"Enemy Starfleet!" Release Date: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
- Thread starter GSchnitzer
- Start date
Cawley comes off well... but I continue to find the whole Peter Kirk subplot beyond uninteresting.
Last edited:
BAF ended with an emotional climax between the two Kirks. To ignore this and not resolve it in the next episode would have resulted in fan outcry and well-earned scorn for bad writing. Peter had to become "just another one of the crew" or they couldn't continue to work together...at least not on the ship we know and love.
James knows Trek, and he knows what he's doing. Trust me - trust him.
James knows Trek, and he knows what he's doing. Trust me - trust him.
What about '...I continue to find the entire Peter Kirk subplot beyond uninteresting' did you not understand? That includes his appearance in Blood and Fire, the biggest problem is the actor is totally unsuitable for a role as a military officer, add in that the relationship drama comes off as totally flat in the Star Trek setting. YMMV.
I agree. I just can't get interested in a character just because he's related to Kirk and was in one episode.
Hey, there are characters in TOS I can't get interested in after 79 episodes, 7 movies and 45 years. It happens
I guess why there are so many different characters!
This three minute scene is a continuation of the subplot from Blood and Fire... am I correct on this? I am basing my judgment on the character up to this point based on the material presented.
The only thing that has set this character apart from a background character at this point is the name. We're suppose to care because of who he supposedly is, not because of anything that defines the character as unique.
Peter Kirk just represents another symptom of 'small universe syndrome' that plagues Star Trek in its various forms. In some cases the writers can make 'small universe syndrome' interesting... Peter Kirk is definitely not one of those cases.
I think the casting is very good. The two of them look enough alike that I certainly can believe they are related... which is more than I can say about a lot of Pro TV and movie casting. The "families" on TV and in most movies look so little alike that there is no real reason to make them consistent concerning 'race'... (race itself is a social, not a scientific construct) even though you don't usually see an Asian actor cast as the child of a white actor and a black actor.
I will accept all of your statements with "up to this point" concluding them. "Peter Kirk is not one of those cases - up to this point" "Not because of anything that defines him as unique - up to this point". The challenge to the writers (as with ALL characters) was to MAKE him unique and define him.... after you see the next episode in it's entirety, (and then the next and then the next) if you come back with the same problem than it's we writers (me, Galanter, and Povill) that failed and we didn't make him unique: but I think we did. You just haven't seen it yet.
(Although I would argue that the confrontation between the Kirks in BAF and the confrontation in the conclusion of BAF definitely gives us a glimpse of who this guy is.)
It takes a very long time to make a character unique when there is a shipload of them and you do it the way TOS did it (how long was it before we knew ANYTHING about Uhura or Sulu?) If you still don't find him interesting when you get to know him, well, that's fine...because it's our differences that make this world great.
(Although I would argue that the confrontation between the Kirks in BAF and the confrontation in the conclusion of BAF definitely gives us a glimpse of who this guy is.)
It takes a very long time to make a character unique when there is a shipload of them and you do it the way TOS did it (how long was it before we knew ANYTHING about Uhura or Sulu?) If you still don't find him interesting when you get to know him, well, that's fine...because it's our differences that make this world great.
I think we have to be careful about any new characters we introduce. The fact is that they can't emerge fully developed like Athena from the brow of Jove--they have to be developed over time. (People forget that we learned about Uhura and Sulu over the course of 79-ish episodes of TOS and half a dozen movies. I can easily imagine people saying "well, I don't really care anything about that negro woman in 'The Corobomite Maneuver;' all she does is say 'hailing frequencies open.'")
For example, it's interesting that even after she loses her (almost) husband in "Balance of Terror," we don't really end up caring all that much about Angela Martine-Teller in the two other episodes in which she appears.
I'm also thinking that aside from his name ("Garrovick") there was little to make us care about Ensign David Garrovick in "Obsession." There was nothing about him in the first episode in which he appeared that defined the character as unique. And it's quite a small universe that the son of the very Captain who died years earlier reports on board the Enterprise to face the same creature with Kirk. I think it's important to have some of these "small universe" elements in our production; otherwise, we're not being faithful to the conventions of TOS.
I understand that after one episode, the minor character of Peter Kirk doesn't really speak to you in any meaningful way. That might or might not change for you after you see the other episodes we've shot (although Peter doesn't appear in them a lot: it's Star Trek Phase II, not The Peter Kirk Show).
