Star Trek miscellany

[Carol the Dabbler]

  

2 hours ago, Caya said:

Just stumbled over this delightful little webcomic: Ensign Sue Must Die!

The whole thing can be found here: http://www.claremoseley.com/ensign-sue-must-die/ensign-sue-must-die-01/ .

 

Lemme guess -- Sue is actually her *middle* name?  

Added:  Well, technically (according to episode #1) it seems to be her last name.  But I did get her first name right on the first try.    

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just in case anyone's unfamiliar with the term "Mary Sue," it refers to a character (typically but not necessarily a glorified version of the author) who is extraordinarily beautiful, intelligent, popular, unusual, and/or adept at just about everything.  She's so utterly amazing that the established hero can't help but fall in love with her.

Mary Sues are most often found in fan fiction, but can appear in professional works as well.  When a Mary Sue character is male, the term "Marty Stu" is sometimes used.  Star Trek: Next Generation's Wesley Crusher is an oft-cited example of both exceptions.

 

[Artemis]

On 7/4/2020 at 10:53 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

When a Mary Sue character is male, the term "Marty Stu" is sometimes used.

Also "Gary Stu" (which I hear more than "Marty Stu").

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I recall being slightly annoyed by the original series' "where no man has gone before" motto because it seemed illogical (after all, the crew included Uhura, Chapel, Rand, et al.).  By the time Next Generation came along, I was really curious how they were going to phrase it, and then thought "no one" was pretty good, even if a bit less poetic than the original.

But I recently got to thinking that either version is a bit like saying that Columbus "discovered" America -- when there were already loads of people living here!

So is there any good way to phrase it?

 

[Caya]

Where no one from The Federation has gone before, maybe? Save for special cases like kidnapped humans, of course.

While we're at Star Trek, new trailer for Lower Decks:

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

7 hours ago, Caya said:

Where no one from The Federation has gone before, maybe?

Doesn't exactly flow, though, does it? 

 

[Caya]

True dat.

[Artemis]

13 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I recall being slightly annoyed by the original series' "where no man has gone before" motto because it seemed illogical

I was never bothered by that, because I’d assumed it was “Man” with a capital ‘M’, which is really just another way of saying mankind or humankind and includes both genders.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Artemis said:

I was never bothered by that, because I’d assumed it was “Man” with a capital ‘M’, which is really just another way of saying mankind or humankind

Yeah, I assumed that's what they meant, and that was of course considered the only proper proper way to phrase it in those days -- but it still seemed vaguely illogical to me.

Plus there were the gags, such as playing that line of the soundtrack over the shot of Kirk's "evil half" (from The Enemy Within) lurking outside Janice Rand's quarters.  So even though I loved that opening, there was always a bit of cognitive dissonance in my head as I listened to it.  And clearly I wasn't the only one, or they wouldn't have changed it for TNG.

 

[Artemis]

6 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

And clearly I wasn't the only one, or they wouldn't have changed it for TNG.

I thought they changed it because it wasn’t ‘politically correct’ anymore?  I doubt logic had much to do with it, it was probably more about feelings.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Artemis said:

I thought they changed it because it wasn’t ‘politically correct’ anymore?

True.  But that was fairly early in the politically correct era, before things got so complicated.
 

1 hour ago, Artemis said:

I doubt logic had much to do with it, it was probably more about feelings.

But it was logical as well, which presumably appealed to a lot of Trek fans (including me).

I haven't read much about the origins of TNG -- did those who were involved say anything about why that particular change was made?

 

[Artemis]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I haven't read much about the origins of TNG -- did those who were involved say anything about why that particular change was made?

Some quick quotes:

Quote

By 1966, people cared more about implied sexism than doubtful grammar and the show's producers received criticism for the 'no man' part of the speech. Despite some recourse to the tradition defence of the use of 'man' to mean 'human', that is, 'man embraces woman', by the time Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired, in 1987, the shows producers had opted for the more politically correct last line - "Where no one has gone before".

[Link]

...

Quote

TLDR
- AFAIK, no one knows absolutely for sure, but...
- We can be safe to assume it was to be politically correct.
- Without trying to turn this into a debate about "PC Police"...

According to Wikipedia:
- The original phrase was introduced in August of 1966.
- Political correctness was in full swing by the 1980s.
- The modified version was used in 1987.
- By the mid 90s and early turn of the century political correctness research was in full swing.
- The original phrase was reinstated in 2009 with the reboot films.

