Makes some sense for Romulans but even then it was a bit much. I never liked how flanderized Vulcans became when so many other races were being deflanderized.
I mean, Sarek didn't have that cut, even in TNG
Kirk drift—misremembering a character…
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
Makes some sense for Romulans but even then it was a bit much. I never liked how flanderized Vulcans became when so many other races were being deflanderized.
I mean, Sarek didn't have that cut, even in TNG
...So is Ortega's haircut from the Mirror Universe, then? Is it an EVIL haircut?
Or Picard's haircut was the evil one all along.
Definitely Picard's. It was attached to the stick up his ass. 
No, just mischievous and very sarcastic.
Which is her thing. Because everyone has a thing.
What could they have done differently that would be true to him, but show his development?
The same as Sulu. Not much. Chekov didn't really have a personality, he had characteristics. He had the Russian pride. He had his youth. He had his role as Spock's protégée. Which didn't last long. He was the teen idol to counter Davey Jones. He aged out of his role.
The movies didn't build on him, they just made his accent stronger. His best role was in TWOK because they took his science background and used it. After that, he barely even navigated. By TUC he was just dopey.
The movies weren't about the supporting characters, so he was there to keep the cast intact.
In this case I am a little bit serious but the wife has been rather adamant about her negative opinions of it.Not sure if you're serious (because... it's you), but me too.
I mean, if this is the worst my mid-life crisis gets then I suppose she should be thankful
Yes.
To be accurate the expression “Kirk drift” isn’t solely just about Kirk specifically. It describes a broader idea. In that sense any fictional character, particularly in Trek, can be subject to “Kirk drift.”
So the discussion of how any of the TOS characters have been “drifted” from their original portrayals in TOS is fair game.
Any possible reference to TOS Pike’s “toxic masculinity” is pure bullshit particularly since we saw TOS Pike only once and not throughout even a season let alone a series. It also smacks of ignorance of context. There is zero evidence of toxic masculinity in TOS Pike’s portrayal in context of when the show was made. On the other hand there is ample evidence of toxic femininity in contemporary Trek. In extent that “toxic femininity” has not only drifted Pike’s character as originally envisioned, but Spock’s character as well.
Make no mistake—the thinly veiled agenda behind all this is the deconstruction and symbolic castration of heroic male characterization. In the past character drift could be explained by a character, or even a real person, being caricatured by popular media and broader society by misremembering only cliched aspects of the original portrayal. But for some time now it’s become a deliberate act of deconstruction to disparage and discredit the original.
Oh joy. We're back to this again.
You seem to have very little understanding of what toxic masculinity actually means.
Again, I haven’t watched SNW yet so I can’t comment on Pike’s portrayal there, but in ‘The Cage’ doesn’t he make a comment about being uncomfortable with having a woman on the bridge? I assume that’s what they meant, since as you said, Pike’s character is barely developed in TOS.
Would you argue that this is not a toxic attitude? Does it not indicate that Pike somehow feels that having a woman on the bridge is a threat to his masculinity? Is changing that aspect of his character part of some sinister feminist agenda to destroy manly men? Lol.
https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-c...022-its-a-mans-celluloid-world-report-rev.pdf
Here is a recent study showing how male characters still dominate the highest grossing movies, if you are actually interested in the facts instead of reactionary right wing talking points
Here is a recent study showing how male characters still dominate the highest grossing movies, if you are actually interested in the facts instead of reactionary right wing talking points
No, just a character in the pilot episode pointing out something to the 60s audience that will be a mainstay of the show, women will be on the bridge. Prominently, since the first officer is a woman who Pike in no way acts against or his yoeman, Colt.
Pike's character in SNW is a decent modernization of the original. That not far off from Leslie Nielsen's part as the ship's captain in Forbidden Planet. Marshal Dillon or Ben Cartwright in space.
Wow, if you actually believe this pathetic drivel about “veiled agendas” to “discredit the original” Star Trek with “toxic femininity” and “castration” you are way too deep inside some sort of conspiracy rabbit hole. This is beyond just not ”getting with the woke crowd” or merely “not liking a show”. It's full on incel crap. I don't think I can take anything you say serious after this.
An agenda doesn’t have to be an organized group plan. An individual can have an agenda that also parallels others’ similar mindset. Making men look weak and incompetent is indeed a mindset of some in society, and it’s definitely apparent in popular media. But it can be found in the real world as well.
If I had to define “toxic masculinity” I’d say it’s male behaviour that seeks to demean, disparage, manipulate and exploit others and not just women. A genuinely strong and self-assured man has no need to demean, disparage, manipulate or exploit anyone particularly in any overbearing manner. Such behaviour is not a sign of strength, but a cover for weakness and insecurity.
But somewhere along the way “toxic masculinity” has been conflated to define masculinity in practically any form: if you’re male and particularly a white male then you’re shit. And you’re likely part of the oppressive patriarchy and exploitative Western colonialism. You need to sit down, shut up and be put into your place. And if there is such a thing as “toxic femininity” then this is where and how it manifests itself, in the very same behaviour men are accused of: demeaning others, particularly men.
If I had to define “toxic masculinity” I’d say it’s male behaviour that seeks to demean, disparage, manipulate and exploit others and not just women. A genuinely strong and self-assured man has no need to demean, disparage, manipulate or exploit anyone particularly in any overbearing manner. Such behaviour is not a sign of strength, but a cover for weakness and insecurity.
But somewhere along the way “toxic masculinity” has been conflated to define masculinity in practically any form: if you’re male and particularly a white male then you’re shit. And you’re likely part of the oppressive patriarchy and exploitative Western colonialism. You need to sit down, shut up and be put into your place. And if there is such a thing as “toxic femininity” then this is where and how it manifests itself, in the very same behaviour men are accused of: demeaning others, particularly men.
- Status