Chapel Character Teaser

[trekfan_1]

If they're wanting to write a modern, fully developed character (I have no problem with that), then why even bother to use Chapel? Why not a new character ?. Going from a simple portrayal as seen in TOS to what they seem to be dooing here is a massive leap and it "re-writes" the vibe of her character. It's almost they are saying "oh finally, we can now go back and redo all those horriblly written secondary characters created by those primitive writers from the 60s". "Mild mannered, reserved and vulnerable? Nah that won't cut it"

The name Christine Chapel really means nothing to modern audiences, Disco only fans or new wave trek fans. The name only resonates with hardcore trekkies. So why go to the trouble to harkening back to this character knowing that those who would remember the character would be the only ones to notice she changed and those fans are not the long term target audience anyway?

She's a thinly writen character from the 60s. I get it. But for better or worse that was her character. If this is a total, reboot reimagining (or what they did in Star Trek 2009) , then I totally get it and makes perfect sense . I think what irks some fans is that they still claim to honor Canon and all of this is in the same prime universe. New portrayals for characters like Pike and Spock is already "streching it" in terms of reconciling how they fit within previously established prime canon. Why invite more suspension of belief canon-wise by now starting to drastically change the secondary characters which would only serve to increase the Canon variance even more so? Wouldn't it be easier to just create new characters?

It's like asking someone to shop for you and they get you a gourmet pasta dish instead of a can of chef borardi which is what you asked for. Then the person tells you well this is still classified as pasta and is way better anyway so don't worry about it. It's still pasta afterall. Just a way bigger portion , made better with extra ingredients. Definitely still in the same pasta universe.

 

[ananta]

The original Chapel was meant to be somewhat saintly; in fact, they deliberately made her name, Christine Chapel, rhyme with Sistine Chapel. I can accept them fleshing out characters and giving them a slightly new take. But in this case, I hope they avoid the temptation of making her too quippy and sassy; if only because the current need to have female characters be “badass” is wearing thin. There’s a place for that, and that seems to be what the other female SNW characters are channeling, but there’s also a place for a warm, gentle, nurturing, “yin” kind of character. I always liked that about her character. In real life we have all different shades of people.

 

[fireproof78]

If they're wanting to write a modern, fully developed character (I have no problem with that), then why even bother to use Chapel? Why not a new character ?. Going from a simple portrayal as seen in TOS to what they seem to be dooing here is a massive leap and it "re-writes" the vibe of her character. It's almost they are saying "oh finally, we can now go back and redo all those horriblly written secondary characters created by those primitive writers from the 60s". "Mild mannered, reserved and vulnerable? Nah that won't cut it"

The name Christine Chapel really means nothing to modern audiences, Disco only fans or new wave trek fans. The name only resonates with hardcore trekkies. So why go to the trouble to harkening back to this character knowing that those who would remember the character would be the only ones to notice she changed and those fans are not the long term target audience anyway?

She's a thinly writen character from the 60s. I get it. But for better or worse that was her character. If this is a total, reboot reimagining (or what they did in Star Trek 2009) , then I totally get it and makes perfect sense . I think what irks some fans is that they still claim to honor Canon and all of this is in the same prime universe. New portrayals for characters like Pike and Spock is already "streching it" in terms of reconciling how they fit within previously established prime canon. Why invite more suspension of belief canon-wise by now starting to drastically change the secondary characters which would only serve to increase the Canon variance even more so? Wouldn't it be easier to just create new characters?

It's like asking someone to shop for you and they get you a gourmet pasta dish instead of a can of chef borardi which is what you asked for. Then the person tells you well this is still classified as pasta and is way better anyway so don't worry about it. It's still pasta afterall. Just a way bigger portion , made better with extra ingredients. Definitely still in the same pasta universe.

The point of a prequel is not to give more of the same.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

So why not use a new character?

 

[Serveaux]

Why not use Chapel? It looks from the character trailer like they want to play the relationship between her and Spock. Looks good.

 

[fireproof78]

So why not use a new character?

The point of a prequel is to expand knowledge about characters, to give added dimension to previously known characters.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm glad they are fleshing out existing supporting characters although, I share reservations about them 'modernising' them too much. Uhura, for example is a command officer (she started in yellow) who is an expert in communications. She was never really a linguist (she certainly couldn't speak Romulan or Klingon in the prime universe) or an expert engineer (she could repair consoles but I'm not sure I would trust her to fix a warp drive). As a command officer though, she should be good at supervising others with those skills. What she did have was a very keen mind and aa very cheeky sense of humour.

Chapel had a fair bit of fire when they actually used her character, not afraid to challenge McCoy sometimes, but she was a scientist, not a ninja. Interestingly, putting her in Spock's path at this point might actually go some way to explain why she was in love with Spock while also being in love with Korby. Using M'Benga and Chapel does suggest quite strongly that the characters are going to be satellite characters for Spock.

