Return of the Archons question

[johnnybear]

The one thing I did like about ENT was how they explained the Klingon change. I found the original Klingons more frightening and aggressive than the turtle heads of the films and later TV series but I did like the large ridged ones from TMP.
JB

 

[Christopher]

Negative, good sir. That is not a blanket dismissal of TOS, and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, I'm rather surprised to see an author suggest as much.

"Blanket dismissal?" What the hell are you talking about? There is no rational way to interpret "The occasional small detail might be less than 100% literal in its depiction" as a "blanket dismissal." Don't waste my time with outrageous straw men.

 

[Mudd]

Is there any substantial contemporary evidence at all that Roddenberry made choices on the original series as if it were a dramatization of real events? Because that would be a truly deluded creative process, pretty much doomed to failure. Not only was he writing and producing fiction, he was doing it in a very specific production environment with regard to studio and audience expectations. The Making of Star Trek documents him as making clear-headed and practical choices with budget, resources and the rules of drama and of the television format foremost in his mind.

Insisting upon plausibility - i.e., "Would a real naval officer do this?" - is quite a thing apart from pretending that anything in the stories really happened or might ever happen. In fact, the answer to that question as posed had to be "No, but it's the way storytelling works" whenever a choice had to be made.

It's been said that "But this really happened" is the worst reason for putting something in a story, but the obverse is just as true: people seek out fiction, particularly fantasy like Trek, in pursuit of that which can't be experienced in reality.

 

[Maurice]

Is there any substantial contemporary evidence at all that Roddenberry made choices on the original series as if it were a dramatization of real events?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnope.

But then you knew that.

 

[DSG2k]

"Blanket dismissal?" What the hell are you talking about? There is no rational way to interpret "The occasional small detail might be less than 100% literal in its depiction" as a "blanket dismissal." Don't waste my time with outrageous straw men.

Had that been the original direction of your pedaling, I would not have made such a comment.

To be sure, you left yourself some room earlier with "it's a matter of degree. It's not a binary, yes-or-no question," but that statement was largely incompatible with the rest of your position as stated.

We all know it's a TV show -- the Star Trek fictional reality doesn't have personal orchestrations emanating from the air or names that mysteriously appear and disappear in midair just before something significant occurs -- but reason allows for reasonable allowances. The basic concept comes down to whether we accept the fictional reality as presented, rationalizing inconsistencies or error as far as reason allows, or if we approach TOS as a poor and fundamentally inaccurate representation of some imaginary but unapproachable version of the fictional reality, as if considering some sort of Platonic forms.

I am of the former camp, and typically find the latter to be mere chaos.

The pro-chaos folks have many ways to argue for dismissing what we see and hear . . . budgets, time constraints, Roddenberry being petty about something that happens to be the poster's pet idea, Roddenberry on drugs, et cetera. And, once they start dismissing things, they tend not to stop. It is so much easier, after all, to leap to 'I do not like {my assessment of} this thing and I reject the thing', rather than analyzing and reasoning. It is a very easy trap to fall into and an easy go-to thereafter. At that point, "I'd think we could more easily shrug off some of TOS's improbabilities as only approximations or dramatic license".

Ironically, what I often see is that arguments for the inaccuracy view are often fallacious, based on personal incredulity that often belies an ignorance of the show. With apologies, a point you brought up, meant to prove the inaccuracy of the show, is a good example. You spoke of visible beams in space, suggesting you are unaware that phasers have long been established as particle weapons which would be perfectly visible. Other examples are available.

Perhaps the worst part of the pro-chaos argument is that others who have taken that position then typically seek to insert their own ideas of how Trek should have been instead. Why even bother with the show at that point?

In other words, if accepted, the inaccuracy idea leaves everyone arguing over their own headcanon, and absolutely nothing you see or hear can be trusted as valid or accurate to the story or setting (whatever the hell they may be).

That's why your "matter of degree" suggestion is ultimately unsatisfying. Nothing can be trusted.

That said, let's review the "outrageous straw man" of "blanket dismissal" and consider how I could possibly have come up with an idea that is not only invalid, but perhaps even an insidious and intentional effort to "waste {your} time".

