Rewatching TOS After SNW

[Ssosmcin]

I don't feel SNW adds any context at all to TOS. I look at it like the James Bond films at this point. Whatever Spock, T'Pring, Chapel, M'Benga, Pike, etc. go through isn't offering me any more insight on the original versions than Skyfall's "shaving scene" gave to Connery and Lois Maxwell's Bond and Moneypenny. It's just an updated take on the same characters for modern audiences. I don't consider SNW an actual "how it was between The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before" series anymore than Casino Royale was an actual prequel to Dr. No.

Everything I needed to know about the Amok Time backstory was in that episode. But I am enjoying this take on the relationships and like the characters, even if individual episodes may not land for me.

This legit helps me enjoy SNW without any concerns of "canon violations" or "prime timeline" doubletalk. And it also, as far as I'm concerned, makes it more than possible for Pike to avoid his horrible fate. If 007 can die in the last movie and they still plan on making more films, than Pike can be just fine at the end of this series.

But if this is more of a true prequel for others, more power to ya. But when I rewatch the original series, SNW is the furthest thing from my mind.

 

[Christopher]

This legit helps me enjoy SNW without any concerns of "canon violations" or "prime timeline" doubletalk.

I think that's focusing on the wrong thing. There's more to fiction than continuity. These are stories. They're meant to make us think and feel, not just catalog facts and data points. What matters is what the story makes us think about, wonder about, and care about. Looking at an old story from a fresh perspective can give you new insights into the meaning of the story, into the characters' personalities and relationships.

For instance, I've mentioned before in this thread how much Discovery's "Lethe" deepened "Journey to Babel" for me because of the wrenching new layer it added to the story of Sarek and Spock's past. Whether or not it's consistent with the events of "Journey to Babel" is by far the most trivial consideration, because stories are not about continuity, they're about characters and relationships and emotions. What "Lethe" revealed about Sarek's hidden reasons for resenting Spock's choice to enter Starfleet made the story more compelling, more rich, more emotionally affecting. That's what stories are about.

I've never understood why so many Trek fans are so rigid-minded about continuity. There are many fictional universes and characters that have been reinvented dozens of times -- Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Batman, Spider-Man, Godzilla, even James Bond. The continuities of the different adaptations may be different, but people are often fans of multiple incarnations because they're still essentially the same characters and worlds even if the details are different. The different stories, the different continuities, can inform each other and enrich our understanding of the characters through the parallax of their differences. It's not about whether their continuities align, because there's no such thing as a "correct" version of something imaginary. It's about whether they enrich your experience, your enjoyment and appreciation for the characters and concepts.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I watch it the way I watch and it works for me (Shrug)

As for why fans are concerned about continuity, it's because Star Trek, from TOS thru Enterprise, was considered one continuity by the production folks and Paramount. With, obviously, adjustments and liberties taken to suit stories, updated technology and the passage of time.

The Bad Robot went to the trouble to create an alternate timeline because so fans wouldn't worry about it.

So don't criticize fans for reacting to almost 50 years of conditioning by Paramount. Watch it the way you wanna watch it. Just like I do. If it works for you great. If it works for me great.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As for why fans are concerned about continuity, it's because Star Trek, from TOS thru Enterprise, was considered one continuity by the production folks and Paramount. With, obviously, adjustments and liberties taken to suit stories, updated technology and the passage of time.

And now Paramount has returned to that.

 

[fireproof78]

As for why fans are concerned about continuity, it's because Star Trek, from TOS thru Enterprise, was considered one continuity by the production folks and Paramount.

Even though it didn't fit together.

Which is why SNW works for me in line with TOS. It's about a close as TMP and TWOK.

 

[Ssosmcin]

And now Paramount has returned to that.

The adjustments and changes I was referring to in the sequel series and Enterprise were relatively minor by comparison and generally didn't involve regular legacy characters. But - again - this is just my preference. Everyone is free to watch as they want to.

Even though it didn't fit together.

