Donny's Refit Enterprise Interiors (Version 2.0)

[cardinal biggles]

Just so everyone knows, I'm taking a break right now. I actually tried to sit down and do some modeling yesterday but I just wasn't feeling it. Kind of getting burned out and it's bleeding into my actual day job, so I figure it's good to take a pause and concentrate on self-care, relaxation, and video games in my free-time. But, as always, the motivation will come roaring back and I'll be back at it soon!

I totally get that, and it's good that you're able to recognize it in yourself before you do totally burn out. Hope you feel refreshed soon.

Speaking of the TSFS novelization....I remember checking that out from the library as a kid and I was REALLY confused because the novel was nothing like the movie so I stopped reading. Didn't realize it got into the actual movie a third of the way through until I read about it as an adult. Silly me.

Even after getting to the point where the film starts, McIntyre still intersperses her own original material with what happens in the film — the subplot mentioned above about Scotty's sister being pissed at Kirk over Peter's death, another subplot involving a cadet who is awarded a medal for bravery when he was actually one of the trainees who ran away during Khan's initial attack. And she also gives Uhura much more to do in the novel (which is welcome, because while Uhura's scene at the transporter station is fun, she gets short shrift compared to Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov). Definitely worth checking out again.

 

[Donny]

I totally get that, and it's good that you're able to recognize it in yourself before you do totally burn out. Hope you feel refreshed soon.

Even after getting to the point where the film starts, McIntyre still intersperses her own original material with what happens in the film — the subplot mentioned above about Scotty's sister being pissed at Kirk over Peter's death, another subplot involving a cadet who is awarded a medal for bravery when he was actually one of the trainees who ran away during Khan's initial attack. And she also gives Uhura much more to do in the novel (which is welcome, because while Uhura's scene at the transporter station is fun, she gets short shrift compared to Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov). Definitely worth checking out again.

I need to give it a read, as all those subplots sounds super interesting! And really, when you think about it, TSFS is a very short and straightforward story...I don’t blame Vonda for padding it out.

 

[Tallguy]

I need to give it a read, as all those subplots sounds super interesting! And really, when you think about it, TSFS is a very short and straightforward story...I don’t blame Vonda for padding it out.

Am I right that TSFS is the shortest film and the longest novel?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I really enjoy the novelizations generally, and McIntyre's particularly. Vonda's ability to go deeper into the characters and subplots, especially--adding to the story without deviating from canon. Of course Peter's ma would be pissed at Kirk, so I like that we get a little from her perspective. Likewise the relationship between Saavik and David. It feels like one of those things that would have been in the movie...if Peter Jackson were directing it. Much better than Roddenberry's attempt at novelization, which (ironically) reads like it's by someone that's never seen Star Trek.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yeah, Roddenberry's involvement with the TMP always gave me a big fat ol' . The "Love Instructor" and "New Humans" thing was particularly in need of a good editor's red ink pen.

 

[Christopher]

Much better than Roddenberry's attempt at novelization, which (ironically) reads like it's by someone that's never seen Star Trek.

I think, rather, it reads like it's by the one person who'd seen the version of Star Trek that existed in its creator's head, as opposed to the version he had to settle for making with all its real-world compromises and sacrifices. Or rather, the version that it had evolved into in his head after a decade spent thinking of all the ways ways he wished he'd done it differently. Because that's what every creator does when looking back at their old works -- think of all the ways they could've been improved on if you'd only had more time, or had known then what you know now.

Heck, this very thread proves that, because that's just what Donny's doing with his old renders.

Yeah, Roddenberry's involvement with the TMP always gave me a big fat ol' . The "Love Coach" and "New Humans" thing was particularly in need of a good editor's red ink pen.

Neither idea was all that unusual in 1970s prose science fiction. Post-Sexual Revolution, there was a lot of SF about futures that were more liberated and casual about sexuality than we are, so the idea of a society that's comfortable enough with sexuality to treat it as a teachable skill like anything else fit right into the era. And the New Human concept fit right into the New Age philosophies of the era, the fashionable interest in expanding consciousness or unlocking higher levels of existence. Indeed, that sort of thing had been a theme in science fiction well before then, at least as far back as Clarke's Childhood's End in the '50s.

For that matter, both ideas were integral to TMP -- the whole story about V'Ger's quest was about seeking higher levels of consciousness or existence, and Ilia represented a sexually enlightened culture, though that could barely be touched on in a G-rated movie. So there's nothing incongruous about either idea in the context of TMP's story.

