Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[Enterprise1701]

I have no idea where the idea that Trek's world was "beyond" labels comes from. To me, that looks more like denying the existence of a minority group than it does like being a part of their liberation. I for one certainly hope that in the 23rd and 24th Centuries, LGBTQIA+ people still exist and have their identities affirmed. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination."

While many Trek stories have depicted the usage of labels, I do point out the recent phenomenon in Discovery 2x02 of "nonbeliever" instead of "atheist" or "agnostic" because (I assume from the writers' perspective) an oppressive status quo of religious dogma in power no longer exists in the Federation of 2257 as it does in the U.S.A. and elsewhere of 2019.

If "gay", "straight", etc. disappear from future incarnations of vernacular English, then is it not possible that such an eventuality is the result of everyone being able to love everyone else on their own terms? The people of ancient Greece did not distinguish between "heterosexual", "homosexual", etc. as modern Anglophones do. Certainly their society did not proliferate with equality and justice (*cough* slavery *cough*), but it sounds to me that no one was specifically and systemically persecuted for loving a person of a given gender as happens in the modern Western-influenced world.

Consider: if "straight" and such exist in colloquial language, then does that not give LGBTQ+ people's enemies a solid idea to potentially rally around?

 

[Sci]

While many Trek stories have depicted the usage of labels, I do point out the recent phenomenon in Discovery 2x02 of "nonbeliever" instead of "atheist" or "agnostic" because (I assume from the writers' perspective) an oppressive status quo of religious dogma in power no longer exists in the Federation of 2257 as it does in the U.S.A. and elsewhere of 2019.

If "gay", "straight", etc. disappear from future incarnations of vernacular English, then is it not possible that such an eventuality is the result of everyone being able to love everyone else on their own terms? The people of ancient Greece did not distinguish between "heterosexual", "homosexual", etc. as modern Anglophones do. Certainly their society did not proliferate with equality and justice (*cough* slavery *cough*), but it sounds to me that no one was specifically and systemically persecuted for loving a person of a given gender as happens in the modern Western-influenced world.

Consider: if "straight" and such exist in colloquial language, then does that not give LGBTQ+ people's enemies a solid idea to potentially rally around?

So, I get what you're saying, but I think this speaks to a broader point: That almost any form of identity group is in some manner a social construction.

For instance, up until about the 16th Century, there was no such thing as white people and black people. There were people whom we would today consider white and black; there were people with dark brown skin whose ancestors came from Africa, and there were people with light pinkish skin whose ancestors came from Europe, but there wasn't this idea in any culture that the different nations of Europe all constituted a single race of "white" people, or that those "white" people were somehow inherently superior to non-"white" people. The entire concept of "white" people and "black" people was developed as part of a justification for early capitalism's trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism.

Now -- does that mean that in the world of Star Trek, identity groups that were forged as a reaction to oppression should be depicted as dismantled?

I don't think so, necessarily. African-Americans are a unique culture with their own distinct history and contributions to the human family. It would be a form of cultural genocide if the African-American identity were to be dismantled.

On the other hand, there even today isn't really a unified "white" culture. There's no Whitelandia whence cometh the white people, no genuinely common identity and culture white people have. African-American identity exists as an act of solidarity against oppression; "whiteness" exists as an excuse to engage in oppression. In the absence of non-whites to oppress, "white" people inevitably have distinct identities that are in conflict with one-another (Yankee vs. Southerner, Italian vs. Irish, German vs. French, English vs. Irish, etc.).

So, I would think that the guiding principle is this: If a particular identity is forged as an act of solidarity against oppression, Star Trek should depict that identity as existing into the future. Being "gay" is to a significant extent an identity forged in solidarity against oppression; it should be depicted as still existing. (And of course the oppression that forged that identity should be depicted as having long since been dismantled.)

If a particular label reflects basic reality but doesn't reflect any common identity, then there's no real reason for it not to still exist in the Star Trek Universe but doesn't really mean much -- so if Captain Pike describes himself as a straight guy, then I don't really care much.

But if a particular identity was essentially developed as an instrument of oppression, then it should probably not be depicted as still being something anyone identifies as. I think it would be fine if Michael Burnham identified with an African-American heritage, but I'd be off-put if Pike or Stamets said they considered themselves "white." I'd rather hear that Pike say he considers himself English, or Stamets say he considers himself German-American (or, German-American-Centauran, as the case may be), than that either consider themselves white.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That wasn't because of being "beyond labels," it was because TB&TB was written at a time when it still had to be circumspect and only vaguely imply a same-sex romance rather than being able to portray it openly. I don't think it was until 3 years later (with Section 31: Rogue and Dark Passions, both in 2001) that Pocket Trek was able to openly portray gay/lesbian characters.

Still, I had a similar reaction when Sisko said "black people" in DS9: "Badda Bing Badda Bang." That seemed a bit dated to me. Although who knows? Since then, "black" has come back into vogue as an ethnic and cultural label. Maybe it could continue to do so in the future.

I have no idea where the idea that Trek's world was "beyond" labels comes from. To me, that looks more like denying the existence of a minority group than it does like being a part of their liberation. I for one certainly hope that in the 23rd and 24th Centuries, LGBTQIA+ people still exist and have their identities affirmed. "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination."

According to Susan Oliver in Voyages of Imagination (p414):

Paramount agreed to the story proposal, but they insisted that the word "gay" should not be included. They said that in the Trek universe sexual orientation was not even noticed.

 

[Christopher]

According to Susan Oliver in Voyages of Imagination (p414):

You mean Susan Wright.

Paramount agreed to the story proposal, but they insisted that the word "gay" should not be included. They said that in the Trek universe sexual orientation was not even noticed.