It did for a lot of it, all things considered, but I did make that point and acknowledged it already.

Which is why SNW works for me in line with TOS. It's about a close as TMP and TWOK.

As close as TMP and TWOK to each other or the original series? Either way, the films take place years after TOS, the TOWK is about 10 years after TMP. Anything in the future of Turnabout Intruder (or The Counter-Clock Incident) is fair game for alterations.

It's all good. As I said, I enjoy the SNW characters and this different, updated spin on most of them.

 

[fireproof78]

As close as TMP and TWOK to each other or the original series?

The differences are too much to treat them as the same.

did for a lot of it, all things considered, but I did make that point and acknowledged it already.

Not enough.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Christopher]

As for why fans are concerned about continuity, it's because Star Trek, from TOS thru Enterprise, was considered one continuity by the production folks and Paramount.

Actually it wasn't. Roddenberry approached Trek productions basically as if they were fictional dramatizations of the Enterprise's "actual" adventures, analogously to Dragnet, the show where he got his start as a TV writer by adapting real police cases into episode premises. He saw ST:TMP and TNG as opportunities to fix the mistakes and compromises of TOS and reinterpret the Trek universe into something closer to what he'd envisioned. In TMP, he freely altered things like the Klingons' appearance and asked fans to assume they'd been like that all along, that TOS had just been inaccurate. He vocally declared The Wrath of Khan non-canonical until he saw how popular it had become. But by the time he made TNG, he considered most of the movies, TAS, and even much of TOS apocryphal, and considered TNG to be basically a soft reboot, a continuity where many but not all of the events of TOS had occurred, and hadn't necessarily occurred the same way. For instance, he retconned out "Space Seed"'s assertion that the Third World War had been the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s and instead put WWIII in the mid-21st century (a logical change for a show that was being made in 1987).

It was only after Roddenberry was eased out of his producing role that his successors started explicitly tying the new shows into the old continuity with episodes like "Relics" and "Unification." So the idea of Trek as a single overarching continuity wasn't really codified until the 1990s (and it was a couple of decades more before it was clarified that TAS was indeed part of that continuity). If Roddenberry had been healthier and maintained direct control over TNG longer, he probably would've established it more explicitly as an alternate continuity from TOS and the movies, and Trek fans would've gotten used to the idea of the franchise having more than one incarnation.

So don't criticize fans for reacting to almost 50 years of conditioning by Paramount. Watch it the way you wanna watch it. Just like I do. If it works for you great. If it works for me great.

It's not a criticism to say "Hey, you're missing out on a way to get more enjoyment out of a story." It's encouragement. At most, it's constructive criticism, offered with positive intent.

 

[nightwind1]

Of course they are. Keep in mind that these characters are some 6-7 years younger than the ones in TOS. It makes no sense to expect them to be identical. (The same goes for Kelvin, of course.)

They're actually doing an intriguing job threading the needle with Spock, Chapel, and Uhura. And Kirk here feels much more true to the original than Kelvin Kirk. M'Benga is more drastically reimagined, but we barely knew him in TOS anyway.

And none of the legacy characters here have been handled as badly as Harry Mudd, who was a lovable, harmless rogue in TOS but was retconned by DSC into a ruthless mass murderer.

"Lovable"? "Harmless"?

The man dealt in sex trafficking and the drug trade, and also hijacked a warship.

There's nothing lovable or harmless about that.

 

[Christopher]

"Lovable"? "Harmless"?

The man dealt in sex trafficking and the drug trade, and also hijacked a warship.

There's nothing lovable or harmless about that.

Read the entire thread -- I already refuted those arguments more than a year ago. For instance:

He didn't "peddle women." Viewers today misunderstand "Mudd's Women" as sex trafficking because they don't remember the historical practice of wiving settlers that it was based on. The program to recruit women to move out to male-dominated Western frontier settlements was the exact opposite of sex trafficking; the goal was to make the communities more wholesome and civilized by encouraging reputable women from Eastern cities to voluntarily migrate to the West, take community-building roles like schoolteachers and seamstresses and the like, and hopefully allow the formation of lasting marital bonds so men wouldn't have to turn to brothels as much.

