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.