It could be argued that it wasn't Surak per se, but Archer's mind representation of surak's abstract katra and that would explain the human traits and the use of English vernacular or the apparition of welts all over Surak's face.
Was the actress cast to play T'Pau too young
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
That's a unique perspective. Never thought of it that way before. But it makes sense to me.
Huh? Young T'Pau was played by Kara Zediker.
Who would've ever guessed that the stately T'Pau we met in "Amok Time" was a cute pixie, when her flower was in bloom? Fiona Lincke wasn't playing Celia Lovsky, but you'd think some effort would've been made to find an actress who looked vaguely related, at least! Fiona should've played a Vulcan Princess on ENT, but she does seems somewhat miscast in the role of T'Pau, in looks and performance. That was quite a metamorphosis she made over a century and a half ... completely unrecognisable, in every way! An old flame of hers who hadn't seen her in 80 years would've been like, "holy Shat, I would've never known it was you!"
I wonder what the old flame thought when she suddenly looked like Betty Matsushita?
For the hell of it. Younger Celia Lovsky
Who's old flame was she?
I would have loved to see Carol Decker (lead singer of the band) play younger T'Pau. And she does have some acting chops - she's been in a couple of movies, and was almost selected as a recurring character love interest for Miami Vice. But alas, it was not to be.
I wouldn't expect him to act like a modern Vulcan at all. I mean, yes, he wrote and taught the teachings that became a quasi-religious (or with "priestesses", *actual* religious?) lifestyle for most of his planet, but he, himself, was born and raised in a time when no one was practicing that lifestyle, because he hadn't created it yet. His world was at war and in danger of destroying itself with anti-matter weapons, according to "Spock's World" - which I highly recommend that people in this thread read, and then ignore anything from Enterprise that contradicts it.
Your take on Surak is very persuasive, USS Triumphant. I must admit that I almost found myself being swayed ... but I remain unconvinced. As a katra, Surak exudes kindness and love of Life, but I can't help but feel that he really should've been far more stoic in his characterisation. Nevertheless, I will give the matter further consideration ...
Oh the dear! How foolish of me ... I googled "actress who played T'Pau" at the last minute and that name came up. I just copied and pasted it, without paying all that much attention. How embarrassing!
Happens to the best of us.
Betty Matsushita was a background player who played a non-speaking T'Pau on the holodeck in the Voyager episode "Darkling". Why they chose an Asian woman to play T'Pau, I have no idea.
Vulcan representatives on Earth were emphatic (Vulcan for "offended") about the whitewashing of Vulcans by the Hollywood suits who hired Leonard Nimoy.
I read Spock's World sometime ago. I like it for being well written and somewhat poetic, with an interesting portrayal of T'Pau as the head of the House of Surak, all powerful, full of dignity etc, which probably is consistent with the T'Pau portrayed in Amok Time. However, this T'Pau who gave Sarek his first assignment on Earth seems to be a much older T'Pau. The T'Pau depicted in ENT is a much younger one - I can totally accept the way she is portrayed there.I wouldn't expect him to act like a modern Vulcan at all. I mean, yes, he wrote and taught the teachings that became a quasi-religious (or with "priestesses", *actual* religious?) lifestyle for most of his planet, but he, himself, was born and raised in a time when no one was practicing that lifestyle, because he hadn't created it yet. His world was at war and in danger of destroying itself with anti-matter weapons, according to "Spock's World" - which I highly recommend that people in this thread read, and then ignore anything from Enterprise that contradicts it.
I prefer to accept the ENT version as the canon (as it should be) because Spock's World has other contradictions (eg Spock is Sarek's only child). Also, if you are prepared to accept a book as the canon then what about the other contradictions with other books? For example in Spock's World T'Pau died (and gave her katra to Amanda) when Spock was still with Enterprise, yet in Vulcan's Heart book she was at Spock and Saavik's wedding (which happened when Spock was much older and was already an ambassador). So which book becomes the canon?
At least they had a good Gandhi impersonator.
