Ways that SNW actually improved TOS

[Christopher]

And people can't be monstrous and logical at the same time?

Again: the question is not one of plausibility, but of desirability. "People" can be that, but do we want T'Pring to be one of those people?

To me, it's either T'Pring is monstrous, or Vulcan society is. If we take it as is, Vulan is essentially on the same level as Saudi Arabia regarding women's rights, and that Durant really sit right with me.

As I've been saying, the point is that I don't think the writers and producers of "The Serene Squall" realized how the easy bond-breaking they depicted would redefine the events of "Amok Time." I mean, it didn't even strike me the first time I saw the episode; it only came to me later when I thought it through. I don't think they had any intention of portraying either T'Pring or Vulcan society as monstrous; they just didn't recognize the domino effect of the change they made. I'm not positing a character trait of T'Pring's here, I'm positing a plot hole that, if left uncorrected, would require redefining T'Pring in a way that I don't think was intended. So I'm hoping there's a way to fix the plot hole that doesn't require T'Pring choosing to make a guy kill his best friend purely out of petty spite.

I prefer that T'Pring just did something awful, but with a reason. She is essentially giving Spock her own version of "The Vulcan Hello", and I actually like that better. BUT I can see why you would not.

That analogy doesn't work, because "the Vulcan hello" doesn't mean destroying a Klingon ship, just firing on it to show you mean business, earning their respect enough that they're willing to negotiate. It's the same principle as animals baring their fangs to each other before choosing to coexist, or drunks in a bar getting into a brawl and coming out of it as best buds. It's proving you're strong enough to be seen as an equal rather than a target or an unworthy underling. "Vulcan hello" is a misnomer, because it's just the Vulcans recognizing how Klingons "say hello" and accepting the logic of "greeting" them in the same way.

 

[evilchumlee]

"Vulcan hello" is a misnomer, because it's just the Vulcans recognizing how Klingons "say hello" and accepting the logic of "greeting" them in the same way.

This. Yeah. Although the show did present it in a weird fashion, because Discovery has to show Burnham always being right.

No, the Klingons don't want you to massacre them when you meet them. They just respect strength. If you run into their ships and you puff up and start firing on them... they know you're cool.

It's the inverse of the situation in ENT, where people cry continuity error but... there's none. We knew that first contact with Earth and the Klingons was disastrous, specifically because Earth didn't understand Klingon culture. What is the first thing we do? Deny a warrior an honorable death, take him captive and return him to Qo'nos... hands outstretched in peace, showing we are no threat... like... three of the worst things you can possibly do. No it didn't result in an immediate war, but it absolutely showed the Klingons that humans were weak and a target.

 

[Cr0sis21]

That analogy doesn't work, because "the Vulcan hello" doesn't mean destroying a Klingon ship, just firing on it to show you mean business, earning their respect enough that they're willing to negotiate. It's the same principle as animals baring their fangs to each other before choosing to coexist, or drunks in a bar getting into a brawl and coming out of it as best buds. It's proving you're strong enough to be seen as an equal rather than a target or an unworthy underling. "Vulcan hello" is a misnomer, because it's just the Vulcans recognizing how Klingons "say hello" and accepting the logic of "greeting" them in the same way.

I was thinking of it more as a mindset than a 1:1 ration. In the same way that logically, a Vulcan fits first because that is how you deal with a Klingon, T'Pring sees it as "I need to treat Spock the same way he would treat me, as if what is important to him, his family, and his career is not relevant to my needs or wants".
To that end, Kirk is a logical choice because he's not a Vulcan (and is thus secondary to all Vulcans), he only lives a fraction of a Vulcan's lifespan anyway, and he represents a loss to Spock that T'Pring could never engender in him. So, an equal and appropriate response to how Spock treated her. Logical.
I would, however, be very curious to know if you're correct that it was an oversight in Serene Squall.

 

[Cr0sis21]

This. Yeah. Although the show did present it in a weird fashion, because Discovery has to show Burnham always being right.

No, the Klingons don't want you to massacre them when you meet them. They just respect strength. If you run into their ships and you puff up and start firing on them... they know you're cool.

It's the inverse of the situation in ENT, where people cry continuity error but... there's none. We knew that first contact with Earth and the Klingons was disastrous, specifically because Earth didn't understand Klingon culture. What is the first thing we do? Deny a warrior an honorable death, take him captive and return him to Qo'nos... hands outstretched in peace, showing we are no threat... like... three of the worst things you can possibly do. No it didn't result in an immediate war, but it absolutely showed the Klingons that humans were weak and a target.

Honestly, that's a pretty brilliant and insightful viewing of Broken Bow. Especially since the Vulcans were warning the humans "Do not do this". Then they do it again in Sleeping Dogs, lol.
It also ties in really nicely with T'Kuvma's analysis of the Federation.