Yeah, but come on, that was clearly an excuse for forbidding Wright from openly acknowledging their same-sex relationship at all. You heard that kind of doubletalk a lot back in the days when mass media creators were resisting the pressure to be inclusive of sexual diversity. Saying it was a "non-issue" was just a hypocritical handwave for keeping LGBT characters utterly invisible -- excluding the language was an excuse for excluding the people. Rick Berman in particular spent years making such excuses for refusing to include sexual diversity in Trek, and Paramount Licensing at the time was presumably following his lead.

If it had really been a non-issue, then Jayme and Moll would've been openly portrayed as lovers, rather than just being shown having a strong affinity that was broadly hinted to be more than friendship. (I don't think I even caught on that they were supposed to be lovers until my second or third read.) You don't have to use the word "gay" or "lesbian" to show two people dating or kissing, call them girlfriends, have them say "I love you," talk about getting married, or any of a thousand other ways that you can depict a romantic relationship in a story. The fact that none of those things were shown proves that it was never just about the label.

 

[WebLurker]

It's not about genres coexisting, it's about one genre completely replacing and overwriting another, so that the intrinsic nature of the same entities is redefined. It's like making a Star Trek movie that suddenly declares that Vulcans and Klingons and such are magical fairy races rather than aliens, just the other way around. The change is not surprising given that computers are much more demystified in modern minds than they were in 1982, but it's still a radically different way of perceiving the intrinsic nature of the computer world. (Frankly, Ralph Breaks the Internet looks to me like a better continuation of the spirit of the original TRON in some ways, though I haven't seen it yet.)

I see nothing in the movies that do that.

Of course you can find ways to rationalize the changes and pretend they still fit, as you can do with anything if you're so inclined, but that requires reinterpreting the original film's premise and worldview to fit the retconned version in the sequel. And that's not something I want to do, because I think the sequel misses the point of the original in a lot of ways. The original film was more interesting to me, because it was trying to explore the utter novelty of computer animation, its ability to create images unlike anything ever seen in physical reality, and to embrace that unreal aesthetic. It was trying to simulate computer-animated characters before the technology was ready for that, so it tried to make live actors look as unreal as possible and use footage of them printed onto animation cels as part of essentially hand-animated scenes. But since TRON came out, computer animation has gone in the opposite direction, with artists trying to make it replicate reality more and more closely rather than explore its potential for unreality -- which I think is regrettably limiting from a purely artistic standpoint. And Legacy just conformed to that routine modern aesthetic, making the CGI as photoreal as possible and blending it with physical sets. Plus it stripped away the rich colors of the original, mistakenly imposing the monochrome look of the original films' characters onto the entire world. I just think it's too ordinary a modern FX film, too tame and routine in its use of CGI, and so it's much less interesting and creative than the original was. So I have no desire to force the original into the more drab, conventional mold of the sequel's mentality.

Funny, I found the second movie to have more vibrant colors (maybe it was the contrasts?).

In short, not every discussion about the merits of fiction is about whether the continuity can fit together.

I can understand that.

It's not about the advancement of the techniques, it's about what you choose to do with them. The original filmmakers were innovating, pushing the envelope in new directions and trying to create images unlike anything ever seen or imagined before; they were just a few years short of having the technology to realize their ambitions. The last thing they wanted to do was to create something that looked photorealistic. If they'd wanted that, they'd have just made a regular film. What they wanted was to invent a new form of animation. If they'd had more advanced technology, they would've had an easier time achieving that. Imagine a more abstract version of Pixar -- that's the direction they were trying to go in, but they just didn't have the means to get there yet.

In a word where Paperman, Feast, and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse exist, I'm not too worried about experimentalism leaving the CGI industry. Besides, I don't see how it's a bad thing that the two movies used different mediums. It's not the first time that we've seen a franchise do both animation and live-action, or even have a direct sequel done in a different format

The problem is, I don't think it would've been possible for a sequel 30 years later to capture the same sensibilities as the original. We're so used to CGI now that it's become routine to us, hence what you say about realism being deemed necessary for audience investment. The original tried to catch audience interest by showing them something they'd never seen before, by trying to invent a whole new visual language of film. There are things you can do in pioneer days that just don't have the same effect a generation later.

So, shouldn't Tron Legacy be judged on its own merits then, not in how it doesn't do what the original did (esp. since the original was made under circumstances you can't recreate)? Besides, I think the case can be made that Legacy is a better movie the the original one is. It has better developed characters. Compare Quorra to the '80s Tron, for example (or any of the minor characters to Zues the nightclub guy). Kevin Flynn is given more material to work with then he was in the original. Clu is a better-written antagonist then the MCP (motivations beyond just being greedy and has a character and purpose in the plot beyond just being a roadblock). The plot is a less meandering version of the "get to the access portal" thing the original one did. Good as the original was, I'm not sure there was that much substance once you get past the premise and visuals.

Only within the sequel's logic where the computer world is interpreted as a deliberate human creation and modeled on physical reality. Not in the original's logic or aesthetic, in which what we saw was a metaphor for the profoundly alien workings of computer systems themselves.

Funny, I recall that the idea that the human creation being an impossibility and being overturned by the alien workings of the machine was the main theme of the sequel (the "perfect system" vs. the ISOs). (Besides, there's nothing in the movies that dictate that just because the computer systems developed into an alien world all on their own that someone couldn't try to create their own after learning about this other universe.)

Again, it's not about anything as superficial as whether the look is identical. It's about the intent. The creators of TRON were trying to approximate computer animation of human figures but didn't have the technology to do it for real, so they had to use hand-modified live-action footage as a substitute for computer animation. They approached TRON (the Grid sequences, at least) as essentially an animated film. If they'd had the means, if the tech had been a decade more advanced, then they would have used actual computer animation. That's what I'm saying -- that since TRON: Uprising was a CGI cartoon, it's basically the actual thing that the original film's makers were trying to simulate, whereas a live-action film like Legacy is not.

