• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Nancy Hedford's Fate, a Blessing or Curse?

Actually, what bothers me is this business of Cochran asking and Kirk agreeing not to tell anyone they are there.
I admit, this too is a little offputting. More than just suggesting that they want to be left alone, or are xenophobes or something, it was delivered in such a way as to imply, in some manner, that they wouldn't want anyone to know about what they did or are doing. After all the other stuff I've complained about in this thread, then to have that statement too, just kind of confirmed that they're somewhat aware that people might look unfavorably on what they've done, or they themselves are a little ashamed to let anyone know about them
 
oh FFS. He says me.
COCHRANE: Captain, don't tell them that Zefram Cochrane, the man whose name is revered throughout the known galaxy, the man for whom planets, great universities, and cities were named, the man that history says dies 150 years ago, is actually alive and well in the 23rd century and here's where to find him.
KIRK: Not a word, Mister Cochrane.
 
I admit, this too is a little offputting. More than just suggesting that they want to be left alone, or are xenophobes or something, it was delivered in such a way as to imply, in some manner, that they wouldn't want anyone to know about what they did or are doing. After all the other stuff I've complained about in this thread, then to have that statement too, just kind of confirmed that they're somewhat aware that people might look unfavorably on what they've done, or they themselves are a little ashamed to let anyone know about them

Oh good grief. Don't come down like a ton of bricks on this fragile little love story. They wanted this situation to themselves. I don't entirely understand it, but they do. It's certainly not a situation that Cochrane fans, historians, busybodies, etc would understand and leave alone. What about throngs of settlers?!
 
Oh good grief. Don't come down like a ton of bricks on this fragile little love story. They wanted this situation to themselves. I don't entirely understand it, but they do. It's certainly not a situation that Cochrane fans, historians, busybodies, etc would understand and leave alone. What about throngs of settlers?!
I'm just explaining my interpretation of what's actually seen in the episode, and I admit that there's other ways to take it, that mine is mostly affected by more modern sensibilities, and that it certainly wasn't originally intended to be as offensive as I'm taking it, but your perspective on it is equally, if not more so, unsubstantiated, because a lot of how you're viewing it depends upon giving them the benefit of the doubt, or suspending disbelief, for the sake of the story they want you to assume, which wouldn't have been so difficult in the time this episode was made, for the people of that time.

All I've been saying since the OP is that I have a hard time doing that in this case, because of how carelessly they present it in some ways. There's any number of ways they could've changed a single line or two that would've altered the whole dynamic, but for me, there's no way around the truth that the female character in this episode is trampled pretty badly, by an entity, & a bunch of guys who hold no real respect for her, as a person, from the start
 
Nojochi-- Well, I do accept it when they present this as a romantic story rather than an abuse story, because I trust the makers of Trek. You could easily make up a list of briefly described events which this plot consists of, and think based on that list that it's all as you describe it. As it turns out, though, we watch the events unfold, and what do you know, everything's fine.
----------------------
It's true that Hedford had no choice, she was dying, this was the only way open for her, so it seems like she was sort of railroaded into all this. Having had no choice doesn't necessarily mean that the results had to be horrible for her. She could just happen to be thrilled with how it turned out.
------------------------
I think a lot of us, rightly or wrongly, see our own personalities as the roadblocks to achieving some kind of happiness that we're told is out there, somewhere. Maybe we/re too constricted, restrained, unemotional, don't take risks, too serious...? You can't sidestep who you are, though. It can feel like a sort of prison. Well, she got out by a stroke of luck. She got to become someone else who had a greater capacity to love openly.
----------------------
If you take the story as intended, awkwardnesses included I guess, you get an extraordinary story, about near-miraculous transformations. If we dwell on the problems you raise, it brings the whole thing down to earth. Trek needs to be extraordinary.
 
*Salute*
shuttle_exec_pic03.jpg
 
I admit, this too is a little offputting. More than just suggesting that they want to be left alone, or are xenophobes or something, it was delivered in such a way as to imply, in some manner, that they wouldn't want anyone to know about what they did or are doing. After all the other stuff I've complained about in this thread, then to have that statement too, just kind of confirmed that they're somewhat aware that people might look unfavorably on what they've done, or they themselves are a little ashamed to let anyone know about them
I'm sure that's not how they meant that. Cochran was saying he didn't want throngs of visitors coming and disturbing their little love nest. No one is acting like there is anything to cover up. But it is interesting to take it the way you are.
 
I'm sure that's not how they meant that. Cochran was saying he didn't want throngs of visitors coming and disturbing their little love nest. No one is acting like there is anything to cover up. But it is interesting to take it the way you are.
Succinct... Sometimes I think I take five times as many words to get something said, as other people...
 
Succinct... Sometimes I think I take five times as many words to get something said, as other people...
As Spock said, "I will never understand the Human propensity for requiring ten words to express what could as easily be expressed with two." Or something like that. ;)
 
I'm sure that's not how they meant that. Cochran was saying he didn't want throngs of visitors coming and disturbing their little love nest. No one is acting like there is anything to cover up. But it is interesting to take it the way you are.
Yup, & I've never said that the way I'm interpreting it is how it was intended to be taken, but I hadn't seen it in many years, & for me it doesn't hold up as well, because there just seems to be a general disregard for Nancy, from a modern perspective
 
They wouldn't want lots of difficult controversy about what happened to her, visits, inquiries, or worse, so you can call that wanting to cover something up, if you want. This was a very unconventional but unavoidable solution to a problem, which people would not understand if they weren't there, and they deserve to be left alone.
 
Oh good grief. Don't come down like a ton of bricks on this fragile little love story. They wanted this situation to themselves. I don't entirely understand it, but they do. It's certainly not a situation that Cochrane fans, historians, busybodies, etc would understand and leave alone. What about throngs of settlers?!

I agree. Sort of ashamed to say that this is one of my favorite episodes. Two people, lost and Lonely find love. Cheesy , I know....
 
I'm sure there's some good old 60's-era sexism going on. Which episode is it where they're talking about a woman who's good at her job but it's too bad they're going to lose her because of course she's going to get married and leave Starfleet? It's like in TOS women really just want a man, so while they're single, sure, they can work in Starfleet, but they are gone once they find a man. Nancy found a man, so she's perfectly happy leaving her job and her life behind.
 
Yup, & I've never said that the way I'm interpreting it is how it was intended to be taken, but I hadn't seen it in many years, & for me it doesn't hold up as well, because there just seems to be a general disregard for Nancy, from a modern perspective

The 1960s are "modern" to me... anyway, I do remember something I found off about it, and I might start agreeing with you next time I see it...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top