Someone check for goatees and facial scars.
Ethan Peck cast as DSC's Spock
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
I meant watching the show. And I think you know that.
Still here, manning the BillJ....er, um, bilge pumps to try to keep Trek afloat, eh?
Or a recording.
Your agonizer...I do have a goatee.
Or a sentient hologram! Or a robot! Or.... BOTH!
He’s not the original creature. XD
It’s not even Script reuse. It’s just a basic concept ‘virus makes crew space drunk, endangers ship’. Everything else is totally different, because it’s there to show the new characters...there’s nothing left field, because we don’t know which way is which on the field. This episode is there to show us....Beverly and Picard, Tasha and Data, Riker and Troi...all these would be revisited, romance wise. Wesley’s desperate desire to be a member of the crew, Geordis social problems and Visor difficulties...it’s all just an exercise in showing us the characters. No one runs about with nips and swords out. And it lampshades it’s connection to the original episode throughout...by mentioning it (so you know it’s in continuity) and by having one or two similar visuals (so you can see how much better the special effects are gonna be in this new show...frozen a whole ship of people! Not one dude at a table!) but the entire episode is different, because these are different people. It’s a different show. In all the documentation of the period, it’s very clear that they were outright avoiding touching TOS for the first few years, especially when Roddenberry was more on deck.
We both have our opinions. Mine is they lovingly-touched the hell out of TOS with that episode. It's a script reuse. D.C. Fontana hated her own work on it enough to use a pseudonym. My folks, who were Trek fans since the 60's, hated it and called it a remake. I think they actually kind of gave up on TNG for awhile after that, and started up again in season 3. I was never much into it, anyway, but I do remember that. To them it was just a cheap remake, and I think a lot of people felt that way. I'm glad someone can find use out of it. Wow this is a tangent.
Nerds do. Regular general audience members of my generation probably have no idea. In fact, I had to look that up.
This makes me worry people are dressing as Robert DeNiro for Halloween.
No, it is not.
A script is a certain kind of thing, not some generic term for "source of a story." There is no reuse of the script for "The Naked Time" involved here. That's not an opinion.
im glad the discoveryverse has its own Pike and Spock now just like the prime universe and the jjverse have. Mary Sue Burnham will mould Spock into the character he should be....
Last edited:
A little part of my soul just died . . . .
Boris Karloff is probably my favorite actor.
Hey, I'm a fan who both remembers and cares about TOS...and am loving DSC all the more for it, thus far. And I'm only in my early thirties, so I'd like to think I'll be around a while yet.
Sure they were divisive, in much the same way that ST'09 or The Last Jedi were. They deconstruct what is beloved and well-established, yet not with the ultimate aim of destroying it, but rather reconstructing it again, thus showing it from a new angle of view. It's ultimately not taken away from, but added to. Why not just bear with them and see where they're going with it all? If you don't like the story they've told after they've finished telling it, then by all means complain about it until the sacred cows come home from the slaughterhouse. But until then, do continue to try and keep an open mind, eh?
They may well tear our precious collectible toys from the safety of their pristine packaging and throw them mercilessly around the room, but likelier than not, they'll all get put neatly back in the box by the time the game is through. And if they aren't, then the next production can always pick them up from where they lie. They'll still be there. They're not so fragile as some of us imagine. And they were never meant to be kept on the shelf and admired from afar, anyway. They were made to be played with.
So far as I recall, there has been zero reference to Kirk or McCoy as yet. And Spock is specifically being employed as a familiar point of reference against which to compare and contrast the character of Michael Burnham. We already know what his overall place in the universe is (or rather will be); what we (and she) are on a journey in search of here is hers. Whatever new illumination is shed on him in the process is merely a bonus.
Once again, of course it will be divisive! Practically everything remotely worthwhile is, where fandom is concerned. Why is this a worry?
What did you imagine those others were doing all along? "Messing with" what's been previously established is the very bread and butter of serial fiction, and always has been.
You just answered your own question there. They had their time and their fun with Trek, and have moved on to other things. Trek goes on without them, to places they wouldn't have gone, just as they go on without it, to places it wouldn't have gone. What's wrong with that, exactly? We're not dealing with an immovable monolith of the past here, but a living, breathing, running thing. This is all entirely natural and healthy.
No, they contributed their styles to Trek, which had already had multiple different visual styles before they ever entered the picture. The wheel rolls on.
Wait a second, is your worry that they are smashing this so-called "idol" or that they are worshiping it? Do make up your mind... (Or perhaps you are beginning to see that it is possible to do both after all?
)Nah, it's more like they are doing their proper part in maneuvering themselves into place to make the hand-off, but trying not to make it look so smooth and effortless that all excitement is lost out of the race!
Not necessarily. They could be (as Taurik and Vorik were apparently suggested to be by Jeri Taylor), but they could equally be time-displaced father and son (see Yar and Sela) or great-grandfather and grandson (see T'Mir and T'Pol; Arik and Noonien Soong)!
Fair enough, although this ultimately takes little away from the overall point that "The Naked Now" (TNG) is a rather...er, naked...restaging of "The Naked Time" (TOS), and moreover a rather dramatically bankrupt one by comparison. That is an opinion, of course...yet it seems to be one in which I am far from alone.
And by the same token, "The Child" and "Devil's Due" (TNG) were re-uses of scripts written for Phase II with little but the names changed, no? That's how we got the characterization of Pulaski as McCoy to Data's Spock (or rather Xon) in the first place, yes? (Oh sure, perhaps it's a bit of an overstatement, as undoubtedly at least a few more substantial revisions must have been made, but here again, one gets the idea. That's what hyperbole is for, after all.)
Let's also not let it go unmentioned in this line of discussion that Riker and Troi had their initial basis in Decker and Ilia! (Note however that I'm not suggesting there's anything necessarily wrong with any of this, in principle. If you had what you thought was a good idea that never got the chance to be fully explored, and later the opportunity to develop it further were to arise, what sense would there be in not taking it? None at all.)
-MMoM
Last edited:
You're right, I forgot the obvious Star Trek reasonsNot necessarily. They could be (as Taurik and Vorik were apparently intended to be), but they could equally be time-displaced father and son (see Yar and Sela) or great-grandfather and grandson (see T'Pol and T'Mur; Arik and Noonien Soong)!
Do you ever wonder wether some people in the Trek universe actually procreate by mitosis?