In other words: no reason.
New TOS - Should we?
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
Andrea is a fixed point in time. Nothing can stop that outfit. The universe wants it to happen. It would obliterate Spock Prime before Andrea.There's a good chance that due to the time change, Corby didn't go to Exo 3, and married Chapel. Roger and Christine Corby lived happily ever after.Other scenario: Roger and Christine Corby went to Exo 3 together, died, and there are now Roger and Christine androids running about. Sadly, the Christine-bot would probably not let the Roger-bot build the Andrea-bot.
I wandered into this tanget because IMO the inherent sexism in TOS for new stories can only be mitigated if you treat the existing characters with more respect. That doesn't mean making Chapel a bad ass master of Kirk-fu but rather let her use the skills that have been established so that she can own a niche other than 'crush on Spock'. This holds doubly true of Rand and 'crush on Kirk' as she is an even more versatile character.
I think the issue I have with the reboots is that both Trek and BSG is that there was a degree of incompetence in updating the pre-existing female characters, despite there being room for them in the story. Starbuck was recognisable as the same character (Boomer less so because she wasn't Starbucks wing man). Serena and Cassiopeia were absent (although one could argue nominally that Six was partly based on her, since she was Admiral Cain's lover). Athena appeared but as an entirely different character. Elements of Athena appeared in Duala but they backed off giving her a close relationship with Adama, even when she was his daughter-in-law. So it was only really Sheba that made the transition as one of Cain's trusted crew rather than a daughter and even then, she wasn't labelled as Sheba.
I like that they drastically increased female representation in Nubsg but not at the expense of all the originals. An updated Cassiopeia would have rocked.
I'm pretty sure that's a reason. I do understand that you don't really like the subsidiary female Trek characters and resist suggestions that they should ever be given more to do, but they're not that likeable because they are so poorly written. I'd prefer it if they were written better rather than written off completely. I think that's a valid viewpoint when talking about new Trek stories.
Even Majel herself said that. The role was not very interesting to her.
Actually, she has a few moments where she's pretty cool or interesting especially in 'Obsession, Amok Time, and a glimmer of something going on in And the Children Shall Lead. Even Majel thought she was dull though. I think she has to be viewed in the context of how nurse characters were portrayed alongside doctor characters in the sixties.
She could have been so much cooler if they'd given her some dialogue relevant to her training with Korby in Operation Annihilate, the Apple, the Paradise Syndrome, Return to Tomorrow, I, Mudd, or Turnabout Intruder, or if they'd spent a bit more time building a non-romantic friendship with Spock following their moment in Amok Time, or a more logical sciency Chapel after hosting Spock's katra.
Last edited:
I can sympathise with that. One of the reasons why I champion Rand so much is because Grace was treated appallingly behind the scenes and if Rand can be elevated to where she was intended to be in new comics, novels, or stories then maybe that makes up for it.
I personally agree. It's why I prefer stories with Pike, Colt, Yeoman Smith (though STC's plotline with her was mixed for me) and the like is because I want to see a different mix of stories. I would have highly enjoyed a Kelvinverse story around Captain Sulu precisely because you could bring in Rand, Saavik, and many others to tell more variety of their stories.
Last edited:
Saavik is a whole other story. I wonder if there was some resistance to making her too interesting or too up front for fear of her spearheading a spin off. I thought that Jaylah's background in Beyond had shades of Saavik. She was a potential gold mine as a half Romulan.
Deepfaking Kirsty Alley or Robin Curtis to be consistent in II, III, IV, and VI, and maybe even as a background character in V could be a fun experiment. I would have much preferred a Saavik who was partially redeemed in VI rather than Valeris.
Are they writing 20+ year future Kelvin-verse stories?
That's one of the reasons I'm grateful that I didn't know about any of that stuff when I fell in love with Star Trek. Chapel is fine as she is. One of the particular things I like about Star Trek that later spinoffs didn't do is not feel the need to do more with secondary/tertiary characters than they needed to do. Chapel was there, but not all the time and she was pretty steady throughout. It made the ship feel like there were a lot of people in it. When there's supposed to be hundreds of people and you only see a few, it could make you wonder, like Jojo Krako, and there's only a few people no matter what they say. I'm not naming names but a certain show claimed to have a 1000 people in their ship but they only bothered with about 8 of them, and they had to be in every single episode. It's nice not seeing someone like Chapel for a while but she's still there, or DeSalle, or Hadley, or the many others.
This whole deep fake thing of dead people is appalling. It turns people into "skins" or virtual meat-puppets. If you're famous enough or attached to a well-known enough franchise and your heirs want the money you don't even get the guarantee of being remembered or forgotten for your body of work, because your dead image is going to keep performing but it's not you and it's not going to make the same creative choices you would have made. And no actor gets to take over a character unless they're a digital skinwalker.
