The IDW Abramsverse comics have established that McCoy's ex-wife is named Pamela Branch. But the comics aren't canonical either, so it remains to be seen whether the films follow their precedent.
Star Trek 3 news/rumours/casting thread
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
The IDW Abramsverse comics have established that McCoy's ex-wife is named Pamela Branch. But the comics aren't canonical either, so it remains to be seen whether the films follow their precedent.
Please no, let's have an original story this time around.
Did you not read my post where I stated this was just meant to be fun speculation?
Regardless, I like the idea of Cranston as Kodos the Executioner. In my mind, that's who he'll be until his an official announcement is made.
Cranston as Picard/Locutus!
I realize this is all speculation, and was simply reacting to that speculation.
Cranston as Mot the barber.
Cranston as The Leading 0, hellbent on rewriting all of Starfleets registry codes.
That is interesting. I remember hearing that before now that you mention it. I haven't read the comics yet. I remember now though from a previous discussion about McCoy's wife - Jocelyn and Pamela are probably two different people since we are dealing with an alternate universe. I do assert that the ex wife Honey in some of the early novels is probably still Jocelyn, just referred to by a knickname.
I would think the movies would use the name Pamela, but who knows. I'd be really shocked if they use Jocelyn. I'll be really amused if they call her Honey - but McCoy could use the same knickname for whoever his wife is in any universe.
Still thrilled that McCoy's getting a bigger role in the next movie!
A teenage Pamela Branch, from IDW's McCoy issue:
A teenage Pamela Branch, from IDW's McCoy issue:
She was awkwardly drawn....
Interesting to see that panel, thanks! She doesn't look dissimilar to the book version of Jocelyn for what it's worth. I love little continuity connections, but I'm not going to be upset if the movie version contradicts a 20+ year old novel set in a different universe, as I accept that Jocelyn and Pamela are two different people. This does call into question the existence of Joanna McCoy in the JJ -verse. Have there been references to Joanna in the comic? Granted, there's no reason why McCoy couldn't have a different daughter with a different wife in an alternate universe and give her the same name. I've been saving the comics to read at the end of my Trek watch/read marathon.
I don't think that works. The name Honey comes from Joe Haldeman's Planet of Judgment (just that one novel), and it's not presented as a nickname. It appears only in narrative descriptions, never in dialogue, and it's clearly used as a given name (e.g. "Honey and Joanna were still in Joanna's room"). Besides, the scene in which she appears is a flashback to the moment she walked out on McCoy and took Joanna with her. I doubt he'd be predisposed to think of her by an affectionate nickname after that.
Besides, there's a lot else about Planet of Judgment that doesn't fit with the continuty of later screen or prose works, so reconciling it is unfeasible anyway.
As far as I know, there's no mention yet of Abramsverse McCoy having a daughter. At least, none that Memory Beta has caught up with yet.
If you're doing a 50th anniversary movie, Kodos the Executioner would make a great villain of a colony world gone mad.
I just don't want to deal with another villain-centric move, much less a villain-centric movie featuring a villain from the Original Recipe™ TOS. That kind of story would come with more agonized fanbourgeois hand-wringing over the "accuracy" of the presentation.
To be fair Kodos is far less well known than Khan, but still it just doesn't work for me.
In addition, do we want a story focusing on suffering and death inflicted on a single colony? Why. can't. we. have. a. film. about. exploration. One of the BEST scenes in STID was the opening one on the PaperMache people planet. It was new, it was original, it was fun. You know, like Star Trek used to be.
I like these rumors. I like them very much!
You're going to have hand-wringing any way you slice it from some. Unless they do a sequel to Nemesis about the problems of Romulus and the reconstruction of the Federation after the Dominion War. A movie which no one would show up for.
Which is fair enough. I'm good to go as long as the movie is fun to watch.
Love the opening to Star Trek Into Darkness. But is there enough in an exploration tale to get general audiences to take notice?
I think the Tarsus IV incident would give the movie another powerful opening hook as we see a young Kirk escaping the colony and Kodos.
Keep in mind, the last Star Trek movie(s) that was solely about exploration was and still is pissed and moaned about by fans to this very day. People complained Star Trek: The Motion(less) (har har
) Picture was too slow. Star Trek: Insurrection dealt with a new race and people bitched it didn't have any familiar races in it (although the villains were lame). People bitched about the Remans.While Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness were action fests with moustache-twirly villains, they did still contain some exploration. We got to see parts of Delta Vega never before seen. We got to see San Francisco outside of Starfleet Academy. The opening with Nibiru was new AND fun. Why can't these movies have the villain AND exploration? They've done a good job so far.
Nobody's going to want to sit through a lengthy planet/nebula charting simulation without some sort of action payoff at the end. That'll just put Trek back into mothballs for years or decades.
Similar threads
