Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by albion432, May 4, 2014.

  1. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    You see, that's exactly what people purveying these sorts of false comparisons with 1982 and The Wrath of Khan always say. And I genuinely believe it's what they think they're doing. I just don't believe it's always what they're actually doing. Which is to say, there is more than one way to lose perspective, and we see frequent examples here of the full range of options. (Again I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this per se, but it's a commonplace tactic from at least a couple of parties to this thread.)

    [EDIT: See above. Or to put it another way:

    And I'm talking about the way some people always, always react to any criticism of the newest incarnation of Trek as if this is what it was doing, details be damned. The two habits seem to form a kind of Scylla and Charybdis of fan commentary, which I suppose is understandable but can certainly be annoying.
     
  2. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    Backwaters of Australia
    Its OK to say I dislike STID because of say:
    a. Story didn't make sense
    b. I didn't like Spock kissing Uhura on duty
    c. Cumberbatch was white.
    d ...
    and so on.

    It would be just as valid to say I didn't like TWOK because
    a. Story didn't make sense
    b. I Didn't like Kirk chatting up Saavik.
    c. Montalban and his followers were white.
    d...

    Although you would be wrong wrong wrong wrong in regard to TWOK because it was a great movie in spite of its flaws.:)
    IMO
     
  3. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    I think the comparison to TWOK is apt and useful for a variety of similarities which exist regardless of whatever value judgements one makes of either film, but. . . Hasn't this thread strayed a little far from the OP?
     
  4. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    I... hadn't noticed. :whistle:
     
  5. CaptainDave1701

    CaptainDave1701 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Well....as a child of the 60's back when it all began I think that I can safely say that Star Trek lore was written and changed on the school grounds back then and has been changing in some form ever since......
     
  6. Robert Comsol

    Robert Comsol Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    USS Berlin
    I agree with most of your TWOK observations, but just because something is "new" shouldn't automatically imply we have to embrace it.

    Just like the Enterprise's original mission goal was to seek out new life and new civilizations, Star Trek stories should seek out new concepts and new ideas, that somehow contribute to the whole.

    I think TNG is a prime example and accomplished precisely that, other Trek incarnations somehow remain a subject of debate.

    Bob
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ The King of Kings Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    America, Fuck Yeah!!!
    The things that I think will stick going forward from the Abrams films is how McCoy got the nickname "Bones". Which I personally liked.
     
  8. Malaika

    Malaika Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    be careful not turning her in that problematic 'strong independent black woman who doesn't need no man' trope, though. ;)
    the Spock/Uhura relationship is a welcome change for her character too, and I might argue for Spock too because in tos he was reduced to being a satellite of the Kirk character.
    "When the producers recruited Shatner for the role of Captain Kirk, they were very clear: He was the star of the show. All action aboard the starship Enterprise centered on the captain, whose leadership, bravado, and sex appeal would keep viewers tuned in week after week. Mr. Spock was to be Kirk’s sidekick, the Tonto of Trek. As Nimoy explained in both I am Not Spock and I am Spock, the producers/writers did not give him much to work with, because the character was not fully developed. Kirk, on the other hand, had been well-fashioned, modeled in part off of Gregory Peck’s 1951 role as Horatio Hornblower. All other characters, with the exception of guest stars were, in the words of Trek writer David Gerrold:

    Subordinate characters, meant to be just that: subordinate… [and] otherwise
    unnoticeable.. simply there to dramatize the external conflict of the leading
    characters. They were functions of the starship, not the story. (Gerrold, 85)
    (read the rest here for more perspective)


    Spock was the sidekick at the service of the star that was Shatner.
    But something happened: Spock became the most popular character.
    You think the writers were glad? But no, they were glad to use Spock to get the teenage audience but they were actually concerned that Spock's popularity would be an obstacle to Kirk's, who was supposed to be the star and HAD to be the star. So how they resolved this issue? They made them best friends and gave to them most of the interactions.
    here you can read the letters shared between Roddenberry and Isaac Asimov where the first asked for a solution concerning this 'problem' (how to make Kirk more popular)
    "I promised to get back to you with my thoughts on the question of Mr. Shatner and the dilemma of playing against such a fad-character as "Mr. Spock."

    The more I think about it, the more I think the problem is psychological. That is, Star Trek is successful, and I think it will prove easier to get a renewal for the third year than was the case for the second. The chief practical reason for its success Mr. Spock. The excellence of the stories and the acting brings in the intelligent audience (who aren't enough in numbers, alas, to affect the ratings appreciably) but Mr. Spock brings in the "teenage vote" which does send the ratings over the top. Therefore, nothing can or should be done about that. (Besides, Mr. Spock is a wonderful character and I would be most reluctant to change him in any way.)

    The problem, then, is how to convince the world, and Mr. Shatner, that Mr. Shatner is the lead.
    (..) it might be well to unify the team of Kirk and Spock a bit, by having them actively meet various menaces together with one saving the life of the other on occasion.

    The idea of this would be to get people to think of Kirk when they think of Spock.
    "
    what you get from here is an interesting perspective on the genesis of the Kirk/Spock friendship because you realize that you probably wouldn't even have all the focus on them and their relationship written in a certain way IF Spock hadn't been so popular and they hadn't wanted to take advantage of it to make Kirk popular too. Just think about how different the whole thing would have been if McCoy or Sulu was the most popular character instead of Spock.

    So, and in light of reading that behind the scenes stuff, no wonder why Nimoy and Nichols welcomed the Spock/Uhura romance angle and liked it in the reboot!

