DC’s first foray into Trek comics ended with issue 56, as we saw last time. A year after that Peter David was hired (with a new art team – adios, Ricardo Villagran and Tum Sutton, and gracias for the muy bueno picturemaking) for DC’s Trek, v2.
I liked David’s work at the end of Star Trek v1 enough where I considered picking up a stretch of his V2 work. But this would be contrary to my original mission statement for this series of posts, i.e. the idea was less, not more, Trek comics. David wrote a bunch of Trek novels, though (here is an enthused recommendation for five of them) and I may have to pick one or two up.
Let's wrap up These Were The Voyages with two last PAD productions, starting with:
How's the adaptation? It's good, but I mean it's still Star Trek V. It doesn’t get any better in comics form.
Although I don’t hate Star Trek V, which I rank the eighth best/ sixth worst, depending which side you start counting from. Its crimes are of an entirely more forgivable nature than something like Generations or Picard or What We Left Behind. (Speaking of PAD's Trek v2, it's my understanding that the Klingon villains from The Final Frontier are recurring characters within it; good. The actors who played those parts were quite likeable in the STV DVD extras, hope it resulted in an autograph or two for them.)
Here’s some nostalgia: I rode my bicycle to the Williams Five and Ten in Slatersville Plaza, RI the week this came out – not knowing it was out, just it was my habit to bike up to the plaza and buy a comic (and a Charleston Chew) from the Five and Ten. You walked in where the ladies at the counter would clock you, scowling, the entire time you were in the store. (This was the case even when I was an adult and shopping there, before it closed sometime in the late 90s.) I picked this adaptation up from the spinner and flipped through it. I don’t remember buying it, but I remember – and have brought up this panel anytime the movie’s come up since, practically – this very well:
See, in the movie, he doesn't mention Sam (Jim's actual brother; see "Operation Freaking Annihilate!" for more) at all. How on earth could they have made this movie and done this scene and not remembered Sam Kirk? How does this happen? Is no one on set, in the writing room, etc. a goddamn Trekkie? I got my answer a few years later when Generations came out. Clearly the people in charge of Kirk’s timeline/ Captain Kirk were high on their own farts, something Shatner alludes to in his Movie Memories re: his time on set for Generations. I don't have it handy, but read it if you haven't.
Anyway, all the kudos to Peter David, putting this in there. For all I know it was in the original script and was changed because they thought it’d dilute the impact of Kirk’s statement. That’s dumb, if so. Ergo it’s likely what happened. ("Who in the audience is going to know who Sam Kirk is?" Hello! Have you met Trek audiences? Maybe not true in 2021, definitely true in 1989.)
The art is by James Fry. It’s okay. I think he was the main artist on v2, or at least PAD's portion. All that great Sutton and Villagran art spoiled me, I guess. Comparisons are odious, but I can’t think of any other comics-Trek that looks as distinctive as theirs. The consistency of effort and quality on their and editor Robert Greenberger's part throughout v1 is my big takeaway (besides PAD's stellar work at the end of it) of this project.
Onto Annual 3, a Pinter-esque affair that came out chronologically just before the Finnegan two-parter discussed last time.
With some lovely Curt Swan pencils throughout. |
Happily for me - I felt bad more or less skipping over Curt's pencils in that one issue he did, but it was a weakly written issue, unworthy of the legend illustrating it. Not this. |
It starts with Scotty in his quarters sharing the unhappy news with Kirk and Bones that his wife has died while he was on exile on Vulcan. (Thus setting up a little guilt for Kirk; good character motivation, I wonder if they ever did anything with it. The Scotty/ Kirk relationship could have used a mature element like this, in later-era stories.) Understandably startled by the news – he never mentioned being married before – they learn Scotty and Glynnis married “just prior to that business with Khan”. Kirk recognizes her as someone from Beta Nairobi II (“you’ve got a good memory for women, Captain” "Call it a knack") and as they leave, Scotty takes us back through his memories, first to Peter Preston’s funeral (where he gets a slap from his sister, to whom he vowed to look after his nephew) and then Glynnis, telling him it’s over. From there it goes back in reverse chronology through the peaks and valleys of a lifetime of knowing another person.
I’m normally resistant enough to this sort of thing (some wife/family member never mentioned before being introduced this late in a franchise) that whatever charms result bounce off me. Not so here. This isn’t a standard love story; it’s got a lot of pain and a lot of real, beating heart. Some of the details cut to the quick: the scene Kirk remembers on Beta Nairobi II starts with this:
At this point, he hasn't seen Glynnis in quite some time and this is an impulsive action on Monty's part. Too impulsive for her husband, Angus, who is the third point in the love triangle, as we see from all the flashbacks, going back to the three characters' childhood. As Scotty tries to explain his behavior to Kirk, he overhears what he thinks is the sound of Angus beating her and rushes off to save her, only to discover those weren’t quite the sounds he thought he was hearing. (“She’s always been passionate” or whatever the line is. Ugh! Awkward.)
It’s not too much to say that there isn’t a single in-canon story that endears Scotty to the audience as much as this one. (Which means that DC’s Trek gave Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura each the best stories I’ve personally seen for them. For that alone, I am grateful the series existed.) It’s a shame it wasn’t filmed when Doohan was alive, and it’d be a real treat if Simon Pegg found out about it. I hope someone gets it to him.
It’s a sad tale and I’ll cop to tearing up in a few places. It made me think of (no joke) the power of romantic love in our lives; what does it mean when it takes non-traditional shape like it does here? It amplifies it, changes it, stifles it, in no ways robs it of power. A million books will attest to that, and a million more slow nods and deep chambers of the heart. What’s wrong with us? What fools these mortals be.
It also got me thinking of the meaning of “one lifetime.” As Scotty says at the beginning, “losing a loved one and getting a wee whiff of your mortality at the same time.” These are powerful things, so powerful we take them granted as just the stuff (and maybe even the cliched stuff) of genre fiction. Done right, they remind us why these things have the power they have, how they become tools of storytelling in the first place. Scotty's love story is not the kind we think of as "happy" - really, so few are - but whatever the ones we get in this lifetime, they mean everything to us, just the same.
A really fine and appreciated addition to the mythos of Montgomery Scott. Thanks, PAD.
~
Thanks for reading. Here’s some screencaps to close us out.
Captain, Captain. Always with the rock monsters. |
The Things We Carry. |