Is there in Truth no beauty - Introducing Betazoids?

[Nerys Myk]

I, too, much resented Zefram Cochrane depicted as a booze sodden asshole. Corbett may not have been a great actor, but he got the essence of the character across. TOS Cochrane did have a measure of old world dignity to him as well as a decent measure of idealism. That definately comes across since those are the traits the writer, director and actor chose to feature in the character. And nowhere does he say anything like, "I was a drunken bastard once and I'd love a second chance."

The FC Cochrane was a deliberate 180 degree refutation of the TOS depiction. I don't mind roughing up the edges, but before they made nuKirk a jackass in ST09 they made Cochrane an asshole in FC.

I dont see that in TOS Cochrane at all. At first he's a man resigned to his fate (even before he was marooned) and happy to have company to share it. He's also interested in what's happened since he was gone. Its Kirk's description of what the universe is like that lights a fire in him again. (That seems to common with Cochrane, he gives up too easy) And as I quoted he becomes a jerk once he finds out the Companion is in love with him. No dignity there. He was more sympathetic when he thought of her as a pet or a thing. Though he changes his mind when he sees her in a glammed up human body.

I didn't mind the drunken sot bit. It was going from lantern-jawed All-American leading man to Stretch Cunningham that bugs me. Radiation poisoning and chronic alcohol abuse can only explain so much.

They brought in an actor with different looks. Not a big deal. The character isn't required to be a lanterned-jawed All-American leading man or Stretch Cunningham.

 

[Christopher]

The actor thing doesn't matter. Robin Curtis doesn't resemble Kirstie Alley, and Simon Pegg doesn't look a thing like James Doohan. Actors perform. They interpret imaginary characters. And different actors can play the same character. All the audience has to do is keep in mind the difference between fantasy and reality and not obsess on appearances. I once saw a stage production of Hamlet where King Claudius of Denmark was played by a black man, even though his brother and nephew were played by white men. And it wasn't commented on, since of course you don't rewrite the dialogue in a Shakespeare play. They just trusted the audience to accept the poetic license, the same way a theater audience accepts the poetic license of unrealistic sets and special effects, or of characters talking out loud to the audience to represent their internal thoughts that other characters nearby are unable to hear.

 

[Warped9]

Just as they are free to reinterpret a character I am free to ignore what I consider to be poor judgement. There's no law that says I have to agree with any of their re-imaginings.

But it's no surprise that I disagree with the reinterpretation of the character because I also thought FC was bad overall anyway. They ignored their own continuity they established in TNG so it's no surprise they would piss on TOS.

And so getting back to the OP's subject, sure why the hell not retcon Miranda Jones as a Betazed? Cochrane was made an ass and Kirk a an arrogant jerk

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

The actor thing doesn't matter. Robin Curtis doesn't resemble Kirstie Alley, and Simon Pegg doesn't look a thing like James Doohan. Actors perform. They interpret imaginary characters. And different actors can play the same character. All the audience has to do is keep in mind the difference between fantasy and reality and not obsess on appearances. I once saw a stage production of Hamlet where King Claudius of Denmark was played by a black man, even though his brother and nephew were played by white men. And it wasn't commented on, since of course you don't rewrite the dialogue in a Shakespeare play. They just trusted the audience to accept the poetic license, the same way a theater audience accepts the poetic license of unrealistic sets and special effects, or of characters talking out loud to the audience to represent their internal thoughts that other characters nearby are unable to hear.

Yes, but you do expect some sense of continuity when the character is iconic as with Cochrane. I agree that the overall look of the actor should not be an issue, but in the case of the comparison between Corbett and Cromwell, we are talking about way more than differences in their physical appearance. Back when I was still giving TNG a chance and first saw FC, my brain did a spit-take when I was asked to believe that Cromwell was playing the same character as Corbett. Cromwell played him as a completely different character. It messed up any sense of continuity which is extremely important when it comes to Trek. Abrams knew this and that is why the young actors (IMHO) come off as subtly mimicking the original cast while still making the characters their own (Pine's manner of crossing his legs when he sits in the Captain's chair and Shatting up some of his lines; Quinto's eyebrow raising; Pegg's eccentric approach; Urban's grumpiness; etc... all allow us to connect back to the original characters as they were played by the original cast). This has less to do with physical appearance and more to do with the character's style. Imagine a production of Macbeth where the lead character is a laid-back pot-smoker who really doesn't care about getting ahead politically. It simply wouldn't work (regardless of whether he was white/black, short/tall, or even male/female for that matter).

 

[scotpens]

Last time I checked, Lawrence of Arabia wasn't from Arabia.