There were several TOS stories where Chapel could have taken more of a lead in the research -telling McCoy the results instead of just handing him a slide to form his own opinion. It's frustrating that in And the Children Shall Lead, despite Chapel spending time with the children, we never get to hear what she thinks. The men just leave her to get the ice cream. I would have liked that to be more of a Chapel episode. Also, in Turnabout Intruder, there was a missed opportunity to involve Chapel in Kirk's escape plan by using events that only the two characters would know about from WaLGmo. Chapel has potential but she's an academic, not a go-getter.

 

[trekfan_1]

The point of a prequel is to expand knowledge about characters, to give added dimension to previously known characters.

Like Star Trek: Enterprise?

 

[fireproof78]

Like Star Trek: Enterprise?

Is it a prequel in the same era?

 

[trekfan_1]

Is it a prequel in the same era?

Point being prequels do not necessarily mean redoing previous done characters or transforming previous minor characters to prominent ones. It is an option but not required in "a" prequel series.

Season 1 of discovery for example didn't redo many primary or secondary legacy characters.

And Strange New Worlds is already expanding on Pike , Number one and Spock. They don't "need" to revisit the TOS minor characters. And if they do, they shouldn't change the essence of them just for the sake of making them "modern"

Unless it's a full blown roboot in which case anything goes including gender swapping

 

[fireproof78]

Point being prequels do not necessarily mean redoing previous done characters or transforming previous minor characters to prominent ones. It is an option but not required in "a" prequel series.

Of course not. Nothing is required. But a prequel sheds light on the past events to recontextualize them so that the audience has new insight as to the whys of the world.

And Strange New Worlds is already expanding on Pike , Number one and Spock. They don't "need" to revisit the TOS minor characters. And if they do, they shouldn't change the essence of them just for the sake of making them "modern"

No, it's exploring characters who haven't been explored before. It's not necessary, but nothing is in this franchise.

 

[trekfan_1]

Of course not. Nothing is required. But a prequel sheds light on the past events to recontextualize them so that the audience has new insight as to the whys of the world.

No, it's exploring characters who haven't been explored before. It's not necessary, but nothing is in this franchise.

But if they change the core of the characters too much, the whole thing loses verisimilitude. Undermining what a prequel is trying to do - connecting to what is to come in the same universe. A shared narrative

 

[fireproof78]

But if they change the core of the characters too much, the whole thing loses verisimilitude. Undermining what a prequel is trying to do - connecting to what is to come in the same universe. A shared narrative

Characters change. As people do.

 

[Sci]

If they're wanting to write a modern, fully developed character (I have no problem with that), then why even bother to use Chapel?

Because it lends itself to firmly rooting this show in the TOS era, because it helps them play with TOS elements, and because it's an opportunity to make an existing character more interesting. Why not? Why does everything have to be the same?

I get that some things are timeless and changing them needlessly hurts the aura. I didn't like the idea of establishing Spock's family name, for instance. I get that there's a balance that needs to be struck between having some change and not changing things to the point where their dramatic strengths are undermined. But does adding nuance and depth to a minor two-dimensional cardboard cutout who was in a handful of episodes sixty years ago really hurt TOS legacy? Why does that need to not change?

Going from a simple portrayal as seen in TOS to what they seem to be dooing here is a massive leap and it "re-writes" the vibe of her character. It's almost they are saying "oh finally, we can now go back and redo all those horriblly written secondary characters created by those primitive writers from the 60s".

Yes. And that is a good thing. It will retroactively make TOS a better show.

She's a thinly writen character from the 60s. I get it. But for better or worse that was her character.

It was definitely for worse. I mean, Majet Barrett was such a fun actor when they let her have spunk! It was an absolute waste of her talents. Same thing with Uhura.

If this is a total, reboot reimagining (or what they did in Star Trek 2009) , then I totally get it and makes perfect sense . I think what irks some fans is that they still claim to honor Canon and all of this is in the same prime universe.

"Honoring canon" does not preclude making changes. Preserving bad creative decisions is not actually a good thing just because the decisions were made a long time ago.

Why invite more suspension of belief canon-wise by now starting to drastically change the secondary characters which would only serve to increase the Canon variance even more so?

"Canon variation" and "suspending disbelief canon-wise?" That should mean actual continuity errors -- you know, like Spock noting in TOS S1 that his homeworld had been conquered and then claiming in S3 that it had never been conquered in living memory. That is "suspending disbelief canon-wise."

Giving a two-dimensional character three dimensions should not be considered a canon violation. For Christ's sake, are we going to start calling it a "canon violation" when cinematographers use different camera angles than we're used to, too? Is it going to be a "canon violation" if they use non-diegetic pop music in the soundtrack? Not every creative decision is a matter of continuity.

It's like asking someone to shop for you and they get you a gourmet pasta dish instead of a can of chef borardi which is what you asked for.

But there's no equivalent of someone asking for Chef Boardi here. No one asked for Christine Chapel to not be given a personality. Nobody presented Akiva Goldsman with a list of what he wasn't allowed to do when he developed SNW. He made a creative decision and you're just reacting against it because you don't like change.