The two can coexist. Besides, the medium is just one aspect of any movie and not the only defining trait.

I don't see why you'd think that. It's fully compatible with Legacy's continuity.

I guess I'm pretty darn sure that had that third movie been made (too bad it wasn't), that the cartoon would bet sent off to do it's own thing, like that video game sequel (said to be the official followup by the original movie's creator) was when Legacy came out. Besides, I don't think the cartoon had any involvement of anyone who made the movies (beyond Bruce Boxleitner and Olivia Wilde reprising their roles).

To protect others' reputations from dishonor. Not to protect himself from consequences. There's a huge, huge difference.

Sounds about like the same reasons Kirk would have for covering up Khan's exile (he thought it was a "waste" to just send Khan to a prison).

Wrong. As I've argued in these parts many times, it's misinterpreting TOS to impose the strict TNG-style interpretation of the Directive onto Kirk's actions.

"Dear Doctor" (ENT) and Star Trek Into Darkness could be circumstantial evidence against that.

The TOS version of the Directive not only allowed but compelled a Starfleet officer to intervene in order to free a civilization from another source of interference with their free and natural societal development. Kirk was upholding the PD as far as TOS's writers were concerned, and modern audiences misread that because of how TNG retconned and rigidified the PD. And that's contributed to the lazy, ignorant "renegade Kirk" myth that's so popular today.

Hmmm.

And how in blazes did "The Paradise Syndrome" get on your list? When Kirk was in his right mind, he diligently followed the rule to avoid contact with the natives. He can't be blamed for what happened after he got amnesia.

I was misremembering something there I'd read in a fan reference book r.e. the Prime Directive and that episode.

Yes. That's the point! Modern audiences don't understand that because we're used to the modern, interconnected world. TOS was modeled on the British Age of Sail, when naval captains could be months away from contact with any higher authority. They had to have the ultimate, final say on what decisions were made in the field, because there was nobody higher who could have a say. The whole reason you give someone a starship command and send them out into the great unknown where they'll be out of contact with you is because you trust them to have the judgment to make the right or necessary decisions when there's nobody watching over them or second-guessing them.

Before Khan took over the ship and Kirk got it back and left him on Ceti Alpha V, the Enterprise was en route to a starbase. While there were times that Kirk was indeed all alone with no superiors to back him up (e.g. "Arena" and "Balance of Terror"), it doesn't really sound like he was in a situation where he couldn't contact Starfleet for recommendations.

Yes, that's my point! That's why Kirk would of course have notified Starfleet Command, so that they could send more ships to watch over the Augments and provide emergency support if necessary, maybe even administer Ceti Alpha V as a proper penal colony.

Way I see it, if Kirk had covered up his leaving the Augments on Ceti Alpha V, it was to prevent Starfleet from overruling him and taking Khan and co. back into a proper prison setting. Remember, the main reason that Kirk did it was because it would've been a "waste" of Khan. I'm frankly not sure how well that would've stood up to the brass, esp. since I think a case can be made that despite all that had happened, Kirk still hadn't gotten over the "best of tyrants" myth that he and others had built around Khan by exiling him. (Frankly, I think Khan should've been sent to a prison of some kind).

One can debate whether it would've been in Kirk's character to cover this whole thing up (if that was indeed how it happened), but it still seems improbable (to me, at least) that the Federation would just leave the colony there, given how much of a stain Khan had left on history and how reviled he was (say it was Hitler instead of Khan; would the colony being just left there make any sense?).

On the other hand, let's say Kirk did report it and no one objected to the colony being there. What would've been the reason that no one came back to support it and that no one outside of the 1701 crew seemed to know anything about it?

Remember that the ship was named Botany Bay -- Carey Wilber's intent was that their exile was akin to the English settlement of Australia with convict labor. That wasn't some kind of furtive criminal act conducted in secret, it was a formal, official practice.

What's the name of Khan's ship got to do with anything? The ship wasn't for exiling prisoners, it was used by fugitives to escape justice.

Actually we don't know that. Contrary to popular assumption, there's nothing in "Q Who" to preclude the existence of information about the Borg in the Enterprise's database. Picard relies on Guinan to tell him about them, yes, but that's because she was actually there (not an eyewitness, but closer than anyone else). Even if there was information about them in the computers, it would've come from the El-Aurian refugees anyway, so why not just ask the one who's actually on board?

It's a bit of a tricky scenario, esp. since there is stuff in that original episode that's a little wonky in regards to later ones (there's nothing about assimilation despite it being the foundation of Borg "society," Borg being sexless in the biological sense never really carried over, and the baby Borg's alcove looks a lot different then the maturation chambers used by Borg children later on). I don't think there's anything in the episode that precludes the ENT prequel (like, say how Professor X being crippled in X-Men: First Class cannot fit with any of the movies made before it). However, it's pretty clear that Picard has no idea about the Borg and is hearing everything for the first time and that Guinen is the only source of info at the time, which suggests (taking the prequel into account) that the TNG crew, at least, didn't connect the dots between the Borg and the NX-01's cyborg encounter until after Q sent them back home.

 

[Christopher]

Besides, I don't see how it's a bad thing that the two movies used different mediums. It's not the first time that we've seen a franchise do both animation and live-action, or even have a direct sequel done in a different format

It's not about the medium, and I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying that the makers of the sequel conceived of what they were doing, both concept and technique, in a fundamentally different way than the makers of the original did, so they don't fit together conceptually or artistically all that well. I'm not saying Legacy is a bad movie, I'm just saying it's a reinterpretation from the ground up.