 

[Farscape One]

Again: the question is not one of plausibility, but of desirability. "People" can be that, but do we want T'Pring to be one of those people?




As I've been saying, the point is that I don't think the writers and producers of "The Serene Squall" realized how the easy bond-breaking they depicted would redefine the events of "Amok Time." I mean, it didn't even strike me the first time I saw the episode; it only came to me later when I thought it through. I don't think they had any intention of portraying either T'Pring or Vulcan society as monstrous; they just didn't recognize the domino effect of the change they made. I'm not positing a character trait of T'Pring's here, I'm positing a plot hole that, if left uncorrected, would require redefining T'Pring in a way that I don't think was intended. So I'm hoping there's a way to fix the plot hole that doesn't require T'Pring choosing to make a guy kill his best friend purely out of petty spite.




That analogy doesn't work, because "the Vulcan hello" doesn't mean destroying a Klingon ship, just firing on it to show you mean business, earning their respect enough that they're willing to negotiate. It's the same principle as animals baring their fangs to each other before choosing to coexist, or drunks in a bar getting into a brawl and coming out of it as best buds. It's proving you're strong enough to be seen as an equal rather than a target or an unworthy underling. "Vulcan hello" is a misnomer, because it's just the Vulcans recognizing how Klingons "say hello" and accepting the logic of "greeting" them in the same way.

Regarding T'Pring...

Your question of 'do we want T'Pring to be one of those people'... my answer is, 'why not'.

SNW turned a one note, single appearance TOS character and not only gave her several layers, but additional food for thought on her actions in "AMOK TIME". Whether someone agrees with it or not is not the point. The point is that it added something that wasn't there before and brought new possible insights that we wouldn't have considered before.

Weren't you the one who said works of fiction are constantly changing and having things added? Especially with a prequel show. How is this any different?

 

[fireproof78]

I was thinking of it more as a mindset than a 1:1 ration. In the same way that logically, a Vulcan fits first because that is how you deal with a Klingon, T'Pring sees it as "I need to treat Spock the same way he would treat me, as if what is important to him, his family, and his career is not relevant to my needs or wants".
To that end, Kirk is a logical choice because he's not a Vulcan (and is thus secondary to all Vulcans), he only lives a fraction of a Vulcan's lifespan anyway, and he represents a loss to Spock that T'Pring could never engender in him. So, an equal and appropriate response to how Spock treated her. Logical.

Yup. Her behavior in Amok Time, with no other context, was villainous. She had her needs, and prioritized them over another person's life.

SNW turned a one note, single appearance TOS character and not only gave her several layers, but additional food for thought on her actions in "AMOK TIME". Whether someone agrees with it or not is not the point. The point is that it added something that wasn't there before and brought new possible insights that we wouldn't have considered before.

Exactly. Before, I had zero regard for T'Pring. She engendered no sympathy, appeared entirely selfish, unfeeling and cold (even by Vulcan standards of the time), and appeared content to manipulate Spock, Stonn, Kirk and tradition in her favor.

 

[Christopher]

Your question of 'do we want T'Pring to be one of those people'... my answer is, 'why not'.

I've already answered that multiple times. Please reread the thread.

 

[Tuskin38]

I can't help wondering what behave of that dilithium recharger that Princess Po created on Discovery.

Book said he had a recrystalizer but it broke when Burnham crashed into him.

 

[Farscape One]

I've already answered that multiple times. Please reread the thread.

I know you answered your question, but I am giving my answer to that question, as well.

That is the point of these threads, right? You post a question, and in addition to giving an answer yourself, others have an answer, too.

Just because you don't like the added layers to T'Pring doesn't mean others share the same opinion.

 

[Christopher]

Just because you don't like the added layers to T'Pring doesn't mean others share the same opinion.

Again, I don't agree that those layers have been added. What I'm saying is that the retcon in "The Serene Squall" implies a logical consequence that hasn't actually been shown in T'Pring's character and that seems inconsistent with how the show is portraying her, so I really don't think it's what the makers of SNW intended.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think what we saw in Serene Squall would do a full breakup.

 

[Farscape One]

Again, I don't agree that those layers have been added. What I'm saying is that the retcon in "The Serene Squall" implies a logical consequence that hasn't actually been shown in T'Pring's character and that seems inconsistent with how the show is portraying her, so I really don't think it's what the makers of SNW intended.

And you do realize that there are still years left to go, in universe, before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, let alone the events of "AMOK TIME", right?

Plenty of time for more things to occur to make it all work out.

 

[Christopher]

And you do realize that there are still years left to go, in universe, before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, let alone the events of "AMOK TIME", right?

See above where I said:

I'm not positing a character trait of T'Pring's here, I'm positing a plot hole that, if left uncorrected, would require redefining T'Pring in a way that I don't think was intended. So I'm hoping there's a way to fix the plot hole that doesn't require T'Pring choosing to make a guy kill his best friend purely out of petty spite.