So while I can find no real confirmation (from official sources) we can be safe to assume the change was made with the idea of being politically correct. There are a lot of Google results that debate this topic and Google will even auto-complete the search when you type it in. Just about everyone is in agreement of why the change was made, but as I said, I can find no official statement to the fact.

[Link]

So sounds like no official explanation, but probably political correctness.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

31 minutes ago, Artemis said:

The original phrase was reinstated in 2009 with the reboot films.

Was it really?  I don't recall noticing -- maybe it just seemed to fit!

Anyhow, thanks for the quotes.  Sounds like pretty much everyone is assuming the same thing.

Does anyone know of any good books about TNG, along the lines of TOS books like The Making of Star Trek (by Steven Whitfield), The Star Trek Concordance (by Bjo Trimble), and (my favorite) Inside Star Trek (by Herb Solow and Bob Justman)?

[Artemis]

1 minute ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Was it really?  I don't recall noticing -- maybe it just seemed to fit!

If it was, I didn't notice either. 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

We may be forced to watch it again.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just came upon something that I wish I'd known about a few months ago.  If you type the following search object into Google (and I believe it would also work in DuckDuckGo), it'll bring up a list of official Next Gen scripts (some are drafts, some I think are shooting scripts), as PDF files.  There are about 200 hits, but some are not scripts:

site:www.roddenberry.com script

You can get a specific script by adding the name of the episode, but the trick is knowing what form to use.  If it's only one word, just add it as the next search word.  This seems to work consistently, such as:

site:www.roddenberry.com script emergence

If the title is more than one word you can try either running all the words together or putting hyphens between them, such as:

site:www.roddenberry.com script innerlight

site:www.roddenberry.com script thine-own-self

But apparently the title doesn't necessarily follow any specific format, so there are some that can perhaps be found most easily by bringing up all of 'em (as in the first example) and either scrolling ... and scrolling ... and scrolling -- or using your browser's search function to scan each page, which should go considerably quicker.  Some searches bring up multiple hits (and there were nearly 200 episodes), so it's possible that not all episodes are included.

This area doesn't seem to be accessible from the main Roddenberry.com site, so I'm guessing it's either something they haven't made readily available yet or else they removed the links but left the files online.  No idea how long it'll be there.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just reread a couple of pages in Nimoy's book I Am Spock (his sequel to I Am Not Spock).  He's talking about the on-set awkwardness due to him (the official second banana) getting far more fan mail than Shatner (the official Star).  Gene Roddenberry happened to ask noted SF author Isaac Asimov if he had any suggestions.

Asimov advised him to make Kirk and Spock loyal, inseparable friends, so that when the audience thought of one, they'd automatically think of the other.

Considering the later popularity of K/S "slash fiction," I'd say that worked even better than hoped!

 

[GodNort1985]

Hello, I've thus far watched the first season and about half of the second. SPOILER ALERT! Considering, as of the second season boimler is on the ship captained by William Riker, it's probably the universe next generation is a part of.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just ran across a YouTube video called "Why Modern Movies [Stink]-- They're Written By Children."  It illustrates its case with scenes from TOS and TNG versus the reboot movies, Discovery, etc.

I do not disagree.

 

[Arcadia]

I don't particularly disagree either, but I adore the first two Chris Pine reboots anyway. But in general ... yeah, modern movies don't offer me much. I still resent how awful the Hobbit movies became........

ETA: what is this version of Dune of which he speaks?

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I adore the first two Chris Pine reboots

The first one was fun -- the casting was (mostly!) spot-on, the look and feel were good, and the little nods to TOS were fun.  But I still kinda prefer movies with something more closely resembling a plot.  Which one was Cumberbatch in?  That one had, near as I could tell, the best plot.

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I still resent how awful the Hobbit movies became.

Take heart -- somebody's likely to redo them in another fifteen or twenty years.

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

what is this version of Dune of which he speaks?

In the video, you mean?  I assume someone has done a reboot, which (for some inexplicable reason) is NOT an improvement on the earlier one.

 

[Arcadia]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:48 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Which one was Cumberbatch in?  That one had, near as I could tell, the best plot.

That would be the second one.

On 12/9/2021 at 4:48 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Take heart -- somebody's likely to redo them in another fifteen or twenty years.

Isn't each remake even more ... er, energetic ... than the one before? Not sure I can take it.....

On 12/9/2021 at 4:48 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

I assume someone has done a reboot, which (for some inexplicable reason) is NOT an improvement on the earlier one.

Which would be difficult, given how poor the original was. Or is this a reboot of the reboot? How many versions are we up to now? Is my cynicism showing?

