Nah, I've got one on T'Pring! (She's so misunderstood!)
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x05 - "Charades"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It sounds like a 1970s Roddenberry convention anecdote. Like The Cage being too cerebral or something.
I’ve no doubt some objected… who knows though. Makes me wish Maurice was still around.
Well, we do know where all of that goes eventually. Now we're seeing how it gets to those endpoints. And I'm sure watching TOS after SNW finishes will be a somewhat different experience knowing the backstories. I think that's cool!
Benjamin and Jake, the best damn portrayal of a father/son relationship in all of Trek. Loved it!
The episode Southern states should have boycotted was Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. In that episode the racist planet was in the southern part of the galaxy. Galaxy of course doesn't have a south, but that probably flew under the radar.
I watched the first few scenes with Chapel and Spock from TOS again. It actually fits 
Their very first scene together. She holds his hands, tells him she loves him. He doesn't resist, doesn't withdraw his hands, doesn't tell her to not touch him. Instead, he gets to a point where he has to tell himself to stay in control.
Chapel jokingly asks him this, to explain why she knows it's Korby's voice. Could easily be irony now, since she knows Spock was engaged. He doesn't say yes or no, just has a surprised face reaction.
Note Spock's face as Chapel is about to meet her lover...
...he does not seem neutral about it.
So there's no obvious reason to assume Spock didn't have any interest in Chapel at all in TOS. Nothing is contradicted, instead it adds to canon, enhances it. Just like Disco showed why Sarek was so opposed to Spock refusing the VSA admission he had saved for him at Burnham's expense.
Their very first scene together. She holds his hands, tells him she loves him. He doesn't resist, doesn't withdraw his hands, doesn't tell her to not touch him. Instead, he gets to a point where he has to tell himself to stay in control.
Chapel jokingly asks him this, to explain why she knows it's Korby's voice. Could easily be irony now, since she knows Spock was engaged. He doesn't say yes or no, just has a surprised face reaction.
Note Spock's face as Chapel is about to meet her lover...
...he does not seem neutral about it.
So there's no obvious reason to assume Spock didn't have any interest in Chapel at all in TOS. Nothing is contradicted, instead it adds to canon, enhances it. Just like Disco showed why Sarek was so opposed to Spock refusing the VSA admission he had saved for him at Burnham's expense.
uh? What about Wrath of Khan, where both Chekhov and Khan specify the 20th century?
And what about Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, where 1992 is given clearly as the original year Khan was alive in?
what reason would he have to lie? And why would at least four people (two Starfleet officers, a former dictator and a Romulan time agent) lie the same way?Right. He also said that a thing had happened at thus and such a point in the past.
If we agree to play the dumb game of pretending that these are real people and not actors reciting lines, let's stipulate that Khan would never lie about such a detail because he wanted Kirk to know exactly who he was and where he came from.
My brain wants to say to you "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.”."
Which is not science.
Science says that Earth is on the Orion spiral arm of the Milky Way.
Golly.
We are Orions?
That's sneaky, the Orion Syndicate have been humans all along, probably refugees from the Eugenics war who fiddled too much with their genome and turned green.
If Trump had been resurrected for The Savage Curtain, would he have fought with Kirk, against Kirk, or wandered off looking for a TV?
On one hand Kahn is guilty of crimes against humanity, and needs to be tried for his myriad of violent terrors against man, beast and the planet. If he'd just set off one nuke, that's worth life imprisonment, for a start. On the other hand he was the legitimate ruler of the planet who was ousted by a dirty rabble holding no legal bearing to take power. A sneaky enough lawyer may insist that Kahn may still be in charge, even in the 23rd century, and 30 billion Earthmen need to bend the knee.
Last edited:
Awright, establish a perimeter and clear the area!
All y'all keep moving - nothing to see, here...
Honestly, the mistake is that the writers keep trying to make real history and current events match STAR TREK history and current events.
STARGATE SG-1, ATLANTIS, and UNIVERSE never had a real sitting current U.S. President or VP named. Neither did SEVEN DAYS. FARSCAPE didn't have NASA... they had IASA.
And were any of these shows lesser for it? No. In fact, by avoiding stepping on that kind of minefield altogether, the writers were not shackled by histories not quite matching up and were able to tell their stories without having to try to correct errors from a production made almost 60 years ago while that production was telling a story about something they thought could happen fairly far into the future. (The 90s were a quarter of a century in the future when season 1 TOS was made. Same reasoning when DS9's "PAST TENSE" two-parter was made... that was almost 30 years into the future when that was made.)
