Discussion in 'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' started by JoaquinSlowly, Apr 1, 2022.
I have my heart set on Xindi-Aquatic.
I'm looking forward to seeing this show very much... but I'm slightly disappointed that Chapel seems an entirely different character, given that this is ostensibly in the prime timeline.
I was really looking forward to it, and I'm trying to maintain that enthusiasm, but every new thing I see and hear hints at it pointing away from what they said it was going to be.
Well, that should come as no surprise. Utilizing Uhura and Chapel and such is moving towards a very direct TOS prequel mode than just the Adventures of Pike.
Kirk is very shrewd though. He adapts his language to underscore the point he's trying to make. He also says he's not a diplomat while simultaneously engaging in diplomacy.
Would you mind expanding on that?
He does but he also is using language in a very pragmatic way. Identifying his purpose and his role within it. He isn't a trained diplomat but he can engage in diplomacy as a soldier. And for his words to have much impact to the Organians he would have to be telling a measure of truth.
Sure. My sense was that they were aiming for a spiritual successor to TOS in terms of storytelling and characterization, and that's what I was hoping to see. Instead, the inclusion of all these TOS and TOS-adjacent characters, many of whom are them changed to meet the desires of the current dumpster bin of producers, points more toward what I have said upthread: They calling it Star Trek, they're saying it's canonically consistent (we all knew that was a lost cause), they're saying that they have all these well-known characters in it...but it's really something different altogether. They're using names, not characters, shapes, not ships. They could still pull it out, but I don't believe that they have the will to do so.
I was just reading an interview with Chuck Dixon, and he had this to say:
"The state of contemporary adaptation is pretty miserable, film and television, because they want to change the work. They find things in the original or the source material that offend them or that they feel don't fit our post-modern sensibilities and they alter them. And it's a crime. It's a crime."
He was talking about The Lord of the Rings, and I would add to it that every producer wants to prove to the world how thoroughly brilliant he or she is, but Dixon's sentiments fit just as well for Trek.
Adaptation literally means too change.
Obviously there's a lot to unpack there. The most obvious is that in this context adaptation means to change the delivery medium.
Then there are changes which actually improve things. IIRC there were three adaptations of The Wizard of Oz before the Judy Garland version, and most people would consider it superior. On the other hand, the Tin Man series was an ill-conceived dumpster fire, so there's something of a bell curve described in those adaptations.
And then there's the idea that some of their changes may be for the best. I think their Chapel will be a much more interesting character than Majel could or did pull off. If they would just be honest and see "I couldn't give a rat's ass about them being the original characters, but I keep saying that they are the original characters to get you to watch" I'd likely be more forgiving. Honesty goes a long way with me. (Hear that? I'm expecting Hollywood to be honest :-) )
Which one is more superior? Because, in my opinion the Garland one is a poor adaptation of a good book.
Let me ask you, genuinely-what is being changed in Chapel that is irreconcilable with TOS? As many others have stated time changes people. I would be hard pressed to say that I am the same person even 5 years ago, much less 10. I am more grounded, far more introverted, among other traits, than before. Friends that I have known for years would comment on the change, and I see changes in them.
One of the biggest things that I see with adaptations is this idea of focusing on different character traits. The Lord of the Rings focuses far more on Aragorn's self-doubt, which is less presented in the book. Starship Troopers is a satire of a book about leadership and change. Hollywood is being as honest as it can be with adaptation-things are going to be changed.
Mileage will vary as to the acceptability.
I see what you're saying.
Personally I don't mind change per se, although I usually dislike prequels specifically because of continuity problems. However, ignoring that issue, I think we should wait a few episodes before determining exactly how TOS-like it really ends up being. Of course, this isn't the 1960s, so it'll be for today's audiences, not yesterday's, but if it's more episodic than Discovery that'll already be a plus. Back in the 90s I complained about the episodic nature of every show on TV, but now that they've entirely reversed it I long for the days of TOS and Mission: Impossible.