Although I am saying it's a routine movie. That's the problem. It's a perfectly adequate CGI action movie, but there's nothing particularly special about it because CGI is so commonplace now. The original TRON was not a great movie storywise, no, but it was unique in a way its sequel couldn't even begin to approach. It was a fascinating and ambitious experiment in terms of concept and technique, and it's interesting to think about it in the context of the time it was made and the very different perception of computers that existed in the culture then. I think that glossing over the differences between the two films' underlying intentions and philosophies is losing that historical perspective.

Funny, I recall that the idea that the human creation being an impossibility and being overturned by the alien workings of the machine was the main theme of the sequel (the "perfect system" vs. the ISOs). (Besides, there's nothing in the movies that dictate that just because the computer systems developed into an alien world all on their own that someone couldn't try to create their own after learning about this other universe.)

Again, I'm not talking about whether you can handwave a way to reconcile the two movies, because it's always possible to do that. I'm talking about the underlying intentions of the storytellers and the very different ways they conceived of the computer world. I'm just saying it's important not to make the mistake of assuming that the original TRON was intended to represent a programmed virtual world and avatars the way we might assume it was today. If you look at it closely, it's actually more of a fanciful allegory for what goes on inside a computer, in much the same way that Pixar's Inside Out is an allegory for the workings of the human brain.

So I don't want to erase that distinction, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that distinction. I'm acknowledging the difference between the two films' intentions because it's interesting to recognize and to think about, and because it's a difference that I think most people don't realize is there, which makes it worth calling attention to. I don't want to pretend it doesn't exist. As I keep saying, in-universe continuity is not the only level for discussing fiction. I'm talking about the different creative philosophies of the two sets of filmmakers, because that is a noteworthy thing to recognize about the creative process.

I'm not only a fan of behind-the-scenes filmmaking, I'm a student of history. So I think it's worth recognizing the different historical contexts and creative perspectives of different works of fiction, rather than ignoring that side of them just because they pretend to fit together. When I write Star Trek fiction, I try to treat the stuff from the 1960s and the stuff from today as a single consistent reality, but when I talk about Star Trek as fiction, then I'm going to acknowledge the differences in conception, philosophy, and technique as well as the similarities in-story, because those differences are worth knowing about and understanding.

I guess I'm pretty darn sure that had that third movie been made (too bad it wasn't), that the cartoon would bet sent off to do it's own thing, like that video game sequel (said to be the official followup by the original movie's creator) was when Legacy came out.

Maybe, if it had been made. But it wasn't. The animated series was meant to be consistent with Legacy, and as far as I know, it was. You don't need permission from a higher authority to see two works of fiction as mutually consistent. You just have to use your own perception of whether there actually are inconsistencies or not.

Sounds about like the same reasons Kirk would have for covering up Khan's exile (he thought it was a "waste" to just send Khan to a prison).

That's not even close to the same. Mitchell, Dehner, and Decker were dead; there was nothing to be gained by revealing unflattering truths about them, as all it would've done was to bring more sadness to their loved ones. Khan and his people were still alive, in need of observation and safeguarding, as well as an amazingly important find for historians (and Kirk was a history buff himself, remember), and they had no surviving loved ones (aside from Marla) to protect from anything.

"Dear Doctor" (ENT) and Star Trek Into Darkness could be circumstantial evidence against that.

*sigh* Yes, obviously prequel works written after TNG have retroactively used its stricter interpretation in stories set in or before the TOS era. I'm saying that's an error, or at least a retcon. Again, I'm not talking about these stories as if they were "real" in a consistent universe -- I'm talking about the different assumptions and intentions made by their creators in different eras, and warning against the fallacy of assuming that the modern interpretation of the work is the same interpretation that its original creators had.

Again, the point is that the common modern meme that "Kirk often violated the Prime Directive" is erroneous because it mistakenly assumes TOS's writers were working from TNG's assumptions. If you actually look at the text of TOS, it portrayed Kirk as upholding the Prime Directive by having a zero-tolerance policy toward others' interference. So this is just one of the many, many things that modern culture gets frustratingly wrong about James T. Kirk.

Before Khan took over the ship and Kirk got it back and left him on Ceti Alpha V, the Enterprise was en route to a starbase. While there were times that Kirk was indeed all alone with no superiors to back him up (e.g. "Arena" and "Balance of Terror"), it doesn't really sound like he was in a situation where he couldn't contact Starfleet for recommendations.

Even so, he'd never have earned command of a capital ship if he behaved as unprofessionally and with as much contempt for authority and discipline as modern audiences have somehow come to believe.

One can debate whether it would've been in Kirk's character to cover this whole thing up (if that was indeed how it happened), but it still seems improbable (to me, at least) that the Federation would just leave the colony there, given how much of a stain Khan had left on history and how reviled he was (say it was Hitler instead of Khan; would the colony being just left there make any sense?).

I think someone like Napoleon would be a better analogy than Hitler. No massacres under his rule, remember? Not to mention the two centuries of distance, which would tend to make historical acts of conquest seem more academic and morally neutral, of great interest to historians.

And why in the world would they not leave the colony there? An uninhabited planet is the ideal prison, since there's no way off it. We already know the Federation has plenty of penal colonies; this is just an informal version of the exact same thing. All they'd have to do was set up a permanent monitoring presence.

And again, the explicit analogy was to the settlement of Australia, using prisoners to settle a new land both to reduce prison overcrowding and to facilitate colonial expansion at the same time. Since the 23rd-century Federation was heavily into territorial expansion and colonization, I see no reason they would've objected to using the Augments as prisoner labor to develop Ceti Alpha V as a way to atone for their crimes.

On the other hand, let's say Kirk did report it and no one objected to the colony being there. What would've been the reason that no one came back to support it and that no one outside of the 1701 crew seemed to know anything about it?

Because The Wrath of Khan was a stupid movie whose premise made no damn sense, that's the reason. That's my whole point -- that the premise that the colony remained unknown 15 years later is absurd.

