What minor changes could have made Star Trek XI better?

[SonicRanger]

What makes you think that Uhura was not a linguist in the prime timeline?
Because she was a communications officer in the prime timeline? She is a communications officer in the alternate timeline, too.

According to Nichelle Nichols and her book Beyond Uhura, that's exactly what Uhura was supposed to be, according to the backstory that she and Roddenberry originally created for her...

True, they didn't show it on screen, but they never said she wasn't a linguist, either, did they? The only thing that contradicts it is the stupid scene that they included for laughs in TUC.

For starters, Nichols' opinion of her character has little bearing on this point.

There is nothing in TOS or the films to suggest Uhura is anything other than a talent communication system technologist.

1) Uhura is never said to be a linguist.
2) Uhura never speaks anything other than English or her native Swahili.
3) Uhura needs a universal translator or books in order to badly speak Klingon.
4) Spock states that Uhura is the most qualified to repair her communications equipment -- link: http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x02/WhoMournsForAdonais0273.jpg
5) Uhura initially wore the gold command uniform in "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "Mudd's Women" but wore the red uniform of engineering and support services for the rest of the series. Linguistics is part of the field of anthropology, and the Enterprise's anthropology officer, Carolyn Palamas, wore the blue sciences uniform.
6) M5 selected her as a critical officer for the war games.
7) Uhura was overseeing the communication systems during the TMP-era refit and the TFF-era system repairs.
8) She was assigned to a transporter technician in TSFS.

So there is no evidence (other than Nichols' insistence) than Uhura was a linguist, and all evidence points to a skilled system technician.

The question is: What's wrong with that? Why is it better or more acceptable for her to be a linguist than a communication system technologist? Both should be considered respectable careers.

 

[Sci]

So there is no evidence (other than Nichols' insistence) than Uhura was a linguist, and all evidence points to a skilled system technician.

But there was no evidence that she wasn't a skilled linguist. Creative intent does matter. And, on top of all this, ST09 has now established that she was a linguist -- and there's no reason to think that that would be affected by Nero's temporal incursion.

The question is: What's wrong with that? Why is it better or more acceptable for her to be a linguist than a communication system technologist? Both should be considered respectable careers.

It's a matter of Unfortunate Implications. If she's just a skilled technician, then she is, in essence, the stereotype of the black woman answering the phone for the white guys. Establishing the character to be competent in an important field that no one else is allows the creators to avoid playing into a rather oppressive stereotype.

 

[JewelsNeeJulian]

By that point I'd say she's wearing both hats of bing talented in Lingiustics and Beinga competent Systems tech

 

[SonicRanger]

So there is no evidence (other than Nichols' insistence) than Uhura was a linguist, and all evidence points to a skilled system technician.

But there was no evidence that she wasn't a skilled linguist. Creative intent does matter. And, on top of all this, ST09 has now established that she was a linguist -- and there's no reason to think that that would be affected by Nero's temporal incursion.

Well, yes, Kirk never walked up to Uhura and said, "Too bad you're not a skilled linguist." That's not necessarily the best basis for an argument, though.

I don't have a copy of "The Making of Star Trek" handy -- anyone know what it says about Uhura in there? That is one of the proper sources for the creative intent and Uhura's backstory as originally envisioned. Nichols' personal views offered three decades later don't care much weight with me. In fact, Nichols also said that Uhura was "a glorified telephone operator in space."

And I gave you a reason that Nero's temporal incursion would matter: an increased demand for linguists who know Romulan after the Federation resumes contact with them after the Kelvin incident and tensions rise. That could've caused a different decision in career path.

 

[Sci]

And I gave you a reason that Nero's temporal incursion would matter: an increased demand for linguists who know Romulan after the Federation resumes contact with them after the Kelvin incident and tensions rise. That could've caused a different decision in career path.

Yeah, well, Kirk never directly walked up to Uhura and said, "It's a good thing that contact with the Romulans resumed in the 2230s or else there wouldn't have been increased demand for linguists to prompt you to choose to become a linguist." But that's probably not the best basis upon which to build an argument.

 

[SonicRanger]

And I gave you a reason that Nero's temporal incursion would matter: an increased demand for linguists who know Romulan after the Federation resumes contact with them after the Kelvin incident and tensions rise. That could've caused a different decision in career path.