"Audiences knew that what they were seeing in such productions was not the real history but simply a dramatized interpretation of it. It's not that hard to apply the same thinking to something set in the future, which obviously cannot be depicting a real event."

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story vis-à-vis the history.

"dramatization that only approximated a vision of the future"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story.

"what we see onscreen is an interpretation of the underlying idea"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story.

"{Gene} would've happily endorsed the suggestion that what we saw in "Archons" was only a symbolic representation"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story vis-à-vis Beta III.

"in this day and age, I think it makes sense to treat TOS as the approximation and the later productions as closer to the truth"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story versus Discovery, et al.

"Virtually any outer-space FX shot in Star Trek cannot possibly be taken as a literal depiction of events"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story, en masse, vis-à-vis space shots.

"{Gene was} handwaving TOS as an "inaccurately larger-than-life" dramatization and promising to come closer to reality this time around"

This seems to say that TOS is an unreal interpretation of the Trek story.

That's a lot of dismissal, and that's just from the previous page of this thread. I imagine there is a lot more where that came from. Maybe there are some holes in the blanket, but there are not very many or very large ones from this vantage point.

So, to echo your message and tone, don't waste my time by trying to pretend that my reading of your words was not only invalid, but outrageously so.

I presumed you to be more capable of accurate self-expression than most, and I imagine that's true whether you wish to escalate or if you'd care to join me in de-escalation, e.g. by return to the TMP preface topic.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

^ Dude, if you look closely enough, you can't take any old show literally. Look at all of the "domestic life" sitcoms. The family house has an exterior façade that doesn't quite match the interior, and the interior itself might even see floor plan changes season over season. You understood they were putting on a show and you had to roll with it.

 

[DSG2k]

Trek has that, too, at similar scale, with the shuttlecraft scale problem. The interior set is built to standing height for ease, but the 'full scale' exterior set's interior is at stooping height.

We all get that as a simple production thing, one that persisted well beyond that example since interiors and exteriors seldom match up in Hollywood productions.

However, if we're going to use a known error as proof that the whole thing is suspect, then where does it end? The whole craft was built the way it was because of real-world compromises . . . why pay any attention to a silly box shape thing at all? That's just a symbolic approximation constrained by then-modern limitations, so as soon as a higher budget or new idea comes along we can just discard it, continuity be damned.

That's chaos.

 

[Christopher]

However, if we're going to use a known error as proof that the whole thing is suspect, then where does it end?

It's not "proof that the whole thing is suspect," because superficial details of interpretation like set design or visual effects are not on the same level of narrative importance as actual plot, dialogue, and characterization. What we are seeing is a TV crew's best attempt to tell us a story with the technology, budget, and time available to them. It will always be imperfect to some degree, because no human creation is ever perfect. But the imperfections in how the story is told do not reflect on what the story is depicting.

For instance, often when a conversation is cut together from different takes, you can tell that an actor's hair or clothing is arranged differently in what's supposed to be a continuous sequence. Sometimes in TOS you can see that a shot was printed backward, with the uniform insignia on the wrong side, because that fit the eyelines better when the scene was cut together. In the tauntaun scene in The Empire Strikes Back, you can easily tell that the tauntaun is a stop-motion puppet. But these imperfections in the depiction of the story do not undermine the story itself. You suspend disbelief about the little stuff and buy into the reality of the underlying narrative the story is imperfectly conveying.

"Where does it end?" is a logical fallacy. A simple application of case-by-case judgment can distinguish between a detail incidental to the narrative and a story element essential to it.

 

[DSG2k]

It's not "proof that the whole thing is suspect,"

He used it as evidence for the statement "you can't take any old show literally".

because superficial details of interpretation like set design or visual effects are not on the same level of narrative importance as actual plot, dialogue, and characterization.

Television is an audio-visual medium. It all counts in telling the story, otherwise they wouldn't waste the money on sets and VFX. You rank those to be of lower importance because you know they are of greater difficulty, but the issue is that folks are using that thought to then say that the old shows are, effectively, invalid compared to the new ones . . . even in regards to "plot, dialogue, and characterization". See: the TMP commentaries, SNW Chapel and Spock, et al.

