Would remaking TOS episodes make you upset?

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Maybe.

My point is that these firsts are still true to the franchise and are not lesser because of being first.

The poo-pooing attitude of firsts is frustrating. Why not eliminate the Cage all together? No reason to reference Pike at all.

I think you might be misinterpreting, we still love these things. The Cage is awesome. And being first doesn't make it lesser. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Being first just means that, when talking about what's overall true about a character, the rough notes are skipped because the character has often immediately moved past that.

It's a footnote instead of a defining note. The Cage has some amazing defining notes to mine. The footnotes are mostly fun trivia points.

We can adapt a new version of Wolverine where his claws are attached to his gloves since that's what came first. But we won't, even if we appreciate the moment for what it was.

 

[fireproof78]

I think you might be misinterpreting, we still love these things. The Cage is awesome. And being first doesn't make it lesser. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Being first just means that, when talking about what's overall true about a character, the rough notes are skipped because the character has often immediately moved past that.

It's a footnote instead of a defining note. The Cage has some amazing defining notes to mine. The footnotes are mostly fun trivia points.

We can adapt a new version of Wolverine where his claws are attached to his gloves since that's what came first. But we won't, even if we appreciate the moment for what it was.

If it isn't true its not worth loving.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

If it isn't true its not worth loving.

Fiction isn't true.
We can still love it.

 

[fireproof78]

Fiction isn't true.
We can still love it.

But the idea that it's "true to the character" is brought up as an example of why early installments are regarded as lesser. It's not "true".

And yes, fiction is not true, but I was directly referencing the "true to the character" comments. If it isn't true to the character then it seems to be portrayed as unworthy. That is the impression given.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

But the idea that it's "true to the character" is brought up as an example of why early installments are regarded as lesser. It's not "true".

And yes, fiction is not true, but I was directly referencing the "true to the character" comments. If it isn't true to the character then it seems to be portrayed as unworthy. That is the impression given.

Do you believe that being "true to the character" is a sign of good writing in long form storytelling?

The answer to that probably just shows where we fall on that particular spectrum of what we enjoy and what we might not. Where there isn't even a right answer, just a personal preference at the end of the day.

Which is a big debate in any adaptation or update. Is there such thing as being true to a character and does it even matter? Depends on who you ask and what examples are used.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Do you believe that being "true to the character" is a sign of good writing in long form storytelling?

The answer to that probably just shows where we fall on that particular spectrum of what we enjoy and what we might not. Where there isn't even a right answer, just a personal preference at the end of the day.

Which is a big debate in any adaptation or update. Is there such thing as being true to a character and does it even matter? Depends on who you ask and what examples are used.

Very true. Characters in long form fiction are always evolving. Batman starts off as a grim mysterious avenger, willing to kill and having a tenuous relationship with the police. A decade later he's public figure with a colorful kid sidekick, a no kill policy and an honorary policeman. In another decade he's become a guy who's just at home fighting alien invasions and traveling through time as he is fighting crime. Flash forward a little more he's back to being grim and mysterious and has ditched the sidekick.

 

[fireproof78]

Do you believe that being "true to the character" is a sign of good writing in long form storytelling?

The answer to that probably just shows where we fall on that particular spectrum of what we enjoy and what we might not. Where there isn't even a right answer, just a personal preference at the end of the day.

Which is a big debate in any adaptation or update. Is there such thing as being true to a character and does it even matter? Depends on who you ask and what examples are used.

My short answer is "it depends."

Would one say that Adam West is true to Batman? It's campy, over the top, and often times ridiculous, even as Batman plays it completely straight. Is that "true" compared to Burton's Batman. Younger me didn't think so; older me things "yes, why not?"

And, that to me is the most extreme example. So variation in adaptation in Star Trek is perfectly acceptable to me. Spock in the Cage is just as acceptable to me as Spock in 09. They're both "true" to the character because of what we learn throughout the journey.

But, if early installment weirdness is stated to be "untrue," then those particular episodes should be discarded.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

My short answer is "it depends."

