STC Ep. 6: "Come Not Between The Dragons" grading and discussion....(possible spoilers)
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Too bad. It could have been a 3rd Rock reunion.
I think they'd rather go here instead
(really obscure but fun reference)
This touches on something I sometimes get badgered about. To do STC as supposedly intended it would mean ignoring pretty much everything that followed in the franchise post TOS. Hey, I'd be TOTALLY cool with that, but just read the numerous comments on STC's FB page or even around this board and you'll quickly see wishlists for connecting-the-dots. A lot of fans are into the continuity porn where everything is tied together in a cute neat and tidy way. As such I'm in the minority on this.
One wouldn't necessarily have to go out of their way to overtly contradict what followed post TOS--you simply don't mention it or talk about it.
Hey, I like the McKennah character, but her inclusion was a flashing neon callout to TNG. It doesn't matter how effectively she is played and utilized she is a constant reminder that you're not really pretending it's 1969/70 because we know she wouldn't have been there back in the day. They could have gotten around that simply by calling her the ship's psychiatrist given the precedent was already there. But the designation of Counselor is an unmistakable arrow sign to TNG.
Constantly trying to "fix" Kirk so that he seems more sympathetic and identifiable to contemporary fans is another callout that you're not really trying to pretend it's 1969/70 again. This extends to other regular characters as well as doing stories that would be highly unlikely to have been produced in 1969/70. Now certain stories walk a fine line because there are types of stories that could have done even if they were unlikely to have been done.
Doing certain things with f/x walks a fine line. Doing something that could have been done back in the day given the conceit of having a bit more time and money available is something we can accept because it's something all fans wish had been true. Showing us something we know couldn't have been done back in the day is again a reminder you're not really pretending it's 1969/70 again. This is definitely where TOS-R went.
Giving women better roles is something TOS should have and could have done. Doing it now we can accept it because in a hypothetical fourth season there is a possibility it could have happened. On this point STC is on target.
STC, like TOS, does a lot more right than wrong, but like TOS it could do better to follow its stated intent.
I don't know if I can agree with that. To me, season 5 is when – after the mediocrity of most of the fourth season – the show got good again, oftentimes even great!
Granted, I'm not too keen on the sudden introduction of the 70s look and music either, but the writing got so much more interesting, with episodes starting in the middle of a mission or many missions going wrong and forcing the team to improvise. They turned the show on its head in season 5 and injected a fresh approach to the up until then pretty rigid format.
Plus, they introduced the lovely Lesley Ann Warren as Dana, which might have lacked the grace and sultry charm of Barbara Bain, but brought a youthful energy and sexiness to the cast, that the show was sorely missing in season 4. Unfortunately, however, season 6 is when the show finally jumps the shark, what with all the lame-ass episodes focussing on the The Syndicate and all. Blech!
Except by Rod Roddenberry.
Yeah, that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Not just the creation of Dr McKennah...that they're putting Yeoman Smith and Security Chief Drake and Lt. Palmer front and center in their group shot advertisements (and in storylines) means they're following the 80s staple of the ensemble cast, which became popularized on television when Dallas got on the air. A far cry from the leading man show Star Trek was intended to be.
I have to give them a break on that. They've become a very close-knit group but they only get together twice a year, so they basically have to give everybody something to do. It's not like a weekly series in that respect.
Vic has said that they want to set things up by the end of their run that basically points to where the characters end up at the beginning of TMP. There is just a touch of that in Ep. 6, but it's a light touch.
The bigger issue, though, is that again they are trying to overtly connect-the-dots. We'll see how it plays out between now and episodes 7-13. But Ep. 7 is apparently titled "Embrace The Winds." Is this a coincidence or is it an overt call out to setting things up for TMP? If it's the latter then, again, they're not really pretending it's 1969/70.
The bigger issue, though, is that again they are trying to overtly connect-the-dots. We'll see how it plays out between now and episodes 7-13. But Ep. 7 is apparently titled "Embrace The Winds." Is this a coincidence or is it an overt call out to setting things up for TMP? If it's the latter then, again, they're not really pretending it's 1969/70.
They have two stated goals that are in conflict to some extent, so there's no way they will please either hardcore time-travelers or hardcore dot-connectors.
So use them as villains or guest characters....
For decades fans have been expressing the wish the secondary characters had been given more to do in TOS, somewhat similar to what was done in early first season. It could be argued STC is attempting to do that here.
But it's interesting that it's McKenna and Smith and such that seem to be getting more screen time while Uhura, Sulu and Chekov aren't doing much better than they did in 1966-69.
I could be wrong since I'm not timing characters' screen time with a stopwatch or counting lines. It's just an impression.
I think you're right. A fan series with breakout characters.
(I'm speaking as a STC fan who really liked their first three episodes but thought the next two (especially "The White Iris") were a really big step down.)
So what's the big deal if STC is being more TNG-y (or whatever) than they claimed they were trying to be? Why should the episodes relative to their claim affect how much you like (or don't) the episodes?
I totally get not liking them if you don't like TNG-y things in a TOS environment and perceive STC putting TNG-y things there. (FWIW, TNG is one of my least favorite Trek incarnations).
But good or bad the episodes exist as their own things. Like 'em, great! Don't like 'em, also great! Horses for courses, IDIC, and all that. But why care about what STC said their mission statement was re: episodes?
So what's the big deal if STC is being more TNG-y (or whatever) than they claimed they were trying to be? Why should the episodes relative to their claim affect how much you like (or don't) the episodes?
I totally get not liking them if you don't like TNG-y things in a TOS environment and perceive STC putting TNG-y things there. (FWIW, TNG is one of my least favorite Trek incarnations).
But good or bad the episodes exist as their own things. Like 'em, great! Don't like 'em, also great! Horses for courses, IDIC, and all that. But why care about what STC said their mission statement was re: episodes?
Because it's directly relevant to our criticisms of the productions.
As someone who's not a Picard fan, I can say STC's Kirk is a long, long, long way from reminding me of Picard.
So in an alternate world where STC never made the claim but where the episodes produced are completely identical to the ones made in our world you would potentially like them better? That's the thing I don't understand.
Similar threads