Reversed shots and iffy visual effects are a thing, but these are understood and understandable realities that can be reasonably reasoned upon. What I'm doing is rejecting the notion that we can or should take such things as evidence that none of what we see is real within the fictional universe as presented.

"Where does it end?" is a logical fallacy.

Not at all. Using my shuttle example where its design was based on construction realities of the 1960s, would a perfect representation of the Platonic Form version of the universe be the classic econobox or should we imagine something else? The transporter itself was merely a mechanism to avoid the production realities of the expense of landing the ship or a shuttle. Shall we just delete the transporter from our imaginations, too?

Once we start down the path of ignoring what we don't like en masse, it's all fair game. Chaos is another word.

A simple application of case-by-case judgment can distinguish between a detail incidental to the narrative and a story element essential to it.

So, chaos.

 

[Christopher]

Television is an audio-visual medium. It all counts in telling the story, otherwise they wouldn't waste the money on sets and VFX.

The purpose of theater or film is not to create a completely perfect replica of reality, but to suggest it as closely as budget, time, and practicality allow, and then leave it to the audience's imagination to pick up the approximation and carry it the rest of the way to imagine the reality it's suggesting. That's why Ray Harryhausen's and Phil Tippett's stop-motion monsters were so popular with audience even though you could see the jerkiness of the animation. People understood that they had to do some of the work themselves.

You rank those to be of lower importance because you know they are of greater difficulty, but the issue is that folks are using that thought to then say that the old shows are, effectively, invalid compared to the new ones . . . even in regards to "plot, dialogue, and characterization". See: the TMP commentaries, SNW Chapel and Spock, et al.

I'm not responsible for other people's opinions. I'm making my own point.

But hell yes, there are some bits of TOS that I'm happy to dismiss as apocryphal -- in Roddenberry's formulation, as errors introduced by the dramatic recreation of the "real" adventure. I mean, good grief, it's not like Trek has ever perfectly consistent within itself -- James R. Kirk, Lt. Leslie coming back from the dead between episodes, Data using contractions until he suddenly couldn't, the Federation being at peace in TNG's first two seasons until a Cardassian war was retconned in, etc. Trek fans have always had to gloss over discrepancies and choose one interpretation over another. It's always been an imperfect depiction of its imaginary future, so it's amazing to me that anyone can seriously be purist about its details.

Reversed shots and iffy visual effects are a thing, but these are understood and understandable realities that can be reasonably reasoned upon. What I'm doing is rejecting the notion that we can or should take such things as evidence that none of what we see is real within the fictional universe as presented.

That is a straw man that nobody is arguing for. The premise is that some individual things can be presumed to be inaccurate if they create inconsistencies with the rest or are otherwise problematical. It's absolutely ludicrous to twist that into a blanket declaration that none of it counts. If I told you that I'd gotten a bad spark plug in my car replaced, would you interpret it to mean I'd replaced the entire car? A part is not the whole.

Once we start down the path of ignoring what we don't like en masse, it's all fair game. Chaos is another word.

I would rather call it individual choice. It's not chaotic for people to use their own judgment about how far to take it. And hell yes, it should be fair game. Fiction is not authoritarian. It's an individual experience, and every consumer of a work of fiction has every right to use their own imagination and interpret it in their own way. Nobody has the right to judge other people for how they choose to handle something as personal as their experience of an artistic work.

 

[Poltargyst]

The purpose of theater or film is not to create a completely perfect replica of reality, but to suggest it as closely as budget, time, and practicality allow, and then leave it to the audience's imagination to pick up the approximation and carry it the rest of the way to imagine the reality it's suggesting. That's why Ray Harryhausen's and Phil Tippett's stop-motion monsters were so popular with audience even though you could see the jerkiness of the animation. People understood that they had to do some of the work themselves.






I'm not responsible for other people's opinions. I'm making my own point.

But hell yes, there are some bits of TOS that I'm happy to dismiss as apocryphal -- in Roddenberry's formulation, as errors introduced by the dramatic recreation of the "real" adventure. I mean, good grief, it's not like Trek has ever perfectly consistent within itself -- James R. Kirk, Lt. Leslie coming back from the dead between episodes, Data using contractions until he suddenly couldn't, the Federation being at peace in TNG's first two seasons until a Cardassian war was retconned in, etc. Trek fans have always had to gloss over discrepancies and choose one interpretation over another. It's always been an imperfect depiction of its imaginary future, so it's amazing to me that anyone can seriously be purist about its details.




