View Single Post
Old May 12 2013, 06:38 PM   #188
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: IDW Star Trek Ongoing...

Pauln6 wrote: View Post
I don't agree fully. Trek has fallen into that pit too often in all the franchises. Why was Chekov promoted to chief engineer if it wasn't a poorly thought out attempt to pay homage to the character?
Bad analogy. Chekov has long been considered one of the core characters, not merely a supporting character.

Why use McCoy instead of Cupcake (or Chekov for that matter since he is reasonably qualified) to work on a bomb if it wasn't an homage to the character from one of the sillier moments in STVI?
Let me remind you that the film has not yet premiered in the United States. I haven't seen it, and I'd appreciate not being spoiled.

Anyway, individual moments are one thing, but if a character isn't needed in the story at all, then nostalgia alone is not sufficient reason to include her.


There were lots of nameless supporting characters in the movie any one of whom could have been tweaked with minimal effort to represent pre-existing characters.
But they didn't have to. The purpose of these movies is not to pander to fans of the old. Their primary purpose is to reinvent and reintroduce Star Trek for a new audience, a new generation of fans. The occasional bit of nostalgia doesn't hurt, but it is not an overriding mandate.


And Christopher, you pay homage to supporting characters all the time in your novels even where doing so is not important to the plot! It's one of the things I admire
Novels are much longer than movie scripts. There's far more room for such things. Movies are more like short-story writing in that they demand a far more streamlined, economical approach to storytelling.

And I try to make continuity references or homages only in ways that do contribute something significant to the story I'm telling. Otherwise I usually cut out such references. Easter eggs can be fun, but they should never be included for the exclusive purpose of being an Easter egg. Everything in a story should have some relevance or meaning for that story, or it shouldn't be there at all.


Why is it so justifiable for Chekov but wrong to update Chapel to hand out more than hyposprays and moon over a man? I think you guys are justifying a double standard.
It's not about right or wrong, and it's not about one character versus another. My point is simply that nostalgia in and of itself should not be the exclusive or overriding consideration behind a storytelling decision.

Personally, I think Chekov should've been left out of the new movies, since by all rights he should've been a preteen at the time of the first film. But modern audiences perceive the "regular" TOS cast as the core group that appeared in all of the first six movies, and that includes Chekov. It would've been unrealistic to expect him not to be included. But Chapel never managed to rise behind the level of an "optional" supporting player.


Writing her out completely is disrespectful to the actress and the character and to the women in the franchise generally.
I still don't see how it's disrespectful to the actress. If anything, it seems more disrespectful to claim that an actor's whole identity and worth are defined by only one of the characters they played in their career.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote