But even in the movie Shakaree was a joke. They never went to where they would "find" God. If that's what GR objected to, it is discounted in the movie itself that it was something the bad alien telepathically sent out to Sybok to bring him a ship.
Star Trek V's canon status
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
But even in the movie Shakaree was a joke. They never went to where they would "find" God. If that's what GR objected to, it is discounted in the movie itself that it was something the bad alien telepathically sent out to Sybok to bring him a ship.
Nekkid Uhura is NOT CANON.
Too bad TFF wasn't made in about 1966.
Han shot first, and Greedo never fired at all.
IIRC, GR objected to the revelation that Spock had a sibling, even if only a half-sibling, since they'd put out memos during TOS suggesting that Spock not have any.
He also disliked McCoy mercy-killing his own father, although DeForest Kelly liked the chance of doing such a powerful scene.
Wow, did he really believe a movie produced in the 80s should follow a few irrelevant memos from the 60s? That's crazy.
It doesn't matter though, Roddenberry wasn't in a position to declare a movie or parts of it apocryphal or non-canon.
How is it crazy for the person who created the Spock character in the first place to want depictions of that character to be true to what he intended?
Actually, he was. As the producer of TNG at the time, he was in charge of creating new canonical content (others actually did the work by that point, but they answered to him while he lived), and so he was perfectly within his rights to choose to disregard prior content. That's essentially all that canon means in any practical sense: it's what the makers of new screen content choose to abide by. (And what the creators of tie-in literature are obliged to follow -- but it's the showrunners who define and decide what is canonical at any given time.)
No it's not. DC Fontana, who penned the memos, believed very strongly, IIRC, that giving Spock siblings made him less unique, and that doing so - as tempting as unexpected relatives can be in soap operas and melodramas - might water down the character. Shatner skirted around the old memo by making Sybok a son of Sarek, but not Amanda. (Note that she has a dig at Shatner's then forthcoming, not-yet-canonical plans in her ST novel, "Vulcan's Glory".)
Given that ST V was the least popular/financial ST film, perhaps Sybok did harm the franchise, although the character of Vulcan rebel,Sybok, and actor Lawrence Luckinbill, certainly surpassed the material written on the pages of the script.
Yes he was. Until his death in September 1991, the Star Trek Office of Gene Roddenberry vetted all licensed ST tie-in novels, comics and RPGs for Paramount, a job eventually performed solely by Viacom Consumer Products (and now CBS Consumer Products). Roddenberry no longer owned ST, with GR (and Susan Sackett, and later Richard Arnold and Guy Vardaman) responsible for keeping the licensed tie-ins on track.
But the issue was Sybok, not Spock. I can't see how the existence of Sybok affects how Spock is depicted, unless the script called for the two of them to suddenly behave like Bo and Luke Duke or something.
How can the existence of a sibling not affect a character's identity? And why shouldn't creators have the right to decide how their characters' families are constituted? Seriously, it's bizarre to see people saying that the guy who created the character has no right to have an opinion about how to portray that character and his background. There's not a trace of sense to that.
^Well, I didn't say that he had no right to have an opinion on it. I don't think anyone did either. They merely happened to disagree with his.
I just think that the Spock we saw in The Undiscovered Country was pretty much the same as the Spock we saw in earlier movies - I don't think that his character was suddenly altered by our knowledge that he had a half-brother we didn't previously know about.
I mean, wasn't it you who in another post was pointing to Spock being an essentially private person and saying that it wasn't surprising that no-one on the Enterprise knew that he was Ambassador Sarek's son in Journey to Babel? (Maybe it wasn't you and I've misremembered).
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the whole Sybok story, merely that I don't think that it's any different of a rabbit-from-the-hat story point than e.g. Antonia in Generations, David and Carol Marcus in TWOK or the various hitherto-unmentioned family members who popped up in TNG, DS9 etc.
I just think that the Spock we saw in The Undiscovered Country was pretty much the same as the Spock we saw in earlier movies - I don't think that his character was suddenly altered by our knowledge that he had a half-brother we didn't previously know about.
I mean, wasn't it you who in another post was pointing to Spock being an essentially private person and saying that it wasn't surprising that no-one on the Enterprise knew that he was Ambassador Sarek's son in Journey to Babel? (Maybe it wasn't you and I've misremembered).
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the whole Sybok story, merely that I don't think that it's any different of a rabbit-from-the-hat story point than e.g. Antonia in Generations, David and Carol Marcus in TWOK or the various hitherto-unmentioned family members who popped up in TNG, DS9 etc.
I'm not saying I agree that Spock shouldn't have had a brother. I'm just saying that it's bizarre to react as though the man who created the character is somehow in the wrong or "crazy" to make judgments about the character. I don't have to agree with his decisions to recognize his right to make those decisions. And calling him "crazy" because of it is just beyond the pale.
^I'm with you there.
Do you have brothers and sisters? Would your life have been quite different if you were an only child?
DC Fontana and Gene Roddenberry nurtured the growth of a character who was being written by many hands. They specifically asked writers on TOS not to add siblings to the mix for well-considered reasons.
True, but there's no reason for that to be set in stone. And an artistic decision made back in 1966, while producing a weekly TV show, is certainly worth revisiting when making a feature film two decades later. You need to allow for some flexibility over the course of decades. And changing creative hands.
And while, abstractly, siblings affect character, it's hard to point to how exactly the existence of Sybok changes our understanding of Spock. Indeed, in some ways, you could argue that this revelation actually fleshes out Spock even more.
Take "The Way to Eden" for example. Spock's sympathy for the space hippies makes more sense if you retcon Sybok into the equation. No doubt the rebellious pilgrims, seeking some mythical paradise, reminded him of his long-lost half-brother . . . .
Or look at "Journey to Babel." Sarek's rather extreme reaction to Spock joining Starfleet (seriously, he didn't speak to his son for eighteen years?) makes more sense once you realize that Spock is the second of Sarek's sons to seemingly turn his back on Vulcan. No wonder Sarek took it so badly!
See what I mean? Rethinking your premises doesn't necessarily damage what was established before; done right, it can just add new facets to the characters.
(Not that anybody is really defending ST V!)
Last edited:
I shamelessly headcanon the things I can't stand in every large-scale story out there. If something sucks, I stop giving it my personal time of day.
I respect creators' decisions on matters of actual canon, but I reserve my right as an individual to ignore anything, anywhere, if it helps me to enjoy the rest of a sum.
As was stated earlier in the conversation, the fascination with canon can be detrimental, indeed. Continuity is nice, and in productions with particular creative aims, such as DS9, or Worf's Klingon-related arc over the years, it's damn well useful as hell. And it's very cool to see things progress as naturally, immersively, as possible.
...but Nimoy's got a point: sometimes, the question ought to be one of, "where will Star Trek take me today?"
Not that anyone is defending STV.
I respect creators' decisions on matters of actual canon, but I reserve my right as an individual to ignore anything, anywhere, if it helps me to enjoy the rest of a sum.
As was stated earlier in the conversation, the fascination with canon can be detrimental, indeed. Continuity is nice, and in productions with particular creative aims, such as DS9, or Worf's Klingon-related arc over the years, it's damn well useful as hell. And it's very cool to see things progress as naturally, immersively, as possible.
...but Nimoy's got a point: sometimes, the question ought to be one of, "where will Star Trek take me today?"
Not that anyone is defending STV.
Someone mentioned David Marcus and his mother in TWoK. Isn't the son whom Kirk hadn't seen since infancy or possibly never before ("Is that ... David?") at least as important as a sibling for Spock?
Did Roddenberry approve of the Marcuses and not Sybok? (And if so, what did he think of David's fate in TSfS and its lasting effect on Kirk in TUC?)
Did Roddenberry approve of the Marcuses and not Sybok? (And if so, what did he think of David's fate in TSfS and its lasting effect on Kirk in TUC?)
For real, my sister-in-law revealed she had a brother she'd never mentioned about fifteen years after her and my brother started their relationship. He was disowned by the family when she was young and, on those rare times she did think of him, she thought of him as a stranger, so she just never mentioned him- even to her husband. It happens.
I discovered I have a half-brother six months ago. Didn't know who my dad was until a couple of years ago, though, so it's not so surprising.
Just felt like sharing. Seemed appropriate.
Just felt like sharing. Seemed appropriate.
I have four older half brothers. While I have known them my whole life, we have never been that closer or see each other often. The biggest affect its had on me is my father was 40 years old when I was born.
I think Sybok explained Sarek and Spock's relationship a lot! Its no surprise that Sarek was so concerned about Spock joining Starfleet and embacing his human side. Sarek was fully Vulcan and he completely rejected Vulcan tradition.
Also that Sarek would have had a Vulcan wife before Amanda fits Vulcan tradition. He would have been bonded to Sybok's mother when they where children. Only her death would have allowed him to marry a human. Sarek was very traditonal its unlikely he would not have followed it first.
I think Sybok explained Sarek and Spock's relationship a lot! Its no surprise that Sarek was so concerned about Spock joining Starfleet and embacing his human side. Sarek was fully Vulcan and he completely rejected Vulcan tradition.
Also that Sarek would have had a Vulcan wife before Amanda fits Vulcan tradition. He would have been bonded to Sybok's mother when they where children. Only her death would have allowed him to marry a human. Sarek was very traditonal its unlikely he would not have followed it first.
You're kinda confusing reality with fiction here. I asked if it would affect how Spock was depicted. The difference between me and Spock circa 1989 is, I don't only appear onscreen once every two years in a 2-hour movie which doesn't always involve my family. Newflash - Spock's not actually a real person!!!!!
Did the appearance of Demora Sulu affect how Hikaru is depicted? Or the appearance of Sam Kirk affect how Jim is depicted? Ditto Ben Sisko's siblings, Trip's sister etc.
If you can show me how the depiction of Spock in any of his post-TFF appearances was affected by the sudden of appearance of Sybok in that movie - and I've made it clear that I'm not a huge fan of that story either - I'll eat my words.
Sybok doesn't change the portrayal of Spock at all. In the "share your pain" scene with the Big 3, Spock tells Sybok as much in no uncertain terms. Spock has grown into his own skin, and the appearance of a never-mentioned brother from the distant past doesn't change that fact.
As for Kirk in ST6, he's older and about to retire. He has nothing to lose by voicing his real feelings about Klingons. Ultimately though, he puts that aside and does what he has always done. That is, duty first.
As for Kirk in ST6, he's older and about to retire. He has nothing to lose by voicing his real feelings about Klingons. Ultimately though, he puts that aside and does what he has always done. That is, duty first.
Similar threads
- Poll
