Drink!
The frontpage for ST day 2023 at startrek.com does not have Kirk nor Spock in the banner
- Thread starter Unnamed Caitian
- Start date
yeah, it’s not really a big deal. Odd omission sure. But not bad by any means.
This year, last Spring, I taught a college sci fi class, and at the end of the semester, for fun, we watched and discussed "Who Mourns for Adonais?" One of the students in the class who had never seen an episode of Star Trek before was participating in the class discussion, and because she did not know the name of "the captain," she clarified the character to whom she referred by saying, "the one played by William Shatner."
How many actors of his age are still that well known among people that young?
man, seems like you are always ready to snark at me about something.
they’ve had 50+ years to come up with characters that would register in the general public consciousness like Kirk and Spock. The closest they’ve gotten is Picard. Having Spock as a character certainly was a factor in greenlighting SNW. And the fact that they keep finding excuses to wedge Kirk in speaks for itself.
Besides, I never said they can’t. And Kudos to them if a future showrunner can do it. History would tell us they won’t.
I think Data could be called Iconic, Maybe even Worf seeing as he is seen as the prototype of the modern Klingon. TNG I would say can get credit for creating some new Iconic aliens in The Ferengi,Borg, Cardassians and Bajorans and Betazoids. Maybe the Trill, even though I think Dax became the prototype of that species, despite TNG technically creating on them.
Data and Worf maybe.
The Borg, possibly.
Ferengi, Cardassians, Bajorans, Betazoids, Trill--I don't think many people outside the fan community know what those are.
The Borg, possibly.
Ferengi, Cardassians, Bajorans, Betazoids, Trill--I don't think many people outside the fan community know what those are.
It does feel unusual not to see Nimoy and Shatner on there but it's refreshing to see a different and more diverse range of actors.
My only issue is that it needs, as with most things, more Bakula.
Extra thought on this sunny Sunday morning - all the characters on there are currently active in some way. Except Benjamin Sisko....
I believe it's happening. Sisko:The Return. Lawks a mercy, there's going to be some gnashing of teeth if it does, the canon-defenders are going to be busy!
My only issue is that it needs, as with most things, more Bakula.
Extra thought on this sunny Sunday morning - all the characters on there are currently active in some way. Except Benjamin Sisko....
I believe it's happening. Sisko:The Return. Lawks a mercy, there's going to be some gnashing of teeth if it does, the canon-defenders are going to be busy!
I guess it can be debatable about some of these aliens but not the Ferengi. Though it will be interesting in seeing how they are changed and altered through the passage of time. The Big ears though I think are something that will stick through all changes.
Look, I'm about as shameless a TOS partisan as they come, and, no, I'm not remotely outraged. There's nearly a dozen different Trek shows these days and countless beloved characters. TOS is represented by the dearly departed Nichelle Nichols. That's good enough for me.
And, most importantly, as people have already pointed out abundantly, this is a one-time promotional banner at a publicity stunt intended to promote CBS's Trekkish offerings. It is not and was never intended to be some lasting statement or referendum on which characters or series are most "iconic" or "deserve" to be featured. We're not talking abstract, ivory-tower judgments about quality or worth or legacy.
It's a billboard. Advertising.
So, yes, of course, there's going to play up the latest new products. Of course they're going to hype Michelle Yeoh because she just won an Oscar. That's just common sense.
There's no deeper meaning or insult to be found here. It's just marketing, no more, no less.
And, most importantly, as people have already pointed out abundantly, this is a one-time promotional banner at a publicity stunt intended to promote CBS's Trekkish offerings. It is not and was never intended to be some lasting statement or referendum on which characters or series are most "iconic" or "deserve" to be featured. We're not talking abstract, ivory-tower judgments about quality or worth or legacy.
It's a billboard. Advertising.
So, yes, of course, there's going to play up the latest new products. Of course they're going to hype Michelle Yeoh because she just won an Oscar. That's just common sense.
There's no deeper meaning or insult to be found here. It's just marketing, no more, no less.
Benign answer: There's no need to put Shatner and Nimoy on a poster for Star Trek advertising Star Trek because they're synonymous with it, and it doesn't do much to promote the shows that are streaming currently.
A more controversial answer: If Strange New Worlds is the current flagship Star Trek series, Paramount might not want to confuse the issue of Spock and Kirk. For all intents and purposes, they may want Ethan Peck to be the face of Spock in advertising now. And depending on what they have planned for Paul Wesley, they may want him to be the face of Kirk in Paramount+ ads. So it would explain omitting Nimoy and Shatner if Paramount wants people to associate Kirk and Spock with the Strange New Worlds versions.
A more controversial answer: If Strange New Worlds is the current flagship Star Trek series, Paramount might not want to confuse the issue of Spock and Kirk. For all intents and purposes, they may want Ethan Peck to be the face of Spock in advertising now. And depending on what they have planned for Paul Wesley, they may want him to be the face of Kirk in Paramount+ ads. So it would explain omitting Nimoy and Shatner if Paramount wants people to associate Kirk and Spock with the Strange New Worlds versions.
Now I am outraged that your well worded and reasonable take on the situation doesn't give me a chance to be outraged in response. Where is the emotional driven hot take based on current day resentment of all new modern Trek that allows me to blow off about how your not a REAL Trek fan?!