Yeah, well, Kirk never directly walked up to Uhura and said, "It's a good thing that contact with the Romulans resumed in the 2230s or else there wouldn't have been increased demand for linguists to prompt you to choose to become a linguist." But that's probably not the best basis upon which to build an argument.

So what? Uhura Prime and NUhura are essentially two different people with the same name.

In the span of two hours, NUhura showed more linguistic skills that Uhura Prime did in the entirely of what came before. In fact, we were explicitly shown the lack of Uhura Prime's linguistic skills.

The burden isn't on me to explain why that difference exists. "It's a different timeline" is sufficient. I just offered possibility for anyone too unimaginative to come up with why that difference might exist.

That's not the same as arguing that "Just because Uhura Prime never ever showed any ounce of linguistic talent, it doesn't mean that she actually was the ship's xenolinguistics officer." Even if you refuse to accept TUC, you still have a complete lack of evidence. Then you are left with an argument that has the same weight as, oh, "Uhura actually has a penis because they never proved to us that she didn't."

 

[Hartzilla2007]

- Fix Kirk's hair

How does this fix the movie for you?

- Have the doctor that got killed be named "Piper"

Why Piper why not Boyce?

- Have the Chief Engineer be named "Kelso"

Except Kelso was the Helmsman NOT the Chief Engineer

- Have Pike ask Sulu where "Lieutenant Tyler" is

Or Kelso you know Sulu's actual predecessor who was NOT an engineer

- Have Kirk get a field commission of Commander or Lieutenant Commander in the end, not Captain

Except Star Trek is about the adventures of the Starship Enterprise under the command of CAPTAIN Kirk.

 

[DevilEyes]

What makes you think that Uhura was not a linguist in the prime timeline?
Because she was a communications officer in the prime timeline? She is a communications officer in the alternate timeline, too.

According to Nichelle Nichols and her book Beyond Uhura, that's exactly what Uhura was supposed to be, according to the backstory that she and Roddenberry originally created for her...

True, they didn't show it on screen, but they never said she wasn't a linguist, either, did they? The only thing that contradicts it is the stupid scene that they included for laughs in TUC.

For starters, Nichols' opinion of her character has little bearing on this point.

The opinion of the actor who originated the role and her words on what the original backstory for the character were, has a lot of bearing IMO.

Nichols said that her character ended up looking like a glorified telephonist in space, but that this was not what she was supposed to be. She also said in her speech at the screening of ST09 in that new Uhura is all that TOS Uhura should have been. If the original backstory was never really made evident on the show and kept Uhura's role minimal instead, all the more reason for a movie made in the 21st century to correct the mistakes of the past and not be trapped in the 1960s and have the same portrayal of women and blacks, and even fulfill some of the original authorial intents that could not be fulfilled at the time because of various factors.

3) Uhura needs a universal translator or books in order to badly speak Klingon.

Which was a scene inserted in TUC for comedic value, despite Nichols' objections, and was not written by any of the writers from the original show, so it doesn't speak anything about the originally intented backstory for Uhura in TOS. Nicholas Meyer was no more an original TOS writer than as Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. And let's not even get into how many things contradictory things exist in Star Trek shows and movies - it makes you question the whole idea of "canon". You're telling me that it's OK to retcon entire alien races and change their appearance and characterizations without explanation, but we have to stick to outdated portrayals of supporting characters just because of a comic relief scene included without much thought?

Spock states that Uhura is the most qualified to repair her communications equipment -- link: http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x02/WhoMournsForAdonais0273.jpg

6) M5 selected her as a critical officer for the war games.
7) Uhura was overseeing the communication systems during the TMP-era refit and the TFF-era system repairs.
8) She was assigned to a transporter technician in TSFS.

And that proves that she wasn't a linguist how?

She can't possibly speak languages and be able to repair communications systems as well?

 

[DevilEyes]

And I gave you a reason that Nero's temporal incursion would matter: an increased demand for linguists who know Romulan after the Federation resumes contact with them after the Kelvin incident and tensions rise. That could've caused a different decision in career path.

Yeah, well, Kirk never directly walked up to Uhura and said, "It's a good thing that contact with the Romulans resumed in the 2230s or else there wouldn't have been increased demand for linguists to prompt you to choose to become a linguist." But that's probably not the best basis upon which to build an argument.

So what? Uhura Prime and NUhura are essentially two different people with the same name.

No, they are not.

