Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[MakeshiftPython]

Heh, Females.

 

[BigJake]

Yep, laugh all you want. That is my whole point. Star Trek 2009 is still sitting fresh at a 95% on RT

You need a little more than a couple years' distance before you can (convincingly, anyway) declare something "a modern classic". Though of course you're welcome to that opinion. But mainly I was just ribbing you for the pompous condescension about how you're not one of the rest of us pitiful sheep... in the same post with your entirely vanilla and mainstream praise of ST09.

I love how the male fans laugh and mock me yet they can't challenge my opinions with any depth.

I also find your habit of bringing up gender in questionable contexts a bit bizarre, I have to admit. It'd be kind of like my responding to one of your posts by shaking my head and saying: "This is another sad example of White Privilege run amok." There are times when that response wouldn't make sense.

 

[iguana_tonante]

There are legitimate issues about gender depiction/perception in sci-fi/fantasy, and in the related fandoms. No one can deny that.

However, this "male fans" hating from Cara is rather baffling (not to mention, mostly baseless and out-of-the-blue in this context).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

the vulgar and deeply insubordinate treatment he received in TOS's apparently more "enlightened" writing.

McCoy's friendly rivalry with Spock sometimes skirted the bounds of propriety, although Spock gave as good as he got.

TOS however did not in fact feature Kirk employing racial slurs around Spock in the normal run of things (save the "dog-faced boy" tirade in... whatever the episode with the spores was, which was a specific tactic to free him from their influence). When Spock did encounter truly vulgar and insubordinate treatment in TOS it was usually a specific plot point and the crewmen involved were antagonists (Boma in Galileo 7, whathisface in Balance of Terror).

Which is to say, can we not go playing "let's throw TOS under the bus" for the umpteenth time this week? Yeah. That'd be great.

Kirk suggested that Spock looked like Satan in The Apple.

When someone tries to argue that nuTrek is a departure from the way Trek ought to be, I think it's perfectly appropriate, when one can point to TOS to show that, no, Trek was really always that way, to do so. Posters have done so in the case of wonky physics, more recently in the case of pulpiness, and now in the case of banter between principle characters which could be interpreted as racist.

This isn't throwing TOS under the bus. It's simply pointing out that nuTrek is not in these ways a departure from the way old Trek always was.

If one wants to argue that nuTrek should improve upon TOS in various ways, then that's certainly more valid than arguing incorrectly how Star Trek originally was.

For example, earlier this year, some poster finally said, in effect, "OK, then, I'm sick of wonky physics. It's about time that Star Trek became believable in terms of orbital mechanics." Alright, that's a coherent position, describing the sort of thing that frankly I would be open to in future episodes/films, so long as it didn't drag down the story. But that's a far different cry from claiming that nuTrek is ruining Star Trek by injecting wonky orbital mechanics. That's bull. Star Trek's orbital mechanics have always been wonky, and it is therefore most understandable, if the makers of JJTrek elect to retain that trope.

 

[BillJ]

Kirk suggested that Spock looked like Satan in The Apple.

When someone tries to argue that nuTrek is a departure from the way Trek ought to be, I think it's perfectly appropriate, when one can point to TOS to show that, no, Trek was really always that way, to do so. Posters have done so in the case of wonky physics, more recently in the case of pulpiness, and now in the case of banter between principle characters which could be interpreted as racist.

This isn't throwing TOS under the bus. It's simply pointing out that nuTrek is not in these ways a departure from the way old Trek always was.

If one wants to argue that nuTrek should improve upon TOS in various ways, then that's certainly more valid than incorrectly arguing how Star Trek originally was.

For example, earlier this year, some poster finally said, in effect, "OK, then, I'm sick of wonky physics. It's about time that Star Trek became believable in terms of orbital mechanics." Alright, that's a coherent position, describing the sort of thing that frankly I would be open to in future episodes/films, so long as it didn't drag down the story. But that's a far different cry from claiming that nuTrek is ruining Star Trek by injecting wonky orbital mechanics. That's bull. Star Trek's orbital mechanics have always been wonky, and it is therefore most understandable, if the makers of JJTrek elect to retain that trope.

+1

 

[MakeshiftPython]

TOS however did not in fact feature Kirk employing racial slurs around Spock in the normal run of things (save the "dog-faced boy" tirade in... whatever the episode with the spores was, which was a specific tactic to free him from their influence).

Kirk suggested that Spock looked like Satan in The Apple.

There's a difference between teasing Spock in good humor and flat out insulting him. He called him "Pointy" because he was upset that Spock filed a report. Before that, he sarcastically congratulated him for being "so noble". It was mean spirited of Kirk, especially in front of an Admiral who expects better from Kirk.

Again, people, CONTEXT.

 

[BillJ]

Again, people, CONTEXT.

Context works both ways though. This Kirk is younger and led a very different life than his prime universe counterpart.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, people, CONTEXT.

