Way over used, agreed. That and time travel.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Way over used, agreed. That and time travel.
I mean, I suppose most dust'll have trace amounts of carbon...
I guess I'm sort of the opposite, as I've always preferred Kirstie's performance over Robin's. This isn't meant as any disrespect towards her, of course, but she always seemed way too flat - almost too Vulcan.
Part of that was the direction as well. I've always tended to ignore the concept of her being half-Romulan, because I don't feel it really added anything.
And since it was left on the cutting room floor by Nick Meyer it's one of those things you can choose to accept as canon or not.
Re. Ms. Alley being not so stoic, it would be logical to assume there is natural variation among Vulcans as to how stoic they can become/maintain, just as some humans are by nature more naturally emotional. IIRC, from twin studies, psychologists think emotionality is one of the more hard-wired traits in us.
Valeris seemed to have more of an expressive face than Saavik, but a lot of that could probably be Kim Cattrall's natural facial expressions and her wryness coming to the surface even while playing a Vulcan.
I guess I'm sort of the opposite, as I've always preferred Kirstie's performance over Robin's. This isn't meant as any disrespect towards her, of course, but she always seemed way too flat - almost too Vulcan.
It does make me wonder if Spock really stayed dead and Meyer returned to do 3; would Saavik had essentially stepped in to fill Spock’s role? Hard to believe only because nowadays movies and their sequels are mapped out. Back then, they would simply pick up some of the leftover threads and continue with a new story.
So, Valeris could be half-Romulan/half-Vulcan? Explains her supporting the conspiracy involving the Romulans and throwing in with the Starfleet traitors.
(Yes I know: not supported in canon but it's fun to speculate which is what we do here. )
Or Spock could regenerate in to a new version.
Or maybe Spock would have been replaced by an Andorian...
I don't much care for the subtitle The Original Series being amended to 60s Trek. I just refer to it as Star Trek.
At first, I thought it was about Star Trek but then I realized that in fact, it was Star Trek. I can't count the number of times I got these two confused.
Star Trek from 1966-1969 is Star Trek. Everything else is a spin-off, homage, or reboot. Not that this makes them any less…but that’s just the facts.
Whatever.
Do you want the Trek, trek trek, Spock, eggs, and trek? It has less Spock than the Trek, trek, trek, Spock eggs, Spock and trek."
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