That is a straw man that nobody is arguing for. The premise is that some individual things can be presumed to be inaccurate if they create inconsistencies with the rest or are otherwise problematical. It's absolutely ludicrous to twist that into a blanket declaration that none of it counts. If I told you that I'd gotten a bad spark plug in my car replaced, would you interpret it to mean I'd replaced the entire car? A part is not the whole.




I would rather call it individual choice. It's not chaotic for people to use their own judgment about how far to take it. And hell yes, it should be fair game. Fiction is not authoritarian. It's an individual experience, and every consumer of a work of fiction has every right to use their own imagination and interpret it in their own way. Nobody has the right to judge other people for how they choose to handle something as personal as their experience of an artistic work.

When I'm watching TOS, and I see the Klingons, I think I have a right to expect that that is indeed what the Klingons looked and sounded like. I do not believe that when I am watching Kor chew the scenery, that I should have to translate in my head that no, he didn't really look or sound that way. He REALLY looked/sounded/acted like the movie/TNG/DS9 Klingons*. None of us who were alive between 1966 and 1979 had any problem knowing what a Klingon was like. But now we're supposed to ignore what TOS presents as a Klingon and just fill in that they were really like TNG Klingons? It seems unreasonable to expect me to make that big a translation in my head.

But wait, the DISC Klingons are different yet! Am I now, when watching TOS, supposed to imagine that Kor is a DISC-style Klingon? Am I now supposed to imagine that Worf is a DISC-style Klingon?

It seems to me your stance is that any later writer can come along and change anything they like about TOS with the explanation that what they are doing is REALLY what things are like, and I am just supposed to go along with that. In other words, that later writers always have cart blanche to change anything they want. Like I can't ever trust what I'm seeing on my screen because it is always subject to change later. How can I trust a franchise like that?

"What you're seeing isn't really what's happening." Oh, okay. Way to hinder my investment in the show. Why should I care then?

But shouldn't later writers have to abide by what was established in TOS? Why is the later writer always right? Maybe some things that are changed ought not be and established canon should be respected.

*Yes, I am aware Kor appeared in DS9 as a movie/TNG/DS9-style Klingon. That can be explained using the ENT explanation for why there are two different types of Klingons which keeps the TOS depiction of Kor intact.

 

[Christopher]

When I'm watching TOS, and I see the Klingons, I think I have a right to expect that that is indeed what the Klingons looked and sounded like. I do not believe that when I am watching Kor chew the scenery, that I should have to translate in my head that no, he didn't really look or sound that way. He REALLY looked/sounded/acted like the movie/TNG/DS9 Klingons*. None of us who were alive between 1966 and 1979 had any problem knowing what a Klingon was like. But now we're supposed to ignore what TOS presents as a Klingon and just fill in that they were really like TNG Klingons? It seems unreasonable to expect me to make that big a translation in my head.

I don't see how that's unreasonable at all. But then, I read books, where the whole point is to use your own imagination to visualize the story in the way that feels right to you. So I have no sympathy for people who whine about being asked to think for themselves as if it were some intolerable imposition.

The reason it's called suspension of disbelief is that it's temporary. While you're reading or watching one story, sure, you can choose to believe the version of reality that it presents. But then you come back to reality and remember that it's fiction. So if you then read or watch a story that has a different interpretation of the same characters or concepts -- say, going from Sherlock to Elementary or from Shin Godzilla to Godzilla Minus One -- you let yourself buy into that alternate version of reality while you're experiencing that story. And then you set it aside again. None of this is study material for a test. There is no single "right" answer, just different artistic variations on a theme. You appreciate each one for what it is while you're experiencing it, so they don't have to agree with each other, not if you have a functioning imagination.

It seems to me your stance is that any later writer can come along and change anything they like about TOS with the explanation that what they are doing is REALLY what things are like, and I am just supposed to go along with that.