The context of my remark was in reply to something BigJake said about what did or didn't happened in TOS, in particular regarding how exceptional it was for Kirk to make fun of Spock's appearance.

The context of my remark was not in relation to any suggestion about what remarks would or would not be appropriate for nuKirk to make.

So, what-the-fuck ever.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Again, people, CONTEXT.

Context works both ways though. This Kirk is younger and led a very different life than his prime universe counterpart.

He was trying to compare Kirk saying Spock looked like Satan in good humor as something that is no different to calling Spock "Pointy". That's the difference I was trying to point out.

However, the point you bring up about this Kirk being different in this alternate reality IS valid. I'll take that. However, it's not a trait that I want to see with Kirk, alternate universe or otherwise, because it only makes him more unlikable to me. Same thing like when he tries to open up with Spock, but when he doesn't respond, Kirk just rolls his eyes like "why do I bother?".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, people, CONTEXT.

Context works both ways though. This Kirk is younger and led a very different life than his prime universe counterpart.

He was trying to compare Kirk saying Spock looked like Satan in good humor as something that is no different to calling Spock "Pointy". That's the difference I was trying to point out.

Nope. I was not. Not at all, as I just said last post.

It's you who took my remarks out of context.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

No, you're out of context!

*points finger*

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm on record as recently saying that what Kirk said in The Apple bothered me. There's a thread on The Apple in the TOS forum. Go look it up if you want.

It would appeal to me, if the principle characters could find a way to take jabs at each other, besides making fun of each others' physical characteristics. That's a trope that I'd be happy if it was ditched back in the 60's.

Clearer?

 

[BillJ]

He was trying to compare Kirk saying Spock looked like Satan in good humor as something that is no different to calling Spock "Pointy". That's the difference I was trying to point out.

Maybe not the best example, but Archer also had issues learning to work with Vulcans as well. I imagine it's a bit of a culture shock learning to work with beings that treat emotions that differently and worship logic like a religion. Not to mention that Abramsverse Kirk and Spock had a rocky beginning to their relationship.

Plus, we have no idea how the Kirk and Spock relationship evolved in the Prime timeline. By the time we first see them in Where No Man..., they've obviously been working together for a while.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I'm on record as recently saying that what Kirk said in The Apple bothered me. There's a thread on The Apple in the TOS forum. Go look it up if you want.

It would appeal to me, if the principle characters could find a way to take jabs at each other, besides making fun of each others' physical characteristics. That's a trope that I'd be happy if it was ditched back in the 60's.

Clearer?

I can get that, but I think in that case it worked because Spock was implying that Kirk was in the role of Satan and Kirk threw it right back at him. Spock is able to take it, as he was able to take Kirk's teasing since the pilot.

He was trying to compare Kirk saying Spock looked like Satan in good humor as something that is no different to calling Spock "Pointy". That's the difference I was trying to point out.

Maybe not the best example, but Archer also had issues learning to work with Vulcans as well. I imagine it's a bit of a culture shock learning to work with beings that treat emotions that differently and worship logic like a religion. Not to mention that Abramsverse Kirk and Spock had a rocky beginning to their relationship.

Plus, we have no idea how the Kirk and Spock relationship evolved in the Prime timeline. By the time we first see them in Where No Man..., they've obviously been working together for a while.

True, but like I said, it's not something I'd like to see with Kirk. It worked (kinda sorta) with Archer because of the context of the relationships between Vulcans and Humans, and I do like the arc in "Broken Bow" that Archer learns to look past his bigotry of Vulcans and trusts T'Pol enough to ask her to join him on his mission. Sadly, despite that Archer went completed that arc, the writers still played with the whole "I don't trust those damn Vulcans" shtick. It probably would have been better for letting Tucker keep that trait, with Archer trying to help him come around but I dunno how long that would have lasted. Either way, I was glad that whole thing was resolved in the fourth season where Archer truly began to embrace their culture through Surak's katra.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

When someone tries to argue that nuTrek is a departure from the way Trek ought to be, I think it's perfectly appropriate, when one can point to TOS to show that, no, Trek was really always that way, to do so. Posters have done so in the case of wonky physics, more recently in the case of pulpiness, and now in the case of banter between principle characters which could be interpreted as racist.

This isn't throwing TOS under the bus. It's simply pointing out that nuTrek is not in these ways a departure from the way old Trek always was.

If one wants to argue that nuTrek should improve upon TOS in various ways, then that's certainly more valid than arguing incorrectly how Star Trek originally was.

For example, earlier this year, some poster finally said, in effect, "OK, then, I'm sick of wonky physics. It's about time that Star Trek became believable in terms of orbital mechanics." Alright, that's a coherent position, describing the sort of thing that frankly I would be open to in future episodes/films, so long as it didn't drag down the story. But that's a far different cry from claiming that nuTrek is ruining Star Trek by injecting wonky orbital mechanics. That's bull. Star Trek's orbital mechanics have always been wonky, and it is therefore most understandable, if the makers of JJTrek elect to retain that trope.