What's the name of Khan's ship got to do with anything? The ship wasn't for exiling prisoners, it was used by fugitives to escape justice.

See, this is why you need to consider the creative process and not just the in-universe continuity. The writers chose that name because of the resonance with the historical practice they intended the episode to parallel. They expected their viewers to be historically literate enough to understand what the name Botany Bay meant, and thus to understand the thinking behind Kirk's decision at the end. Writers often name things because of the resonances they want to evoke in the audience's mind, regardless of whether the same reason for the name exists in-story.

(like, say how Professor X being crippled in X-Men: First Class cannot fit with any of the movies made before it).

The comics' Xavier has regained and re-lost the use of his legs several times over the decades, so that's actually one of the easier things to reconcile in the movie continuity.

However, it's pretty clear that Picard has no idea about the Borg and is hearing everything for the first time and that Guinen is the only source of info at the time, which suggests (taking the prequel into account) that the TNG crew, at least, didn't connect the dots between the Borg and the NX-01's cyborg encounter until after Q sent them back home.

Yes, Picard is hearing about them for the first time, but no, there's no proof that Guinan is the only source of info -- only that she's the only one we see them consulting onscreen. There is no line of dialogue saying "There's nothing in our computers about these Borg." But if you had a choice between reading computer files about stories passed along by the El-Aurian refugees decades ago vs. actually talking to the El-Aurian refugee who was right there on your ship and was a good friend and trusted advisor, which would you pick?

 

[Damian]

If you actually look at the text of TOS, it portrayed Kirk as upholding the Prime Directive by having a zero-tolerance policy toward others' interference. So this is just one of the many, many things that modern culture gets frustratingly wrong about James T. Kirk.

I wonder about that. In universe (sorry) I wonder if Captain Picard had come across a similar situation to say "A Private Little War" how would he interpreter the PD. Clearly the Klingons were interfering, would Picard do the same thing to try to preserve a balance. If they came across a pre-warp society that was clearly being influenced or altered by some alien power I'd have to think that would allow them a little wiggle room to 'correct' the situation (obviously in as non-invasive way as possible toward the affected society--so as to not make things worse).

I think TNG clearly took a more strict view of the PD. Now I don't have an issue with that necessarily, I don't even consider a retcon because the show is a century later. It stands to reason adjustments are made. Now I do agree with Christopher, maybe too strict, but that's more philosophical and not really a retcon. And there are examples in real world history that sometimes shows people over-react. It can easily be explained 'in universe' that something happened between TOS and TNG where maybe someone violated the PD and there was some serious consequences and maybe Starfleet decided to get stricter about the PD and maybe went too far the other way.

In fact in the "Rings of Tautee" novel I'm reading I reached the point where Captain Bogle agrees to help Kirk rescue the Tauteeans because technically it was argued they sent out a distress call. But Bogle was considering recommending a stricter interpretation to the PD to not allow such 'loopholes' (interesting to be reading some of the book in the midst of this particular discussion but I digress).

Now I do agree when writers of the original series period stories or earlier apply TNG view of the PD that is a retcon. It might not even be intentional, in fact it probably isn't. They are probably just inadvertently influenced by that.

Yes, Picard is hearing about them for the first time, but no, there's no proof that Guinan is the only source of info -- only that she's the only one we see them consulting onscreen. There is no line of dialogue saying "There's nothing in our computers about these Borg."

I have to agree here. I think any inconsistency can be hand waved away. In the heat of the moment he probably wasn't going to sit down and read files. Guinan let him know she knew something about the Borg and he obviously sought her out first (plus even Q provided some info as well). There are lots of forgotten bits in history and I imagine later Picard probably reviewed the files to see if there was anything similar.

Real world (I'll give this a shot ) the writers of "Regeneration" were careful to never name the Borg in the episodes. And at the end it was made clear it would be at least 200 years before these 'cyborgs' would be able to do anything in the alpha quadrant. I do think they did their homework and were careful to maintain consistency. So after a while 'in universe' it probably just got put to the back burner, as so many things do. It's not an immediate crisis so we'll deal with it when the times comes. Not very long sighted, but then we're only human .

 

[Christopher]

I wonder about that. In universe (sorry) I wonder if Captain Picard had come across a similar situation to say "A Private Little War" how would he interpreter the PD. Clearly the Klingons were interfering, would Picard do the same thing to try to preserve a balance.

People keep dragging out "A Private Little War" and ignoring the most important thing about it, which is that it was supposed to be an impossible situation with no good answer. It was meant to be the exception, not the rule.

If they came across a pre-warp society that was clearly being influenced or altered by some alien power I'd have to think that would allow them a little wiggle room to 'correct' the situation (obviously in as non-invasive way as possible toward the affected society--so as to not make things worse).

Maybe, but my point is not about TNG. My point is about the wrongness of the glib "Kirk constantly violated the Prime Directive" meme that gets tossed around constantly these days.

I have to agree here. I think any inconsistency can be hand waved away. In the heat of the moment he probably wasn't going to sit down and read files. Guinan let him know she knew something about the Borg and he obviously sought her out first (plus even Q provided some info as well). There are lots of forgotten bits in history and I imagine later Picard probably reviewed the files to see if there was anything similar.

It doesn't even have to be later. We don't see every moment of the story in real time. There's a cut between the initial attack and the briefing, enough time for Picard to record a log entry about it. They had time to type "Borg" into Starfleetpedia and see that there was little more available than rumors and old accounts from the El-Aurian refugees, leading Picard to decide to bring Guinan in on the briefing to get it right from the source.

What would've come later, presumably, is figuring out that the Borg must be the same as the nameless cyborgs Archer dealt with in "Regeneration."