It would be so much easier on the writers AND the audience if it's just accepted that STAR TREK is an alternate future. It doesn't take away the message that humans can achieve that goal of being better than what we currently are. In fact, I'd say doing this would make it easier to achieve because we wouldn't be comparing histories and saying, "Oh, they got to this point already? We're decades behind from what STAR TREK history says." It puts a timestamp on things and adds a kind of pressure.
By not putting that timestamp, we can focus on the end result instead of the details on getting there.
"Focus on the goal, not the task."
Tanis, "COLD FIRE"
STAR TREK: VOYAGER
STARGATE SG-1, ATLANTIS, and UNIVERSE never had a real sitting current U.S. President or VP named. Neither did SEVEN DAYS. FARSCAPE didn't have NASA... they had IASA.
And were any of these shows lesser for it? No. In fact, by avoiding stepping on that kind of minefield altogether, the writers were not shackled by histories not quite matching up and were able to tell their stories without having to try to correct errors from a production made almost 60 years ago while that production was telling a story about something they thought could happen fairly far into the future. (The 90s were a quarter of a century in the future when season 1 TOS was made. Same reasoning when DS9's "PAST TENSE" two-parter was made... that was almost 30 years into the future when that was made.)
It would be so much easier on the writers AND the audience if it's just accepted that STAR TREK is an alternate future. It doesn't take away the message that humans can achieve that goal of being better than what we currently are. In fact, I'd say doing this would make it easier to achieve because we wouldn't be comparing histories and saying, "Oh, they got to this point already? We're decades behind from what STAR TREK history says." It puts a timestamp on things and adds a kind of pressure.
By not putting that timestamp, we can focus on the end result instead of the details on getting there.
"Focus on the goal, not the task."
Tanis, "COLD FIRE"
STAR TREK: VOYAGER
I watched the first few scenes with Chapel and Spock from TOS again. It actually fits
Their very first scene together. She holds his hands, tells him she loves him. He doesn't resist, doesn't withdraw his hands, doesn't tell her to not touch him. Instead, he gets to a point where he has to tell himself to stay in control.
Chapel jokingly asks him this, to explain why she knows it's Korby's voice. Could easily be irony now, since she knows Spock was engaged. He doesn't say yes or no, just has a surprised face reaction.
Note Spock's face as Chapel is about to meet her lover...
...he does not seem neutral about it.
So there's no obvious reason to assume Spock didn't have any interest in Chapel at all in TOS. Nothing is contradicted, instead it adds to canon, enhances it. Just like Disco showed why Sarek was so opposed to Spock refusing the VSA admission he had saved for him at Burnham's expense.
Yeah, but iirc there is even more in later episodes. And last but not least, it's interesting that Christine was around Sarek in TVH...
Their relationship now really interestingly reframes Spock's losing his shit at Chapel in the opening of "Amok Time." Yeah, he's being immature, but in all honesty there's no way to make Spock look good in a scene where he commits that kind of violence against her to begin with...
After watching this episode, I'm thinking about "Operation -- Annihilate!" in a different view...
Kirk: "Oh no, brother, what happened to you!!!"
Spock: "(whispering) see what happens when you don't put away the dirty plates...?"
Kirk: "What?"
Spock: "I was saying, truly a great loss captain!"
Kirk: "Oh no, brother, what happened to you!!!"
Spock: "(whispering) see what happens when you don't put away the dirty plates...?"
Kirk: "What?"
Spock: "I was saying, truly a great loss captain!"
Last edited:
If Khan, Spock and Chekov were in close enough agreement on the historical specifics, then I would accept those as stipulated fact. I suspect other misadventures of other people pushed Khan's backstory to its original version, unseen by us. Whether that means that Khan's backstory still involves Toronto in its original form...?
Anyway, let's get back to discussing "Charades"...
Anyway, let's get back to discussing "Charades"...
Though I agree the concept of monogamous morality is a "human concept" that might not apply in the fictional Vulcan culture (and I'd love to see some different concepts of morality in this area), I would argue that it is specifically a Western one. Even if non-"Western" societies and cultures don't view monogamy the same way, it certainly doesn't go both ways. It's men who get the pass, not the women.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll