Did Spock die because....

[JonnyQuest037]

I get the impression that Meyer was critical of Star Trek, feeling that was part of what he was hired to do, and wanted to do without certain elements of the original series: specifically Kirk winning even when defying orders, and Kirk having a lot of relationships.

I forget where I read this, but Meyer has talked in an interview (or interviews) about how revealing that Kirk had cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test was the kind of nuanced characterization you could only do in the movies, whereas on TV, the hero was pretty much always in the right, with no shades of gray.

It's an oversimplification, perhaps (TOS definitely gave Kirk come interesting conflicts & contradictions), but I totally see where Meyer was coming from.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I forget where I read this, but Meyer has talked in an interview (or interviews) about how revealing that Kirk had cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test was the kind of nuanced characterization you could only do in the movies, whereas on TV, the hero was pretty much always in the right, with no shades of gray.

It's an oversimplification, perhaps (TOS definitely gave Kirk come interesting conflicts & contradictions), but I totally see where Meyer was coming from.

I could see the story you mention being true, but I don't think I've heard it before. These days it seems like TV would be the easier place to do something subtle. I'm not saying that Meyer was right or wrong, but I do think that ST:2 had some elements that were intentionally critical of TOS. And TOS is fantastic anyway

 

[JonnyQuest037]

These days it seems like TV would be the easier place to do something subtle.

Today, sure, but "subtle" wasn't exactly 1960s Trek's bag.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tallguy]

Today, sure, but "subtle" wasn't exactly 1960s Trek's bag.

While not an untrue statement going right to Season 3 is hardly fair.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

While not an untrue statement going right to Season 3 is hardly fair.

It was the first example that came to mind at 11 at night.

 

[fireproof78]

I could see the story you mention being true, but I don't think I've heard it before. These days it seems like TV would be the easier place to do something subtle. I'm not saying that Meyer was right or wrong, but I do think that ST:2 had some elements that were intentionally critical of TOS. And TOS is fantastic anyway

I think TMP had more elements that are critical of TOS than TWOK, but certainly I see it in TWOK too. But, I think that's owing more to the age of the characters than Meyer being critical of TOS. Kirk was a nuanced character, reflective at times, but capable of errors. But, in the 60s, as a leading man, he was more often than not always right. He can resist the spores and save his crew, he can identify Kodos, he's the only one to confront Gary, etc.

I think in TWOK he has hit the developmental stage of reflection or stagnation. So, yeah, he is going to be critical of his past self. I feel it's very human. And suits the story in some ways.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

It was the first example that came to mind at 11 at night.

"These days" was an important part of my comment. I was not suggesting that TOS was more subtle than ST:2, I was suggesting that today's shows have a greater chance to be subtle than today's movies.

I think TMP had more elements that are critical of TOS than TWOK, but certainly I see it in TWOK too. But, I think that's owing more to the age of the characters than Meyer being critical of TOS. Kirk was a nuanced character, reflective at times, but capable of errors. But, in the 60s, as a leading man, he was more often than not always right. He can resist the spores and save his crew, he can identify Kodos, he's the only one to confront Gary, etc.

I think in TWOK he has hit the developmental stage of reflection or stagnation. So, yeah, he is going to be critical of his past self. I feel it's very human. And suits the story in some ways.

If anything in TMP is critical of TOS, to me it seemed to just the be the visual effects. I don't see much in the story or characters that is critical of TOS, but then I am thinking of the Special Longer Version or the Director's Edition. In the commentary of the Director's Edition, Robert Wise very much emphasizes he is telling a story about getting the characters "back to where they are supposed to be."

 

[Christopher]

If anything in TMP is critical of TOS, to me it seemed to just the be the visual effects. I don't see much in the story or characters that is critical of TOS, but then I am thinking of the Special Longer Version or the Director's Edition. In the commentary of the Director's Edition, Robert Wise very much emphasizes he is telling a story about getting the characters "back to where they are supposed to be."

I wouldn't call it a critique so much as Roddenberry's attempt to get it right the second time, to do Trek in a way he didn't have the time, budget, or technology to do the first time. If anything, that's the opposite of a critique, trying to be truer to the core concepts and ambitions of the show than the original was able to be.

A "getting the band back together" plot isn't a metatextual critique in itself, just a fairly standard device for reviving a series after a long while. You want to reintroduce the premise to a new audience, and you don't want them to feel they've missed a lot of adventures while the series was away, so it's a pretty routine approach to say that the characters went their separate ways sometime after the original ended (if the original didn't have a definite ending) and are now being brought back together. Also, a movie is supposed to be a bigger, more transformative story for the characters than just a routine adventure, so if you want the movie to be the first in a series, it stands to reason to start the characters out in a less ideal place and have the story be about how they find their way back to the status quo you want for the movie series.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

If anything, that's the opposite of a critique

Especially true if TMP had been the start of a TV series, or if (and I am not suggesting this had ever been planned) any movies had been made that took place between it and "The Wrath of Khan" chronologically

 

[fireproof78]

If anything in TMP is critical of TOS, to me it seemed to just the be the visual effects

I mean, I think the more subdued approach of Kirk. He's arrogant and competitive and yet less action oriented. It's an odd mix from TOS.

