I’m ok using “Kirk drift” to name the trope where a character’s original nature changes to fit pop-culture misconceptions.
Kirk drift—misremembering a character…
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
My theory:
Gene Roddenberry wanted network executives to find "The Cage" arresting, so he imbued it with his own number one interest, which was sex. The idea of a very available slave girl who dances for you was one of the pilot's sex lures, along with Vina's suggestive dialogue in spots, and most of her costume changes.
The intent was not to put women down, but just to utilize female sex appeal to launch a series. Network execs were likely all male, and GR himself was like a real life Mad Men character. He didn't hate real-life women, nobody did, but he was entirely focused on the male POV.
And maybe it backfired, if "The Cage" didn't sell because NBC thought it leaned too much on crass sex lures. I think it's a sensational sci-fi film, with lofty ideas, hot women, superb music, mortal combat, and a big, honkin' laser canon. What more do you want? I would have jumped at, and missed the boat on Shatner Trek. But NBC didn't bite.
Looks like it may have been added to TVTropes at some point:
Though it's visible now only in the Google search result, not on the page itself.
I seem to recall commentary somewhere suggesting NBC had some concern with the realistic illusions aspect of the story that they found akin to drug induced hallucinations. I know I read that somewhere long ago, but even so it might have been pure bs to lend more weight to NBC’s reasons for passing on “The Cage.”
Whatever their concerns they evidently liked what they saw enough to tell Roddenberry and Desilu to try again.
Last edited:
Yeah, I never bought the “too cerebral” reason, “The Cage” may not end with a fist-fight, but there’s plenty of action all of the way through. I also thought I recall reading somewhere along the way that NBC was worried that the Trek producers wouldn’t actually be able to deliver shows on a regular episode’s budget, so “Where No Man…” was also to show they could.
“The Cage” was no more cerebral than “Where No Man Has Gone Before” or any number of later TOS episodes. But WNMHGB was dynamic—it had energy and most everything was firing on all cylinders.
And with all due respect to Jeffery Hunter—who might have grown into the role—he wasn’t magnetic like Shatner. The kind of synergy between Shatner and Nimoy just isn’t anywhere in “The Cage.” Failure of “The Cage” to sell Star Trek as a series was an unrecognized blessing. Given NBC was still interested in the concept it allowed Roddenberry a chance to refine his ideas closer to the end product that won over generations of fans.
“The Cage” is good in many respects, but WNMHGB is more refined in overall execution.
And with all due respect to Jeffery Hunter—who might have grown into the role—he wasn’t magnetic like Shatner. The kind of synergy between Shatner and Nimoy just isn’t anywhere in “The Cage.” Failure of “The Cage” to sell Star Trek as a series was an unrecognized blessing. Given NBC was still interested in the concept it allowed Roddenberry a chance to refine his ideas closer to the end product that won over generations of fans.
“The Cage” is good in many respects, but WNMHGB is more refined in overall execution.
Last edited:
I recall reading, accurate or not, that "too cerebral" related to the lacking felt around the characters, that there was no draw to them emotionally. The only way to engage is cerebrally, or to just think about the characters rather than feel with them.
What's funny is I connect with Pike more in his talk with Boyce than Kirk debating on Mitchell. Funny old world, isn't it?
What's funny is I connect with Pike more in his talk with Boyce than Kirk debating on Mitchell. Funny old world, isn't it?
I think “cerebral” is just a way of saying it didn’t feel like it had enough action. The ending is all dialog. All the elements are there in “The Cage,” but it just misses the mark in overall delivery. The early Pike/Boyce scene is a clear foreshadowing of what we would get later with Kirk/McCoy, but the rest of it isn’t quite there yet. And any humour in “The Cage” mostly feels contrived and not natural like it is in WNMHGB.
“The Cage” feels rather more 1950’s, like if it had been made 5-10 years earlier, much like its inspiration Forbidder Planet.