In the span of two hours, NUhura showed more linguistic skills that Uhura Prime did in the entirely of what came before. In fact, we were explicitly shown the lack of Uhura Prime's linguistic skills.

Yes, see my previous post.

There are lots of things in TOS were a product of the times, network pressure or just bad writing, rather than any artistic intent - as it happens with every TV show. Should each one of these things be considered as Holy Canon of the Prime Timeline?

We were also told by Spock in TOS that it is a scientific fact that women are not capable of being as rational as men, and that they are prone to becoming victims because they feel fear more strongly. Should that also be considered a part of the Prime Timeline canon? Maybe something happened because of Nero that made the 23rd century science less sexist?

The burden isn't on me to explain why that difference exists. "It's a different timeline" is sufficient. I just offered possibility for anyone too unimaginative to come up with why that difference might exist.

To argue that anything can be different because it is a different timeline is silly and lazy. It basically amounts to "The Wizards did it".

That's not the same as arguing that "Just because Uhura Prime never ever showed any ounce of linguistic talent, it doesn't mean that she actually was the ship's xenolinguistics officer." Even if you refuse to accept TUC, you still have a complete lack of evidence. Then you are left with an argument that has the same weight as, oh, "Uhura actually has a penis because they never proved to us that she didn't."

Just as silly as the idea that Kirk might actually have fathered a son, because they never said in TOS that he did not...

Oh wait...

 

[Anticitizen]

Easy explanation: Uhura WAS a cunning linguist, until Nomad wiped her brain clean in 'The Changeling'.

 

[SonicRanger]

... Uhura WAS a cunning linguist...

Or maybe this exact double entendre was the source of some confusion for Nichols while she was sleeping with Roddenberry -- he was trying to bed her, and she misunderstood and thought that Uhura was a cunning linguist.

 

[DevilEyes]

... Uhura WAS a cunning linguist...

Or maybe this exact double entendre was the source of some confusion for Nichols while she was sleeping with Roddenberry -- he was trying to bed her, and she misunderstood and thought that Uhura was a cunning linguist.

It could have happened through some time-travel effect, since she had stopped sleeping with Roddenberry a few years before she was cast on Star Trek.

But I get it, you have a point, actors have no clue about their characters and should not be considered reliable sources, they are just sheep after all, and Nichols just thought she was more important than she was, instead of being satisfied with sitting there and not saying a word except to utter lines about hailing frequencies, silly woman. She should just know her place.

 

[SonicRanger]

But I get it, you have a point, actors have no clue about their characters and should not be considered reliable sources, they are just sheep after all, and Nichols just thought she was more important than she was, instead of being satisfied with sitting there and not saying a word except to utter lines about hailing frequencies, silly woman. She should just know her place.

No, I'm saying that, three or four decades later, after being worshipped by millions of fans, the TOS actors aren't the best source of information about what the original intent of their character was. Anything she wrote in Beyond Uhura is filtered by time and fame. The real intent can be found in books from the era like The Making of Star Trek, production memos and documents like the writers' bible, and perhaps even the memoirs of the creators like Roddenberry and Coon, although those too can suffer from the effects of time and fame. Roddenberry was guilty of increasing his rhetoric about his "vision" with time and fame. Similarly, Nichols' story about MLK has reportedly changed from being inspired by him to talking with him on the phone to meeting him personally. She can keep repeating the story about participating in the first interracial kiss on TV, but that's still a myth. She took a job that she apparently later regretted was a "lowly" service role (and was sleeping with the producer) and has justified it to herself that Uhura was really a linguist (and thinking MLK asked her to stay). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider Nichols' word about the intent of Uhura as gospel. It is on the same level as, say, if Takei suddenly said today that he played Sulu as gay and that was always his intent during his scenes -- it just isn't in the show.

P.S. - This is absolutely nothing personal about Nichols. When I met her years ago, she was a lovely person, gracious, kind, friendly, and classy. A real pleasure to meet and very kind to her fans.

 

[CaptJamesScott]

As a huge Star Trek fan, who enjoyed ever series, I've got to tell you: from the moment I heard about this new movie, I knew it was going to be a terrible movie from a fan's POV. This movie was never intended to excite current fans. It was made to get new fans. Unfortunately, if you change something so fundamentally, it's no longer worth being a fan of, in my opinion. I still haven't seen it, and I'm not in a big hurry to see it. My friends have seen it, and from what they've told me....