My sense is that Peter is a bit of a "diamond in the rough." If he doesn't strike you as being military enough, we might find that that is part of his growth arc. (On the other hand, since Starfleet is supposed to be "semimilitary" instead of "military," we need to show this distinction somehow; Bobby Rice *might* be inappropriate for a military, but I'm not sure he's inappropriate for a semi-military--whatever that means.) Aside from the conscious production decision to give Peter a hair style that is something akin to 19th century U.S Navy or Royal Navy styles, what is inappropriate about this actor in this role?
Last edited:
The hair, the hair....it's always about the hair.
Peter was new to the ship.... he finally managed to find the barber shop sometime between "Enemy: Starfleet" and "The Child".
Note to Starfleet: include ship's blueprints with orientation package for newly commissioned officers.
Peter was new to the ship.... he finally managed to find the barber shop sometime between "Enemy: Starfleet" and "The Child".
Note to Starfleet: include ship's blueprints with orientation package for newly commissioned officers.
Was that really the reason for the hair?
His image has little to do with why I don't like him. I just don't like the character personally. He doesn't seem like a person that would even make it to a ship like the Enterprise. But again that's just my opinion. You guys at STP2 do a great job overall. Nothing can be 100% liked in every way.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
He's just told you, didn't he?
Yes.
1. Peter has long hair so that so that we can show his gradual transition to more of a model soldier by shortening his hair. (Think Dana Delany's character "Lt. Colleen McMurphy" on China Beach when she first arrives in Viet Nam.) Also, just like people in real life (and the other characters) Peter's hair style will probably change from time to time. I know that James Kirk's hair changed in the third season when they got Shatner a new hairpiece.
2. Some people complain that Peter is little more that a background character. If true, he would be even more of a background character if he had "background character hair." So the hair sets him apart (at least for now) just like green skin or pointed ears would.
3. We are trying to emulate the hair styles of the late 1970's since we are starting to adopt elements from the old, ill-fated Phase II series. Peter's hair is made to look just like the hair on the Enterprise crewmember seen in the test footage shot for the Phase II series in the few days before the plug was pulled on that series.
4. Hairstyles change. Old Navy hairstyles with long hair and muttonchops might come back in style. We want to convey "this is not a 20th/21st century military."
Bobby has to let his hair growout for us in preparation for a shoot. (Actually, his last episode he didn't have to; we're letting the character have shorter hair nowadays. But I'm seen four more of our episodes than most people have.)
Well, I see what you are doing now. I think the use of the character is fine and the ways you are making him unique are good. It's important that not every character look and act the same. I just don't get the purpose of the 70's thing. I understand it. I am just not a fan of it. Anywho, as long as they are good stories and you kids keep working to maintain quality it doesn't matter. So..... any guess on when? I NEED new TOSera stories. Especially ones not set in the Sub-Prime Universe...
Officially, I'm confident that we won't hit our longest time lag between episodes (which is one year and five months--which would happen in April). Unofficially, my best prediction is a bit better: we're probably about a month away.
I know The Child is nearly done too how long will it be for that one? Months or closer to a year?
Re: "Enemy Starfleet!" Release Date: Still Undetermined
Probably somwhere between the two.
You do understand that we shoot these things pretty much once a year, don't you? If we shoot one episode a year, we're going to release them pretty much once a year. (If we release two episodes closer together than one year, that means that some others are going to have to be released farther apart than one year in order to make up for it. "I canna' change the laws o' physics.")
And besides: we probably wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot and cannibalize our viewership's interest in "Enemy: Starfleet" by releasing "The Child" before interest in "E:S!" has fully waned and run its course. We need to ration these things. (Even Britney Spears is bright enough to not put out a new single until the interest in her previous single has wound down.)
Probably somwhere between the two.
You do understand that we shoot these things pretty much once a year, don't you? If we shoot one episode a year, we're going to release them pretty much once a year. (If we release two episodes closer together than one year, that means that some others are going to have to be released farther apart than one year in order to make up for it. "I canna' change the laws o' physics.")
And besides: we probably wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot and cannibalize our viewership's interest in "Enemy: Starfleet" by releasing "The Child" before interest in "E:S!" has fully waned and run its course. We need to ration these things. (Even Britney Spears is bright enough to not put out a new single until the interest in her previous single has wound down.)
Last edited:
