• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Which 23rd Century is canon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If copyright expires, there's no such thing as "snapping up the rights to it." The franchise would become public domain in the same way that, like, Robin Hood is public domain, or Jane Austin novels are public domain.



Well, yes, but if Star Trek as an I.P. became public domain, the new stories based on it would still be protected by copyright and owned by someone. Jane Austin's 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice is public domain, but the 1995 television miniseries based upon the novel is copyrighted to the BBC, and the 2005 film is, IIRC, copyrighted to Working Title Films. So, yes, there are three different "canons" at play here -- the Jane Austin canon, the BBC canon, and the Working Title Films.

Similarly, if Star Trek: The Original Series became public domain because copyright expired, and three different production companies made three different TV series based on TOS, then there would be four different canons -- the original canon (the only one that currently exists), and the canon of each new series.



That's a really good way to think about it all. :bolian:



I mean, to be honest, I don't think the character of Khan, conceptually, really works in our modern era. He's Sikh and has a Sikh name, but he doesn't wear a turban or a beard and he's played by a Mexican actor of European descent, or by a white English guy? The character as depicted in TOS just reeks of white writers creating a generically brown enemy for the white hero to fight.

Which is why I don't think Cumberbatch's character in Star Trek Into Darkness should have been Khan.



Maybe in a world where we have actual racial equality, that would be fine. But we don't. We still live in a very white-dominated society, and as long as that is the case, it is both morally acceptable for white characters to be recast as POC and morally unacceptable for POC characters to be recast as white.



I don't know what corners of the Internet you hang out in, but I know of plenty of people who think that that was a fundamentally racist casting decision on the part of the TOS producers and who care if the Sikh community finds it offensive. It is, as I have outlined above, part of why I think the character of Khan fundamentally doesn't work in an era where we don't assume that "white" is the default setting for American and that the feelings of minority communities matter.

If they do bring Khan back again somehow, I think he should be played by a Sikh actor in a manner that is not offensive to the Sikh community -- preferably against a hero figure who is also a POC. It's the sort of thing that would have to be done very, very carefully. And even thing, I'm not convinced it would even be worth it. After all -- how can you do any better than the great Ricardo Montalbán?



1) Nothing about Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact is "hippie"-like.

2) The reconceptualization of Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact is a prime example of a good creative decision even if it is not in strict adherence to continuity. The version of Cochrane from First Contact is a better version from an artistic standpoint, because he is more complex, dynamic, deeper, and more fallible.



I am a viewer, and I can believe the noble man seen in the 1967 episode is the same person as the sambling, asshole-ish mess of far different motivations seen in the TNG movie. Why? Because the experience of travelling to space and encountering aliens fundamentally changed him. I love that! I find beauty and inspiration in the idea that the worst version of ourselves -- and we are all different versions of ourselves at different points of our lives with different people -- can change and become so much better if we expand our horizons and build relationships that are bigger than us as individuals. Which is what Cochrane did when he shook that Vulcan captain's hand.



No. They absolutely made the right decision with their depiction of Cochrane. It made the film better, and it makes "Metamorphosis" a better episode by adding a level of complexity to the Cochrane character that had not previously been part of the episode's text.



Such a weird line. Like, who looks at a group of people and feels the need to remark upon the fact that it's a multi-racial group like that's unusual?



First off, I think that they could have made Pike Asian if they had wanted to. He wasn't a truly iconic character before DIS S2 and SNW. The Bruce Greenwood version of Pike certainly rescued him from TOS guest star obscurity in the 2009 film, but he still wasn't as iconic a character as he became with DIS S2. Anson Mount has made Pike iconic. But if the DIS producers had wanted to, I think they could have made Pike Asian or otherwise reimagined him.

Making Uhura white or Spock blonde are fundamentally different things from making Kyle Asian, because these characters are absolutely iconic and have been for decades. In Uhura's case, her identity as a black woman is fundamental to the character, because she is there to represent people of African descent in the 23rd Century. Spock is also iconic as a direct result of Leonard Nimoy's performance -- and is arguably coded as Ashkenazi Jewish, I might add. So reconceptualizing either of these characters would be offensive, both because of their iconic status, and because their original actors' ethnic identities are baked into the characters. Reconceptualizing Uhura as non-black would be actively offensive because it would undermine black representation. Reconceptualizing Spock as blonde would almost literally be "Aryianizing" a character played by a Jewish actor only twenty years removed from the Holocaust.

