Sure. And why not? Star Trek has always been about the dads. Let's have a story about Mom for once. And frankly, assuming the 'leaked' plot is even a little bit true, I think Spock abandoning all logic and rebuffing TNOTM and risk forsaking the timeline just to save his mother makes for a much more interesting story. Plus it opens the door for Kelvin Micheal. (MemAlph isn't clear on when the Klingons killed her parents, but I don't think it would be a reach to say it was before 2233 and the split.)
Ryder is making a comeback and still a nice get, but I think she'd be cheaper than Hemsworth. (pay discrimination notwithstanding) And she has a much more decorated career to hang on.
But Amanda really emphasizes my point. Throughout all of TOS, Spock's relationship with her was really nothing more than window dressing. All the dramatic tension lay in his relationship with Sarek.
This continued through the other series. Almost every charter on TNG focused on the patriarchy. Even Wesley, despite having his mother as another main cast member, was more about the absence of his dad as the driving force in his life. Riker, Worf, Data? All dads. I suppose the one obvious exception is Luwaxana. But, she was usually treated as an annoyance and a burden to Troi. Certainly not celebrated. We did see Geordi's mom, but that was kind of a weird episode.
DS9? More dads. Heck, the power of the patriarchy was an underlying theme. Sisko and Jake and Joe -- Nog and Rom (and Quark) and you could even throw in Zek and the way Moogie was often treated didn't help matters -- Garak and Tain -- Odo and Dr. Mora. We did see Ezri and Kira's moms, but that ended badly for both of them.
Voyager? More of the same. Janeway, Chuckles, Paris, Doc all about dad. B'Elana did see her mother as a positive force, but the absence of her father was the root of all her inner turmoil. Both of Seven's were just shitty parents. Then there's Harry who was portrayed early on as the classic, stereotypical "Mama's boy" in the way that was supposed to make him appear weak -- despite one of the main conceits of the show is that Voyager is supposed to be a pseudo matriarchy.
And the whole underpinning g arc of Enterprise is Archer proving his dad's worth.
The movies aren't better: There's the symbolic relationship V'Ger and Decker.
David, despite growing up working with his mom is ultimately defined as being "just like his father."
Back to Amanda, she's just a soundboard in TVH. Spock's arc in the film ultimately concludes with him literally standing toe to toe with his father.
The big dramatic beats in TFF are the "pain" scenes of Sarek and Bones with his dad.
And the thematic resolution of TUC ultimately comes down to "You have restored my father's/son's faith."
All in all, Star Trek's history has overwhelmingly favored the father/child relationship -- either in celebratory fashion or as the root or crux of the drama.
So, yes, let's try for some "Yay! Matriarhchy!" for a change.
I think you confuse ‘patriarchy’ and ‘matriarchy’ for ‘paternal’ and ‘maternal’ and it sort of goes wrong from there. There are, as you point out, many..possibly a majority...of stories that deal with characters relationships with their fathers (usually dysfunctional) but there are also many that are to do with mothers (Troi, Kira, Geordi...bit of an odd one for Data...B’Ellana, this is just off the top of my head btw.) but none of those are actually about a matriarchy, just as stories about fathers aren’t necessarily about a patriarchy.
I agree that Spock wanting to save his mother would add interest to such a time travel story, even if it doesn’t bend as nicely back to the very start point of the KT. But assuming it was just about getting Kirk senior back? Still wouldn’t be about a patriarchy.
I get that the word root is the same, and in a household unit you could fudge it a bit, but frankly, they are not remotely the same thing. I also find the idea that any kind of positive story about a child needing their parent would be a bad thing (I thought Amanda’s treatment was borderline fridging tbh, and I am being very generous with the border...but then, making Kirk a wild child because he lost his dad isn’t exactly dodging the stereotype book much either, especially after making his stepdad into an arse as well.) and I think it’s insulting to consider things like Sisko and Jake’s relationship anything but a positive thing.
In short...that’s a nonsense reading, and many of your others miss the point... Lwxana included, but especially when disregarding how much of B’Ellanas stuff is to do with her mother. (Not to mention the maternal subtexts between Janeway/Seven/Borg Queen.)
Fatherhood and motherhood on a basic level are nothing to do with the politically loaded terms being bandied about, especially in media representation terms.
‘patriarchy’ and ‘matriarchy’ are to do with gender and power, sure, but the big onus is on power, and parenthood doesn’t even factor into it.
Gender based power structures aren’t even a thing in Trek, certainly by the time of TNG...otherwise we may as well call Bajor a matriarchy, on the grounds that most of its cultural leaders that we see are female, and our highest ranking regular is also female. Given various other story beats, does that mean that DS9 is yay matriarchy? After all, Sisko’s whole destiny is down to the choices made by his Prophet Mother, and by extension everything that happens in the whole series? Is Voyager as you say a pseudo matriarchy because Janeway is female? When does it stop being pseudo? When she listens to Chakotay?
To be clear, I am not arguing about the existence of power structures, but I am talking about Trek. And I think if it’s one thing that many of us love about Trek, it’s in it push for equality, limited only by the restrictions of its time...and how it often skirts them. Beverly Crusher, and by series end, Deanna Troi, for example, both hold the same rank as Riker, and I think it’s fair to say that both of those act as as much of an advisor to Picard as his first officer does...so does that make the enterprise a patriarchy simply because Picard is male? When two thirds of the immediate next rank in the structure are female? Two of his main advisers throughout the series? Not to mention the unofficial advisor in Guinan.
See how easy it is to take this stuff and run with it?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a big name casting decision is just a big name casting decision. If George Kirk had been played by Fred Bloggs, and Winona had a full blown second wind, then Ms.Ryder would already have been reading a script. It’s not like Trek ever goes full Tomb Raider Daddy Issues as a central point...this would probably have been the first. Though maybe we class The Visitor on DS9 as that..because that wasn’t in any way a well regarded episode. huh? (Maybe the Worf Son of Mogh stuff, but tbh, that was always more about Worf and general Klingon stuff, for good or ill.)
I like that Trek is equality based in so many ways, and have zero problems, even welcome the idea of Winona returning. I would prefer it to the George Kirk idea. But don’t think either of those things are related to power structures beyond the Almighty Box Office Dollar, basically.
I would also say it’s because Kirk is still the Star, maybe more so in these new KT films, since Quinto has waned since 2009. In fact, Pegg and Saldana are both more famous names outside of genre screen work (Pegg possibly topping even Pine for big hitting films.) So I would say make the next film about Scott and Uhura, with McCoy just because. Then everyone is happy, especially us Brits xD
Edit: forgot ask...the what now with Decker and V’Ger? I don’t remember V’Ger specifying a gender for the creator, and Decker is never explicitly identified as son of the TOS character. Not even gonna mention the Virgin Mary imagery with Ilia.