Would one say that Adam West is true to Batman? It's campy, over the top, and often times ridiculous, even as Batman plays it completely straight. Is that "true" compared to Burton's Batman. Younger me didn't think so; older me things "yes, why not?"

And, that to me is the most extreme example. So variation in adaptation in Star Trek is perfectly acceptable to me. Spock in the Cage is just as acceptable to me as Spock in 09. They're both "true" to the character because of what we learn throughout the journey.

But, if early installment weirdness is stated to be "untrue," then those particular episodes should be discarded.

I think they're all true to themselves. Adam West stayed true to his version of Batman, established right in the pilot, so it worked. Same with any of the newer actors.

The problems for me personally is when things shift immediately within the same continuity.

If Adam West was campy in the pilot, but then every other episode after he played it dark and brooding, then the pilot would be the outlier, right?

 

[fireproof78]

If Adam West was campy in the pilot, but then every other episode after he played it dark and brooding, then the pilot would be the outlier, right?

Doesn't make it less true or acceptable in a new adaptation. It would be the outlier, but not out of character.

A distinction perhaps without a difference but one that I feel needs to be made regardless. For example, in the Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman pilot the barber is played by Colm Meany. For the remainder of the show he is portrayed by a dark haired actor, but a similar attitude and relationship to the rest of the town as established in the pilot.

Same with Father Mulcahey in MASH.

These characters are still the characters, regardless of initial portrayals.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It would be the outlier, but not out of character.

Is my example not the definition of "out of character", though?

 

[fireproof78]

Is my example not the definition of "out of character", though?

I would say no.

Though I'm heavily biased at this point. Pretty much my whole mindset has shifted and no doubt people could consider me "out of character."

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I would say no.

Though I'm heavily biased at this point. Pretty much my whole mindset has shifted and no doubt people could consider me "out of character."

Well, the term is a definable one, so you very well could be.

out of character
phrase of character

1. not in keeping with someone's usual pattern of behavior and motives.
   "it is out of character for her to be out of contact for this long"

 

[fireproof78]

Well, the term is a definable one, so you very well could be.

out of character
phrase of character

1. not in keeping with someone's usual pattern of behavior and motives.
   "it is out of character for her to be out of contact for this long"

So I guess we would define what's a pattern then. So, one episode a pattern?

 

[The Old Mixer]

Would one say that Adam West is true to Batman? It's campy, over the top, and often times ridiculous, even as Batman plays it completely straight. Is that "true" compared to Burton's Batman.

How could and why should the '60s TV show be "true" to another adaptation that was made two decades later? Both were adaptations of the character's long and varied history in the original source material, the comics. The TV show was very true to Batman as he'd existed for much of his publication history at the time the show was made.

 

[Frontis]

I don't see any sense in remaking any Star Trek show except for making money because they don't have new ideas.

 

[fireproof78]

How could and why should the '60s TV show be "true" to another adaptation that was made two decades later? Both were adaptations of the character's long and varied history in the original source material, the comics. The TV show was very true to Batman as he'd existed for much of his publication history at the time the show was made.

If I followed the argument correctly, there was a diminishing of first installments compared to later installments.

To me their both "true" and one is not lesser because it came first

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see any sense in remaking any Star Trek show except for making money because they don't have new ideas.

So...what Trek was all about at the beginning? Get enough views to stay on the air is the first line in the TOS writer's bible.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

So...what Trek was all about at the beginning? Get enough views to stay on the air is the first line in the TOS writer's bible.

You don't generally want people in creative industries to be in it just for the money.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't generally want people in creative industries to be in it just for the money.

Just? No.

But it is an extremely strong consideration in today's economic landscape and treating Trek as somehow exempt ignores a lot of it's history.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Just? No.

But it is an extremely strong consideration in today's economic landscape and treating Trek as somehow exempt ignores a lot of it's history.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Star Trek doesn't have to make money in order to carry on existing, and I'm sure everyone involved has always been very keen to get paid. But if they were just churning out soulless remakes of classic stories because they know everyone loves Mudd and Khan and they want to make cash, that would be a real step down from the creative work we love the franchise for.