That's a very, very different thing from reconceptualizing an obscure, two-dimensional cardboard cutout of a character that happened to be played by a white actor as a POC character. Kyle is not iconic. And, once again, reconceptualizing a white character as POC in a film or TV show produced by a white-dominated culture (like the Anglosphere) is almost always morally acceptable because doing so undermines the idea that "white" is the default setting of the human race.

Personally I don't like when they bring in an actor who doesn't have any resemblance at all to the old character, as if Pke should become Asian or African.

If they want an Asian or African main character, fine. Then invent a new one. But don't mess with the appearance of already established characters.

I must point out that it has nothing to do with racism. I would be furious if they brought in a white guy to play Sisko.

In this case I actually have to give the NuTrek movies some credit. They have actually tried to find actors with some resemblance to Shatner, Nimoty and the iconic TOS actors.

But this whole thing is also a reason why I hate remakes of good series or movies. better to come up with something new and fresh.
 
Personally I don't like when they bring in an actor who doesn't have any resemblance at all to the old character, as if Pke should become Asian or African.

If they want an Asian or African main character, fine. Then invent a new one. But don't mess with the appearance of already established characters.

Nah. It's fine. If there's no reason a character needs to be white, then there's no reason to keep them white.

Also, again, Kyle is not a character so much as he is a cardboard cutout.

I must point out that it has nothing to do with racism. I would be furious if they brought in a white guy to play Sisko.

That's all well and good, but I would invite you to consider the impact of real-world power dynamics on the question of when it is appropriate to reconceptualize a character's race.

But this whole thing is also a reason why I hate remakes of good series or movies. better to come up with something new and fresh.

Some of the greatest films in history have been remakes that improved on what came before.
 
A lot of old-schoolers like SNW, a lot of people who don't like DSC/PIC like SNW, and SNW also happens to be my least favorite of the three new live-action Trek series. So if anyone's looking for selling points, there you have it.
 
I can't tell if you're trying to complain about the existence of multiple versions of a story or if you're under the mistaken impression that the Joker's appearance in later films somehow contradicts the events of Batman (1989). If it's the latter: The Joker has never reappeared in a film series after being killed. Joker (2019), Suicide Squad (2016), and The Dark Knight (2008) are each separate adaptations of the Batman mythos from one-another and from Batman (1989), just as Batman (1989) was a separate adaptation of the Batman mythos from Batman: The Movie (1966). The Joker who appears in Batman: The Movie (1966) is a separate version of the character from the one who appears in Batman (1989). Both are separate versions from the one that appears in The Dark Knight (2008), and each is a separate version from the ones that appear in Suicide Squad (2016) and Joker (2019).

If you're trying to say that you don't like the presence of multiple versions of the characters:

Is that really any different from there being different versions of Sherlock Holmes, or different versions of Robin Hood, or different versions of Peter Pan, or different versions of King Arthur?

I'm sorry, but The Dark Knight (2008) is genuinely one of the greatest films ever made.

Is this the movie where The Joker looks like a punk rocker with bad makeup? In that case I have to disagree. I didn't like the mover and definitely not that "Joker". Nicholsons Joker was much better.

As for Sherlock Holmes, he's been pretty beaten up in trecent years, hasn't he. I remember some crap series recently when he was an ordinary guy in the 2020's or 2010's USA. Horrible.
As for the others, there have been some good versions but some very bad too.

Star Trek's continuity is no more messed up than it has ever been since S1 of TOS.

I think it's very messed upp with all those timelines and with even more contradictions than before.

You do realize that the current seasons of DIS and PIC have both moved far beyond the darkness these shows started in, right? This makes as much sense as complaining that Dante's Divine Comedy is about Hell when Dante leaves the Inferno and spends the latter two-thirds of the trilogy in Purgatory and then Heaven.

Well, as for Discovery I did quit that one because I didn't like the storytelling, I didn't like the characters and I definitely didn't like the Mutant Ninja Turtles. I can't speak about the storytelling now but the characters and the Mutant Nija Turtles are still there, I suppose.

As for Picard, I tried as long as I could to find positive things in it, I really wanted to like it since it was exactly what I've been waiting for, a series in the 24th century with some old favorite characters involved. But in the long run, I found it just like a weak excho of what TNG had been. I started to miss episodes and when one of my local channel stopped airing it, I just didn't bother to pay a streaming service to continue watching. I have to spend my money on more important things, like constantly having to replace the DS9 DVD:s of lousy quality which Paramount petrster us with and which starts to malfunction after three or four viweings.

The fact that you don't like a question of design aesthetics does not make it "bad."
In my personal opinion and way of descibing things, something I do like is "good" and something I don't like is "bad".

Again, the show only has two seasons so far, and only the first half of S1 is "doom-and-gloom." S1 is literally all about moving away from doom-and-gloom back into hope and optimism, and hope and optimism are firmly in place throughout S2. This is like complaining that the characters are all single in Love Actually even though they are in fact all paired up by the end of the film.

See my reply about Picard above my previous comment. I might watch more of it if an opportunity for it turns up. But as I wrote, I need my money for mor urgent things than streaming. Not to mention that I don't like streaming, especially not when the company removes a series when I'm in the middle of it.

Well, yes, it is a sitcom -- you're not supposed to take it too seriously. ;)
I know and I'm not atking it seriously. But it would be nice with a 24th century series with more accurate animation and depth.

I mean, if it doesn't connect with you, that's a perfectly legitimate reaction. But that doesn't mean it lacks artistic purpose.
Sorry, but I find it only destrictive for the sake of destruction.

If their goal is to create the illusion of an internally-consistent universe, yes, that is in general something they ought to do. However, they have to balance that against the need to tell good stories, and there can be stories that are good enough to justify breaking continuity. For example: "Where No Man Has Gone Before" established that Spock had a Human ancestor but did not experience "Earth emotions." A few episodes later, though, "The Naked Time" contradicted this by establishing that Spock is half-Human and that he experiences but tries to suppress emotions. This is a blatant violation of continuity -- and it was absolutely the correct creative decision, because it made the character far richer and more resonant. So the value of the story being told in "The Naked Time" far outweighed the value of maintaining verisimilitude by not contradicting "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

Sometimes, breaking continuity is justified by the quality of the story. And the creators just have to be the judge of when to do that.

I can understand the lack of continuity in TOS. After all, it was the beginning of the series and continuity wasn't the most common thing back in those days. But they should habve learned something since then, shouldn't they? And it is possible to write a good story without violating continuity.

However, I must admit that I'm guilty to such an error myself. In the first Kes story I wrote, the story had a certain ending. When I wrote my second one, I realized that some details in my first story, especially the ending of it didn't fit together with what I was going to write. So I came up with some third-rate comments about why the new story started with a different scenario and took off from that. To be honest, I should re-write the first story because I'm not too happy with some details in it, especially not with the villain wo was based partly on a real person with which I had a conflict then. Later on we actually became friends again and when that person died, I felt guilt over what I had written, I still do. But I simply couldn't destroy my first creation! I just did some small changes in the description of the looks of the character, in that turning him to something not so much resembling my former enemy and later friend. So I'm not without flaws myself and I've decided to give the Berman-Braga Medal of Honor to myself for this perfect violation of continuity! [/QUOTE]



I mean, I would prefer if there were only one or two Starfleet uniforms myself, but in the real world, military forces often employ a large variety of uniform designs. So it's not unrealistic.

Which TNG uniforms? The S1-2 uniforms? The S3 uniforms? Or the S4-7 uniforms?

Anyway, I strongly prefer the First Contact/DS9 S5-7 uniforms.
yes, but those variations often has to do with which environment their into. Desert war, winter war etc. Here we have something which looks like constant change of fashion.
As for the TNG uniforms, I'm referring to the season 1-2 uniforms.
I didn't like the gray shoulders on the First Contact/DS9 season 5-7 uniforms. It would have been better if they had been all black with collars and some stripes in red, yellow, blue or green.(Security should have its won color, most likely green).



No, it's really not. I'm describing how Star Trek went from having two corporate owners (CBS Inc. and Viacom) back to having only one (Paramount Global). I'm literally describing a reduction in the number of cooks in the kitchen.
I hope it does.

As I said, neither DIS nor PIC are doom-and-gloom in their current seasons. And then there's Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, which was designed from Day One to replicate the hope and optimism of TOS and which has gotten rave reviews for it. You should definitely give that one a shot.
I haven't been able to watch Strange New Worlds yet but I will do that. Maybe something I would like! :techman:



I don't find it any more confusing than remembering that, say, Kenneth Branaugh's two Hercule Poirot films (Murder on the Orient Express [2017] and Death on the Nile [2022]) are not set in the same continuity as David Suchet's ITV series Agatha Christie's Poirot (1989-2013), or remembering that the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes films (Sherlock Holmes [2009] and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows [2011]) are separate from the Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock series (2010-2017) and from the Johnny Lee Miller/Lucy Liu series Elementary (2012-2019). It's just different versions of the story.

Anyway, there are only three movies set in the Kelvin Timeline and only a handful of episodes set in the Mirror Universe. The overwhelming majority of Star Trek is set in the Prime Timeline.
Some of those series you're mentioning is actually pretty messed-up. I don't understand the purpose of having Sherlock Holmes becoming an ordinary guy in the US in the 2010.s. Why not create something new instead of messing up classic stories?

As for Star Trek, I tink that they have managed to mess up the Prime Timeline very bad with the destruction of important planets.



You know, I probably would not have chosen that particular makeup design for the Klingons if I had been a producer on Discovery, but I also respect their decision. I do agree that the Berman-era Klingon makeup design had become too familiar and wasn't sufficiently alien enough for Klingons to feel as threatening and intimidating and alien as the story of DIS S1 needed them to be. I probably would have gone for something closer to the design used in Star Trek Into Darkness, but I respect the DIS producers' willingness to try something radically different. Going for something radically different is often necessary if a work of art is going to evolve and survive, even if it doesn't work out every single time. Their decision deserves more respect than it gets.

No. Absolutely not, and your decision to attack the character of these artists just because you happen not to enjoy their creative decisions is actually really inappropriate. You don't have to like their creative decisions, but the fact that you have different aesthetics does not mean they have egos. These people are just trying to tell a good story. Maybe it works for you or maybe it doesn't, but you can dislike a creative decision without attacking their character.

But there we are! Producers, ego or not who ruin something just for having a dramatic effect instead of coming up with good well-thought stories. I mean, everyone with some interest in Star Trek knows that Klingons used to be enemies to the Federation and rather mean enemies too, something which changed later on. It's not necessary to turn them into monsters just for some effect.

Not to mention that the Klingons did look different in TOS, rthen their appearance was changed and it took a lot of explanations to justify that. Then the Turtles show up. Talk about character destruction! Not only that but stupidity as well.

If those producers are so clever and if they want effects, why don't they simply come up with a show set in the 24th century with the Turtles as new enemies from the Gamma Quadrant, Andromeda Galaxy and whatsoever instead of this constant destruction and messinfg up of the TOS era. Not to mention that the best villains Star Trek ever have come up with were the Cardassians and they didn't have to make them look like turtles or monsters.



First off, destroying Vulcan in the Kelvin Timeline does no damage whatsoever to the Prime Timeline.

Secondly, what makes you think they gave no thought to how destroying Vulcan would affect storytelling possibilities? You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

Thirdly, you are not acknowledging that making fundamental changes to the status quo of the Star Trek Universe opens just as many doors for storytelling as it closes. Yes, we'll never get to see Vulcan in the Kelvin Timeline films -- but now we get to see a version of Spock who has to wrestle with the question of what it means to be a Vulcan in an entirely new way than we ever saw previously, who has to wonder where the boundaries are between duty and self-fulfillment, who has to question what kinds of relationships he should have. If the filmmakers so chose, we could see entirely new stories about the Vulcan people -- how do you cope with the loss of your world? What kinds of decisions do you make as a society to survive? How do you rebuild on a new world? What kinds of vales do you unite around, or does such a major change open up new schisms in your society? Will Vulcans become more homogeneous or more heterogeneous?

