Crew age and nu-Trek

[Jackson_Roykirk]

All I know is that five years ago when the first film was being put together, some of the conversations on this board revolved around potential sequels. So, we fans certainly felt that sequels were in the cards if all went to plan for Abrams. I'm sure Paramount felt the same way. I remember discussions on this board about how long it would take to make three films, and how old the actors would be by the end.

I'm not sure where this idea that while they were making the first film they felt it WOULD be a one-shot deal, because I remember (albeit as someone outside of the production) the opposite feeling being true while this thing was in filming and production.

I remember people cautioning others who talked about sequels. They were right to be cautious, but the point is that the general feeling among fans was that if this film did relatively well, there would be sequels. I could be wrong, but I think Paramount was on the same page as the fans.

[SalvorHardin]

BillJ wrote:

---

Didn't Paramount green light the sequel before the first film came out?

Yes.
The film came out in May 2009 and we had news the sequel was green lit in March 2009.

[BillJ]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

Yes.
The film came out in May 2009 and we had news the sequel was green lit in March 2009.

A one-hundred and fifty million dollar movie and a sequel that was given the go-ahead before the first ticket was sold... sounds like Paramount had an awful lot of faith in a 'dead' property.

Even if the Abrams film had bombed, I don't believe the property would've died. It likely would've had a more radical reboot done.

[thumbtack]

I'm not remembering a whole lot of fan enthusiam in those days. People were going on about how "prequels" were stupid, predictable and lame. They insisted Paramount had learned nothing from the "failure" of the Star Wars prequels.

A lot were saying that Picard and Co. deserved yet another chance, and surely they would do better if they weren't up against the box office powerhouse known as Jennifer Lopez.

Then the reboot rumors started building steam and there was just a massive wall of denial.

There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.

[BillJ]

thumbtack wrote:

---

There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.

The pessimism would've likely been here when TNG had premiered if this place had existed. It's a Trek fans natural state of being.

Myself, I was both optimistic and pessimistic. Just like I am towards the new film. Excited about some things, rubbed the wrong way by others...

[Jackson_Roykirk]

thumbtack wrote:

---

I'm not remembering a whole lot of fan enthusiam in those days. People were going on about how "prequels" were stupid, predictable and lame...
...
...There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.

You're right. There were pessimistic people. However, that was not everyone, nor do I think it was a consensus feeling.

[Christopher]

thumbtack wrote:

---

There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.

Welcome to the Internet. There's always a vocal contingent of fans who are hostile to anything new.

[Nerys Myk]

Hostile might be an understatement.

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

You're right. There were pessimistic people. However, that was not everyone, nor do I think it was a consensus feeling.

I don't think pessimism was the consensus, either. In August 2006 I joined this board because I heard there was going to be a new "Star Trek" movie. I was excited as hell. Here I am over six years later still posting here. (Note to self: find time soon to take a long look at your life over the last six years.)

The movie may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but it kept "Star Trek" alive, and made it relevant and fresh.

It wasn't just another derivative form of Trek being sold as new, it was a reinvigoration of the essence of "Star Trek" at its very creation. It was the fountain of youth for Trek.

And if I could, I'd give Abrams a big hug for being as true to the Trek that hooked me in the late 1960s as he actually was. Of course, that's just one old man's opinion.

[Set Harth]

thumbtack wrote:

---

People were going on about how "prequels" were stupid, predictable and lame. They insisted Paramount had learned nothing from the "failure" of the Star Wars prequels.

Prequels being predictable? What a meaningful criticism!

[Nerys Myk]

"Prequel" and "reboot" always cause a knee jerk reaction in some people.

[YARN]

Christopher wrote:

---

The simplest solution of all would be just to ignore the "Twenty-two, sir" line in "Adonais" and assume he said 26 instead, or maybe 25 depending on where in the year it fell.

Why not assume that he didn't say anything about his age in the new film? Why pick one over the other?

Christopher wrote:

---

Heck, there are plenty of other numbers and minor details in Trek that we simply have to ignore, like "James R. Kirk" and the timing discrepancies I mentioned in several above posts.

Right, which is why I don't see why one would need to prefer one over the other.

The age discrepancy seems to simply flow from the characters being bottle-necked into the academy at the same time. Something has to give, so the ages were fudged a little.