    If you don't think that a friendship being the main aspect of a male character is a problem or takes away from that character, then I can't see why a romantic relationship should be any different and held to a different standard.
    Furthermore, in the original series and movies both Spock and McCoy had always been elevated to the level of main characters compared to Uhura and others through their friendship with the real main character who was Kirk.

    If we were to follow the reasoning some people use against romantic relationships, then we should watch movies where the characters have no relationships at all. Neither romantic nor platonic friendship. Are you complaining that Uhura also was Kirk's friend in Star trek into darkness? Or it's just her expressing feelings for her boyfriend that is your problem here? And since when having relationships is a bad thing all the sudden? It's not.
    You can't tell me that Kirk, Spock and the other guys had never acted nonprofessional in the name of friendship, way more than reboot Uhura or Spock ever did in these movies. If you tell me that, then we watched two different versions of tos and the old movies. It seems to me that people love the Kirk/Spock friendship so much precisely because of how affected and influenced by it these characters were/are.
    "There’s a difference between a female character who exists in a story and has a romantic relationship with a male character versus a female character who exists in a story to have a romantic relationship with a male character"
    and Uhura is the first, not the second.

    also wise words:
    "Screw writing “strong” women. Write interesting women. Write well-rounded women. Write complicated women. Write a woman who kicks ass, write a woman who cowers in a corner. Write a woman who’s desperate for a husband. Write a woman who doesn’t need a man. Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don’t take no shit, women who need validation and women who don’t care what anybody thinks. THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN. Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people. So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people."
     
  9. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Good point. Uhura in the new movies isn't defined purely by her romance with Spock; that's just the part that stands out most in observers' minds and overshadows the rest. She's also been redefined in a gadfly/conscience role for Kirk, much like the role McCoy played originally. She's the one person who isn't impressed by his charm and cockiness and is thus able to keep him honest, to anchor him in reality. Although I'll grant that STID didn't do as much with that side of her role as ST'09 did (oh, how I wish that film had a proper subtitle).
     
  10. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Very good point Christopher. And one I'm glad you brought up, as it may dovetail into a prediction I'll make; McCoy's role will continue to diminish in future incarnations of ST.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2014
  11. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I, uh, don't really follow any of that stuff you said about "ghosting," but yes, it's plausible that McCoy's role might stay diminished in favor of Uhura. I'm reminded of an essay I read a while back about how Jimmy Olsen has become more marginalized in the Superman mythos. When Jimmy was created in the radio series, his role was to be a boy sidekick for the children in the audience to identify with, and someone for Clark Kent to explain things to in order to make the show educational. Later on in the comics, he became "Superman's Pal," the mortal best friend who hung around with him and shared his adventures. But in modern times, with the gender roles of earlier eras eroded, Lois has moved into the role of Clark/Superman's closest human companion, his confidante and friend and partner, rather than just that feisty female who was either constantly getting in trouble or constantly trying to manipulate Superman into marrying her. So Jimmy is no longer needed in that role, and thus has become kind of a fifth wheel.

    By the same token, now that Kirk and Spock's circle of friends is no longer a boys' club, now that Uhura can fill the role McCoy used to, that suggests that McCoy may need to find another role or simply end up marginalized.
     
  12. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk A Spock and a smile Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    AI Generated Madness
    He can still bicker with Spock.

    I'm hoping Carol will stick around and have a larger role. Though they might have to sacrifice some of Scotty and Spock's "science" dialog.
     
  13. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I don't know about Carol. I mean, having a recurring female scientist in the crew is a cool idea, but Carol Marcus is very much a character who was created solely as a romantic interest for the male lead. Uhura has the advantage that she was already established as a character before she was given a relationship with Spock, so that's not the sole thing that defines her. But Carol is really just "the woman Kirk's gonna have a kid with someday," and anything that gets accreted on top of that is still going to have to compete with that.
     
  14. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk A Spock and a smile Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    AI Generated Madness
    Well it's a different universe, perhaps Carol will resist Jim's charms.
     
  15. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    It's worth noting that Jimmy actually had very little to do in Superman Returns and was dispensed with entirely in Man of Steel.

    In the case of Superman Returns, Jimmy's appearance felt somewhat forced, as though the the producers felt like, "well, we have to work him in somewhere because it's expected."

    Whereas, being a reboot, Man of Steel felt no such obligation.
     
  16. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    It seems like you got the basic gist; I predicted McCoy will likely become more "marginalized" as time goes on, perhaps by being killed off or simply being left out of some future reboot.

    As for not getting the word “ghosting”, in the English language a new verb can be created rather easily by adding a sufix like “ed” or “ing” to the end of a noun, thus the term “being ghosted” is born. In fact, one need not change a noun at all to make it a verb, for example, by you not being able to “really following any of that stuff”, I could say “well, he just pulled another ‘Christopher’!” Do ya see what I mean?

    I thought I laid everything out rather clearly, I even had you in mind when I was writing my last post. "Ghosted" is in reference to the fate of the other "third member’s" of the trinities I used by way of example. Perhaps I should have used “holy ghosted” as my verb, does that make things any clearer?
     
  17. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Uhh, yes, the grammar part is obvious. As for the rest... never mind.
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Just around the bend.
    I think he understood the word and your use of it. It's the theory of your previous post that doesn't fly.

    ETA: This was in reply to albion432
     
  19. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    If you don't mind taking the time to elaborate a little, I would be sincerely interested in hearing why you feel the theory doesn't fly.

    In fact, I'll invite anyone who wishes to point out holes in the logic of my "theory" to please take aim and let those arrows fly!
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2014
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Just around the bend.
    Easy, Star Trek over the years has had many writers. There is no overriding hidden agenda to mirror the trinity of christian faith. It's getting into wacko conspiracy theory territory.


    ETA: not sure why you felt the need to repost your earlier post.