And Scott of the Antarctic wasn’t born in the Antarctic either.

Of course the real Zefram Cochrane would have been more human and fallible. But the First Contact version was a caricature. I just can't see any connection between that Cochrane and the one in Metamorphosis other than their names.

The Metamorphosis Cochrane was barely a character.

To me, he always seemed a bit of a wimp.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The actor thing doesn't matter. Robin Curtis doesn't resemble Kirstie Alley, and Simon Pegg doesn't look a thing like James Doohan. Actors perform. They interpret imaginary characters. And different actors can play the same character. All the audience has to do is keep in mind the difference between fantasy and reality and not obsess on appearances. I once saw a stage production of Hamlet where King Claudius of Denmark was played by a black man, even though his brother and nephew were played by white men. And it wasn't commented on, since of course you don't rewrite the dialogue in a Shakespeare play. They just trusted the audience to accept the poetic license, the same way a theater audience accepts the poetic license of unrealistic sets and special effects, or of characters talking out loud to the audience to represent their internal thoughts that other characters nearby are unable to hear.

Yes, but you do expect some sense of continuity when the character is iconic as with Cochrane. I agree that the overall look of the actor should not be an issue, but in the case of the comparison between Corbett and Cromwell, we are talking about way more than differences in their physical appearance. Back when I was still giving TNG a chance and first saw FC, my brain did a spit-take when I was asked to believe that Cromwell was playing the same character as Corbett. Cromwell played him as a completely different character. It messed up any sense of continuity which is extremely important when it comes to Trek. Abrams knew this and that is why the young actors (IMHO) come off as subtly mimicking the original cast while still making the characters their own (Pine's manner of crossing his legs when he sits in the Captain's chair and Shatting up some of his lines; Quinto's eyebrow raising; Pegg's eccentric approach; Urban's grumpiness; etc... all allow us to connect back to the original characters as they were played by the original cast). This has less to do with physical appearance and more to do with the character's style. Imagine a production of Macbeth where the lead character is a laid-back pot-smoker who really doesn't care about getting ahead politically. It simply wouldn't work (regardless of whether he was white/black, short/tall, or even male/female for that matter).

I wouldn't place Corbett's Cochrane in the ranks of the iconic characters. His performance is pretty underwhelming. No real quirks to hang a future performance on. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, "He ran the gamut of emotions from A to B". Cochrane is supposed to be a brilliant scientist. An Einstein or Edison. But Corbett comes across as something you'd find in a Macy's disply window or in the toy department. He's outacted by a special effect!!!

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

The actor thing doesn't matter. Robin Curtis doesn't resemble Kirstie Alley, and Simon Pegg doesn't look a thing like James Doohan. Actors perform. They interpret imaginary characters. And different actors can play the same character. All the audience has to do is keep in mind the difference between fantasy and reality and not obsess on appearances. I once saw a stage production of Hamlet where King Claudius of Denmark was played by a black man, even though his brother and nephew were played by white men. And it wasn't commented on, since of course you don't rewrite the dialogue in a Shakespeare play. They just trusted the audience to accept the poetic license, the same way a theater audience accepts the poetic license of unrealistic sets and special effects, or of characters talking out loud to the audience to represent their internal thoughts that other characters nearby are unable to hear.

Yes, but you do expect some sense of continuity when the character is iconic as with Cochrane. I agree that the overall look of the actor should not be an issue, but in the case of the comparison between Corbett and Cromwell, we are talking about way more than differences in their physical appearance. Back when I was still giving TNG a chance and first saw FC, my brain did a spit-take when I was asked to believe that Cromwell was playing the same character as Corbett. Cromwell played him as a completely different character. It messed up any sense of continuity which is extremely important when it comes to Trek. Abrams knew this and that is why the young actors (IMHO) come off as subtly mimicking the original cast while still making the characters their own (Pine's manner of crossing his legs when he sits in the Captain's chair and Shatting up some of his lines; Quinto's eyebrow raising; Pegg's eccentric approach; Urban's grumpiness; etc... all allow us to connect back to the original characters as they were played by the original cast). This has less to do with physical appearance and more to do with the character's style. Imagine a production of Macbeth where the lead character is a laid-back pot-smoker who really doesn't care about getting ahead politically. It simply wouldn't work (regardless of whether he was white/black, short/tall, or even male/female for that matter).

I wouldn't place Corbett's Cochrane in the ranks of the iconic characters. His performance is pretty underwhelming. No real quirks to hang a future performance on. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, "He ran the gamut of emotions from A to B". Cochrane is supposed to be a brilliant scientist. An Einstein or Edison. But Corbett comes across as something you'd find in a Macy's disply window or in the toy department. He's outacted by a special effect!!!