 

[137th Gebirg]

And yet the movie effectively demonstrated that both those sub-plot points were thoroughly irrelevant to the greater story.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Neither idea was all that unusual in 1970s prose science fiction. Post-Sexual Revolution, there was a lot of SF about futures that were more liberated and casual about sexuality than we are, so the idea of a society that's comfortable enough with sexuality to treat it as a teachable skill like anything else fit right into the era.

There's another factor you aren't taking into account: the intersection of larger cultural changes and how SF took them and ran with them, and Roddenberry being an inveterate horndog.

 

[Christopher]

And yet the movie effectively demonstrated that both those sub-plot points were thoroughly irrelevant to the greater story.

The Deltan one, maybe. But the quest for higher consciousness was the story. It was the thing V'Ger needed, and it was enabling V'Ger to ascend that resolved the crisis.

There's another factor you aren't taking into account: the intersection of larger cultural changes and how SF took them and ran with them, and Roddenberry being an inveterate horndog.

A lot of '70s SF writers were inveterate horndogs. Roddenberry was not exceptional in that regard. There were many SF works in the '60s and '70s that took advantage of the freedom to explore sexual themes that had been avoided in earlier SF, and while some of them were daring philosophical and social explorations or bold feminist challenges of conventional gender attitudes and sexual mores, many were just horny male writers getting to indulge their fantasies freely.

 

[137th Gebirg]

The Deltan one, maybe. But the quest for higher consciousness was the story. It was the thing V'Ger needed, and it was enabling V'Ger to ascend that resolved the crisis.

I was actually referring exclusively to the "love instructor" and "new human" references. The Deltan angle was still somewhat preserved and alluded to in Uhura's awkward "She's... Deltan... Captain" (like we're supposed to know what that statement means) and Ilia's even more super-awkward pronouncement of celibacy in front of the entire bridge crew. That whole dynamic seemed quite odd and could have also used a chop on the cutting room floor (or, at least, elucidated upon) as, again, in its current context, it had generally zero impact on the overall story other than to indicate Ilia was something special and different, leading V'Ger to choose her as its representative on the ship.

 

[Christopher]

I was actually referring exclusively to the "love instructor" and "new human" references.

I know, and that perception of them as separate from the rest is exactly what I'm disagreeing with. You see them as isolated elements that didn't belong in the story, and I was pointing out that they do fit thematically with other elements of the story.

 

[FormerLurker]

Scotty's sister being pissed at Kirk over Peter's death, a

Peter's ma would be pissed at Kirk

Scotty's niece. Peter's sister, Dannan. While Peter's ma may have been mentioned (I haven't gone back and reread it myself), I don't think she says anything. And Dannan is herself supposed to be Starfleet, and pissed off at an old (Younger than me!) admiral taking command and 'getting the captain killed, along with so many others'.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Thanks, it's been a long time since my last re-read.

 

[Christopher]

It bugged me back in the day that Peter Preston was established in the script and novel as Scotty's sister's son, because The Making of Star Trek had said that Scotty was an only child. Up until then, I'd always kind of taken it for granted that TMoST was authoritative and everything in it was accurate. Indeed, a lot of things exclusive to TMoST did get taken for granted by fandom and even incorporated into later canon, like the show being set in the 23rd century (though James Blish's adaptations had been the first to establish that), "mind meld" being the preferred term for what TOS had called by multiple names (mind touch, fusion, link, etc.), the forward dish being a navigational deflector, the Klingons and Romulans having an alliance, etc. So TWOK was the first time I saw anything from TMoST contradicted by new canon, which was really surprising at the time.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Scotty's niece. Peter's sister, Dannan.

You're right on that, of course; I was misremembering. (It's been a looong time since I read it.)

 

[Maurice]

^It's been years since I read it, but I sort of remember the scene you're talking about. The cave always puzzled me — what was generating the sunlight?

From the April 4, 1981 "Final Draft" of "Star Trek: The Genesis Project"​

I think, rather, it reads like it's by the one person who'd seen the version of Star Trek that existed in its creator's head, as opposed to the version he had to settle for making with all its real-world compromises and sacrifices. Or rather, the version that it had evolved into in his head after a decade spent thinking of all the ways ways he wished he'd done it differently. Because that's what every creator does when looking back at their old works -- think of all the ways they could've been improved on if you'd only had more time, or had known then what you know now.

Heck, this very thread proves that, because that's just what Donny's doing with his old renders.

Creators do that two seconds after they submit the piece.

But some creators can totally let things go. Terry Gilliam flat out said he'd never revisit Brazil because he's not the same man who made it and it would be like altering someone else's work. When I have been recovering animations and films I did a billion years ago I generally resist the temptation to "improve" them because they are what my interests and skill-sets and schedules allowed at the time, plus death of the author and all that.

