RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,362
Posts: 5,355,822
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 565
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23 2013, 10:46 PM   #76
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

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.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...

Last edited by Jackson_Roykirk; January 23 2013 at 11:41 PM.
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 11:13 PM   #77
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

BillJ wrote: View Post
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.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 11:20 PM   #78
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 11:34 PM   #79
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

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.
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 11:38 PM   #80
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

thumbtack wrote: View Post

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...
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 11:42 PM   #81
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

thumbtack wrote: View Post
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.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 12:11 AM   #82
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

thumbtack wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 12:15 AM   #83
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

Hostile might be an understatement.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 01:30 AM   #84
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
thumbtack wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 03:20 AM   #85
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

thumbtack wrote: View Post
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!
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 03:50 AM   #86
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

"Prequel" and "reboot" always cause a knee jerk reaction in some people.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 08:10 AM   #87
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

Christopher wrote: View Post
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: View Post
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.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 09:35 AM   #88
Pauln6
Commodore
 
Pauln6's Avatar
 
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

YARN wrote: View Post
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
__________________
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Alien crossover www.youtube.com/user/pauln6

Other Worlds Role Playing Game
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ducts_id=97631
Pauln6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 04:39 PM   #89
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

^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.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 06:18 PM   #90
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Crew age and nu-Trek

Christopher wrote: View Post
^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.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.