Again, this was Gene Roddenberry's stance. He was the one who told moviegoers in 1979 to pretend that Klingons had always looked that way. I'm just reporting that fact.

"What you're seeing isn't really what's happening." Oh, okay. Way to hinder my investment in the show. Why should I care then?

That's a disingenuous question. You already know it isn't really happening. You know you're looking at William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy on a soundstage, not some actual broadcast from centuries in the future. But you choose to suspend disbelief and allow yourself to play along with the make-believe.

 

[Doug Otte]

This thread prompted me to rewatch the episode last night, after not having seen it for a few years. It's strange how I still notice things I hadn't over many decades. A few oddities (that folks here can probably explain or correct):
1) I don't think they ever explained The Festival's purpose. It seems that Landru kept the population's activities tightly controlled, but once a year allowed them to let off steam. I expect there was some explanatory dialogue that didn't make it to the final cut.
2) I don't think Kirk ever addresses McCoy here as "Doctor McCoy" or "Bones" as he usually did. He only addresses him as "Doctor", "Doc", or "Man."
3) The first man they come across speaks to them in some stilted hillbilly dialect, but none of the other natives do so.
4) Other than Spock wearing a cowl when they first beam down, there's no effort made to hide his alien appearance.

 

[Henoch]

The ENT/DISC/SNW writers have retconned appearance changes/disguises with genome manipulation, so prior to TOS, Klingons can look anyway they want. Even in TOS, something like this was hinted at with Arne Darvin (Klingon made to look human ) and Kirk (human made to look Romulan ). YMMV

 

[Christopher]

This thread prompted me to rewatch the episode last night, after not having seen it for a few years. It's strange how I still notice things I hadn't over many decades. A few oddities (that folks here can probably explain or correct):
1) I don't think they ever explained The Festival's purpose. It seems that Landru kept the population's activities tightly controlled, but once a year allowed them to let off steam. I expect there was some explanatory dialogue that didn't make it to the final cut.

I've always taken it as the equivalent of pon farr, a necessary periodic release of the built-up emotion that's suppressed the rest of the time. The Star Trek Concordance calls it "letting off steam," which is rather an understatement.

James Blish's adaptation ends with Lindstrom speculating that it's a population control measure, Landru letting the people kill each other off to cull their numbers, but I don't care for that interpretation. Considering that nobody in the Body would be likely to have sex in the first place unless Landru instructed them to, I think there would be far less convoluted ways to manage the population size.

3) The first man they come across speaks to them in some stilted hillbilly dialect, but none of the other natives do so.

Also, his voice was rather blatantly dubbed, as were all the voices in the scenes shot outside on the backlot -- a standard practice in Hollywood since outdoor conditions, wind, aircraft noise, etc. can make it difficult to get a clean voice track. There are sources saying that Walker Edmiston (the voice of the real Balok) dubbed some of Harry Townes's dialogue, but I think that's an error and it was actually Lev Mailer (aka Ralph Maurer) as Bilar, whose dubbed voice sounds like Edmiston's. Probably they used Edmiston for the looping session because Bilar had no indoor scenes. Since every one of his lines had to be dubbed over anyway, there was no need to use the actor's real voice, and it was probably more convenient just to give those lines to Edmiston (who was already there dubbing one of the Lawgivers) rather than hire Mailer to come in and do it.

 

[johnnybear]

Landru realised that controlling the population was one thing and their minds and bodies but the human ability to release steam and of course the sexual repressions must be addressed. So that's why they gave them the zero hour and the body allowed them a time away from it's power so they could let their humanity and bestial urges to come out.
JB

 

[CorporalCaptain]

When I'm watching TOS, and I see the Klingons, I think I have a right to expect that that is indeed what the Klingons looked and sounded like. I do not believe that when I am watching Kor chew the scenery, that I should have to translate in my head that no, he didn't really look or sound that way. He REALLY looked/sounded/acted like the movie/TNG/DS9 Klingons*. None of us who were alive between 1966 and 1979 had any problem knowing what a Klingon was like. But now we're supposed to ignore what TOS presents as a Klingon and just fill in that they were really like TNG Klingons? It seems unreasonable to expect me to make that big a translation in my head.