[Carol the Dabbler]

8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Isn't each remake even more ... er, energetic ... than the one before? Not sure I can take it.....

I believe we're talking about Jackson's Hobbit movies here, in which case I'm pretty sure there's been only the one live-action version to date.  Hard to compare that to the Orson Bean animation, which was much shorter, and therefore had much less room for nonsense.

Hmm, maybe I should be complaining about longer-faster-louder!  Well, longer *is* bigger, right?

8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Which would be difficult, given how poor the original was. Or is this a reboot of the reboot? How many versions are we up to now? Is my cynicism showing?

I believe we're talking about Dune now, so yes, your cynicism is showing.  But in my opinion that would be synonymous with good taste.  There has actually been only the one (two-part) reboot, but the 1985 original was (except for the excellent sandworms) sufficiently Not My Kinda Thing that I have absolutely no intention of subjecting myself to the more recent version.  According to Wikipedia, the '85 movie had a rock sound track, presumably acting as a forerunner of the recent "louder" trend, which may account for part of my negative impression, though I don't actually remember that (or very much at all, thank goodness).  Mind you, I liked the book.  (Specifically, the first one; don't think I ever read the sequels.)
 

[Arcadia]

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I believe we're talking about Jackson's Hobbit movies here, in which case I'm pretty sure there's been only the one live-action version to date.  Hard to compare that to the Orson Bean animation, which was much shorter, and therefore had much less room for nonsense.

I was thinking of reboots in general here ... seems like they are always "MORE". I've always assumed the rebooter found the original somehow lacking and therefore had to be "improved." But maybe there's another motivation. I've just started seeing ads for Spielberg's reboot of West Side Story, and really ... how could you think that needed to be "improved?" But why bother otherwise? But I admit the ads look pretty good, especially the dancing. 

Maybe it's just an irresistible desire to make older movies look more modern with all our fancy new technology? Sort of like remodelling your 50 year old house? (But part of me says ... why not just buy a new house?  )

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I believe we're talking about Dune now, so yes, your cynicism is showing.  But in my opinion that would be synonymous with good taste.  There has actually been only the one (two-part) reboot, but the 1985 original was (except for the excellent sandworms) sufficiently Not My Kinda Thing that I have absolutely no intention of subjecting myself to the more recent version.  According to Wikipedia, the '85 movie had a rock sound track, presumably acting as a forerunner of the recent "louder" trend, which may account for part of my negative impression, though I don't actually remember that (or very much at all, thank goodness).  Mind you, I liked the book.  (Specifically, the first one; don't think I ever read the sequels.)

The TV version doesn't count? Although I didn't watch much of it, maybe it had a different storyline. Although I thought it was a reboot.

At any rate, the version referenced above seems to have been one that was released this year. Since I'm still reluctant to spend time in a movie theater, though, I was blissfully unaware of its existence. Although I must say the lead makes a far more attractive Paul Atreides than ol' whatsisface. At any rate, the first movie was directed by David Lynch, whose films I have absolutely no taste for whatsoever. His name alone is enough to send me running the other way. I guess somebody out there likes them tho; he keeps getting funding to make another one. Urk.

You were wise to only read the first Dune novel, which is still one of my favorite books. The first sequel wasn't awful, but it was mostly about Paul's creepy sister; I didn't find her particularly interesting. But the next sequel began to deconstruct everything I had found wonderful about the first book. I don't remember if I even read the one/s after that, I was so put off by the 3rd book.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

Maybe it's just an irresistible desire to make older movies look more modern with all our fancy new technology? Sort of like remodelling your 50 year old house? (But part of me says ... why not just buy a new house?

They've been doing "remakes" ever since there have been movies.  They seem to be driven by several factors:  1. The technology has improved (sound has been added, movies are now in color, screens are now wider, and so on).  2.  Our culture has changed (clothing is different, cars are different, etc., so that the old film looks dated).  3.  Actors have changed, so it's expected that a new version with currently-popular actors will be a big draw.  I suspect it's generally a combination of all of the above, plus the knowledge that if it's been at least twenty years, there's a whole new audience that's never heard of the old version.

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

The TV version doesn't count?

Sorry, didn't think to look for that.  But in general, not really.

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

the first [Dune] movie was directed by David Lynch, whose films I have absolutely no taste for whatsoever.

He seems to specialize in writing-and-directing things I've never heard of, except for Dune (his only project that I've actually seen), Twin Peaks (which I have absolutely no desire to see), and Elephant Man (which I had the vague impression was pretty good).