Chekov was simply retconned from 13 to 17. That's all. It's the new normal. Or not, I guess.
Enraged "Star Trek" fans protest in front of Paramount Studios gate after finding out four years were added to the age of Chekov in Abrams' hit "Star Trek" movie. "Runied the experience for me," sobs one fan. Shouts of, "You raped our childhoods," could be heard from other fans. Some held placards that said, "17 = 13 in Abramsverse," "Who Mourns for Chekov?" and "Four Less Years!"
When asked to comment about the protesters, Abrams said, "Pedantic geeks, every one of them. I've had it. Scew 'em, I'm going to go direct the new 'Star Wars' movie."
An amusing caricature, but no one here said that age discrepancies ruined Star Trek.
The discussion here has primarily been about whether there IS an age discrepancy, not whether it is good or bad. There was considerable debate on this point (indicating that those saying "No" have a vested interest in the discussion).
When the opposition was presented with the facts, they retreated from the ground of the factual to offer a familiar sort of jurisdictional objection - "Irrelevant!," "It does not matter," "Who cares?," "Only a movie!"
is enraged? The grumpy nu-orthodox led by brother Dennis are the ones who entered this thread looking to squelch heretical questions. If the question matters so little, why bother?