The decision to destroy Romulus in the Prime Timeline opened up a lot of new storytelling opportunities. Instead of the same old Romulan Star Empire we've always had, now we have the Romulan Free State -- a society that seems to be undergoing an internal conflict between its more liberal and reactionary factions. There's no more Romulan Neutral Zone! There are other independent Romulan governments also operating in what used to be the Star Empire! There are factions of Romulan society like the Qowat Milat! And as DIS S3 established...

.... eventually, it led to Spock's dream of Vulcan and Romulan reunification coming true! The Romulan people emigrated to Vulcan en masse, and Vulcan society has fundamentally changed. The planet is now known as Ni'Var (a name that came from 1970s ST Vulcan fandom, referring to the unity of two halves). Romulans have broadly become more liberal and tolerant, and are much more pro-Federation -- while Vulcans have become a little bit less stoic but also more reactionary and more skeptical of the Federation.

Change opens up just as many storytelling doors as it closes.

Well first of all, I'm happy that Vulcan still exists in the Prime Timeline.

But:
What we have here is outrageous!
They have managed to ruin two interesting, fascinating Star Trek species into some half-a**ed crap.It reminds me of a merger between two great sports clubs not so far from where I live, erasing decades of history and culture to become something artificial without culture. No wonder that the supporters abandoned the whole project and in the long run at least one of the clubs was reconstructed.

Or when some of the members from two rock bands I really liked got together and created a new band which never could come up to the magic the two former bands had. No surprise that it didn't last either.

So now we have Romulcans in the Prime Timelie as well.
Well, I'm happy that I quit Discovery after five episodes. One of the best things I ever did.



The problem with that idea is that it violates the fundamental ethos of Star Trek in a way that destroying Vulcan or Romulus does not. For better or worse, Star Trek is at its core about the idea of Earth surviving and sending its people out into the stars. Earth matters to the Star Trek narrative in a way Vulcan and Romulus just do not.

Honestly, my comment was supposed to be exaggerated. I can agree that it would violate the fundamental ethics of Star Trek in a very bad way,

But.....think of the dramatic effects and new possibilities for storytelling! ;)

Absolutely. And they have also done plenty of that. But that doesn't make destroying Vulcan or Romulus an illegitimate creative decision, either -- any more than it was somehow a bad creative decision for DS9 to show the Dominion genociding Cardassia at the end of its run!

But Cardassia was never destroyed in the same way as Vulcan and Romulus have been. Cardassia still exists and is rebuilding, as we can see in some recent books by Una McCormack and this really creates more opportunities for good stores than the pointless destruction of Vulcan and Romulus have done.
 
I can't speak about the storytelling now but the characters and the Mutant Nija Turtles are still there, I suppose
nope. Haven’t shown up in two seasons.

I have to spend my money on more important things, like constantly having to replace the DS9 DVD:s of lousy quality which Paramount petrster us with and which starts to malfunction after three or four viweings.
perhaps you’d better invest on different supports?

I know and I'm not atking it seriously. But it would be nice with a 24th century series with more accurate animation and depth.
ah, if only that existed we might call it a Prodigy!

As for the TNG uniforms, I'm referring to the season 1-2 uniforms
the odd looking, incredibly uncomfortable jumpsuits? Hard pass.

What we have here is outrageous!
They have managed to ruin two interesting, fascinating Star Trek species into some half-a**ed crap.
They unified the two planets, something that started happening way back in TNG. at least something changed and the galaxy isn’t exactly the same centuries later.
 
nope. Haven’t shown up in two seasons.
Good!
But it's still the same dull characters and that issue which you are mentioning at the end of your post.

perhaps you’d better invest on different supports?
Like what? VHS tapes?
And don't even mention "streaming".

What actually happened to me not too long agowhen I was streaming another favorite series of mine. When I was into the third season of 9 or 10 seasons, all of a sudden it was gone from the streaming service. The only message was that it was no longer available. When I contacted the streaming service on the phone, they told me something about rights. Then the operator recommended a series which I wouldn't watch at gunpoint and added "it's very popular". When I told the operator as politely as I could that I hate that series, she couldn't understand it. Poor being. Anyway, I terminated my account to that service the same day.

ah, if only that existed we might call it a Prodigy!
Why?

the odd looking, incredibly uncomfortable jumpsuits? Hard pass.
I think that they looked good.

