What I miss is well-written, entertaining Star Trek. Far too much of what has masqueraded as Star Trek lately has been beyond disappointing...
Do you miss the original crew?
- Thread starter Ghost
- Start date
I liked Farscape.
I also liked Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis while I found Stargate Universe horrible.
I haven't watched Warehouse 13 yet.
As for NuTrek, I could probably have lived with those lookalike actors even if it never could be "the real thing". But as soon this planet was destroyed in the beginning of the series and it became some sort of "alternate universe scenario", then I lost interest.
Actually we don't know this, prime Kirk's father is never mentioned prior to ST: Eleven, he is a near complete mystery. Prime Spock's statement that the father was still alive at the time Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise is the only piece of information we ever hear.
He easily could have been a horrible father.
We don't even know if the prime universe's father was named George.
Absolutely no! He was never that way on the show and the results are very different.
Thank you. I hear all the time about that's not canon or never seen on screen, well Kirk never mentioned his parents, so I don' t know if they were a large influence on him. He only mentioned his brother, twice. I don't remember any other family members.
^Well, yes, actually. I didn't mention him because I didn't think that his nephew would have been a strong influence on his growing up.
He was actually in the episode "Operation: Annihilate!" when they find Jim's brother dead. Jim's sister in law also dies but his nephew, Peter, survives. Although Jim first mentions his brother having 3 sons, they don't mention the other two during this episode. It's not hard to imagine they were away in college but they don't mention them.
He was actually in the episode "Operation: Annihilate!" when they find Jim's brother dead. Jim's sister in law also dies but his nephew, Peter, survives. Although Jim first mentions his brother having 3 sons, they don't mention the other two during this episode. It's not hard to imagine they were away in college but they don't mention them.
Or, tragically, something happened to the other two that we never hear of. Because Kirk doesn't ask about them in "operation--Annihilate it's possible the two other boys perished earlier and that's why Kirk doesn't mention them later because he already knew they were dead.
^ Sounds kind of morbid. Equally likely that Kirk doesn't ask about his other nephews because he already knows they're safe.
I simply meant something might have happened to them between being referenced earlier in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" and the events of "Operation--Annihilate."
The writers probably overlooked or forgot the earlier reference to three sons and thats why later we see only one. If the boys were safe elsewhere then you'd think Kirk could have said something to that effect, but he doesn't say anything. In universe maybe something happened to the two unseen boys so that Kirk doesn't bother mentioning them again.
Sure we do.
Why does it matter where his name came from? What does it truly matter if it was George, Earl or Stupid?
The name George comes from the novels, just like Nyota and Hikaru. I don't see a problem with it.
Some may chose to dislike the source, but that's a different thing. Kirk's parents' names are established in ST09, after being used in the novels for decades.
It's a reboot. So whether something applies or not really is up to interpretation. He can argue all he wants about going back to a certain point in time, but he made a lot of changes that don't gel with the original continuity before that point in time where Nero appears.
It's been discussed ad nauseam before. I don't need to rehash it again.
Do you honestly think they're going to change it to something else if they go back to the Prime Universe? I have a feeling it will officially be 'George' for as long as I remain on this planet.
No. In fact I believe George was used in the novel Final Frontier, but that doesn't make it canon either as much as I enjoyed the book.
The first name of Kirk's father is irrelevant really. It's never established in TOS or any of the other productions. Indeed we don't know much about Kirk's family beyond the existence of his brother and family as has been mentioned upthread.
But if you're rebooting a property then whatever you introduce into it doesn't necessarily apply to the original version as well. How many times has Batman or James Bond or whatever been rebooted and while some things appeared to remain the same other things were changed. In Batman the identity of the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents has been different people and that's just in the films. The names of Superman's adoptive parents has been changed in different versions.
So the essential point is that whatever is introduced in JJtrek doesn't necessarily apply to TOS as well simply from the fact that ST09 established a rebooted continuity.
I know someone is going to mention the presence of Leonard Nimoy in JJtrek. Okay, what about the presence of Judi Dench in both the Brosnan Bond films as well as the Craig Bond films? The Craig films are obviously a rebooted continuity where Craig is obviously not the same character as the Brosnan Bond. And it's established that it's not different agents using the name of James Bond. The same thing happened decades ago when they continued to use the same M in both the Connery and Moore films.
So Judi Dench's M in the Craig films is not the same as the one in the Brosnan films (despite being played by the same actress) because the continuity has been rebooted to start the James Bond story anew. They cut loose all the previous continuity to restart with a clean sheet. It's no different in JJtrek.
And if there was any question before it's nailed home by STID particularly with Khan played so against type. Granted Ricardo Montalban was a Latino playing a Sikh it was still a nod (for the time) to representing what the character was referenced as being. But the casting of Cumberbatch veers even further from representing the character as previously established rather than actually casting an Indian actor in the role. And the existence of Khan predates the arrival of Nero into the overall narrative by 300 years.
So they not only rebooted the 23rd century period, but they rebooted the 20th century period as well.
So nothing in JJtrek can be taken as gospel in regard to TOS.
You're confusing or conflating things here. The ethnic background of the actors playing a part doesn't automatically alter the character, if the character is meant to be the same character. Blofeld doesn't become Greek (and American) because Telly Savalas was cast to replace Brit Donald Pleasance. He didn't become British again when Charles Gray took the part.
Similar threads