I think the character is pretty iconic to the ST universe...he invented the warp drive! I disagree, I think Corbett's character is remembered which is why Cromwell's portrayal (while good) seems so disconnected. Sounds like you are unhappy with him because he's attractive. Not all great scientists have to be awkward looking. Besides, in Metamorphosis, the Companion made an aged Cochrane young again. She may have taken some liberties in the looks department when rejuvenating him. In fact, with his new found chiseled good looks, Cochrane's self-confidence may have boomed which in turn causes him to act less like a dweeb and more like a playa! There, problem solved! All's well in the universe again.

 

[Captain Robert April]

But if they'd hired somebody who at least bore a slight resemblance to Corbett (like the aforementioned George Clooney), it would've been an easier pill to swallow.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, but you do expect some sense of continuity when the character is iconic as with Cochrane. I agree that the overall look of the actor should not be an issue, but in the case of the comparison between Corbett and Cromwell, we are talking about way more than differences in their physical appearance. Back when I was still giving TNG a chance and first saw FC, my brain did a spit-take when I was asked to believe that Cromwell was playing the same character as Corbett. Cromwell played him as a completely different character. It messed up any sense of continuity which is extremely important when it comes to Trek. Abrams knew this and that is why the young actors (IMHO) come off as subtly mimicking the original cast while still making the characters their own (Pine's manner of crossing his legs when he sits in the Captain's chair and Shatting up some of his lines; Quinto's eyebrow raising; Pegg's eccentric approach; Urban's grumpiness; etc... all allow us to connect back to the original characters as they were played by the original cast). This has less to do with physical appearance and more to do with the character's style. Imagine a production of Macbeth where the lead character is a laid-back pot-smoker who really doesn't care about getting ahead politically. It simply wouldn't work (regardless of whether he was white/black, short/tall, or even male/female for that matter).

I wouldn't place Corbett's Cochrane in the ranks of the iconic characters. His performance is pretty underwhelming. No real quirks to hang a future performance on. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, "He ran the gamut of emotions from A to B". Cochrane is supposed to be a brilliant scientist. An Einstein or Edison. But Corbett comes across as something you'd find in a Macy's disply window or in the toy department. He's outacted by a special effect!!!

I think the character is pretty iconic to the ST universe...he invented the warp drive! I disagree, I think Corbett's character is remembered which is why Cromwell's portrayal (while good) seems so disconnected. Sounds like you are unhappy with him because he's attractive. Not all great scientists have to be awkward looking. Besides, in Metamorphosis, the Companion made an aged Cochrane young again. She may have taken some liberties in the looks department when rejuvenating him. In fact, with his new found chiseled good looks, Cochrane's self-confidence may have boomed which in turn causes him to act less like a dweeb and more like a playa! There, problem solved! All's well in the universe again.

No, I'm "unhappy" because he's not a very dynamic actor. A lot of characters on trek are remembered because the actors playing them gave memorable performances. Montalban, Windom, Campbell and Colicos come to mind. Corbett simply isn't in their league. My Macys gag was about his stiffness not his looks. Cochrane might be remembered by folks in-universe because he invented warp drive. but out here in the real world its in spite of Corbetts performance. Cochrane is "great" becuae we're told he is but we aren't shown he is.

Dudes stuck on a planetoid with the reanimated corpse of Nancy Helford, he aint gonna do much "playin"

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but you do expect some sense of continuity when the character is iconic as with Cochrane.

I'd say just the opposite. Iconic characters transcend any single actor. Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Hamlet, Batman -- these are iconic characters, and they've been played by many different people.

Actually I agree that Cromwell was an odd choice for Cochrane. I would've been happier with someone more physically suited to the role. (I recall that Tom Hanks was considered for it -- that could've worked.) But I recognize that this isn't reality, it's ultimately a bunch of actors standing on a set delivering scripted lines into a camera, and they're just pretending to represent an abstract reality. So I can suspend my disbelief. It's not my preference, but it's what we got.

And my main point is that I don't have a problem with the way the character was written. I think it nicely deflated people's expectations about "iconic" historical figures, and it served the themes of Star Trek because it was about a flawed man being inspired to pursue something better. And it just doesn't make sense to complain about Cochrane at this point in his life being a different man than he is over two centuries later. I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago. Imagine how unrecognizable I'd be after ten times that long.

 

[T'Girl]

Actually I agree that Cromwell was an odd choice for Cochrane.