They unified the two planets, something that started happening way back in TNG. at least something changed and the galaxy isn’t exactly the same centuries later.

But a disgusting way to do it and they totally messed up Star Trek even more.

Nah. It's fine. If there's no reason a character needs to be white, then there's no reason to keep them white.

Also, again, Kyle is not a character so much as he is a cardboard cutout.

That's all well and good, but I would invite you to consider the impact of real-world power dynamics on the question of when it is appropriate to reconceptualize a character's race.

I won't go into politics here but I find it as unacceptable to replace Sisko or Tuvok with a white or Asian guy as it is to replace Kyle or some other white character with a black or Asian guy.

Some of the greatest films in history have been remakes that improved on what came before.
Often with terrible results, at least in the recent two decades. Only in some cases with good results.
 
But it's still the same dull characters
i’m afraid so.

and that issue which you are mentioning at the end of your post.
which is not an issue.

Like what? VHS tapes?
And don't even mention "streaming".
have you thought of copying your DVDs to a drive? By now I haven’t used DVDs in many years.
And yes, personal copies are legal pretty much everywhere.

Because Prodigy is an animated series set in 2385 with more “detailed animation”?
But a disgusting way to do it
you literally never saw that episode and weren’t even aware of this development before reading about it in this post, how can you know it’s disgusting?

and they totally messed up Star Trek even more.
no.

I won't go into politics here but I find it as unacceptable to replace Sisko or Tuvok with a white or Asian guy as it is to replace Kyle or some other white character with a black or Asian guy.
Sisko yes, Tuvok being black isn’t really important for the character. (It’s important in real life due to the outrage at a black Vulcan back in the 90s, but that’s another matter)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
And yet they didn’t make Pike Asian, or Uhura white, or Spock blonde.

They did make Colt an alien.

You know, I probably would not have chosen that particular makeup design for the Klingons if I had been a producer on Discovery, but I also respect their decision... I respect the DIS producers' willingness to try something radically different.


TMP's Klingon Captain
by Ian McLean, on Flickr

Early design for Star Trek - The Motion Picture's Klingon Captain by Robert Fletcher. (First published in "Starlog" #33, April 1980.) This design was revisited for Star Trek: Discovery in 2017. The ship design dates back to pre-TMP designs, too.

Not to mention that the Klingons did look different in TOS, then their appearance was changed and it took a lot of explanations to justify that.

The Klingons were changed in TMP (1979), with no explanation. They were changed again in ST III. No explanation. They were changed again, slightly, in ST V and ST VI. No explanation.

The explanation was avoided in DS9 ("Trials and Tribble-actions") and not actually addressed until ENT.

Actually, the skin tones and eyebrow shapes of TOS Klingons changed with each appearance, but not reference made by the characters. Brown/green greasepaint with a look developed by John Colicos (Kor) and Fred Phillips. Fred forgot what he had done when it came to Koloth, so Koloth and his crew ended up caucasian. Kang was given a reddish skin tone. Other Klingons in episodes were given very dark skin.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what corners of the Internet you hang out in, but I know of plenty of people who think that that was a fundamentally racist casting decision on the part of the TOS producers and who care if the Sikh community finds it offensive.

I've been a ST fan--in ultra-diverse California--since the 70s and no one in or out of the ST fan social groups (filled with people from the four corners of the world) ever complained about Montalbán being cast as Khan. Not in regard to "Space Seed" or The Wrath of Khan. Just the opposite--he was one of the most celebrated guest stars in the franchise's history. The reason is that he was the actor responsible for infusing Khan with a very unique magnetism / threatening presence that was all Montalbán; the script did not bring all of that to the character, so there was no template any actor would be able to use to deliver a great character in the manner seen.