 

[Damian]

Maybe, but my point is not about TNG. My point is about the wrongness of the glib "Kirk constantly violated the Prime Directive" meme that gets tossed around constantly these days.

Just my usual ramblings. What you were saying got me to thinking what if? What if Captain Picard ran into similar situations as Kirk. Would the 24th century interpretation of the PD allow Picard to take similar steps. Maybe not as extreme as "A Private Little War" but still. I mean, Picard sometimes broke the letter of the PD himself and interpreted the spirit of the PD (I mean, I hesitate to use the word 'broke' but he did 'interfere' from time to time if the situation warranted it).

But yeah, I would hesitate to say Kirk 'violated' the PD. I'm sure some admirals in Starfleet may disapprove and hold a stricter interpretation of the PD. Captain Bogle in the book I'm reading now, prefers a more literal interpretation of the PD for instance. "A Private Little War" is probably the most extreme example of his pushing the PD. Though I agree with his reasoning and obviously Starfleet did too.

I mean, let's face it, if Kirk was an actual rule breaker, he wouldn't be captain for long, if he even made captain. He had a certain wisdom (as did Captain Picard, though in his own way) that allowed him to see the principles behind the rules and regulations. In some ways that's probably what makes a good captain. Not "I was just following orders". But someone that can make the tough decisions, and more times than not he was correct.

Because The Wrath of Khan was a stupid movie whose premise made no damn sense, that's the reason. That's my whole point -- that the premise that the colony remained unknown 15 years later is absurd.

I have to ask, was there anything about TWOK you did like? I know you've had your criticisms. It is a favorite among many Trekkies. Are there things about you think were well done?

For instance, I did like the various character interactions. I also like the acting of Shatner in this particular film. And I thought his difficulty handling failure and his obvious pain at the death of Spock was well done. I thought it also had a good amount of suspense built in and the battles were handled well. I thought they were intense, but they didn't go overboard. And...well....Ricardo Montalban. I mean, just evaluating his performance (and setting aside some of the issues with the character of Khan) I thought he did a good acting job.

 

[Mysterion]

Honestly if you find everyone here is like that maybe this just isn't the group for you.

Yeah, because we certainly don't want anyone advocating any differing points of view or anything.

If the board becomes populated with people who only agree won the same stuff, what's the point of having it? Gods know I've sometimes found some folks on this board to be disagreeable, pedantic, and flat-out just too stupid to be allowed to breed much less have access to a keyboard and an internet connection, but if everyone only agreed with each other and like only the same stuff, there'd be no reason to be here at all. Unless, of course, for those who are so insecure they just need to have their own beliefs and values constantly reinforced and validated.

 

[TheAlmanac]

While many Trek stories have depicted the usage of labels, I do point out the recent phenomenon in Discovery 2x02 of "nonbeliever" instead of "atheist" or "agnostic" because (I assume from the writers' perspective) an oppressive status quo of religious dogma in power no longer exists in the Federation of 2257 as it does in the U.S.A. and elsewhere of 2019.

"Nonbeliever" is already used fairly often as a catchall term in agnostic/atheist/humanist circles, so I didn't think its use in the episode was meant to indicate anything in particular.

 

[Yistaan]

Yeah, because we certainly don't want anyone advocating any differing points of view or anything.

If the board becomes populated with people who only agree won the same stuff, what's the point of having it? Gods know I've sometimes found some folks on this board to be disagreeable, pedantic, and flat-out just too stupid to be allowed to breed much less have access to a keyboard and an internet connection, but if everyone only agreed with each other and like only the same stuff, there'd be no reason to be here at all. Unless, of course, for those who are so insecure they just need to have their own beliefs and values constantly reinforced and validated.

See the below where @Christopher outright swore at me (and no apology was made even after I called out on it). I never did that, and I'm not the one against differing points of view. Please read post histories before making "rolling eye" comments.

In regards to your second paragraph, what I said was just a suggestion, not a demand (Does "maybe this just isn't the group for you," sound like an ultimatum?), and that was in response to @Christopher 's own words that "everyone" was speaking using in-universe terms except him, and he didn't seem to like the seemingly solely in-universe discussions.

^Oh, stop being so damn literal, you know what I meant. The point is not the exact figures, the point is that the continuity has been rewritten over time while pretending to be a continuous whole.

Also, this sort of language isn't necessary.

 

[Christopher]

I have to ask, was there anything about TWOK you did like? I know you've had your criticisms. It is a favorite among many Trekkies. Are there things about you think were well done?

It's competently made, but I think it's highly overrated, which prompts me to stress its flaws in response. I can see why the character work appeals to many people, although I find the whole film overly broad and melodramatic. I liked the music back in the '80s, but I eventually got kind of sick of James Horner's sound since it was always the same. The FX work was pretty good for the era, although I didn't care for the violence and blood in the battle scenes. Most of the positives I can cite are equivocal, things that I feel were undermined by the negatives or not as impressive to me as they are to others. For instance, Montalban gives an excellent performance as Khan, but I regret that the vengeance-crazed Khan of TWOK is a less nuanced and interesting character than the calculating, charming conqueror of "Space Seed."

I did like seeing a post-TMP Spock who'd found peace with himself and was comfortable with openly calling Kirk a friend and participating in human customs like giving birthday presents. It's the one thing that really feels like connective tissue between the first two movies -- Spock's journey from trying to cut himself off from all personal bonds and feelings to fully embracing his friendships and being ready to sacrifice his life for them.

 

[Sci]

The biggest strength of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is its thematic core: two characters who had been these adventure-story archetypes of youth and ambition, Kirk and Khan, arriving at a place where they have to confront their own mortality in the face of pressures to evolve from the actions of their own progeny (Kirk's literal progeny in David, Khan's metaphorical progeny in the younger Augments). I mean, it's a movie about two dudes in their 50s who don't want to admit they're not still in their 20s/30s, fighting for control of a technology that metaphorically represents fertility (it's literally called the Genesis device). I kind of love it, just for that.