It occurs to me that if Corbett had lived a few extra years, he could have reprised the role. He was only six years Cromwell's senior. I watch the entire run of Dallas a couple of years ago and thought that Corbett was a talented, decent, understated actor.

Having him again as Zephran Cochrane would have been a lovely gift to Star Trek fans.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And Corbett looking considerably older than he should be could easily be explained away by radiation poisoning.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As much as I wasn't totally thrilled with his casting in First Contact, I do have to admit that the choice of Cromwell ended up working beautifully at the beginning of In a Mirror, Darkly. And pretty much I agree with what Christopher said above about iconic characters, and also suspension of disbelief.

 

[Silvercrest]

But if they'd hired somebody who at least bore a slight resemblance to Corbett (like the aforementioned George Clooney), it would've been an easier pill to swallow.

Aw, you guys just want him because he has the same initials as Glenn Corbett.

 

[Python Trek]

...Of course, TOS already had the precedent of Zephram Cochrane, a person who is both "human" and "of Alpha Centauri". Quite possibly, a certain category of alien beings from outside Earth was classified as "human" in the 2260s.

(Or then Zephram Cochrane was a human from the one and only Earth stock, and his association with Alpha Centauri had some complex explanation, such as him moving from Earth to AC, or him being the descendant of Earth humans transplanted to AC by aliens. But while a variant of this basic theme is the usual interpretation, it's by no means the only one.)

Timo Saloniemi

It's quite clear...to me, anyway ()...that Roddenberry intended for us to understand that humans colonized other star systems in sub-light vessels FIRST, and then discovered FTL LATER, and possibly much later. Cochrane was from Alpha Centauri and he was very much human......because Gene figured that by the mid-21st century, humans would have had colonies on our nearest stellar neighbor. No "descendant of humans transplanted by aliens" stuff is required.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Thats how I see it.

 

[Christopher]

It's quite clear...to me, anyway ()...that Roddenberry intended for us to understand that humans colonized other star systems in sub-light vessels FIRST, and then discovered FTL LATER, and possibly much later. Cochrane was from Alpha Centauri and he was very much human......because Gene figured that by the mid-21st century, humans would have had colonies on our nearest stellar neighbor. No "descendant of humans transplanted by aliens" stuff is required.

True, except for a couple of details. First, it was Gene Coon, not Roddenberry, who wrote "Metamorphosis," so the idea was probably Coon's (TV writing at the time wasn't as dominated by a single showrunner as it is today). Second, they deliberately avoided pinning down a chronology when making TOS; the idea that warp drive was invented in the mid-21st century was only settled on in the TNG era, first when the 1993 Star Trek Chronology offered a conjectural date of 2061 for it, and later when First Contact locked it down as 2063. At the time "Metamorphosis" was written, the timing hadn't been locked down. (Although for what it's worth, Coon did co-write "Space Seed," which suggested the show was 200 years or so after the 1990s; and "Metamorphosis" put Cochrane's disappearance 150 years before the episode. So Coon may have been thinking warp drive was invented in the early 21st century, for all we know.)

And third, they didn't say "Zefram Cochrane from Alpha Centauri," but "Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri." So it's a place where he lived or a place he's associated with, not necessarily the place he was native to. Someone above offered Lawrence of Arabia as a comparison; T. E. Lawrence was born in Wales and never really lived in the Middle East, just making periodic trips there throughout his 20s, first as an archaeologist, then as a soldier during WWI. So maybe "Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri" means "Zefram Cochrane, the first human being to set foot on Alpha Centauri III" or "Cochrane, the founder of the first colony at Alpha Centauri" or something like that.

 

[T'Girl]

It's quite clear...to me, anyway ()...that Roddenberry intended for us to understand that humans colonized other star systems in sub-light vessels FIRST, and then discovered FTL LATER, and possibly much later.

Another possibility is that colonization started very soon after the first FTL flight and contact with the vulcans, just not aboard Human ships. The presence of Phlox and, in the last season of Enterprise, other aliens on Earth, indicates that there must be a ongoing transport system in and out of Earth's star system.

Humans could have emigrated out to fresh colony worlds and also to other races home worlds and colonies.

Why have Human voyage to the stars in warp one dugout canoes, when some alien Caraval Cruise Lines swing into Earth orbit every other week?

Another, possibility is that while the NX-01 is the first "Human Built" high speed starship, Humans had been simply buying reasonable fast starshis from alien races for close to a century.

 

[Christopher]

Well, you don't need a fast starship to get to Alpha Centauri.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"I'd like to get you an a slow ship to Alpha Centauri"

Come on, everybody sing!!!!!