I think the point I was alluding to - with the usual and slight and campy exaggeration - is that, in 50 years' time, (the marketing will) all be mostly the same: Current characters up front, and how many they can stuff in the background as they're part of the brand but not as big a part at the time in which the new banner is made, nor is there room to make the graphic overly busy by shoving everyone in there. Always has been, always will be, the only change is total number of characters racked up under the hood due to the increased number of series under the brand banner. It's inevitable.
Indeed, yes. And people read way to much meaning in to what comes down to an advertising gimmick.
IMHO, it's amazing the general public remembers TNG.
It's possible that there will be another changing of the cast in 50 years. Look at Shakespeare - the same plays re-told by numerous new actors over the centuries. The fact they live on in any form, and trying to read the original Shakespeare is a full-time career with the verbosity of their day, is genuinely amazing in of itself.
Everyone who's my age (early-40s) who watched Star Trek, watched TNG. They remember it. That's what they associate with Star Trek. I was the TOS Fan surrounded by people who only liked TNG. Almost all my Trekkie friends only like TNG. So, I don't think it's amazing, I think it's a fact. TNG isn't my favorite Star Trek series, but I'm not going to act as if everyone's forgotten about it. That's all bulletin board rhetoric. What I know IRL is different.
TNG used to play every weeknight on three different stations in my area during the early-to-mid-'90s. There was no getting away from it. I watched TNG every day, so did a lot of other people. When I was in ninth grade ('93-'94), a teacher asked the class, "How many of you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation?" Half the class raised their hand, including me. Were they all Trekkies on the level that I am, arguing about it on a place like here? No. But they watched it nonetheless. And it's one of the shows they remember watching.
Now bear in mind I'm only talking about my friends who were fans or anyone who actually did used to watch it. Not necessarily Tony, the neighbor across the street.
According to the Average Joe, like Tony across the street, this is what they think of when they think of Star Trek, in descending order:
1. They confuse it with Star Wars. "I've seen Return of the Jedi!" (someone once said this to me)
2. They think of TOS and the Abrams Films. "Kirk! Spock! Beam me up, Scotty!"
3. They think of TNG. "The one with the bald guy!" "Make it so!" "Engage!"
And that's it. Nothing else, from DS9 to Now, registers. A few people I know IRL brought up Picard but that's only because they see it as TNG. I don't know how many of them actually watched it. But that's one of the reasons Picard exists. Aside from Alex Kurtzman, Michael Chabon, and Terry Matalas not being happy with how the TNG Movies went or ended. They know that there's a section of Trekdom for who Star Trek doesn't revolve around TOS, they don't see TOS as the end all and be all, so Picard was trying to reach into that segment of fandom that a TOS Prequel or TOS Reboot wouldn't reach.
TNG used to play every weeknight on three different stations in my area during the early-to-mid-'90s. There was no getting away from it. I watched TNG every day, so did a lot of other people. When I was in ninth grade ('93-'94), a teacher asked the class, "How many of you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation?" Half the class raised their hand, including me. Were they all Trekkies on the level that I am, arguing about it on a place like here? No. But they watched it nonetheless. And it's one of the shows they remember watching.
Now bear in mind I'm only talking about my friends who were fans or anyone who actually did used to watch it. Not necessarily Tony, the neighbor across the street.
According to the Average Joe, like Tony across the street, this is what they think of when they think of Star Trek, in descending order:
1. They confuse it with Star Wars. "I've seen Return of the Jedi!" (someone once said this to me)
2. They think of TOS and the Abrams Films. "Kirk! Spock! Beam me up, Scotty!"
3. They think of TNG. "The one with the bald guy!" "Make it so!" "Engage!"
And that's it. Nothing else, from DS9 to Now, registers. A few people I know IRL brought up Picard but that's only because they see it as TNG. I don't know how many of them actually watched it. But that's one of the reasons Picard exists. Aside from Alex Kurtzman, Michael Chabon, and Terry Matalas not being happy with how the TNG Movies went or ended. They know that there's a section of Trekdom for who Star Trek doesn't revolve around TOS, they don't see TOS as the end all and be all, so Picard was trying to reach into that segment of fandom that a TOS Prequel or TOS Reboot wouldn't reach.
I totally understand that, and I hope people enjoy them. TOS is one of my favorite Star Trek shows, but I don't need to see it redone over and over and over again. Not saying it can't be good, just that's not where I would prefer the franchise go in perpetuity.
Last edited:
In many ways I think one of the things that help keep TOS alive is the TOS movies. I know their are people out their who like the TOS movies but not the show because the movies don't have that 60's dated stuff in them.You even have a beloved female character that isn't just a backup character in Saavik and later Gillian Taylor and Valeris. "Wrath of Khan" is a legit good movie liked by people who don't usually like Trek.
If that were the case, wouldn't they also exclude Nichelle Nichols, so that people associate Uhura with Celia Rose Gooding?
I don't think anyone at Paramount is worried about people confusing the actors from different adaptations. They just forefronted the actors with new, forthcoming or recently released shows on Paramount+, in order to promote those shows. And they included Nichols to honor her after her passing, which was a lovely thing to do.