And how does it end? With Kirk's best friend sacrificing his life, and Kirk realizing that the key to living is to embrace life's challenges and changes instead of pretending you're still at a place in your life where you aren't anymore. "How do you feel?" "Young again." Love it. And for that, I'll forgive its admittedly myriad logical implausibilities.

 

[Damian]

The biggest strength of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is its thematic core: two characters who had been these adventure-story archetypes of youth and ambition, Kirk and Khan, arriving at a place where they have to confront their own mortality in the face of pressures to evolve from the actions of their own progeny (Kirk's literal progeny in David, Khan's metaphorical progeny in the younger Augments). I mean, it's a movie about two dudes in their 50s who don't want to admit they're not still in their 20s/30s, fighting for control of a technology that metaphorically represents fertility (it's literally called the Genesis device). I kind of love it, just for that.

And how does it end? With Kirk's best friend sacrificing his life, and Kirk realizing that the key to living is to embrace life's challenges and changes instead of pretending you're still at a place in your life where you aren't anymore. "How do you feel?" "Young again." Love it. And for that, I'll forgive its admittedly myriad logical implausibilities.

That's a very interesting analysis. I sometimes wonder (and this goes for any film) do the filmmakers (director, writers, etc.) consider those sorts of things when making a film. Now in some cases I would say yes, certainly. Hitchcock movies are a favorite of mine. Every shot was thought out by Hitchcock. If there was some meaning or parallel, it was intentional (that's not to say sometimes someone saw something new that maybe wasn't pre-planned--but Hitchcock was meticulous).

Did Nicholas Meyer, Harve Bennett, etc. have some of that in mind when making TWOK, particularly the parallels you point out.

It's competently made, but I think it's highly overrated, which prompts me to stress its flaws in response.

Also interesting. Obviously people enjoy different things about different movies. I pointed out in the past that I'm a big horror/slasher film fan. Unlike Hitchcock, people don't watch slasher films for their intellectual prowess. I mean, let's face it, if you saw some creepy person lurking in a deserted cabin in the woods during a thunderstorm, you'd go in to investigate I'm sure . So, in some ways that suspension of disbelief allowed me to gloss over some of the, um, scientific and plot issues of TWOK. I recognize them, I'll even question them, and I was happy Greg Cox actually addressed some of that in his Khan novels (another case where a tie-in can enhance a show or movie). But I can overlook them if other elements of the movie are good (now if the rest of the film stank, well, then the plot issues would make it worse).

Even TMP, it's my favorite Trek film. But I'll admit it's not a 'perfect' film. I even agree with some people's criticisms of it (the pacing could be a bit off for instance, and sometimes the special effects--as awesome as they were for the time--overwhelmed the plot) but I love it all the same. And I'm one of a select few that liked Nemesis, warts and all.

It's the one thing that really feels like connective tissue between the first two movies -- Spock's journey from trying to cut himself off from all personal bonds and feelings to fully embracing his friendships and being ready to sacrifice his life for them.

Hmm, I wonder if that was intentional by the movie makers....probably not . But on purpose or by accident, I like that there's at least some tie between the films (well other than the ship itself and the characters).

 

[Christopher]

Obviously people enjoy different things about different movies. I pointed out in the past that I'm a big horror/slasher film fan. Unlike Hitchcock, people don't watch slasher films for their intellectual prowess. I mean, let's face it, if you saw some creepy person lurking in a deserted cabin in the woods during a thunderstorm, you'd go in to investigate I'm sure . So, in some ways that suspension of disbelief allowed me to gloss over some of the, um, scientific and plot issues of TWOK.

Yeah, but that's the thing. People today seem to have forgotten, but prior to the late '80s, Star Trek was pretty much the only smart SF series on American TV other than The Twilight Zone and much of The Outer Limits. It was the one genre show that had real class and sophistication and intelligence to it, the only one where you didn't have to turn off your brain to enjoy it. Part of the reason I dislike TWOK is that it dumbed Trek down, that it approached it as broad, fanciful melodrama rather than the grounded, credible drama that Roddenberry wanted it to be. True, TOS's third season did much the same, but at least fans didn't like that season much.

I remember that when my father first saw the film, his main comment about it was that he found Genesis completely unbelievable. He wasn't a fan of Trek per se, but he'd seen a lot of episodes because of me watching the show constantly in reruns, and I don't think I'd ever heard him make a similar observation about the implausibility of anything else in the show. But Genesis was so implausible to him that it pulled him out of the story.

I recognize them, I'll even question them, and I was happy Greg Cox actually addressed some of that in his Khan novels (another case where a tie-in can enhance a show or movie). But I can overlook them if other elements of the movie are good (now if the rest of the film stank, well, then the plot issues would make it worse).

Sure, I can too. I feel pretty much that way about the 2009 film. Its story is full of profound absurdities, but the character work is strong enough that I like the film despite its story. But for some reason, TWOK just doesn't work for me the same way. I just find the character stuff too melodramatic and overplayed.

And I'm one of a select few that liked Nemesis, warts and all.

Me too. I think it's just as underrated as TWOK is overrated.

 

[Sci]

That's a very interesting analysis.

Thank you!

I sometimes wonder (and this goes for any film) do the filmmakers (director, writers, etc.) consider those sorts of things when making a film. Now in some cases I would say yes, certainly. Hitchcock movies are a favorite of mine. Every shot was thought out by Hitchcock. If there was some meaning or parallel, it was intentional (that's not to say sometimes someone saw something new that maybe wasn't pre-planned--but Hitchcock was meticulous).

Did Nicholas Meyer, Harve Bennett, etc. have some of that in mind when making TWOK, particularly the parallels you point out.