Montalbán was not Sikh, but one must also remember that Khan's race was not written as a relevant, defining element which shaped who he was and how he responded to the world around him. This was not a situation like--for one example-- To Sir, with Love (1967), where in Poitier's Mark Thackeray character, the race and birthplace (British Guiana) was defining--inherent to his world view as an immigrant to the UK, contrasting experiences at a predominantly white school, with students who disrespected him due to his race--a comment on the real world experiences of black immigrants from British Guiana at that time. A white actor--needless to say--would have been terribly miscast in the Thackeray role, for all of the stated reasons, but that's simply not the case or creative necessity of Montalbán as Khan.

As a black man, I am certainly more aware of what constitutes real whitewashing in the physical or intellectual sense in movie/TV characters than the White Knight Liberals who are--more often than not--the first to shake fists on the...behalf...of non-White groups (who--contrary to the White Knight Liberals' perceptions--have their own, multifaceted, usually misunderstood views of subjects such as representation and the ability to champion their own causes), and from my perspective / experience, I see examples broadly categorized in this topic, lacking a required nuance in judging very specific situations.


The reconceptualization of Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact is a prime example of a good creative decision even if it is not in strict adherence to continuity.

Again, a creative writer would create a new character, rather than screw up an established character just to trade on ST fandom's memory of a noble and sympathetic Cochrane from "Metamorphosis".


Such a weird line. Like, who looks at a group of people and feels the need to remark upon the fact that it's a multi-racial group like that's unusual?

He was merely identifying the surviving members of Khan's party; it was not a line indicating any sort of questioning about / surprise at the racial make-up of the party.
 
Last edited:
Again, a creative writer would create a new character, rather than screw up an established character just to trade on ST fandom's memory of a noble and sympathetic Cochrane from "Metamorphosis".

That has never been Star Trek's MO, nor Hollywood's. Nostalgia sells and there is simply more value in recasting than creating something new. No one has to like it, but it is what it is.
 
My issue with James Cromwell’s Cochrane wasn’t so much that he wasn’t believable as being the same guy from “Metamorphosis” (which is debatable), but that he wasn’t believable as a scientist who essentially created warp drive all by himself.

They did make Colt an alien.

They did?

The Klingons were changed in TMP (1979), with no explanation. They were changed again in ST III. No explanation. They were changed again, slightly, in ST V and ST VI. No explanation.

I don't see it quite that drastically. To me, there are only three distinct Klingons: the TOS versions, the TMP versions (and everything beyond that from STIII to ENT were just extrapolations from that starting point), and the DSC versions. These three examples are really the only ones where if you showed them to a non-Trek fan, they wouldn't be able to tell that they are all the same fictional alien race. Even the Klingons from the Abrams films would fit the TMP category.
 
Last edited:
My issue with James Cromwell’s Cochrane wasn’t so much that he wasn’t believable as being the same guy from “Metamorphosis” (which is debatable), but that he wasn’t believable as a scientist who essentially created warp drive all by himself.

I'm not sure he did it all by himself. He clearly had colleagues who were working with him in Montana, had to have benefactors both before and after the war for his research. He is the name attached to it all, but it was likely an effort by a much larger group of people, some of whom were likely killed in the Borg attack.
 
My issue with James Cromwell’s Cochrane wasn’t so much that he wasn’t believable as being the same guy from “Metamorphosis” (which is debatable), but that he wasn’t believable as a scientist who essentially created warp drive all by himself.

Cochrane likely didn't do it all himself. And even if he was the biggest contributor, why is it hard to believe a scientist isn't out for making money or loves to drink? Scientists are human like everyone else, and are subject to the same potential feelings and vices as the rest of the human race.

You think the only reason why inventors create something is to make the world a better place? Cromwell's Cochrane is probably the most realistic take on such a figure we'll ever see. And it was brilliant because once he saw Earth in space and the Vulcans land, it sparked a change in him. A change that was maintained in his appearance in "BROKEN BOW".

Encountering aliens for the first time and knowing for a fact we are not alone in the universe will be a profound thing. It's going to do one of two things... unite humans in a way we couldn't before, or tear us all apart even further and we actually full destroy each other. And while a part of me thinks the latter will happen because of what I've seen of humans over my lifetime, a bigger part of me hopes for the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Cochrane likely didn't do it all himself. And even if he was the biggest contributor, why is it hard to believe a scientist isn't out for making money or loves to drink? Scientists are human like everyone else, and are subject to the same potential feelings and vices as the rest of the human race.