It's weird, because a non-Trekkie would not know or care about the ages, where a Trekkie could not help but note a discrepancy. It seems odd to make Chekov really young and thus have to make him a whiz-kid to explain his presence at the academy only to pass with the fans, when fans are bound to notice the difference anyhow (those fans who don't care about the age won't care either way; those who do will hold it to be heretical violation of canon).

Might have been better just to make Chekov a person of indiscriminate age without having to inaugurate him as a super genius. This could potentially create problems down the road. Scotty is supposed to be the engineering genius, Kirk is the tactical genius, McCoy if not a Dr. House, is at least the highest medical authority on board, Spock is the science/all-purpose genius -- with Chekov as a another super genius it could get a little crowded. Who gets the epiphany? That question may have just gotten a little tougher. The genius factor also seems to potentially throw the Sulu-Chekov balance at the navigator/helmsman station a little off -- if Sulu isn't a genius, is he going to be a our go to fencing guy?
This isn't an insurmountable problem, but a complicating wrinkle - another thing you now have to keep track of, unless of course all reference to it is dropped in later films. In that case it just becomes a vaguely felt question "Hey, wasn't Chekov a genius in the first film? Seems like he should have some ideas here..."

It's interesting how when you move the narrative furniture around even a little bit the details quickly ramify.

[Pauln6]

YARN wrote:

---

It's weird, because a non-Trekkie would not know or care about the ages, where a Trekkie could not help but note a discrepancy. It seems odd to make Chekov really young and thus have to make him a whiz-kid to explain his presence at the academy only to pass with the fans, when fans are bound to notice the difference anyhow (those fans who don't care about the age won't care either way; those who do will hold it to be heretical violation of canon).

Might have been better just to make Chekov a person of indiscriminate age without having to inaugurate him as a super genius. This could potentially create problems down the road. Scotty is supposed to be the engineering genius, Kirk is the tactical genius, McCoy if not a Dr. House, is at least the highest medical authority on board, Spock is the science/all-purpose genius -- with Chekov as a another super genius it could get a little crowded. Who gets the epiphany? That question may have just gotten a little tougher. The genius factor also seems to potentially throw the Sulu-Chekov balance at the navigator/helmsman station a little off -- if Sulu isn't a genius, is he going to be a our go to fencing guy?
This isn't an insurmountable problem, but a complicating wrinkle - another thing you now have to keep track of, unless of course all reference to it is dropped in later films. In that case it just becomes a vaguely felt question "Hey, wasn't Chekov a genius in the first film? Seems like he should have some ideas here..."

It's interesting how when you move the narrative furniture around even a little bit the details quickly ramify.

I think this is evidence that this Chekov is not the same biological individual as in TOS, although it's entirely possible that he has a younger brother who is. TOS was often portrayed as a bit of a buffoon, although he was a mine of scientific trivia. He was no genius... Chekov was a scientist with evidence of him having a background in zoology, astronomy, atronavigation, and planetary sciences. Sulu was a physicist/astrophysicist with an interest in botany. They also made Chekov a security officer in TMP, despite the fact that he was ill suited to that role (often getting beaten up) although he made a competent bridge tactical officer.

I prefer characters to have their own niche where they can shine but those areas usually get bumped for a) convenience and b) to give Kirk and Spock the most air time.

They do seem to have an awareness of character niche hence Sulu got to go sword fighting. Chekov's niche is now different (maths and transporter use) for the sake of convenience but I can see that his becoming the go-to guy for tricky transports gives him a niche.

It's a shame though, Janice Rand became a transporter operator in TMP and that could have been her niche. She has a history of killing people on the transporter so losing Amanda would be right up her street

[Christopher]

^There's a shot in the Into Darkness trailer of Chekov in a red tunic, which makes me wonder if they're moving him to security as per the earlier movies' precedent.

[YARN]

Christopher wrote:

---

^There's a shot in the Into Darkness trailer of Chekov in a red tunic, which makes me wonder if they're moving him to security as per the earlier movies' precedent.

Odd move if he really is a wunderkind. Will he have been busted down in rank, or will this be treated as a lateral move? It obviously would not seem to be a promotion to get red shirted when you're bridge crew.