Revisiting Star Trek Continues...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
You remember that there were, like, three direct sequels to "Errand of Mercy," right? It was always "the treaty" this and "the treaty" that whenever the Klingons showed up. And "By Any Other Name" was swarming with call-backs to earlier episodes.
On the positive side, yes I did enjoy the concept of the immigrant aliens hiding in plain sight thanks to being hidden by a black-and-white world, as mentioned by Warped, a concept very similar to Lokai and Bele whose only difference were where their skin colours were placed.
Sekara was a fun hyper-active character, though sometimes inching too close to cringey-nerdy. The ladies' costuming was really nice, however the alien men's seemed too much in the vein of 1001 Arabian Nights.
I found it strange when Sulu was planetside, and they traded Kipleigh Brown to the helm when the wigged Lisa Hansell became navigator (Brown couldn't stay on navigation to say her lines?)
all in all, yes, this was a pertinent topic having to do with tolerance and opening your hearts to your neighbours...a message too often ignored by most (a personal anecdote: for 5 years I was the immigrant joining a completely different culture. I'm so glad I wasn't treated as some are being treated when they seek a new life)
Sekara was a fun hyper-active character, though sometimes inching too close to cringey-nerdy. The ladies' costuming was really nice, however the alien men's seemed too much in the vein of 1001 Arabian Nights.
I found it strange when Sulu was planetside, and they traded Kipleigh Brown to the helm when the wigged Lisa Hansell became navigator (Brown couldn't stay on navigation to say her lines?)
all in all, yes, this was a pertinent topic having to do with tolerance and opening your hearts to your neighbours...a message too often ignored by most (a personal anecdote: for 5 years I was the immigrant joining a completely different culture. I'm so glad I wasn't treated as some are being treated when they seek a new life)
Wasn't there about 12 years (our time) between OG Trek season 3 and TMP? Unless it has been specified somewhere NOT in a Trek novel or some other nonsense that year 5 of Enterprise's mission is only a handful of years before the new suits, it seems bizarre that Starfleet would have already transitioned to the earth-colours...
4.5 years is the most commonly cited period, I think, although it may be slightly longer.
What's the difference? Should we dig up Gene Roddenberry and put him on trial like a disfavored Pope so we can confirm that no one ever expected we'd see the Klingons more than
It's in the movie. Twice. "Two and a half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations," "You haven't logged a single star-hour in two and a half years." Sure, you can pretend there was some unseen post-TOS period where Kirk was still captaining about on a different ship with a different crew doing things that wouldn't add to his total of "five years out there, dealing with unknowns like this," but while we're being so magnanimous, why not just pretend the runner of ship malfunctions was just random production flavor (like the Romulan-Klingon alliance) which happened to be exploited by a later writer (like the Klingon-Federation peace treaty)?
True. A callback is definitely not the same as a running subplot.
I was also thinking that Kirk’s resolution rather mimics or parallels Picard’s in “Symbiosis.”
Last edited:
What do you mean by our time?
It was about 12 years after Star Trek ended production and until TMP was released (don't quote me on the dates)
A callback is something from a past episode that is referred to once or more. For instance your example of the Klingons and their involvement with the Organians...
A running subplot is a subplot that appears in a succession of episodes, independent of each episode's main story, that build upon each other and eventually become part of a main story and they get concluded (for example, the destruction of multiple Starships that becomes part of To Boldly Go)
Last edited:
That's what I assumed you meant.
≈9.3 years passed between the end of production on TOS and the start of production on TMP
≈10.7 years passed between the end of production on TOS and the premiere of TMP
≈10.5 years passed between the airing of "Turnabout Intruder" and the premiere of TMP
Upthread I mentioned one of the small(ish) things that underlines these productions feeling very contemporary is the dialogue and speech patterns and mannerisms common today that are subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, different from fifty years ago. This is also true in terms of how people move and carry themselves. Compared to today even everyday speech of decades past feels more formal, a bit more reserved and measured. And this is true of body language as well. We mighn’t pay much attention to it, but it’s there and we pick up on it even if unconsciously.
People write what they know so this is something very difficult to guard against.
But allow me to cite two examples where the writers and actors of given shows made a conscious effort to feel more authentic to the time periods their respective shows were set. Mad Men and The Gilded Age.
Mad Men is set in the 1960s. Not only did they take pains to recreate the look and sound of the 1960s, but the actors talk like people of the 1960s. They don’t sound at all like people of the 21st century running around in 1960s fashions. They not only walked the walk, but they also talked the talk. A somewhat subtle thing that really helps the viewer feel like they’re looking back into the past.
The Gilded Age does the same thing. The characters not only look like they’re in the late 19th century they also walk, move and talk like they’re from the 1880s. It really sells the suspension of disbelief.
TOS was a product of the 1960s and as such the characters were written and performed as people of that era. If you want your production to really feel like 1969 then creating nice sets, fashioning convincing visuals and using period music is all well and good, but you’re not quite there until your characters actually speak and behave as if they’re denizens of that era.
And this is where STC and pretty much every fan production trying to recreate TOS falls down—the characters don’t sound and act like people who exist in the TOS universe we’re familiar with.
