Shields!!!! SHIELDS!!!!Means that dump is being shot directly into space. Guess they don't want it getting on the walls of Spacedock.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Turn it into the wave!
TROI: So, it's like a cosmic string?
O'BRIEN: No. that's a completely different phenomenon.
O'BRIEN: No. that's a completely different phenomenon.
Ohhhhh, I am sorry, Doctor McCoy. Were we having a good time?
The Captain's Crapper.
Perfect if you've had way too many marshmelons. You'll have to sit down.
Remember when Voyaget found one of those floating in space?
@Bad Thoughts, did you have any examples in mind in TWOK, of Carol Marcus being "the unwitting mouthpiece for dated male attitudes?"
Spock and La'An have better chemistry than Spock and Chapel
Maybe they should try being a couple.
Maybe not
The idea that Kirk feels he must remain unattached is baked into TOS, starting with Naked Time, no? It figured into the rationalization given for the dismissal of Grace Lee Whitney and the removal of her character: the captain needs to be free, and can't have attachments, especially on the ship. A girl in every port. If you read both volumes of Fifty Year Mission, there is plenty of evidence that Roddenberry was obsessed with the virility of his characters, sometimes openly using pornographic descriptions among colleagues. Meyers or Bennett or whoever did not make the character: Kirk was already set. It was a matter of using what TOS did to push the movie narrative forward.
I think Roddenberry kept that in his office.
Gotta say that they did a good job of setting that up in episode 302. I'm already kinda shipping it.
I thought the shuttle craft scene in Memento Mori had a certain chemistry.
Carol Marcus seems to admit that Kirk is a dick, "Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a boy scout".
I agree that, in TOS, Kirk was conceived and depicted as a "girl in every port" type character.
Regarding why Whitney left the show, first of all, the premise that it depended in any way upon the captain needing to be free of attachments is obviously bullshit. That's because characters can be written in any way that the writers think appropriate, to suit the story of each episode. If Kirk and Rand are not to become involved, then they simply write them not to become involved. Whether Rand is there doing other things is a completely independent question.
Whitney's contract was not renewed because there were behind-the-scenes issues, issues that involved her personal health and her performance on-set and that probably also involved having been physically assaulted by an important figure associated with the show.
During the time when Rand was on the show, TPTB produced episodes that indicated a mutual attraction between her and Kirk. That also contradicts the premise that they wanted to avoid having the characters be in situations that imply a possible romantic connection. What they wanted to avoid was having Rand remain as a character on the show, period, in any capacity. Vacuously that means that they wanted to avoid having Rand and Kirk do anything together going forward, no matter what it was. So, to avoid having the two characters together in flirtatious situations or situations in which they become more deeply involved, it's not false per se, but it's highly misleading, and it's anything but an actual factor in the decision-making process.
In TWOK, Kirk and Carol say [transcript]:
KIRK: I did what you wanted. ...I stayed away. ...Why didn't you tell him?
CAROL: How can you ask me that? Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world and I had mine. And I wanted him in mine, not chasing through the universe with his father. ... Actually, he's a lot like you. In many ways. Please tell me what you're feeling.
This means that it's Carol who didn't want Kirk in David's life. She made the decision. I don't see any sort of mouthpiece for dated male behavior operating here. If there's any social angle, it's feminist.
It's also worth saying that it offers a specific, potentially new interpretation for why Kirk is a "a girl in every point" type character who avoids attachments except to his ship and crew, to roam among the stars without ever "settling down." He already has a child, he has pursued and has had the opportunity for attachment, and he was rejected. That's a nontrivial expansion of the character, a profound reinterpretation actually. It's anything but keeping the Kirk character within the bounds of a man who seeks no romantic attachment.
I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept that there could be motivations and interests outside the story that shape what happens inside. Gene Roddenberry maintained attitudes on a range of things that made themselves into stories, often making for complications for the franchise over decades. One of his scripts even has Kirk bed a slave, an act of non-consensual sex. Even Pike dreams of dealing with sex slaves. As much as Roddenberry is credited for depicting women and minorities in positions of power, he could also undermine the progressiveness in other ways. His male heroes have problems.
Carol Marcus made a decision about how to raise her son, and in the sense that she decided she needed no help, it could be considered feminist. On the other hand, it was based on assumptions about men being unreliable and unwilling to compromise on their interests. She read Kirk's attitude was that the family was the woman's domain; what she did was make sure he had no power in it. In the end, it was another situation from the sexual revolution from the 60s in which men were somehow more liberated than women. Carol Marcus' decision reflects things that we know about Kirk because we watched every episode ad infinitum. Kirk was rarely going to be there; why should he be there at all? I don't think the idea that it's Marcus who rejects Kirk really works. It is at best a retcon. It would be no different with any woman who found herself with a playboy.
According to some recollection, the issue with Whitney was that she refused the advances of a producer, who has not been named. The firing was retaliation. Regardless, my issue is with the excuse that has been given over the years. Kirk can't have relationships, especially on the ship. He needs to be available.
Yeah, the argumentation seems to proceed from a premise I don't follow or see.My small male brain is not following your logic, at all.
Similar threads
- Locked
