Would it be cool if Captain Angel become a recurring character?

[Sci]

I'm with Bob Justman on this: he balked at the idea of Kor returning. It's a big galaxy, not a small universe.

On the other hand, I think "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "Day of the Dove" would have been better episodes if they had guest starred Kor and allowed Kirk to develop an ongoing relationship.

And Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would have been a better film if Chang had been Kor, no question.

 

[Maurice]

On the other hand, I think "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "Day of the Dove" would have been better episodes if they had guest starred Kor and allowed Kirk to develop an ongoing relationship.

And Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would have been a better film if Chang had been Kor, no question.

Hard disagree.

 

[Awesome Possum]

The more Captain Angel the better.

 

[The Lensman]

I found the character hammy and trite, so no interest in seeing the character again. The actor was fine, maybe give them a less cliche' role.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

On the other hand, I think "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "Day of the Dove" would have been better episodes if they had guest starred Kor and allowed Kirk to develop an ongoing relationship.

And Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would have been a better film if Chang had been Kor, no question.

While Tribbles and Dove could have benefitted from using Kor instead of creating a new character, I can not see Kor filling in the Chang role in TUC. While concepts of honor are overused in reference to Klingons and indeed, the TOS Klingons weren't as honor-bound as the Klingons in the 24th century shows, there is nonetheless a sense of honor and decency to Kor in Errand of Mercy, he seems to genuinely respect Kirk despite the two being enemies. As such I find it hard to believe Kor would be involved in a conspiracy which turns Kirk into a sacrificial lamb where the intent was to frame him for murder so he could be sent to a prison colony and be himself murdered there.

 

[Leo Walsh]

Meh, Kor was executing civilians by the hundreds on Organia (he thought he was). Making the original Klingons out to be anything other than Nazi stand-ins doesn't really work, however much Kor flattered Kirk.

 

[King Bob!]

No. Great episode and good character, so why ruin it?

 

[Sci]

While Tribbles and Dove could have benefitted from using Kor instead of creating a new character, I can not see Kor filling in the Chang role in TUC. While concepts of honor are overused in reference to Klingons and indeed, the TOS Klingons weren't as honor-bound as the Klingons in the 24th century shows, there is nonetheless a sense of honor and decency to Kor in Errand of Mercy, he seems to genuinely respect Kirk despite the two being enemies. As such I find it hard to believe Kor would be involved in a conspiracy which turns Kirk into a sacrificial lamb where the intent was to frame him for murder so he could be sent to a prison colony and be himself murdered there.

See, to me, one of the weaknesses of TUC is that Chang acts like he and Kirk have met before but we the audience have never seen it. Chang even acts as though he wants Kirk's respect in some way! Having on onscreen history between Kirk and his antagonist would have added a level of depth and complexity that I would have liked. And I think that apparent contradiction between wanting Kirk's respect and being willing to destroy him would only have made the character more complex and interesting.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

I liked Angel's fake persona better than her real identity. I thought it would be interesting to have a woman onboard who had been in a previous relationship with a Vulcan and who would be pursuing Spock in a way that a Vulcan would appreciate.

 

[Yistaan]

I liked the Angel character without the connection to Sybok. Maybe because I really want Sybok to be a blow for blow representation of the bigoted religous fanatics in our world and thus Trek's criticism of him can translate into a criticism of them. By turning Sybok into an open-minded progressive, any chance for Trek's much needed stance against the religious dogmatism currently ongoing in society via Sybok's character falls apart completely. He'll just be another generic mustache twirling villain like Bowser, not unlike how William Stryker from X-Men was completely stripped of his religious elements for the movies, thus blunting the entire message of the comic 'God Loves Man Kills'.

 

[Sci]

I liked the Angel character without the connection to Sybok. Maybe because I really want Sybok to be a blow for blow representation of the bigoted religous fanatics in our world and thus Trek's criticism of him can translate into a criticism of them. By turning Sybok into an open-minded progressive,

In what possible sense have they turned Sybok into "an open-minded progressive?"