Certainly Harry's con game was corrupting the intent of a settler-wiving program, but the episode made it clear that Eve, Ruth, and Magda were willing partners in the con. They (or at least Ruth and Magda) were portrayed as golddiggers, women using their sexual wiles to win rich husbands. In that paradigm, it's the husbands who are presumed to be the victims, manipulated by women who pretend to love them but just want their wealth. Perhaps that's another aspect that's hard to recognize given cultural shifts since the 1960s.

 

[Farscape One]

Read the entire thread -- I already refuted those arguments more than a year ago. For instance:

You might find Harry Mudd a loveable and harmless person, but not everyone shares that view.

And I don't recall you refuting his ship stealing or drug trafficking. Only the 'wiving settlers' part. (Which can still easily be seen as a sex trade by many.)

 

[Christopher]

You might find Harry Mudd a loveable and harmless person, but not everyone shares that view.

Uhh, the writer and producers of his three TOS episodes obviously did intend him to be lovable, which is why he was obviously written and played as a comedic figure. Hell, just listen to his musical theme in "Mudd's Women" -- it's boisterous and comical, not menacing. This has nothing to do with my opinion. It's right there in the text.

And I don't recall you refuting his ship stealing or drug trafficking.

Norman hijacked the Enterprise. And it was the androids' idea, not Harry's:

"I simply ran out of things for them to do, and they insisted that I bring them more human beings. They need human beings to serve, to study. So I had to promise them a prime sample. A starship captain. Bright, loyal, fearless and imaginative. Any captain would have done. I was lucky to get you."

His use of the Venus drug wasn't "trafficking," since he wasn't selling it, he was using it as part of the wiving scam. It's more like a coach doping an athlete with steroids to cheat in a sporting event, a different kind of offense from trafficking. His love potion in "Mudd's Passion" was a drug, but not one that was recognized or outlawed by the authorities, so it's more like a patent-medicine scam, an Old West huckster selling snake oil.

(Which can still easily be seen as a sex trade by many.)

Who cares? Lots of people see things wrongly because they don't know better. Ignorance of the facts is not a valid alternative viewpoint, it's a mistake to be corrected.

Really, it astonishes me, as someone who's been a Trek fan since 1975, that anyone would question that Harry Mudd was intended as a comedic figure. Yes, he was a criminal, but in the lovable-rogue category like Quark or Vash, not the sadistic mass-murderer category. That was universally understood in fandom until Discovery came along. This urge to engage in revisionist history and claim that Harry was always some ruthless monster is disingenuous and thoroughly bizarre.

 

[Tallguy]

Harry was a ruthless monster. He just wasn't a vicious one. He wouldn't kill you for fun but if it was between you and him then good luck. Especially in Mudd's Women.

Of course he's comedic. Broadly so. (Again, less so in the original take.) Still a very bad dude.

 

[Farscape One]

Uhh, the writer and producers of his three TOS episodes obviously did intend him to be lovable, which is why he was obviously written and played as a comedic figure. Hell, just listen to his musical theme in "Mudd's Women" -- it's boisterous and comical, not menacing. This has nothing to do with my opinion. It's right there in the text.




Norman hijacked the Enterprise. And it was the androids' idea, not Harry's:

"I simply ran out of things for them to do, and they insisted that I bring them more human beings. They need human beings to serve, to study. So I had to promise them a prime sample. A starship captain. Bright, loyal, fearless and imaginative. Any captain would have done. I was lucky to get you."

His use of the Venus drug wasn't "trafficking," since he wasn't selling it, he was using it as part of the wiving scam. It's more like a coach doping an athlete with steroids to cheat in a sporting event, a different kind of offense from trafficking. His love potion in "Mudd's Passion" was a drug, but not one that was recognized or outlawed by the authorities, so it's more like a patent-medicine scam, an Old West huckster selling snake oil.