All I can say is: the film opens with Kirk angsting about his birthday, unfolds with him reconnecting with a 30-something-year-old son he had had no relationship with as he fights over a device that creates a "New Eden" built by his female ex-partner, climaxes with his best friend dying, and ends with him saying he feels young again. This film is not subtle. It is from beginning to end not only about someone dealing with mortality, but is implicitly about a cisheterosexual male experience of mortality in particular.

I would be shocked if Meyer were unaware of the thematic resonance of what he had created.

 

[Damian]

It was the one genre show that had real class and sophistication and intelligence to it, the only one where you didn't have to turn off your brain to enjoy it.

I guess that's another difference. My first exposure to Star Trek was the films. Before I became a Trekkie I had already seen TWOK and TSFS. I vaguely remember seeing TSFS with my grandmother in the theater, and my father loved TWOK. He's not a Trekkie (though he did like watching the show in the 60's I wouldn't consider him a Trekkie--I think TUC was the last movie he has seen--he did watch a little TNG here and there). But he loves TWOK and recorded it on tape when it was on ABC. So I saw TWOK a number of times before becoming a Trekkie.

It was TMP that turned me into a Trekkie. Then I watched TWOK and TSFS with new eyes . I have to admit, I wasn't aware TWOK was trying to leave TMP behind and I kept looking for things and people that carried over in story to TWOK (of course very little other than the sets did). And I was so excited about TVH which came out right after I became a nubie Trekkie. I must have seen that 3 times in the theater.

Though I guess I inadvertently proved your point in that TMP was much more 'intelligent' sci-fi than TWOK. . And that was the film that won me over.

Then I started to watch the TV series. If I remember correctly the first episode I saw was "Metamorphosis".

The series did have a definite difference in the 'feel'.

But in defense of the films, I think they have to be a bit more melodramatic and expansive by nature. As much as I loved TMP I recognize it doesn't have a ton of broad based appeal. The films that do the best for Star Trek are usually the more action oriented ones that maybe 'dumb' down some of the sci-fi elements. TVH was a notable exception, but they substituted a light hearted approach and even a bit of comedy that naturally enhanced the film (unlike TFF where it was forced at times and a bit awkward).

I guess that's the beauty of Star Trek. It has a little of both. If I want intelligent story telling I have a lot of episodes from various Star Trek series I could watch. There's some powerful stories and characterizations in various episodes. And if I just want a bit of sci-fi action that maybe is a bit shallow from the science perspective there's TWOK, Star Trek (2009) or maybe even First Contact in some ways.

And if I want to see how 'not' to make a film and bad special effects, I can watch TFF. ---ok, for the record I don't hate TFF. I still go back for more and I love the forward observation room, Laurence Luckinbill and the score.

But then I get my kicks out of watching "Spock's Brain" and "The Way to Eden" so there's that

Me too. I think it's just as underrated as TWOK is overrated.

Ha-ha, we'll put you on the list. I think that makes 6 or 7 of the 10. I'm sure I find 3 or 4 more people out there

 

[Damian]

Thank you!



All I can say is: the film opens with Kirk angsting about his birthday, unfolds with him reconnecting with a 30-something-year-old son he had had no relationship with as he fights over a device that creates a "New Eden" built by his female ex-partner, climaxes with his best friend dying, and ends with him saying he feels young again. This film is not subtle. It is from beginning to end not only about someone dealing with mortality, but is implicitly about a cisheterosexual male experience of mortality in particular.

I would be shocked if Meyer were unaware of the thematic resonance of what he had created.

Yeah, now that you mention it I think I remember reading something about that somewhere, maybe when Harve Bennett was writing it.

I generally rank TWOK as my 2nd favorite Trek film, and First Contact would probably be 3rd (I love the Borg, and I loved the Borg in that film--as creepy as the Borg Jonathan Frakes managed to make them look twice as creepy). I already noted some of the reasons, but a lot is the pacing. Like a really good horror film (not a slasher film), he knew just when to apply some pressure and suspense, and when to relax it a bit. I was never overwhelmed, and also never bored. It had a very good balance. And yes, even if the science was weak, or even bad, and even if Khan's singular obsession can test reality, there were a lot of other themes that were well developed like those you mention.

 

[Christopher]

But in defense of the films, I think they have to be a bit more melodramatic and expansive by nature. As much as I loved TMP I recognize it doesn't have a ton of broad based appeal. The films that do the best for Star Trek are usually the more action oriented ones that maybe 'dumb' down some of the sci-fi elements.

Well, that depends. In the '60s and '70s, science fiction movies tended to be adult, serious, and frequently dystopian -- 2001, Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, Fahrenheit 451, Silent Running, Rollerball, The Andromeda Strain, etc. It was Star Wars that transformed SF cinema and shifted the balance toward lighter, more lowbrow, crowd-pleasing fare driven by action and spectacle. There were still films in the more serious vein -- Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Alien, Blade Runner, even The Black Hole to an extent -- but the films of Lucas and Spielberg were so influential and spawned so many imitators that it created the perception you're describing, that genre movies need to be more Star Wars-like to be popular. Granted, it was Lucas and Spielberg who created the modern movie blockbuster, who made sci-fi and fantasy films more financially successful than ever before, but that doesn't mean their approach was the only one worth using.

The difference is that TMP was trying to be an SF film in the pre-Star Wars idiom, thoughtful and sophisticated, while TWOK embraced the post-Star Wars idiom and set the precedent for later Trek movies to do the same. Which may have made the movie series successful, but I always felt it lost something in the process. It would've been nice if Trek films could've carved out a niche that put them in contrast to the big fanciful blockbusters around them, that defined them as something smarter in the Blade Runner vein. The original show was smarter and classier than its contemporaries and successors. The movies didn't stand out from their competition in the same way.