“The Cage” feels rather more 1950’s, like if it had been made 5-10 years earlier, much like its inspiration Forbidder Planet.
I also seem to recall that the words "too cerebral" appeared nowhere in NBC's formal rejection of the pilot, though of course it's long been held as gospel that that was the primary reason.
The word "cerebral" does appear, however, in a February 1965 letter from Roddenberry to his agent concerning a proposed second pilot. It may be that that is the true origin of the worship word, and that "cerebral drift" took over from there.
Well, wish we could ask someone. 
'Cause now we just have eisegesis and reading in to what "cerebral" might mean.
'Cause now we just have eisegesis and reading in to what "cerebral" might mean.
The idea, though - that it requires you to (as Mitchell was advised re Jim's classes) "think or sink" (analyze the episode or you can't enjoy/understand it, in this case) - as opposed to episodes that people can more readily appreciate at a surface level (explosions, banter, spectacular settings, etc), without (although one could if one wished) picking it apart for nuance, cultural references, lessons in philosophy and morality, real-world parallels, etc.
Appreciate the definition but I'm talking in terms of the producers at the time, not what we would read in to it in our time.
Well, I gather they'd prefer high adventure - that's what gets the ratings, you know - with an undercurrent of morality/message, rather than Philosophy 101 with costumes, props, and colorful skies.
I don't really buy the idea that enjoyment of any Star Trek episode required anything in the way of thought or analysis. I got by fine for several decades just watching them.
It wasn't until I encountered the online Star Trek community 20-some years ago that I began to run into people analyzing anything about the show, and a great deal of what I've encountered since has been grossly overanalyzed and overthought with the aim of advancing a particular viewpoint which likely bears little or no resemblance to anything the people who made the show had in mind.
Yeah, you don't have to. But it's nice that you can if you want to.
Analysis of Star Trek was there from the beginning particularly when you read David Gerrold’s The World of Star Trek in the early 1970s. And if it wasn’t already apparent that more than action and eye candy was intended you got the message from The Making of Star Trek.
One of the beauties of TOS was that it could appeal on multiple levels. Youth could get turned on by the action, adventure, cool spaceships and weird aliens. But that was just the surface layer to pull you in. As you aged and/or you already had a perceptive mind you start picking up on just how adult level so much of it really was. And stories you barely watched because there were no ‘splosions you start to appreciate and see in an entirely new light. There was substance behind the eye candy.
Is it any wonder so much of TOS still works after all these decades and can stand with what is being done today.
One of the beauties of TOS was that it could appeal on multiple levels. Youth could get turned on by the action, adventure, cool spaceships and weird aliens. But that was just the surface layer to pull you in. As you aged and/or you already had a perceptive mind you start picking up on just how adult level so much of it really was. And stories you barely watched because there were no ‘splosions you start to appreciate and see in an entirely new light. There was substance behind the eye candy.
Is it any wonder so much of TOS still works after all these decades and can stand with what is being done today.
Last edited:
I mean, I analyze it all the time.
I just got tired of it with TMP and TNG and TWOK.
I just got tired of it with TMP and TNG and TWOK.
This plot element in TWOK seems to be treating the almost-20-year-old TOS like it just was not "edgy" or "dangerous" enough by the standards of 1982, as though no problem in TOS was as dire to Kirk as the loss of Spock in the present moment. After watching interview with Harve Bennett on the DVD's it is hard to believe he could have felt that way enough to put that feeling into a Star Trek movie, but I could see Nicholas Meyer trying to "up the stakes" and that was a side effect. Both really seemed to be trying to treat Star Trek right, as it were, but the plot element that Kirk is facing his worst disaster ever does not play well with me.
