What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Bad Thoughts]

Fontana had enormous influence over the show and the characters and said so quite often. Her experience on TNG was an unpleasant one, but not TOS. Unfortunately, the book you cite is pushing a particular agenda and running everything throgh that lens.

Here is an excellent, long-form interview given by Fontana to the Writer's Guild, in which she talks extensively about all the influence she had on the show:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I think the same point is also made in Nana Visitor, and there are three moments that she cites that Fontana considered to be defeats trying to make the show itself more relevant to women: the Genes not allowing Eleen to sacrifice herself for her child, the Romulan commander being given Spock as a love interest, and making McCoy a divorcee. Obviously, she shaped a lot of TOS. However, she had little leverage in increasing the centrality of women, and she continued to take credits with initials in order to sidestep the hesitation to hire women.

 

[korblborp]

You know, both Nick Meyer and William Shatner have said repeatedly, particularly in their respective books, that the scene was re-shot, after studio prodding, to change Kirk's question to "why didn't you tell ME" so that Kirk doesn't look like a schmuck who ignored his own son all of his life. However, having watched TWOK a million times, I feel pretty confident that what's in the film is "why didn't you tell him."

Regardless, I don't think the whole "deadbeat dad" thing fits with Kirk's character. Yes, he's had a number of relationships with women, both serious and purely physical (though far less than the stereotype). However, Kirk is not an irresponsible person nor an immoral one. I can't see him willfully choosing to ignore his own son, regardless of the circumstances of his conception. That just doesn't play for me based on everything else we know of the character.

on the other hand "why didn't you tell him" could be read as carol letting david *think* kirk didn't care...
since kirk is already aware of david's existence...

 

[kkt]

Don't tell me that was any meteor shower.

"It's too big to be a meteor shower!"

 

[CoveTom]

I think the same point is also made in Nana Visitor, and there are three moments that she cites that Fontana considered to be defeats trying to make the show itself more relevant to women: the Genes not allowing Eleen to sacrifice herself for her child, the Romulan commander being given Spock as a love interest, and making McCoy a divorcee. Obviously, she shaped a lot of TOS. However, she had little leverage in increasing the centrality of women, and she continued to take credits with initials in order to sidestep the hesitation to hire women.

Once again, the goalposts are on the run.

A writer/producer not winning every argument and getting everything they want, while still wielding an enormous amount of creative influence overall, is a far cry from "getting screwed over, financially and creatively" as you asserted earlier. When I showed you evidence that Fontana not only enjoyed her time on TOS, but felt she made many positive contributions, you shifted to a different argument, which you have consistently done with people throughout this discussion.

The bottom line is this: Yes, TOS was made in the 1960's and many attitudes that were prevalent then found their way into the show, just as 80's and 90's attitudes found their way into TNG. However, I still do not see the relevance of that to what happens in TWOK with Carol Marcus. I don't see that at all. So far, you have been asked twice by @CorporalCaptain of specific dialogue from Carol in TWOK that reflects her being "the unwitting mouthpiece for dated male attitudes," but in neither case have you actually provided any such examples.

Carol is an educated career woman in the sciences. She is in charge of a major project and an entire research station. She raised a son by herself on top of that, choosing to keep Kirk out of the picture and not in any way feeling that she needs to rely on a man, personally or professionally. I am having a hard time discerning how she, at any point, is "the unwitting mouthpiece for dated male attitudes."

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Once again, the goalposts are on the run.

WTF! You put forward that Fontana is enough evidence that the series was overly determined by a male worldview. I gave you a scholarly opinion to the contrary. I drew attention to three concrete examples that Fontana herself tried to inject a feminine perspective into stories, but was overruled..

 

[cooleddie74]

Because she isn't and never was.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Another thought occurred to me while I was rifling through the fridge to make dinner.

It is that the introduction of the new information about Kirk's past as a father occurs in a film series in which Kirk no longer engages in a series of noncommittal romantic encounters.

Kirk has been broadened and has grown as a character in not just one, but two ways.

Just what are the romantic interests of Kirk in the movie era?