In addition, and in further clarification:

Besides pointing to the way TOS was, I think it's also valid to point to things that are grounded in TOS better than they're claimed to be, as a counter to people who say that nuTrek isn't really like Star Trek.

The best example here is probably the Uhura/Spock relationship. No one's really been saying that Uhura and Spock had a romantic relationship in TOS. Rather, the point is that there were indications that the door could open to that, in The Man Trap, Charlie X, and—as I was glad to have pointed out recently by somebody—Is There in Truth No Beauty? The actual relationship in nuTrek is, as Greg Cox said, the road not taken in old Trek, as it were. But, it's not as off-the-wall as the naysayers tend to try to make it out to be.

Similarly, particular pointed racially charged jabs need not be exactly in character for old Kirk, in order for them to be valid for nuKirk's character to make. BillJ covered the in-universe reasons for that. The point is, though, racially-charged jabs were a part of the bargain in TOS.

There's no need for nuTrek to slavishly replicate any of the tropes it inherits from TOS in every original way subject to every original limitation. In fact, if it did, it would be Dullsville, so any expectation that it should stay within the box of any of those tropes, as marked out by TOS, is pretty unreasonable.

These points have been made many times over, but I guess I think it bears repeating one more time.

Naturally, just because a trope was imported wholesale, or derived or inspired from elements of TOS, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's effective in nuTrek.

 

[Timewalker]

The tone ranged between light-hearted and quite dark, the latter of which seems to have been where River's character arc was planned to go. As projections of the character arcs set up in the series, or just as movie characters in their own right, I thought the characters worked fine.

In fact I found it pretty remarkable for a show that only aired like a half-dozen episodes, how much I found I connected with and cared about the entire cast of characters. The deaths of Wash and Book had real teeth for me, I wanted everyone to survive. Even Mr. Universe was likable enough to make his coming somewhat out of left field forgivable.

If you haven't seen all 14 Firefly episodes, they're available on Netflix (Canada).

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think the crassness of Archer in Broken Bow directed at the Vulcans doesn't work at all. Unless Starfleet picked someone solely on how they could command a team of humans and never thought to look for someone with tested diplomacy skills and experience dealing with Vulcans (as the most accessible non-humans).

I actually had a revelation at one point that Archer only works well if you think of him as cut from the cloth of TOS where people don't put up with any shit.

And yeah, they can just drop all the stupid niggling about physical appearance. Because guess what, if you speak like that TODAY in a work environment you will probably get fired! So plonking it into the supposedly enlightened future makes it quite painful to listen to.

 

[BigJake]

Makeshift has the "Kirk and racial commentary" issue handled, I really can't add anything there. Just to this, though:

This isn't throwing TOS under the bus. It's simply pointing out that nuTrek is not in these ways a departure from the way old Trek always was.

I get that. Except it only works if the comparisons are actually apt.

Too often what seems to actually occur is a rapid-fire rummaging for any vaguely-related example that fits a current rhetorical need -- the overall effect, desired or not, is often that of people throwing a bunch of loosely- and questionably-relevant stuff at the debate in the hopes that something will stick -- or overzealous distortion of "prime universe" Trek events and/or the outright denial of any possible virtue in which "prime universe" Trek might possibly seem to exceed nuTrek, sometimes to the point of just straight-up shitting on the old franchise's real achievements. [That's how people wind up comparing Trek to Buck Rogers with a straight face (so to speak), for instance, or claiming that TOS' treatment of Spock was consistently vulgar and dismissive.]

I'm by no means saying anybody means to be doing this, and I understand the temptation behind it and what people are trying to achieve. But it's happening nonetheless, and in terms of level-of-annoyance it is pretty close to being to the NuTrek fandom what OTT "Abrams hath destroyed the franchise and all hope for humanity and also ran over my cat" hysteria is to NuTrek not-quite-as-fandom.

I guess I'm just suggesting that a little pause for thought -- and double-checking that a certain possible parallel is really as much of a parallel as one thinks it is -- before knee-jerking "TOS totally did it too / TOS was way worse" might be helpful. (Frankly, in a lot of cases it seems to me to be preferable, as you do above, to just say "nuTrek [Kirk / Spock / the Entreprise / whatever] is different and that works for me.")

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I really don't think you can halt this process Big Jake and I'm a little bemused that you want to. I know many of us don't have to "rummage" for these comparisons, TOS is so embedded in our brains the comparisons are right there, screaming at us.

And I know if I throw TOS under a bus (which I believe you also have brought up as something that happens..) I throw it under a bus with LOVE. I might say something in TOS is bad (sexism say..) but I would never say TOS is bad.

 

[BigJake]

Oh, I have no illusions of "halting" anything. I'm just looking for ways to up the fun and reduce the frustration.

I might say something in TOS is bad (sexism say..) but I would never say TOS is bad.

Completely on board with that. And I'm by no means looking for anyone to pretend that TOS was flawless, that's not what I'm saying at all.