Zombie Cheerleader;7213936If they [B wrote:
don't tell you[/B], then the possibility exists.
No, that's creating something the producers never said.
That's no different than Star Wars
fans arguing George Lucas somehow did not follow an alleged storyline when the prequel film Jedi did not fight a group of warriors all dressed like Boba Fett during the Clone Wars, just because the novelisation of The Empire Strikes Back
claimed that occured.
The take away: Lucas never promised that, and it was not in his prequels screenplays, so any fans losing their minds over this would-be omission are doing so based on their own false conclusions/wishes...much like the "TMP is reimagined" notion.
I'm doubt I'm alone in this. But I was quite clear that it was argument that "could be made" not a hard fact.
One cannot have facts--even "soft" facts if the established history is disregared in favor of opinion.
I didn't see any "growth" just a change in characterization. Kirk being an admiral isn't character growth.
Subjective, and you must have watched another film if the main theme of an older Kirk wanting to return to "his place" in the captain's chair, and Decker making him feel his years did not hit you over the head.
That age/purpose issue is explored character growth.
Of course it's reimagining. They're changing the role of Kirk by adding Decker as a "Kirk in training" type character. The absence of Spock also alters the dynamic of Star Trek's cast.
Changing a dynamic is not "reimagining." You need to understand what "reimagining is"--and that is a new, altered version of a basic concept, with no casting or history/story continuity to the original. A fine example of this was the early 90's Dark Shadows
revival series, which featured all new cast, altered character relationships, and had no connection to the relationships and specific situations of the 1966-71 soap opera. That is not TMP in any way, shape, or form.
Adding younger characters to an established series is as old as the medium, and usually occurs for any of a number of reasons:
A. when a series has run so long its principals are too old to continue.
B. or the PTB feel "fresh" blood needs to be added for whatever reason.
C. to add generational conflict to the established older characters. Series such as E/R
used this plotting gimmick every few years, as some new, hothead, or know-it-all doctor ended up at Cook County to cause friction with the veterans.
However, by your standards, if Decker means ST was reimagined, then Chekov's season 2 debut/taking script parts meant for the absent Takei/adding a youth element could mean TOS season 2 (in tradition of this "reimagining" stretch) is another series altogether, with little to no connection to TOS season 1, as the Sulu dynamic in relation to the series leads was largely modified in favor of Chekov, with his youthful energy, Russian pride, etc.
...but that's not the case.
I'm familiar with the history behind Phase II and TMP's development, so Nimoy coming back isn't news. Saying its the "continuing adventures" doesn't make it either production any less of a "reimagining". TNG is pretty obviously a reworking of Phase II even though its set 100 years in the "future".
You are trying to fight against the facts, which do not support any sort of "reimagining" of ST at the Phase II or TMP stage. Your perception is not historical reality. Again, aside from the aforementioned ENT's various changes, the only complete reimagining in franchise history was NuTrek.
The older the book the more likely it was just regurgitating the "myths".
1994 was not some ancient period of your so-called "myths" about ST, otherwise, the same book's chapter about other possible Enterprise captains (Jack Lord and Lloyd Bridges among them) should be disregarded as myth in the present day...despite the fact they were documented considerations still accepted as fact.
Still the question remains. Did NBC contact Filmation or did Filmation contact NBC?
You need to read the rest of Scheimer's book....
And, if NBC was so hot to acquire Star Trek to tap into the demo they desired, why a Saturday morning animated series that was unlikely to reach that demo?
You read the main reason: a projected live action budget was too expensive at the time, but ST became a smoking hot brand, so as Schiemer pointed out, NBC wanted Trek, and--as the sequence of events proved--they would take it in any form.
Moreover, you seem to forget that ST was appealing to adults and
children, so once Roddenberry, Fontana, et al, were promising the same serious level of science fiction (more often than not), they realized adult fans would tune in.
Historically speaking, this was not the first time adults watched network cartoons, as Hanna-Barbera's Jonny Quest
and The Flinstones
also attracted adult viewers.
Adding to that, the well-known Los Angeles Times
reivew of TAS from 1973:
NBC's new animated Star Trek is as out of place in the Saturday morning kiddie ghetto as a Mercedes in a soapbox derby.
Don't be put off by the fact it's now a cartoon... It is fascinating fare, written, produced and executed with all the imaginative skill, the intellectual flare and the literary level that made Gene Roddenberry's famous old science fiction epic the most avidly followed program in TV history, particularly in high I.Q. circles.
NBC might do well to consider moving it into prime time at mid-series
It was clear the article's writer (Cecil Smith) was just grasping what NBC and ST fans already realized: cartoon or not, adults would tune in, and contrary to Smith's prime-time suggestion, the time change was not needed to reach that demographic.