I never said that I disagreed with his motives. I said that it was unrealistic that he did all the work himself based on how he was portrayed in the film.
 
Spock is also iconic as a direct result of Leonard Nimoy's performance -- and is arguably coded as Ashkenazi Jewish, I might add. So reconceptualizing either of these characters would be offensive, both because of their iconic status, and because their original actors' ethnic identities are baked into the characters. Reconceptualizing Uhura as non-black would be actively offensive because it would undermine black representation. Reconceptualizing Spock as blonde would almost literally be "Aryianizing" a character played by a Jewish actor only twenty years removed from the Holocaust.

Neither Zachary Quinto nor Ethan Peck are Ashkenazi Jewish - was it a mistake to cast them as Spock?
 
have you thought of copying your DVDs to a drive? By now I haven’t used DVDs in many years.
And yes, personal copies are legal pretty much everywhere.
I've thought about it. But uploading all seasons of DS9 is hard work and takes alot of time. Not to mentioning space on my hard drive. But I might have to do something like that if this problem can't be solved in an easier way. Not to mention getting a program to edit the glitch in What You Leave Behind,

Because Prodigy is an animated series set in 2385 with more “detailed animation”?
I will take a look at it.

you literally never saw that episode and weren’t even aware of this development before reading about it in this post, how can you know it’s disgusting?
I just had to read about it to become angry.

[/QUOTE] Sisko yes, Tuvok being black isn’t really important for the character. (It’s important in real life due to the outrage at a black Vulcan back in the 90s, but that’s another matter)[/QUOTE]

I can agree on Tuvok but since he now is known as a "black-skinned Vulcan", he should continue to look that way. However, I really hope that I'll never have to see a remake of TNG, DS9 or VOY.

I don't like remakes. 9 out of 10 are downright horrible. Recently I happened to see an episode of a remake of Walker Texas Ranger. It was so incredible bad, probably the worst remake I've ever seen. The remake of McGyver is also loust.

As for the controversy about "The Black Vulcan", I never shared that outrage back in those days. I hardly knew about it since I didn't visit Trek sites so frequently as I did later on and I particularily avoided VOY sites in order to be able to watch the series on some TV channel, which I actually did later.

I started to watch VOY by mere accident in the beginning of 1998 and I must admit that I did have some inttial doubts about Tuvok, not because the actor was black but because we'd never seen a Vulcan with dark skin before. But Tim Russ was so good in his role so I accepted itt almost immediately. Not to mention that it's possible to explain that Vulcans living near the equator of that obviously hot planet might have somewhat darker skin than those living more near the poles.
 
I never said that I disagreed with his motives. I said that it was unrealistic that he did all the work himself based on how he was portrayed in the film.

Fair enough.

But we saw the Borg destroy a lot of that complex, and many people there were killed. Even if the incident never happened, history tends to remember the one person who was in charge of a project or was the face of it. Easier for people to remember a single face of a project than 20 more who were probably just as important.

Another thing to consider is that the Vulcans may have dealt mostly with Cochrane, since he was the first person they shook hands with. Cochrane may have been only a partial factor in inventing warp drive for humanity, but he might have been a huge, singular driving force with relations with the Vulcans, which would certainly elevate his status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
I really hope that I'll never have to see a remake of TNG, DS9 or VOY

I don't like remakes. 9 out of 10 are downright horrible.
Totally agree here, not because they’re necessarily horrible, but because I feel they’re usually unnecessary. I’d rather get new characters in new situations than remakes.

That said, I do understand the commercial reasoning behind many of them and also feel that giving an old story a new spin can be interesting and sometimes even lead to better material.
For example I like the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors much more interesting than the 1960 one and while I still haven’t had the time to watch the recent version of Fahrenheit 451 I always felt that the second half of the 1966 one was so messy that a remake could only improve on it.
also, I’d like to see a modern take on Forbidden Planet, so…

Recently I happened to see an episode of a remake of Walker Texas Ranger. It was so incredible bad, probably the worst remake I've ever seen.
Sounds like an unnecessary remake indeed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top