The casualness with which people suggest this just because they want MOAR or want to tinker movies and shows to their tastes is creepy AF.
The casualness with which people suggest this just because they want MOAR or want to tinker movies and shows to their tastes is creepy AF.
Actually, I do agree. I wasn't a fan of the way Voyager did it. Re-use of more guest characters would have made it a better show. That said, I miss additional characters when only the troika beam down. Why use Spock for A&A missions instead of Caroline Palamas? Who wouldn't have liked to see Helen Noel in Whom Gods Destroy? I'm more of a fan of letting characters be a bit more capable when they do appear, using established skills rather than insisting that Sulu should always have been at the helm.
Come, come Mr Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas.
I'm a bit disturbed that people want to use it to tweak porn but I'm more relaxed about playing with it as little projects. It's just a similar motivation as people who like drawing portraits of their favourite characters. You see on here that there is a broad range of tastes. Some people love TMP, others want more of this or less of that. A future where people can tailor their viewing could be so much fun. The multiverse is canon after all. Others who like things just as they are can continue to enjoy things just as they are.
It's probably true that such projects should remain personal due to copyright or royalties. As I said before, I'm more in board with full on animation for new stories rather than digital avatars.
There's the concept of ownership of one's own image and likeness, which even George effing Lucas has supported (as hypocritical as that might sound). People should not be commodified without their consent. And CONSENT is the word that's missing in so many of these discussions. "Young minds, fresh ideas" gets you data mining of personal information as often as it gives you something cool. Not all progress is progressive.
And Helen Noel is boring. Except for her looks I've never seen the appeal.
And Helen Noel is boring. Except for her looks I've never seen the appeal.
Well put. It makes me uncomfortable at this idea, and for every TOS recreation there is 10 inappropriate uses. It seems, well, disrespectful, since the person cannot give consent.There's the concept of ownership of one's own image and likeness, which even George effing Lucas has supported (as hypocritical as that might sound). People should not be commodified without their consent. And CONSENT is the word that's missing in so many of these discussions. "Young minds, fresh ideas" gets you data mining of personal information as often as it gives you something cool. Not all progress is progressive.
And Helen Noel is boring. Except for her looks I've never seen the appeal.
It's true that likenesses should not be commodified without consent. John Byrne in his photo novels could only feature those actors (or heirs to the estates) who had signed off on their images being used. I'm not sure how one might determine where the definition of commodification should start. I recall that Steve McQueen's likeness was used in a car advert over a decade ago. Sean Young recorded her own lines for her digital self in the Blade Runner sequel, which was layered over an actress with similar bone structure. It looked like a right expensive ball ache for a few minutes of film. I doubt anybody is going to be commoditising it any time soon.There's the concept of ownership of one's own image and likeness, which even George effing Lucas has supported (as hypocritical as that might sound). People should not be commodified without their consent. And CONSENT is the word that's missing in so many of these discussions. "Young minds, fresh ideas" gets you data mining of personal information as often as it gives you something cool. Not all progress is progressive.
And Helen Noel is boring. Except for her looks I've never seen the appeal.
It is something that the industry should be thinking about though, and I'm sure in the future, the rights to use an actor's digital image, even after death, will be a commodity in its own right. The more immediate and important risk is probably Russian or Chinese Internet trolls creating fake videos of politicians saying or doing dodgy stuff to nudge an agenda of destabilisation.
I don't know that it's realistic for actors to want exclusive ownership of how their images are used everywhere though. My laptop has many images from the Internet. Should they all be purged unless each one is officially licensed? Is it OK to keep them if I never show them to another living soul? I'm sure there's a balance to be struck. George Takei might love the idea of a digital Sulu finally getting his own series.
On the issue of the characters, I would have said Noel was one of the more interesting female characters in TOS because you get the impression she could stand up to Kirk or push his buttons if she had to. Out if interest though, if you find her and Chapel to be boring, who are the female characters in TOS you find interesting, and why?
Last edited:
I would love to see digital creations of my favorite TOS characters. In this forum people discuss and I assume enjoy the animated series and Digital recreation would be miles ahead of animation. Star Trek is just the beginning in my imagination. I imagine a Searchers era John Wayne leading his Union soldiers on a hunt for a Josey Wales era Clint Eastwood. Universal Monsters, Wolf Man, Frankenstein, and Dracula all rendered in beautiful digital recreations, maybe even B&W! It's the cutting edge and it's happening now! Witness The Lion King! Whether you like it or not, Digital characters are coming to life before our eyes. I, for one, am prepared to embrace the new creativity.
Really the one time I think this deepfake CGI faceswapping stuff would trump recasting, would be to ensure Stan Lee could continue to cameo in Marvel movies forever.
If he'd given permission ahead of time, of course.
If he'd given permission ahead of time, of course.
Yeah they could do that and like whatever happened to the Wolfman and Dracula after they hit the ocean in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein?
JB
JB
Similar threads