Now in fairness most fan productions are essentially adult cosplay for fun. It's playing dress-up on a somewhat more elaborate than usual scale. To that end you just roll with it for fun. But when something puts itself forward as being a cut or two above the usual cosplay then don't be surprised if expectations are set somewhat higher.
People write what they know so this is something very difficult to guard against.
But allow me to cite two examples where the writers and actors of given shows made a conscious effort to feel more authentic to the time periods their respective shows were set. Mad Men and The Gilded Age.
Mad Men is set in the 1960s. Not only did they take pains to recreate the look and sound of the 1960s, but the actors talk like people of the 1960s. They don’t sound at all like people of the 21st century running around in 1960s fashions. They not only walked the walk, but they also talked the talk. A somewhat subtle thing that really helps the viewer feel like they’re looking back into the past.
The Gilded Age does the same thing. The characters not only look like they’re in the late 19th century they also walk, move and talk like they’re from the 1880s. It really sells the suspension of disbelief.
TOS was a product of the 1960s and as such the characters were written and performed as people of that era. If you want your production to really feel like 1969 then creating nice sets, fashioning convincing visuals and using period music is all well and good, but you’re not quite there until your characters actually speak and behave as if they’re denizens of that era.
And this is where STC and pretty much every fan production trying to recreate TOS falls down—the characters don’t sound and act like people who exist in the TOS universe we’re familiar with.
Now in fairness most fan productions are essentially adult cosplay for fun. It's playing dress-up on a somewhat more elaborate than usual scale. To that end you just roll with it for fun. But when something puts itself forward as being a cut or two above the usual cosplay then don't be surprised if expectations are set somewhat higher.
Last edited:
Mad Men is better than most, but still had linguistic "tells" that give away the people aren't from the era, like frequently using "should" when people back then would probably use "ought" and the use of words like "leverage" in a business context that didn't exist under the Reagan administration.
This was one of my gripes when watching STC. I felt McCoy got shortchanged thanks to McKennah, not that I didn't like the character. It's just something that never would have happened during TOS.
Exactly so.
The next two episodes are the last two episodes as a two-parter story. So I’ll be revisiting them together.
I haven’t seen these since they were released and I saw them only that one time. It will be interesting to see what I think now because candidly I wasn’t enamoured with it then. And that was too bad because they were written by Canadian science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer, who I actually know and have met and I have enjoyed his books. Sawyer is a huge TOS fan and his knowledge of Trek is extensive. But here I think he let his fannishness get the better of him.
We’ll see…
I haven’t seen these since they were released and I saw them only that one time. It will be interesting to see what I think now because candidly I wasn’t enamoured with it then. And that was too bad because they were written by Canadian science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer, who I actually know and have met and I have enjoyed his books. Sawyer is a huge TOS fan and his knowledge of Trek is extensive. But here I think he let his fannishness get the better of him.
We’ll see…
There definitely was an imbalance within the Trek cast that favoured screentime for Mignona, Specht, Brown and Haberkorn.
Yep, one of the things that bugged me as they progressed. This wasn't what many of us were hoping to get.
As I said upthread although Chuck Huber looked sorta/remotely more like Deforest Kelley I actually preferred Larry Nemecek's performance. He seemed more at ease and less forced. And he didn't come across as grouchy--a cliche too many seem to buy into about McCoy.
If I'm gonna rant I might as well go all in.
For the most part Vic Mignogna was fine was Kirk. Occasionally I think he leaned a bit too much into channeling Shatner, but I mostly think it was the writing that put words in Kirk's mouth that would have been highly unlikely to come out of Shatner's Kirk back in the day. And I think this is true of all the characters, tying into what I mentioned upthread about the dialogue often enough not really sounding like how these characters would have spoken in the 1960s.
Haberkorn was also mostly fine as Spock. What got to me most was the pitch of Haberkorn's voice which was higher than Nimoy's, but not a big deal.
Chris Doohan was fine as Scotty. Indeed he even seemed to dial back some of the excitability that James Doohan exhibited in TOS's third season, which I appreciated.
Grant Imahara seemed rarely at ease as if he was carried away by the excitement of being in the production. Yeah, these people are never going to replace the original cast, but some just don't click as well as others.
Wyatt Lenhart as Chekov was mostly okay, but he could come across as a bit awkward as if he was playing Chekov as trying too hard to make an impression. Walter Koenig didn't play it that way after his earliest appearances and even then it was more subtle.
On the face of it Kim Stinger was fine enough as Uhura but, through no fault of her own, she didn't have Nichelle Nicole's aura. Nichelle's Uhura spoke as if she was originally from outside the U.S.--she had a hint of accent or something to her voice that was distinct. Stinger sounds like an American and that was emphasized by her dialogue that was often very contemporary--"Ya think?"
I have zero complaints with Michelle Specht's performance. She had the advantage of portraying a totally new character she could make her own. The issue with Mckennah is what the hell was she doing there in the first place?
I have no complaints with Kipleigh Brown as Smith given she was reprising a one-off character with next to no screen presence. The original Yeoman Smith could have been anybody. The only issue is she basically crowded out Sulu and Chekov, but in deference to her she came across as a more talented performer.
I liked Martin Bradford as M'Benga. I can't think of any criticisms with him.