 

[DevilEyes]

But I get it, you have a point, actors have no clue about their characters and should not be considered reliable sources, they are just sheep after all, and Nichols just thought she was more important than she was, instead of being satisfied with sitting there and not saying a word except to utter lines about hailing frequencies, silly woman. She should just know her place.

No, I'm saying that, three or four decades later, after being worshipped by millions of fans, the TOS actors aren't the best source of information about what the original intent of their character was. Anything she wrote in Beyond Uhura is filtered by time and fame. The real intent can be found in books from the era like The Making of Star Trek, production memos and documents like the writers' bible, and perhaps even the memoirs of the creators like Roddenberry and Coon, although those too can suffer from the effects of time and fame. Roddenberry was guilty of increasing his rhetoric about his "vision" with time and fame. Similarly, Nichols' story about MLK has reportedly changed from being inspired by him to talking with him on the phone to meeting him personally. She can keep repeating the story about participating in the first interracial kiss on TV, but that's still a myth. She took a job that she apparently later regretted was a "lowly" service role (and was sleeping with the producer) and has justified it to herself that Uhura was really a linguist (and thinking MLK asked her to stay). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider Nichols' word about the intent of Uhura as gospel. It is on the same level as, say, if Takei suddenly said today that he played Sulu as gay and that was always his intent during his scenes -- it just isn't in the show.

Yes, obviously Uhura being envisoned as a linguist by a creator of a network TV show in the 1960s is as unlikely and hard to believe as a character in a 60s network TV show being envisoned as gay.

Whatever.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

No, I'm saying that, three or four decades later, after being worshipped by millions of fans, the TOS actors aren't the best source of information about what the original intent of their character was. Anything she wrote in Beyond Uhura is filtered by time and fame. The real intent can be found in books from the era like The Making of Star Trek, production memos and documents like the writers' bible, and perhaps even the memoirs of the creators like Roddenberry and Coon, although those too can suffer from the effects of time and fame. Roddenberry was guilty of increasing his rhetoric about his "vision" with time and fame. Similarly, Nichols' story about MLK has reportedly changed from being inspired by him to talking with him on the phone to meeting him personally. She can keep repeating the story about participating in the first interracial kiss on TV, but that's still a myth. She took a job that she apparently later regretted was a "lowly" service role (and was sleeping with the producer) and has justified it to herself that Uhura was really a linguist (and thinking MLK asked her to stay). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider Nichols' word about the intent of Uhura as gospel. It is on the same level as, say, if Takei suddenly said today that he played Sulu as gay and that was always his intent during his scenes -- it just isn't in the show.

Exactly. Time tends to cloud memories -- especially if they're also regrets in some way.

 

[seigezunt]

Not a fan of the shaky-cam.

and some nudity would not have hurt.

 

[SonicRanger]

... and some nudity would not have hurt.

Yes, it would've. PG-13 is the rating that a summer blockbuster needs, and I went to Trek films as a kid -- I'd hate for parents to leave their kids home due to an R rating.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Why? And anyway, different people have different ideas of "likeable". Some people think he already is.

Personally, I liked him better than TOS Kirk, probably because he wasn't supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype.

TOS Kirk was not supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype. While he occasionally fit into this mold, he also routinely displayed traits directly counter to the 50s/60s Masculine Perfection Stereotype. He advocated mercy to one's enemies, compassion, and acceptance of radical difference (feminine, even maternal traits). His entire command style is routinely seen to rely on intuition, as opposed to logic, in contrast to Spock (logic is traditionally a masculine thought mode - intuition usually defined as a feminine thought mode). He is also defined as a character by his intense emotion, primarily in relation to his friendship with Spock, which is hardly in line with the no-emotions-allowed stereotype of masculinity in our culture. He cries, obviously, at the death of his friend. In The Enemy Within, a lot of this is made quite explicit - we see Kirk split into a Jungian dichotomy of Ego and Shadow and it is revealed that his Ego is gentle, compassionate and rational, while his Shadow is violent, self-centered and irrational - quite a muddled brew in terms of stereotypical ideas of masculinity and femininity, and Kirk as a whole character encompasses them all. Granted that in popular culture he has been reduced to an interstellar lothario gunslinger with a starship rather than a six gun on his belt - but that's an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the actual writing.