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

What other reason do you think why Spock didn't take off his jacket in the Engine Room?

...
..........
........why would he need to take off his jacket...?

 

[SidneyIsTheKiller]

My take on various legs of this octopus of a conversation:

• No they were not making a "redshirt" joke
• Someone on the production had the good sense to give Bones' line "He's dead already" to Scotty so as not to remind anybody of Bones' catchphrase "He's dead, Jim!" which shows both that they were definitely aware of these kinds of things back then, and also that they were specifically not trying to make invoke any meta gags at this moment.
• As far as I'm concerned TWOK is a metatextual film because that's what a great many viewers take from it and is indeed what makes it meaningful and endearing to them.
• I don't particularly care what Nicholas Meyer thought or intended with the film beyond trivia
• Though I'll admit Nicholas Meyer's thoughts and intentions sometimes make for interesting trivia!

I forget where I read this, but Meyer has talked in an interview (or interviews) about how revealing that Kirk had cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test was the kind of nuanced characterization you could only do in the movies, whereas on TV, the hero was pretty much always in the right, with no shades of gray.

It's an oversimplification, perhaps (TOS definitely gave Kirk come interesting conflicts & contradictions), but I totally see where Meyer was coming from.

You can read the entire storyline to TWOK as a main character experiencing an existential crisis because he is no longer in a TV show. His fondness for the days of his captaincy is actually a desire to return to an existence governed by the tropes of episodic television because he can't handle real life (if you wanna have some fun with it you can swap "real life" for "motion pictures" and get some cheeky "movies are better than TV" subtext going, or hell with all the literature quoting you can even get "books are better than TV").

 

[Christopher]

You can read the entire storyline to TWOK as a main character experiencing an existential crisis because he is no longer in a TV show. His fondness for the days of his captaincy is actually a desire to return to an existence governed by the tropes of episodic television because he can't handle real life (if you wanna have some fun with it you can swap "real life" for "motion pictures" and get some cheeky "movies are better than TV" subtext going, or hell with all the literature quoting you can even get "books are better than TV").

Eh, maybe, if you're so inclined. But too many people forget that there's a massive difference between what an audience member can read into a story and what the creators intended it to be.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

And eventually retcons become confused with oricon (original continuity)/incon (intended continuity). What the heck is the opposite of retcon?

 

[Nerys Myk]

And eventually retcons become confused with oricon (original continuity)/incon (intended continuity). What the heck is the opposite of retcon?

Con.

 

[Christopher]

And eventually retcons become confused with oricon (original continuity)/incon (intended continuity). What the heck is the opposite of retcon?

Well, strictly speaking, despite how the meaning has become blurred, a retcon is not a change to the original continuity but an addition to it. The whole reason it's called retroactive continuity instead of discontinuity is that it's supposed to be consistent with what's been previously established, worked in as if it had been that way all along.

Although I guess retcons do often change the intended meaning of established events even if the facts of them are unchanged, so maybe that's what you're talking about, people interpreting a scene, story, or character the way it was later reinterpreted rather than how it was originally intended.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

All the mental gymnastics employed to fit a square fact into a round plot, yes.

Con.

What was meant by what was portrayed/said, as opposed to the words and images alone.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Someone on the production had the good sense to give Bones' line "He's dead already" to Scotty so as not to remind anybody of Bones' catchphrase "He's dead, Jim!" which shows both that they were definitely aware of these kinds of things back then, and also that they were specifically not trying to make invoke any meta gags at this moment.

Supposedly that was DeForest Kelley himself. He was sensible enough to realize that "He's dead, Jim" had become a humorous meme and a catchphrase by that point, and that if he said it, it might provoke laughter at the last place they would've wanted it. Having Scotty say "He's dead already" instead worked much better, and that moment hits you like a ton of bricks.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Although I guess retcons do often change the intended meaning of established events even if the facts of them are unchanged, so maybe that's what you're talking about, people interpreting a scene, story, or character the way it was later reinterpreted rather than how it was originally intended.

One example that comes to mind is Kirk having a son, and knowing that he had a son, all through TOS, even though he jokes about having a son who is a doctor during TOS, because the writers of TOS were not assuming Kirk had a son. It doesn't contradict TOS, but it makes that joke moment a bit different.

This reminds me of the time some folks on here were debating if one is supposed to assume that we are aware of the existence of George Kirk Jr. while Kirk is apparently reminding Spock that he considers him his brother during Star Trek 5.

 

[Tallguy]

This reminds me of the time some folks on here were debating if one is supposed to assume that we are aware of the existence of George Kirk Jr. while Kirk is apparently reminding Spock that he considers him his brother during Star Trek 5.

Shatner almost certainly wasn't aware.