Who cares? Lots of people see things wrongly because they don't know better. Ignorance of the facts is not a valid alternative viewpoint, it's a mistake to be corrected.

Really, it astonishes me, as someone who's been a Trek fan since 1975, that anyone would question that Harry Mudd was intended as a comedic figure. Yes, he was a criminal, but in the lovable-rogue category like Quark or Vash, not the sadistic mass-murderer category. That was universally understood in fandom until Discovery came along. This urge to engage in revisionist history and claim that Harry was always some ruthless monster is disingenuous and thoroughly bizarre.

First off, the ship stealing I was referring to was the one that he got destroyed in "MUDD'S WOMEN". That wasn't his ship to begin with.

Second, just because a character is written a certain way doesn't mean it's going to be universally taken that way. As a writer, I would think you would understand this.

Third, while he wasn't selling the drug, he had those women hooked on it to keep their appearances, and he was essentially selling them as wives. Maybe it doesn't fully go with the definition of trafficking, but it sure as hell is unsavory. (A scam, as you said yourself.)

Fourth, I never said the current era was undoing or being 'revisionist' about Mudd. I said that it can fit without much difficulty. Remember during the briefing room scene, the computer DID say he spent at rehabilitation, with its effectiveness 'in dispute'. As I said before, that rehabilitation might not have been enough to totally get him off the path of being a criminal, but it might have been effective enough to hold back his aggression after his imprisonment by the Klingons and him going after Lorca. Smuggling and scamming isn't very ethical, but it sure as hell is better than murdering.

Fifth, it's not ignorance if someone's opinion of something is different than yours based on any facts shown. Maybe the reason some people see Mudd's scam of wiving settlers as sex trafficking is because of things they have seen themselves. Or it is something that just offends their sensibilities. You don't have the right to say they are wrong for having that opinion. Or calling them ignorant.



And by the way... Mudd was going to let the Enterprise spiral into death from not enough power if he didn't get his way. 430 dead because of his whims. That's cold blooded.

 

[fireproof78]

Fourth, I never said the current era was undoing or being 'revisionist' about Mudd. I said that it can fit without much difficulty. Remember during the briefing room scene, the computer DID say he spent at rehabilitation, with its effectiveness 'in dispute'. As I said before, that rehabilitation might not have been enough to totally get him off the path of being a criminal, but it might have been effective enough to hold back his aggression after his imprisonment by the Klingons and him going after Lorca. Smuggling and scamming isn't very ethical, but it sure as hell is better than murdering.

We also see some social factors at work as Stella's dad appears to be very controlling, and ensuring that he is more compliant to help his daughter. So, I imagine rehabilitation was a way to get out from under Stella's ire and that resulted in a more boisterous presentation but not a more compassionate one.

And by the way... Mudd was going to let the Enterprise spiral into death from not enough power if he didn't get his way. 430 dead because of his whims. That's cold blooded.

Yes. Mudd is cold blooded and selfish. He is not a good guy.

 

[kkt]

Three TOS episodes? Oh, I see you're counting TAS as part of TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

Three TOS episodes? Oh, I see you're counting TAS as part of TOS.

Of course.

 

[Tallguy]

BTW Matt Jefferies' costume designs for HFM are labeled "space pimp".

 

[fireproof78]

BTW Matt Jefferies' costume designs for HFM are labeled "space pimp".

Reminds me of the SF Debris joke around Dooku's Sith Alias, Tyranus:

"You'll be meeting with your representative, Lord Tyranus."

(sounds like an older woman): "Oh, he sounds like a nice young man."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Harry was a bad dude in "Mudd's Women", he tries to mask this with his "buffoonery" in his Walsh identity. His pirate pimp costume helps him seem more the buffoon. We see glimpses of the real Mudd when he's alone with the women and when he thinks he has the upper hand. By "I,Mudd" the writers seem lean into the buffoon and that's who most fans remember