So yes, I do bloody realize that, as you would have realized if you'd actually paid attention to what I wrote. Get your own facts straight before you start condescending to others.

 

[Commander Troi]

...realizing this about SNW made me realize something about The Wrath of Khan. I realized that Spock had known in advance for years that Pike would sacrifice himself to save cadets from a radiation leak... and then Spock chose to do the exact same thing in TWOK. I was boggled when that hit me.

Holy moly! I never thought of that.

we've been talking any Kirk, and while I seem to be in the minority, I really like him on SNW. I didn't think I would, but the actor won me over. It helps that I think the episodes he was in were really good. I'm glad it's also given us an actual relationship between him and Sam.

His relationship with Sam has been a real highlight. When I recently re-watched Operation: Annihilate!, I was struck by how much seeing Sam in SNW enhanced it. I actually gave a damn that Sam and his wife died. I felt bad for Jim. Sam was no longer just a plot device.

I'm not positing a character trait of T'Pring's here, I'm positing a plot hole that, if left uncorrected, would require redefining T'Pring in a way that I don't think was intended. So I'm hoping there's a way to fix the plot hole that doesn't require T'Pring choosing to make a guy kill his best friend purely out of petty spite.

Aha! you for clarifying! I don't think I caught that in Serene Squall.

I also recently rewatched Amok Time and yes, SNW enhanced my viewing of it.

 

[Farscape One]

I know you answered your question, but I am giving my answer to that question, as well.

That is the point of these threads, right? You post a question, and in addition to giving an answer yourself, others have an answer, too.

Just because you don't like the added layers to T'Pring doesn't mean others share the same opinion.

I bolded the part of my quote so it would be easier for you to find what I am talking about.

See above where I said:



So yes, I do bloody realize that, as you would have realized if you'd actually paid attention to what I wrote. Get your own facts straight before you start condescending to others.

And if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that we both have an opinion on what is or isn't an issue with T'Pring. How about you try getting your facts straight before condescending others? (Which, by the way, only occured because you were quite condescending earlier.)

I'm done talking to you on this thread.

 

[Pauln6]

Again: the question is not one of plausibility, but of desirability. "People" can be that, but do we want T'Pring to be one of those people?




As I've been saying, the point is that I don't think the writers and producers of "The Serene Squall" realized how the easy bond-breaking they depicted would redefine the events of "Amok Time." I mean, it didn't even strike me the first time I saw the episode; it only came to me later when I thought it through. I don't think they had any intention of portraying either T'Pring or Vulcan society as monstrous; they just didn't recognize the domino effect of the change they made. I'm not positing a character trait of T'Pring's here, I'm positing a plot hole that, if left uncorrected, would require redefining T'Pring in a way that I don't think was intended. So I'm hoping there's a way to fix the plot hole that doesn't require T'Pring choosing to make a guy kill his best friend purely out of petty spite.




That analogy doesn't work, because "the Vulcan hello" doesn't mean destroying a Klingon ship, just firing on it to show you mean business, earning their respect enough that they're willing to negotiate. It's the same principle as animals baring their fangs to each other before choosing to coexist, or drunks in a bar getting into a brawl and coming out of it as best buds. It's proving you're strong enough to be seen as an equal rather than a target or an unworthy underling. "Vulcan hello" is a misnomer, because it's just the Vulcans recognizing how Klingons "say hello" and accepting the logic of "greeting" them in the same way.

T'Pring didn't just make them fight out of spite, it was also very entertaining and she knew Kirk's shirt would get ripped.

I always thought that T'Pring's reasons for making Spock fight were more about reducing his standing and making it more politically acceptable to choose someone else after the bond was broken.

Vulcan mating is logical, much more akin to the political alliances of European dynasties but more related to their work and interests. A hierarchical society is also logical even in a meritocracy where achievements affect your place. She and Stonn were navigating within that.

Spock does mention that he didn't know if he would even be affected by Ponn Farr so it may also be that neither side realised that the bond would remain so strong after breaking up.

 

[Mudd]

What I want is for these people to be interesting. T'Pring is.

We may never have a canon explanation for her "later*" behavior. It may remain the province of tie-in writers and fan writers, with trekkies debating arguing about it for a long, long time.

*Actually, over half a century old now.

 

[Pauln6]

One of my favourite parts was where Spock and T'Pring have what passes for a Vulcan domestic argument about decorating their future home. Absolutely genius writing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My favourite part is the Very Short Trek where Spock says she's cheated on him many times.

 

[Pauln6]

My favourite part is the Very Short Trek where Spock says she's cheated on him many times.

I think SNW has done an excellent job of rebalancing the scales as far as Spock's relationships go. Reframing both Chapel and T'Pring has probably been my favourite part of the show, along with Pike's and Uhura's development. While I wish La'an had been related to (or at least named after) a different augment, I have really enjoyed her story arc so far.