This is the kind of thing that fascinates me but is also really humbling when it comes to fiction. If this is how you see Miranda Jones, you are virtually seeing the opposite episode that I saw. I saw Miranda as being in pain and vulnerable due to her secret "disability" (with that being balanced by her special ability), and thus resenting Spock. Kirk said a lot of very harsh things, but ultimately Miranda realized that she wanted to be with the Ambassador and chose to complete that task (whether she had any romantic attraction to any of the men in the story, including the Ambassador, is left up for debate). That's how I see it.
Morality is one thing, but in terms of stories, visual style, musical style, and characters that draw me in and make me want to watch, I would not say that the shows made since 2009 have been "improving" over those made from 1964-2002.
The matter of whether to consider the artist's viewpoint is debatable in appreciating art in general.
I am not going to repeat/repost certain words and phrases used in posts above above about TOS, and "The Cage" specifically, but I could not use those words about something I liked. Certain of those words are negative enough that it seems contradictory to say, "It has xxxxx in it, but I like it anyway."
Some tales of Gene Roddenberry are such that, if we took them as true, then watched the show with an eye to what we imagined he was thinking, the show would be hard to watch. I think to some degree we should assume that higher ideals did play a role in the storytelling, even if limited to the imagination of the writers and not necessarily their real lives. If the writers knew how to actually get from the society of the 1960's to the society they imagined in TOS' future decade, they would be out trying to make that change, not imagining what it would be like after that change took place.
TOS created a world in which there is so much to imagine beyond what is seen. Authorial intent plays a role, but we also want to see our own political/ideological position reflected in TOS' future decade: this is likely a cause of character drift.
TOS was still based on conceptions of a hero character that shows today usually do not choose to depict. I do not think it is helpful to look at the way that Pike or Kirk react to women, or the way women act to them, and treat the actions and words in the plot as if it were real life, in today or the 1960's. Kirk balances an almost-unrealistic love of his job with an almost-unbelievable attraction from women; so for that kind of storytelling the "hero" is treated as being able to do this, which is not something we would expect to see in real life anymore than we would expect to see a Constitution-class starship, right now, today.
Picard might be a bit more believable as a captain in that regard, which is also possibly why many see him as more "uncool" than Kirk, regardless of how fans may understand that Picard is meant to be more "private and thoughtful"--now we have Picard-drift
I'm not talking about the artist's viewpoint there, though, am I? Nor really about appreciation of art, for that matter.
This is the kind of thing that fascinates me but is also really humbling when it comes to fiction. If this is how you see Miranda Jones, you are virtually seeing the opposite episode that I saw. I saw Miranda as being in pain and vulnerable due to her secret "disability" (with that being balanced by her special ability), and thus resenting Spock. Kirk said a lot of very harsh things, but ultimately Miranda realized that she wanted to be with the Ambassador and chose to complete that task (whether she had any romantic attraction to any of the men in the story, including the Ambassador, is left up for debate). That's how I see it.
Picard might be a bit more believable as a captain in that regard, which is also possibly why many see him as more "uncool" than Kirk, regardless of how fans may understand that Picard is meant to be more "private and thoughtful"--now we have Picard-drift
Miranda was no more vulnerable because of her disability than Spock was by his suppressed emotions. It just added colour to her character. She shot McCoy down when he told her she couldn't do something because she was blind. Sure she had vulnerabilities, but she was far more confident and competent than most female characters in Trek. She did suffer a crisis of confidence because Spock usurped her role.
She had absolutely no romantic interest in any of the men. She told Larry as much. She'd been studying on Vulcan to control her emotions too. She tolerated the men's attention because it was less hassle than constantly keeping them at bay. I think most women today will recognise her plight. She just wanted to do her job and not be treated like someone inferior. She's great.
I think NuTrek's Kirk felt like a weird caricature of Kirk designed to appeal to a 'jock' audience. An alpha male who, with no training, raw talent (according to dialogue at least but that largely equated to being less incompetent than the others), implementation of poorly constructed plans that succeed due to luck, and the ability to face opponents who fail to think of countermeasures to his child-like plans. Shatner's Kirk was (usually) so much more nuanced.
- Status