That was 2takesfrakes scenario. I was just riffing on it.
Maybe the character played by Matsushita wasn't *the* T'Pau, but just *some* T'Pau? The name T'Pau might be common on Vulcan, but put in the right context (like Kirk and McCoy did for each other) there's no doubt whom one is talking about. Much the same way Martin and John are common names, but put them in a specific context like, "Abraham, Martin, and John" and people know to whom you are referring.
I don't deny that ENT's portrayal is canon. But Duane's version is in my "head canon" for TOS, and I personally reconcile this by choosing to believe that the power structure that we saw on Vulcan in Enterprise was the result of various changes made by time shenanigans: the temporal cold war, but also, the knowledge of the Borg that Cochrane shared with them and that they possibly gained some of for themselves scanning the places the Borg Sphere's weapons hit once they were on Earth. In my mind, ENT is not in the past of TOS - VOY. It is in the past of nuTrek.
If one accepts the Star-Trek-V-as-Kirk's-dream theory, then there is no contradiction, because Sybok only existed in Kirk's mind.
For me, this is easy: "Vulcan's Heart" was not written by Diane Duane. So while I may be willing to borrow elements from it, the places it contradicts Duane will not be in my "head canon".
Maybe the character played by Matsushita wasn't *the* T'Pau, but just *some* T'Pau? The name T'Pau might be common on Vulcan, but put in the right context (like Kirk and McCoy did for each other) there's no doubt whom one is talking about. Much the same way Martin and John are common names, but put them in a specific context like, "Abraham, Martin, and John" and people know to whom you are referring.
Careful. You're getting all Christopherian. You sure that's a road you want to go down?
Sound more Timoish to me.Careful. You're getting all Christopherian. You sure that's a road you want to go down?
I think the script was okay (transcript here). The buck really stops with the director, who should have had some idea what Vulcans are like.
Yes, the director could've had T'Pau behaving more stoic, certainly, but I really have to disagree with you on the script being in shape. The Syranites have every business being cautious, of course, however Surak's not just referenced by them ... Surak is actively instructing them, through Syran. A fact of which is NOT on camera, which is true. However, in the mind of Archer, Surak is not half remembered, or surreally dreamlike. His visions are crystal clear - easily understood and interpreted and Archer's not even the same species. It has to be assumed that Syran's interactions with Surak were doubly so. Which begs the question:
Does Syran have to physically be present for T'Pau to exercise Surak's enlightened philosophy? Because, with Syran gone, she mistreats T'Pol and - especially - Archer, in a variety of ways. In fact, she actually forces - OK? - FORCES her will on Archer. If this weren't bad enough, doing so actually puts Archer's very LIFE at risk! You know, I'm very upfront about not possessing intimate knowledge of the STAR TREK universe, but none of that coincides with Surak's teachings. And again, Surak's not in the pages of a book. He's not assumed to be preserved in a receptical. His spirit is alert and active in the Minds of the Living. So ...
Either T'Pau's new to the Syranite camp (and it's established that she's been there for years) or she's so arrogant in her personal beliefs of how things should be run, that she's defiant of Surak's teachings (which there is evidence for). This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I say that scripts weren't being Quality Assured.
Does Syran have to physically be present for T'Pau to exercise Surak's enlightened philosophy? Because, with Syran gone, she mistreats T'Pol and - especially - Archer, in a variety of ways. In fact, she actually forces - OK? - FORCES her will on Archer. If this weren't bad enough, doing so actually puts Archer's very LIFE at risk! You know, I'm very upfront about not possessing intimate knowledge of the STAR TREK universe, but none of that coincides with Surak's teachings. And again, Surak's not in the pages of a book. He's not assumed to be preserved in a receptical. His spirit is alert and active in the Minds of the Living. So ...
Either T'Pau's new to the Syranite camp (and it's established that she's been there for years) or she's so arrogant in her personal beliefs of how things should be run, that she's defiant of Surak's teachings (which there is evidence for). This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I say that scripts weren't being Quality Assured.
The needs of the many, etc...
Similar threads