You're not making a case here. Classic male heroes in American pop culture have never been presented as logical and rational - a trait Hollywood traditionally associated with Europeans (and yes, the traditional European masculine stereotype is closely linked with rationality); they have always been presented as driven by instinct and raw emotion. Coldness, rationality and supression of emotion has always been more of the domain of classic Hollywood villains rather than heroes (Spock is a good guy who has many of the characteristics of a Hollywood villain). The classic Hollywood hero (not to be confused with the darker, edgier [anti]heroes that became popular in 1970s with Clint Eastwood and vigilante movies) is action-oriented, but also warm, extroverted, with a sense of humour, loyal, caring about his people. Of course, he also can fight incredibly well (and gets into physical fights all the time even though it is not realistic at all for a captain to keep leaving the ship...), is irresistible to women and knows how to charm them. And that is not a masculine stereotype? Kirk was obviously meant to represent the Ideal Man, captain, adventurer and explorer. Spock and McCoy were meant to represent Logic and Emotions, respectively, but Kirk was supposed to be the one who always makes the right decisions.

I think you have a good point about villains often being shown as hard and cold, but that wasn't exactly what I meant. I also never said Kirk didn't have some characteristics of a Masculine stereotype - obviously he does. But you said that he was the Masculine Perfection Stereotype, and that is an overstatement. Kirk encompasses numerous characteristics more commonly associated with a Feminine Stereoype.

You contrast American and European ideals of masculinity by saying American heroes are driven by instinct and raw emotion - but that was not my argument about Kirk. I said his thought mode was intuitive. McCoy represents raw emotion, but Kirk makes decisions by intuitive leaps. Intuitive decision making is traditionally attributed to women.

And Kirk is not merely warm and caring about his people, he is above all merciful, even to blood enemies and even when that may not be the smart military decision. He spares the Gorn when he's been told this will result in the destruction of his vessel. For the Masculine Stereotype this is weak and irrational to spare an enemy who has attacked your settlement, has tried to kill you, and there's an outside force saying the loser dies. Mercy and pity for a helpless being - these are feminine traits.

If Kirk was obviously meant to represent the ideal man, then why in The Enemy Within do we see his better side become indecisive? Indecisiveness was definitely a feminine stereotype in the 60s. Why is his better side gentle and averse to violence - also feminine traits.

I just think it's a wild simplification to boil Kirk down to a stock masculine stereotype. This issue was very interestingly explored in an article called "A Part of Myself No Man Should Ever See: Reading Kirk's Multiple Masculinities" by Elyce Rae Helford. Both Kirk and Spock are shown as very non-traditional masculine heroes, especially for the time in which they were originally created.

 

[M'Sharak]

No, I'm saying that, three or four decades later, after being worshipped by millions of fans, the TOS actors aren't the best source of information about what the original intent of their character was. Anything she wrote in Beyond Uhura is filtered by time and fame. The real intent can be found in books from the era like The Making of Star Trek, production memos and documents like the writers' bible, and perhaps even the memoirs of the creators like Roddenberry and Coon, although those too can suffer from the effects of time and fame. Roddenberry was guilty of increasing his rhetoric about his "vision" with time and fame. Similarly, Nichols' story about MLK has reportedly changed from being inspired by him to talking with him on the phone to meeting him personally. She can keep repeating the story about participating in the first interracial kiss on TV, but that's still a myth. She took a job that she apparently later regretted was a "lowly" service role (and was sleeping with the producer) and has justified it to herself that Uhura was really a linguist (and thinking MLK asked her to stay). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider Nichols' word about the intent of Uhura as gospel. It is on the same level as, say, if Takei suddenly said today that he played Sulu as gay and that was always his intent during his scenes -- it just isn't in the show.

Exactly. Time tends to cloud memories -- especially if they're also regrets in some way.

Or distance from the event tends to color memory, and stories have a way of growing in the telling and retelling.

As a huge Star Trek fan, who enjoyed ever series, I've got to tell you: from the moment I heard about this new movie, I knew it was going to be a terrible movie from a fan's POV. This movie was never intended to excite current fans. It was made to get new fans. Unfortunately, if you change something so fundamentally, it's no longer worth being a fan of, in my opinion. I still haven't seen it, and I'm not in a big hurry to see it. My friends have seen it, and from what they've told me....

In other words, you really don't have anything relevant to contribute to the discussion at hand. Heigh-ho.