Neither idea was all that unusual in 1970s prose science fiction. Post-Sexual Revolution, there was a lot of SF about futures that were more liberated and casual about sexuality than we are, so the idea of a society that's comfortable enough with sexuality to treat it as a teachable skill like anything else fit right into the era.

I've never had a problem with those elements as concepts. It's usually Gene's execution of those ideas which males them juvenile and not "adult".

A lot of '70s SF writers were inveterate horndogs. Roddenberry was not exceptional in that regard. There were many SF works in the '60s and '70s that took advantage of the freedom to explore sexual themes that had been avoided in earlier SF, and while some of them were daring philosophical and social explorations or bold feminist challenges of conventional gender attitudes and sexual mores, many were just horny male writers getting to indulge their fantasies freely.

Not just in prose. Asimov was an inveterate ass-pincher, and that's well documented. Ellison was pro-women's rights yet frequently neanderthal (in the colloquial sense) towards women. The memos inside the Star Trek production—and not just Roddenberry—sometimes make Mad Men look like a documentary.

But since since you brought this up, this invites comparison to the portrayal of sexuality in Almost Superhuman, but would totally derail the topic, and certainly belongs in a different forum.

It bugged me back in the day that Peter Preston was established in the script and novel as Scotty's sister's son, because The Making of Star Trek had said that Scotty was an only child. Up until then, I'd always kind of taken it for granted that TMoST was authoritative and everything in it was accurate.

For those unfamiliar with the Scotty thing in question:

In view of Scotty's roving nature, perhaps it is a good thing that he has few family ties. Although his mother and father are still living, he has no brothers or sisters. Although he enjoys children, he has never been married. He is a hellraiser while on shore leave, and his escapades usually involve women, the more exotic the better.

—The Making of Star Trek, p245​

And the underscored... oy.

 

[Christopher]

But some creators can totally let things go.

Sure they can, but we're talking about a case where the creator did revisit his old creation a decade later. I'm saying it's not surprising that the version of Star Trek Roddenberry wrote with unlimited creative freedom and a decade's worth of hindsight looked different from the version he'd actually made for TV the first time around.

I've never had a problem with those elements as concepts. It's usually Gene's execution of those ideas which males them juvenile and not "adult".

That's true in some cases, but I don't see how a throwaway reference to a love instructor falls under that category. I think some people today are just seeing it through the perspective of their own sexual hangups and discomforts, since I think our society has gotten more repressed about sexuality in some ways since then, even while becoming broader-minded in others.

 

[Mudd]

That's true in some cases, but I don't see how a throwaway reference to a love instructor falls under that category. I think some people today are just seeing it through the perspective of their own sexual hangups and discomforts, since I think our society has gotten more repressed about sexuality in some ways since then, even while becoming broader-minded in others.

It's just plain juvenile and creepy, sorry.

 

[FormerLurker]

I disagree. In the last 40 years, we (the US) have had Democratic presidents for 16 of them, and Republicans for 24. Even as the Democratic presidents and their administrations attempted, often futilely, to turn our nation toward a path of acceptance for people's state of being, and toward the goal of government as caretaker (which is the goal anyway), they've still gone along in lockstep with the idea that no matter your state of being, you must behave in a heavily shrouded, cloaked and mysterious manner when expressing that state. And it has gotten worse as time has passed.

The sexual revolution in the '60s was supposed to bring about a sea change in perceptions of morality, what is allowed, and what is not disallowed. Network TV was supposed to have frontal nudity by the '90s. The attempt at bridging that chasm, NYPD Blue, was controversial, and often not well received. Everything that they got away with would today be met with everything from harsh fines to the offending program being forced out of production to punish the makers for being 'immoral'.

Roddenberry coming up with a new age concept like 'love instructors' came before 40 years of social conservatism in the name of making the most moralistic happy with popular entertainment. If anything, we need to get back to a state where Roddenberry's concepts don't seem so bad.

 

[Maurice]

Sure they can, but we're talking about a case where the creator did revisit his old creation a decade later.

Ah ah... but my response what you said was...

Because that's what every creator does when looking back at their old works -- think of all the ways they could've been improved on if you'd only had more time, or had known then what you know now.

Not every creator. Many, absolutely; most, probably; all, no. Hence my reply.

It's just plain juvenile and creepy, sorry.

Of course, context is everything: a "love instructor" could be just as (hopefully) hands-off as a sex-ed teacher in high school, or it could be very "interactive," but of course Roddenberry just drops the term in there and leaves us to decide what that means. Not that it takes much to guess what his angle was given his adolescent portrayal of sexuality elsewhere in the book.