But wait, the DISC Klingons are different yet! Am I now, when watching TOS, supposed to imagine that Kor is a DISC-style Klingon? Am I now supposed to imagine that Worf is a DISC-style Klingon?

It seems to me your stance is that any later writer can come along and change anything they like about TOS with the explanation that what they are doing is REALLY what things are like, and I am just supposed to go along with that. In other words, that later writers always have cart blanche to change anything they want. Like I can't ever trust what I'm seeing on my screen because it is always subject to change later. How can I trust a franchise like that?

"What you're seeing isn't really what's happening." Oh, okay. Way to hinder my investment in the show. Why should I care then?

But shouldn't later writers have to abide by what was established in TOS? Why is the later writer always right? Maybe some things that are changed ought not be and established canon should be respected.

*Yes, I am aware Kor appeared in DS9 as a movie/TNG/DS9-style Klingon. That can be explained using the ENT explanation for why there are two different types of Klingons which keeps the TOS depiction of Kor intact.

I'm curious as to what your position is on sound in space. I'm talking like, sound effects in outer space for rumbling engines, phaser fire, photon torpedoes, etc.

Do you feel the need to trust what's on screen so much that you think these sounds literally occur in-universe? On the other hand, do you think they are strictly theatrical embellishments to enhance the audiences' enjoyment of the shows? Or what?

Also, what's your position on just how many humanoid alien species there are in Star Trek's galaxy? Are there so many because of production realities regarding expense and in relation to the forms for characters that audiences tend to find relatable? Is their number something that you consider plausible from a hard science fiction perspective?

Do you consider it plausible that so many alien species can interbreed?

I'm just trying to get a handle on why you think the makeup used for the characters is so critically important, and what you mean by trusting what you're seeing on your screen, why you think that's so important, and what its limits are.

 

[Poltargyst]

I'm curious as to what your position is on sound in space. I'm talking like, sound effects in outer space for rumbling engines, phaser fire, photon torpedoes, etc.

Do you feel the need to trust what's on screen so much that you think these sounds literally occur in-universe? On the other hand, do you think they are strictly theatrical embellishments to enhance the audiences' enjoyment of the shows? Or what?

Also, what's your position on just how many humanoid alien species there are in Star Trek's galaxy? Are there so many because of production realities regarding expense and in relation to the forms for characters that audiences tend to find relatable? Is their number something that you consider plausible from a hard science fiction perspective?

Do you consider it plausible that so many alien species can interbreed?

I'm just trying to get a handle on why you think the makeup used for the characters is so critically important, and what you mean by trusting what you're seeing on your screen, why you think that's so important, and what its limits are.

Well we have the Preservers and Progenitors explanations for why there are so many humanoids in the galaxy so that's covered. I of course make allowances that real life may cause different actors to play the same character, that budget or technology limitations of the time may make some of the props or sets less than you'd expect they would be if it was real. I'm willing to allow for some artistic license as in sound of explosions in space.

Producers are allowed to set whatever premises they want. Species interbreeding is one of them.

I feel like there needs to be some kind of structure. I recognize it is subjective and everyone has to draw their own line somewhere. I feel like too many changes or maybe too big changes and you're no longer talking about the same continuity as TOS. If producers want to state their show is another continuity than TOS like JJ Abrams did, then they can do what they want and I don't care.

 

[Christopher]

I feel like there needs to be some kind of structure. I recognize it is subjective and everyone has to draw their own line somewhere. I feel like too many changes or maybe too big changes and you're no longer talking about the same continuity as TOS. If producers want to state their show is another continuity than TOS like JJ Abrams did, then they can do what they want and I don't care.

Parts of TOS aren't very much in continuity with each other, and there are big discrepancies with the movies. Over the decades, there have been fans who insisted that TAS, the movies, TNG, DS9, VGR, ENT, etc. could not be in continuity with what came before. We forget that we've always rationalized away the big inconsistencies and convinced ourselves of the fiction that it all fits together, so when new inconsistencies are introduced, they seem insurmountable because we haven't had time to rationalize them yet.

Continuity, like anything else in fiction, is about the willing suspension of disbelief. We choose to pretend it fits together even when it doesn't -- or we don't.