And yet he had a relationship with Leila though he was betrothed to T'Pring.
Spock may have had high ideals but, like most mere mortals, he did not always live up to them. And that's ok
Is Chapel been written worse than TOS? (episode 5 spoilers)
- Thread starter valden
- Start date
- Status
Spock may have had high ideals but, like most mere mortals, he did not always live up to them. And that's ok
Spock was and still is a man of integrity. What he is not, is perfect. In this season, his arc is all about the rollercoaster of his emotions and how they impact his decision-making. We have several examples of how this affects him in TOS as well. I've been getting the same vibe as the scene in his quarters in Amok Time.
They are both adulterers. I don't think it reflects any worse on her than it does on him. I actually think it opens up an interesting new perspective to their interactions in TOS. It's not so one-sided and hopeless as it appears, so what is it that keeps them at arm's length? Is it just Spock's striving for logic?
It's going to work because it's a goddamn story and it's all set in the same candy-colored, made-up pulp-magazine "future" that Star Trek is always set in.
People are misinterpreting me. I'm pointing out how the people using Khan as "proof" that SNW are in a different timeline are saying nothing about the upcoming LD crossover, which is far more important than when exactly Khan lived. I should have been clearer.
At some point in time Spock chooses the Vulcan way entirely. He distances himself, and looks at his human side with less interest and more something to be kept restrained. The Early Voyages comics had an interesting reason when they encountered a Vulcan spinoff society that was still very warrior. Something could happen as part of his service to Pike, or perhaps the way Una mentors him shows him the value of more logic than allowing the experience of emotions, pushing towards strict logical thinking, rather than balance of stoicism.
Has a lot of dramatic potential.
Probably because few are taking it seriously. It's regarded as a diversion of a story rather than anything indicative of the timeline.
I hardly see how it's any less serious than some of the other stories we've had. There's no reason why they shouldn't take it seriously. So, those who say SNW isn't in the Prime Timeline, how do you explain this?
No. And Jess Bush’s performance makes the writing work.
…that occurred on the other side of the world and was probably a massively unknown conflict at the time that was only talked about in conspiracy theory circles as it was covered up as series of nuclear tests. Not to mention all the homeless veterans that would have been placed in the nationwide Sanctuary District program. Who know how many of those veterans would have also been considered mentally ill, and the credibility of their stories surrounding the war being questioned as a result.
There is zero contradiction here. TNG, DS9, VOY, PIC, even ENT, have spelled this out for years.
…that occurred on the other side of the world and was probably a massively unknown conflict at the time that was only talked about in conspiracy theory circles as it was covered up as series of nuclear tests. Not to mention all the homeless veterans that would have been placed in the nationwide Sanctuary District program. Who know how many of those veterans would have also been considered mentally ill, and the credibility of their stories surrounding the war being questioned as a result.
There is zero contradiction here. TNG, DS9, VOY, PIC, even ENT, have spelled this out for years.
It being animated is usually sufficient.
From Memory Alpha: "The official number of casualties from the wars was placed at 30 million, although some historiansbelieved it to be closer to 35 million, with another figure established as being 37 million. Although the wars may have ended, Humanity's fear of genetically-engineered beings remained well into the 24th century."
How do you cover up something that big?
Wibbly space magic
Chapel has been the biggest surprise for me as initially it wasn't a character that I had any interest in seeing explored. On TOS she didn't say much and the only function she had was to hand things to McCoy or pine for Spock.
On SNW she has more importance and, let's be honest, Jess Bush is a much better actress than Majel Barret. So I disagree with the premise of this thread 100 percent. The character of Chapel is being written and performed far better than it ever has been. On SNW, if you were to remove her a vital part of the show would be lost.If you removed her from the TOS, nothing of value would have been missed other than the easy check for Rodenerry's mistress.
On SNW she has more importance and, let's be honest, Jess Bush is a much better actress than Majel Barret. So I disagree with the premise of this thread 100 percent. The character of Chapel is being written and performed far better than it ever has been. On SNW, if you were to remove her a vital part of the show would be lost.If you removed her from the TOS, nothing of value would have been missed other than the easy check for Rodenerry's mistress.
Last edited:
I think it was more the way her role was written than the actress, who acted the hell outta Lwaxana.
Ugh! IMO that was the most annoying and my least favorite character on TNG. She was always over the top and her balling when she's trying to play sad didn't move me in the least.
She was playing a comedic type; the comedy lay in the (hilariously relatable) reactions of the other characters to her. Something like Sheldon in TBBT; he’d drive you crazy in person, but watching other people react to him was funny. She totally chewed the scenery in TNG, providing some needed flair and levity to a show that took itself seriously as a general rule.
Sheldon and Lwaxana Troi is another example of the difference between good acting and bad acting. It's no coincidence that James Parsons has won Emmys and golden globes for his acting. Even Jess Bush recently won a saturn award for her role as Nurse Chapel. And this is a woman with very little acting experience. She completely nails that part. Majel Barret did not receive a single acting reward in her entire 50 plus year career. Looking at her bio, I don't even think she was ever nominated for anything. IMO she was a bad actress who couldn't find much work outside her husband's franchise.
Last edited:
IMDB has credits for her going as far back as 2017. All in Australia, though.
Ahhh...
I just noticed the two TV dramas in Australia. Before that a reality show for models. Still, that is far less experience than Barret had when she became Chapel.
Mmmm.... no?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4563953/
No idea where you got that from.
Edit - Sorry @ichab. Ninja'd!
- Status
Similar threads
