Matt Decker IS Will’s father

[diankra]

Yep, there was no reason to mention the connection in TMP. It was in the Phase 2 writers guide, but even then I doubt we'd have got a clear reference, more something like "Will, be careful. Your father..." "I'm not my father, Jim. I'll make my own mistakes." "That's what I'm afraid of."

 

[Christopher]

I think we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about good storytelling and making it accessible to both non-fans and fans. I'm talking about the nature of the fan base, what appeals to them and how much they can be expected to recall, and how that has changed over the decades.

Yes, I know that. I just don't think it's relevant here because the fanbase does not constitute the majority of the film's target audience. The need to make the story accessible to non-fans applies whether or not the fans are aware of a given thing, so the question of the fans' awareness doesn't matter.

 

[Decius]

Yes, I know that. I just don't think it's relevant here because the fanbase does not constitute the majority of the film's target audience. The need to make the story accessible to non-fans applies whether or not the fans are aware of a given thing, so the question of the fans' awareness doesn't matter.

I'm confused. I thought the topic of this post was whether or not it's official that Matt was Will's father. I touched on your example to cite that it didn't need to be stated directly in the text of the film, because the fans would know. You're saying the film shouldn't need to be beholden to the fans at the expense of attracting non-fans to the audience, which is exactly my point. I don't understand what we're debating here?

 

[Christopher]

I'm confused. I thought the topic of this post was whether or not it's official that Matt was Will's father. I touched on your example to cite that it didn't need to be stated directly in the text of the film, because the fans would know. You're saying the film shouldn't need to be beholden to the fans at the expense of attracting non-fans to the audience, which is exactly my point. I don't understand what we're debating here?

I wasn't debating you. You're the one who came in this afternoon and debated a point I made a week ago in response to somebody else. I've just been trying to explain what I meant back then and why I don't think your observation refutes it.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

If my own memory serves me, Will Decker being Matt's son was an important backstory for TMP at the time of release. It underscored Kirk's reluctance to put him in danger's way, given lingering shades of guilt over his father's death.

If it was such an important part of the backstory for TMP, I wish that somebody had bothered to put it in the screenplay.

But the important thing is that this isn't an either/or choice. It's not about choosing between accessibility to new viewers and familiarity to old viewers. The ideal is to balance both -- to tell a story in a way that builds on what came before but still explains it adequately to new viewers. The audience is never monolithic, so you need to try to make your story work for different categories of viewer at the same time. Targeting your work too narrowly is self-defeating if you want to attract a large audience.

Very true. Too many people try to pretend that pleasing the existing fanbase or pleasing the general public is an either/or question. It's not.

But if it's just an Easter egg or a subtle wink, like Will Decker implicitly being Matt Decker's son, then you don't call attention to it.

Will being Matt Decker's son isn't an Easter egg or a subtle wink, it's not even in the picture. Not even in the expanded editions or the deleted scenes. That's not subtle, that's nonexistent.

And yeah, I know it's in several bits of the ancillary material, but none of that officially "counts", so...

It occurs to me that ST:TMP itself is an example of a film that was not made primarily for the existing fanbase. Instead of trying to be like an episode of the show, it tried to be a classy, intellectual science fiction feature film experience in the vein of 2001 or Silent Running or the like. And though it was widely criticized by fans for not feeling enough like Star Trek, it was actually a pretty successful film at the box office.

Personally, I don't think that expecting a movie called Star Trek: The Motion Picture to be more like Star Trek than 2001 or Silent Running is an unreasonable expectation to have.

 

[Decius]

I wasn't debating you. You're the one who came in this afternoon and debated a point I made a week ago in response to somebody else. I've just been trying to explain what I meant back then and why I don't think your observation refutes it.

The thing is, I never intended to debate or refute your point. I'm new to the board, just joined today, and I quickly read through all the five pages of posts in this thread before adding my own observations on a topic in which I took interest. My only observation having to do with your earlier comment was that you shut down and talked right past what to me seemed like a very valid observation, which I wanted to second. To wit:

A LARGE number of people who watch TMP DID watch TOS - at least where I was.

People forget just how insanely popular Star Trek was in the 1970's. Many conventions were overflowing with fans.

I'm not discussing competent writing or movie box office in any general sense here. I'm talking about just one particular movie at one particular point in time, ST:TMP in 1978. I was in high school at the time, and I experienced all the promotional buzz accompanying the release of the movie, including production press that Will's character was Matt's son. I didn't expect to receive such scrutiny and being talked past for making what I believed to be a casual observation on a board where I am a brand new member.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you stand on the question of the Deckers, which was the entire point of this thread, and your responses to me have said nothing substantive in that regard.

 

[johnnybear]

Looking at both actors, William Windom and Stephen Collins, you could believe that Collins could be Windom's son, so it was good casting to be honest! When I first heard the name before I saw the film back in 79 I assumed that Willard was Matt's son as well!
JB

 

[Christopher]

The thing is, I never intended to debate or refute your point.

But you did. Your first post contained the line,

I also saw a comment on good writing, which is supposed to assume the viewer has no prior background of the story, but like everything, times change.

I was the one who made that comment, and your very first post in this thread was a response to it. Just because you didn't remember it was my comment doesn't mean you weren't refuting my point.

 

[Ssosmcin]

What I object to is the TV spinoff-era Vulcans and Romulans having ugly, built-up foreheads like cartoon cavemen. It's a continuity clash with TOS, and the later guest shots by Spock and Sarek on TNG would of course not have the forehead appliances. More clash.

It seemed to be more Romulan focused than Vulcans, partially, as said, to stop making actors shave eyebrows, but also to differentiat them from Vulcans. The foreheads made it easy to identify them as Romulans on the then smaller TV screens. It's been toned down drastically in Picard and actually looks a lot better.

What bugs me about Vulcans is that later on, they ALL had to have the bowl cut Spock had, instead of that being Spock's personal appearance. Why is having the exact same hairstyle logical? Stonn had his hair parted to the side, Sarek was wavy and relaxed, but Surak had the bowl cut and every damned Vulcan in the spinoffs had the same hair for the men. So much that Sybok stood out because he didn't.

 

[StarCruiser]

The thing is, I never intended to debate or refute your point. I'm new to the board, just joined today, and I quickly read through all the five pages of posts in this thread before adding my own observations on a topic in which I took interest. My only observation having to do with your earlier comment was that you shut down and talked right past what to me seemed like a very valid observation, which I wanted to second. To wit:



I'm not discussing competent writing or movie box office in any general sense here. I'm talking about just one particular movie at one particular point in time, ST:TMP in 1978. I was in high school at the time, and I experienced all the promotional buzz accompanying the release of the movie, including production press that Will's character was Matt's son. I didn't expect to receive such scrutiny and being talked past for making what I believed to be a casual observation on a board where I am a brand new member.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you stand on the question of the Deckers, which was the entire point of this thread, and your responses to me have said nothing substantive in that regard.

Matt Decker was Will Decker's father. That was common knowledge (or assumption) at the time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Turns out Will is Matt's father! (Time travel, whatchugonnado?)