 

[Yistaan]

In what possible sense have they turned Sybok into "an open-minded progressive?"

I assume by having him date non-binary character Angel. But you're right that this still isn't enough to place the character politically/philosophically.

 

[Sci]

I assume by having him date non-binary character Angel. But you're right that this still isn't enough to place the character politically/philosophically.

Yeah, I don't really think that makes Sybok an open-minded progressive per se. It's the 2250s -- that's just not the sort of thing that's even an issue in Federation society anymore.

 

[fireproof78]

By turning Sybok into an open-minded progressive, any chance for Trek's much needed stance against the religious dogmatism currently ongoing in society via Sybok's character falls apart completely

Yeah, no.

Sybok is at a particular stage in life of exploring emotions, and rejecting logic. He might not be as fanatical but that can change. I don't see him as "progressive" and he could still be used for the tilting against religious dogmatism ills without much issue.

 

[Kor]

I liked the Angel character without the connection to Sybok. Maybe because I really want Sybok to be a blow for blow representation of the bigoted religous fanatics in our world and thus Trek's criticism of him can translate into a criticism of them. By turning Sybok into an open-minded progressive, any chance for Trek's much needed stance against the religious dogmatism currently ongoing in society via Sybok's character falls apart completely. He'll just be another generic mustache twirling villain like Bowser, not unlike how William Stryker from X-Men was completely stripped of his religious elements for the movies, thus blunting the entire message of the comic 'God Loves Man Kills'.

As already mentioned in another thread, that wasn't the point of the Sybok character at all. His background from TFF was that he embraced "the animal passions of our [Vulcans'] ancestors." I think openly indulging in "animal passions" would go against a lot of real-world religious fanaticism.

The parallel between Sybok and stereotypical 1980s televangelists was that he was this charismatic charlatan who drew a lot of blindly devoted followers to himself. The particulars of his beliefs had nothing to do with it, except perhaps a vague similarity between this "share your pain" thing and faith healing.

If there is any parallel to be found among Vulcans and real-world religious fanatics, it would be with the "Logic Extremists" from Discovery, who adhere to a very strict and fundamentalist interpretation of orthodox Vulcan belief, not with some long-haired New Age hippie who turned his back on all that conservative and closed-minded traditional Logic stuff.

Kor

 

[Brainsucker]

Angel annoyed the hell out of me. I wouldn't shed a tear if that character never appeared again.

And no, it's not for "that reason". I just don't like snark. Snark makes me ill. Snark makes me want to punch a wall. (Plus, I just hate pirates, on general principles.)

If Angel ever does turn up again, I rather hope the scene involves being shoved out an airlock sans spacesuit.

That said, I wouldn't half mind seeing Sybok again. At least he believed in what he was doing. Angel doesn't appear to believe in anything.

She is a very successful villain type of character if she can make you annoyed to that level. So I eager to see her again on screen. Well, to be honest, I feel annoyed too. But it is the job of a villain to annoy everyone

 

[Awesome Possum]

Yeah, I don't really think that makes Sybok an open-minded progressive per se. It's the 2250s -- that's just not the sort of thing that's even an issue in Federation society anymore.

Yeah, LGBTQ people seem to be normalized to the point where labels aren’t needed anymore. Assuming that we don’t regress as a society it’s probably where we’ll be in a decade or so. I’m a millennial and my generation generally views LGBTQ people as a normal part of society, it’s even more common among zoomers.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Hell, just comparing how most of today's people talk about LGBTQ+ people compared to how my parents talk about them, I can see the progress modern society has made.

To be clear, my parents (who are in their late 60s) don't say things which are necessarily offensive (at least not intentionally offensive) but the things they say definitely show their ignorance in regards to LGBTQ+ people/culture.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I imagine that sexuality and gender is going to become a bit more fluid as time goes on and old social constraints fade away. If we encounter intelligent life with different notions of sexuality and gender, then it will blur more. We’ll be a planet of Rikers.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

We’ll be a planet of Rikers.

Or a planet of Captain Jack Harkness. We'll "dance" with anyone.