It all appears very much derived from and inspired by TOS. Just what they said it would be, but better we had reason to hope.
Starfleet can have a non-defense purpose and still legally be a military organization.
Either way, it's not like you can actually search for your lost fiance if your job is to be a nurse in sickbay on a single starship. You don't get any input into where the ship is going or what its mission is if you're a nurse. So the idea she became a Starfleet nurse to search for Korby just makes no sense.
How can you even tell, given what a blank, personality-less cardboard cut-out she was in TOS?
... I have no idea how you watched the same trailers I did and could possibly not see it as a modern spin on the TOS premise of episodic stories about a starship exploring alien planets never before contacted.
Don't be mean.
Nurse Chapel and Dr. M'Benga are not "well-known" characters to anyone who isn't a die-hard Trekkie.
Modern interpretations of old characters is a perfectly valid way to keep old characters alive. Just ask anyone who's ever seen the five million interpretations of Shakespeare.
Chuck Dixon's latest work includes the QAnon-glorifying propaganda series Alt-Hero: Q and a superhero whose costume glorifies the white supremacist slaver regime known as the Confederate States of America, both created for the vile white supremacist, misogynist, and antisemite Vox Day.
Absolutely nothing Dixon says about anything is of any value whatsoever, unless you're analyzing how a once-respectable conservative allowed himself to be seduced into supporting fascism.
I don't have to justify myself based on your own opinion.
The point is that, either way, she doesn't act like she did in TOS. Call it being not blank and personality-less cardboard cut-out. Isn't that a significant difference, then?
There's always going to be outliers. I think most people would prefer the Garland version, myself included. There was an odd Disney-produced sequel with a young Fairuza Balk that I also thught was very good. It's very scary, especially for a id's show.
It's a fair question. My thoughts are these:
In TOS, Chapel is...not much. If she has a character at all, she's a wallflower, and she pines for Spock, and that's pretty much her. When she's introduced we're meant to think she's more, but even in "Little Girls" she's really a stereotypical 60s female character, searching space for her lost man. She a null cypher.
She should never have been included in SNW. There's nothing to include except a name, and no indication that she'd been on the ship for years. So they included the name (along with Uhura, M'Benga, etc) to get TOS fans to watch. Sure, why not?
But he name is all they include. And, realistically, who would want to want a character who was a null cypher? So they give her a character. Clever, feisty, and seemingly on the brilliant side.
So here's my beef, and I've said this somewhere else, maybe in his thread. If they want to tell me it's the same universe, that this is "my" Christine Chapel, then she has to somehow go from being that clever, feisty person to being that dull, drab cypher, that null. It doesn't have to happen in SNW, but they at least need to provide some sort of path where she could realistically go from her SNW persona to her TOS persona, and ina pretty short time.
The only thing I can think of that will meet that need is something like having the character undergo some severe brain trauma which radically alters her behavior. Personally, I think that would be a fascinating story. I also think the odds of them telling that story, or anything else that will allow her to become the Chapel in TOS, are very, very low.
I'm reminded of Misery, where Kathy Bates is talking about watching the serials, where critical action changed from week to week, and she says something like "He didn't get out of the cockadoodie car!" She was frustrated that she was being told that last week's short and this week's short were the same story. That's how I feel every time I hear these guys say "It's all in same same universe." Maybe I could get Kathy Bates to hobble the producers.
Here's hoping you're right *clink*. I think I have much less tolerance than you do, however.
I'm sure I'll watch the premiere; it's the whole reason my wife subscribed use to P+. I'll almost certainly watch the second episode. Like I've said a couple of times, though, despite the words coming out of their mouths, I don't think the have the desire to produce what I'm looking for.
Seems like the same character to me. When they let her have a character any way.
Thanks for that. There was a distinctive far right vibe coming from the quotation; I'm glad to see my sense was correct.
Wow. This fundamentally appears to miss both how personalities can change, the nature of trauma, and how quickly things can change.
I'm not sure I understand your comparison, here.
Separate names with a comma.