There's Carol, but that's over. Kirk indicated interest in Gillian Taylor, but (amusingly, to me), she brushed him off at the end of TVH. They never did anything except have beer and pizza that Gillian paid for. In TUC, Martia flirts with Kirk to string him along, ultimately leading to the amusing taunt that Kirk's lifelong ambition was to kiss himself. If we count GEN, then Kirk has a fantasy involving Antonia in the Nexus where he's about to take a different path than the one he took in history and commit—and it's not even real.

Am I forgetting anybody?

In terms of real romantic encounters, it's zero.

 

[CoveTom]

WTF! You put forward that Fontana is enough evidence that the series was overly determined by a male worldview. I gave you a scholarly opinion to the contrary. I drew attention to three concrete examples that Fontana herself tried to inject a feminine perspective into stories, but was overruled..

You quoted one line from a multi-paragraph post in which I explained why the goalposts had been moved by your argument, along with yet another attempt to get you to provide some specific examples from TWOK that support your claims. Instead, you once again ignored all of that. If you'd like to actually engage in a real conversation, I'm game. If you're just going to rant about how bad Trek has been to women and don't want any pushback or discussion, I'm not much interested in that.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

You quoted one line from a multi-paragraph post in which I explained why the goalposts had been moved by your argument, along with yet another attempt to get you to provide some specific examples from TWOK that support your claims. Instead, you once again ignored all of that. If you'd like to actually engage in a real conversation, I'm game. If you're just going to rant about how bad Trek has been to women and don't want any pushback or discussion, I'm not much interested in that.

But that is not the post of mine to which you were responding. The post you quote when you accused me of moving the goalposts was :

I think the same point is also made in Nana Visitor, and there are three moments that she cites that Fontana considered to be defeats trying to make the show itself more relevant to women: the Genes not allowing Eleen to sacrifice herself for her child, the Romulan commander being given Spock as a love interest, and making McCoy a divorcee. Obviously, she shaped a lot of TOS. However, she had little leverage in increasing the centrality of women, and she continued to take credits with initials in order to sidestep the hesitation to hire women.

To which you replied:

Once again, the goalposts are on the run.

Our only back and forth up to this point had been about Fontana. How am I moving the goalpost on this issue, the only one we were debating up to this point? If you wanted to engage me on the issue of TWOK, you should have quoted that post first before accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.

BTW, I am more than willing to discuss it, and I have. I don't know why Corporal Captain was so needy to ask multiple times to provide an answer. @1001001 has already said no one is compelled to give an answer.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If you are not happy with the answer I gave to the question about how Carol Marcus' dialogue was shaped by the need to justify the attitudes in TOS, stop. You don't agree. That's ok. Move on.

 

[Maurice]

Tangentially, Fontana got several details wrong in that interview, though most of them are little things, like when the production of the second season ended (she said 67 when it was 68), etc. The only serious gaffes were around the Friday night slot being sure death for shows with youth audiences (everyone ignores that The Man From U.N.C.L.E. went to #13 in that slot two in the 1965-66 season) and the Rodden-rubbish about demographics, which had been a factor in the momentary and rescinded cancellation of Gunsmoke in early 1967.

GUNSMOKE'S ailment is in the demographic area. Surveys reveal that its popularity with viewers over 50 is infinitely greater than with the 18-to-34 and the 35-to-49 groups.

—Cynthia Lowry, Associated Press, Why Gunsmoke Almost Fell--Young Folks Don't Watch It, Press & Sun Bulletin, Sun, March 19, 1967, p.40.

 

[Gilora]

We never saw Kirk like we did when he reacted to the death of his son. That was a raw moment, well executed I thought, and a very emotional lead-in to blowing up the Enterprise.

That was one of Captain Kirk’s great scenes. The others are his 1000 yard stares when Admiral Morrow tells him that he can‘t go to Genesis and when Captain Styles tell him that he will never sit in the captain’s chair again if he steals the Enterprise.

Kirk: (sits down in the captain’s chair): “Warp Speed!”

Leonard Nimoy as a director seemed to get the best out of Shatner.