the episode, that Kirk and Spock were unaware that any gender discrimination was possible in Starfleet. And the only discrimination admitted to (an unwritten diplomatic one) was towards female Captains on the fourteen Constitution-class starships. Something Kirk admitted to realizing, but believed was coincidental until told of the truth about the Tellarite objections.

I was under the impression that female Captains on non-Connies were quite common. Especially with Commodore Gray in the episode.

It was a little on-the-nose to have Rachel Garret's grandmother involved.

 

[9gs]

Doesn't seem STC wants to honor the guidelines beyond no longer taking crowdfunding but....the guidelines dictate that nobody who has ever worked in Trek can work in fan-films.

^^ They are guidelines--not rules or laws or commandments.

Exactly. What would they have them do with the $$$ they collected on the last Indiegogo and thru private donations? STC has always had a good relationship with CBS. I would be amazed if they (CBS) did not know what STC's intentions were to "finish up" and make the episodes with the funds they have collected.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Stepping away from the story's subject matter there is something else that caught my eye in this episode. I need to check who did the f/x for this episode.

The ship and space f/x didn't look like Doug Drexler's work to me. Both the Enterprise and the Hood looked somewhat different. And that bit where the Enterprise warps away from the exploding Hood didn't look like something Drexler would have done. It certainly didn't look like what TOS would or could have done. It reminded me of something similar in TFF when the 1701A warps away from the incoming Klingon torpedo.

Come Not Between the Dragons was his last episode, wasn't it? I distinctly remember a mention to that effect back in may.

 

[Warped9]

Come Not Between the Dragons was his last episode, wasn't it? I distinctly remember a mention to that effect back in may.

I thought "Come Not Between The Dragons" was his last.

 

[Warped9]

I thought "Come Not Between The Dragons" was his last.

I checked. Doug Dexler's name is not on this producrion.

In the end credits it lists Visual Effects Artists: Stephen Bailey, Marc Bell, Matt Boardman and Ali Ries.


The shuttlecraft exterior looked okay and the planet and starbase scenes looked nice, but the Enterprise and Hood definitely looked off. I didn't care for that cartoony effect of the Enterprise warping away from the Hood. All that looked more like TOS-R.

Doug is missed.

 

[uniderth]

Point was to make the protagonists identifiable to the audience. Same goes for any show about the future made today; it is going to be a product of / reflect the values of it's times. How can it not be and hope to find any kind of mass audience?

Which is exactly my point. Complaining about the sexism in 1960's Trek is hypocritical as long as we're also making Trek a product of our time today. It's like someone complaining about the barbaric slaughter of animals while eating a cheeseburger.

If it is acceptable for Trek today to be a product of our time then it is acceptable for Kirk and co. to have sexist mores of the 1960's.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Ah...so we should agree to agree then. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.

 

[uniderth]

Ah...so we should agree to agree then. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.

So then we agree on agreement about our agreeable agreement; because I'm sure you would agree that disagreement is far more disagreeable than agreement. Unless, of course, you disagree. In which case we will have to agree to disagree. Agreed?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Enterprise:
*On top of that, Archer seems to have a dislike of Vulcans.

I don't blame him. Aside from T'Pol all the Vulcans were assholes until the Great Season Four Reveal.

TOS:
*Stiles from "Balance of Terror" has a dislike of Vulcans.

I don't recall him showing much dislike of Spock or Vulcans until they finally see what a Romulan looks like.

 

[Harvey]

If it is acceptable for Trek today to be a product of our time then it is accept

Doesn't much of the mythology of Star Trek try to have it both ways, though? On one hand, we're supposed to praise the show as for being groundbreaking and pushing the envelope (e.g. presenting an interracial crew in contrast to all-white programs like Lost in Space), but on the other hand, we're supposed to excuse the series for falling short in terms of other attitudes (e.g. the treatment of women) because it was a "product of its time."

I watched the first episode broadcast of That Girl recently. Not unlike Spock's comments to Rand at the end of "The Enemy Within," the show tries to make a joke out of an attempted sexual assault. Recognizing that these shows were made in a specific cultural and historical context does not mean we should forgo any criticism of them.

 

[FormerLurker]

That criticism must then be couched in terms of criticizing not the show, for doing those things that we today disapprove of, but the environment, that is, the cultural and historical context, that made the show find it appropriate, or worse, necessary, to do those things.

I've known women that criticized Star Trek for having the women in miniskirts. They won't listen to the argument about context or timing, miniskirts "are bad and the men that forced (their words) the women to wear them are the worst sexists of them all." Honestly, how do you frame an argument against that kind of reverse sexism? Such arguments need to cut off before they're even presented, and the only way to do that is to make the argument that the context is the problem, not the show, before they can get going on why it's supposed to be so bad. Making their arguments for them doesn't help anyone.

 

[Warped9]

TOS is one of the few shows really remembered from that era because of its success (over the long term) particularly by successive generation. At the time other shows were making efforts to be more progressive in some manner or other, but those shows are not remembered like TOS so their contributions and efforts are rarely recognized.

Have Gun--Will Travel ran 1957-1963 and did stories in the vein of TOS. Women and minorities could be treated to generally better roles on HGWT than what they usually encountered elsewhere. Other cultures were usually treated with more than usual respect on HGWT. But having been been part of the often now forgotten Western craze of the late 1950s some of these things are overlooked or unknown. Gene Roddenberry wrote twenty-four episodes for HGWT and one can see where he could have gotten some ideas for TOS including some specific stories. Given the overall approach, tone and calibre of the show GR's original pitch for TOS should more accurately have been Have Gun--Will Travel to the stars rather than Wagon Train.

Mission: Impossible's Barbara Bain was a significant character on the show as was Greg Morris (who was black) and both were given a lot more to do than Nichelle Nichols, James Doohan, George Takei or Walter Koenig ever were. Barbara Bain's character, Cinnamon Carter, even got to take the lead on a mission during the show's first season (because the series' lead was unavailable) which is something we know Nichelle Nichols was not allowed to do.

Both shows mentioned above were but two examples of shows being progressive and in some cases moreso than TOS, but they are not remembered for it.

 

[Karzak]

I've known women that criticized Star Trek for having the women in miniskirts. They won't listen to the argument about context or timing, miniskirts "are bad and the men that forced (their words) the women to wear them are the worst sexists of them all." Honestly, how do you frame an argument against that kind of reverse sexism?

A woman has every right to criticize the use of the miniskirts, regardless of her individual reasons for doing so, far more so than any of us dopey men, and regardless if it's about a production from the 1960s or today, or a production from today aiming to look like it was made in the 1960s. It's called cultural criticism. I would not be so quick to define that as "reverse sexism."

 

[rRico]

How fast a symbol of the freedom of women is being turned into some symbol of sexism.