I'm glad they are fleshing out existing supporting characters although, I share reservations about them 'modernising' them too much. Uhura, for example is a command officer (she started in yellow) who is an expert in communications. She was never really a linguist

Making her a linguist makes sense as a logical outgrowth of what a deep space-based communications specialist might reasonably be expected to include amongst their skill set in a world where the universal translator is not as sophisticated as it is in the 24th Century.

Using M'Benga and Chapel does suggest quite strongly that the characters are going to be satellite characters for Spock.

No. While the trailers made it clear that the relationship between Spock and Chapel would be part of both characters, the trailers also made it clear that M'Benga and Chapel have got their own shit going on that Spock's not a part of. They're principal characters, not satellite characters to Spock.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To call her a thinly written character is to say that fleshing her out would likely be an improvement.

 

[Pauln6]

Because it lends itself to firmly rooting this show in the TOS era, because it helps them play with TOS elements, and because it's an opportunity to make an existing character more interesting. Why not? Why does everything have to be the same?

I get that some things are timeless and changing them needlessly hurts the aura. I didn't like the idea of establishing Spock's family name, for instance. I get that there's a balance that needs to be struck between having some change and not changing things to the point where their dramatic strengths are undermined. But does adding nuance and depth to a minor two-dimensional cardboard cutout who was in a handful of episodes sixty years ago really hurt TOS legacy? Why does that need to not change?



Yes. And that is a good thing. It will retroactively make TOS a better show.



It was definitely for worse. I mean, Majet Barrett was such a fun actor when they let her have spunk! It was an absolute waste of her talents. Same thing with Uhura.



"Honoring canon" does not preclude making changes. Preserving bad creative decisions is not actually a good thing just because the decisions were made a long time ago.



"Canon variation" and "suspending disbelief canon-wise?" That should mean actual continuity errors -- you know, like Spock noting in TOS S1 that his homeworld had been conquered and then claiming in S3 that it had never been conquered in living memory. That is "suspending disbelief canon-wise."

Giving a two-dimensional character three dimensions should not be considered a canon violation. For Christ's sake, are we going to start calling it a "canon violation" when cinematographers use different camera angles than we're used to, too? Is it going to be a "canon violation" if they use non-diegetic pop music in the soundtrack? Not every creative decision is a matter of continuity.



But there's no equivalent of someone asking for Chef Boardi here. No one asked for Christine Chapel to not be given a personality. Nobody presented Akiva Goldsman with a list of what he wasn't allowed to do when he developed SNW. He made a creative decision and you're just reacting against it because you don't like change.



Making her a linguist makes sense as a logical outgrowth of what a deep space-based communications specialist might reasonably be expected to include amongst their skill set in a world where the universal translator is not as sophisticated as it is in the 24th Century.



No. While the trailers made it clear that the relationship between Spock and Chapel would be part of both characters, the trailers also made it clear that M'Benga and Chapel have got their own shit going on that Spock's not a part of. They're principal characters, not satellite characters to Spock.

I'm not saying that making Uhura a linguist wouldn't be a logical progression, only that it's TOS canon that,unlike in NuTrek, she doesn't speak fluent Klingon or Romulan. She may speak other languages, Swahili being one, possibly other Federation languages, but it's harder to imagine how they might be useful. Using cryptography, translation programs, reconstruction programs etc which were usually gifted to Spock in TOS should be part of her job though.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm not saying that making Uhura a linguist wouldn't be a logical progression, only that it's TOS canon that,unlike in NuTrek, she doesn't speak fluent Klingon or Romulan. She may speak other languages, Swahili being one, possibly other Federation languages, but it's harder to imagine how they might be useful. Using cryptography, translation programs, reconstruction programs etc which were usually gifted to Spock in TOS should be part of her job though.

Where in TOS is it established that Uhura can't speak Klingon? Or Romulan for that matter?

That ridiculous scene in STVI wasn't in TOS.

 

[Sci]

Yeah, there's nothing in TOS about her not speaking Klingon or Romulan. (In fact, the Federation must have some knowledge of at least one Romulan language, since United Earth was able to negotiate a treaty over subspace radio that established the Neutral Zone, and Vulcan before it had fought a hundred-year war with the Romulans.)

And I'm disinclined to accept one very badly thought-out gag from TUC as being binding on the makers of SNW.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Yeah, there's nothing in TOS about her not speaking Klingon or Romulan. (In fact, the Federation must have some knowledge of at least one Romulan language, since United Earth was able to negotiate a treaty over subspace radio that established the Neutral Zone, and Vulcan before it had fought a hundred-year war with the Romulans.)

And I'm disinclined to accept one very badly thought-out gag from TUC as being binding on the makers of SNW.

Vulcans negotiated the treaty on Behalf of the Federation.

They, The Vulcans and Romulans, both spoke the same native language.

 

[Sci]

Vulcans negotiated the treaty on Behalf of the Federation.

Can't have. There was no Federation when the treaty was negotiated. Treaty was between United Earth and the Romulan Star Empire.

They, The Vulcans and Romulans, both spoke the same native language.

Makes it kind of hard to believe no one knew they were the same species.