Why the oldest? Would it make more sense to take the youngest with them, and maybe the older ones went to some sort of boarding school or such or were already adults?
Should TMP be ignored?
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
Autobiography of James T Kirk gave the implication that you need to be at least six months old before you can travel (unless you were born on a starship or space station). Peter's younger siblings, Joshua and Steven, were about two months old when their parents went to Deneva and were living with their grandparents until they were old enough to travel to Deneva. Of course, it didn't happen.
Yeah, but that's just the interpretation of one tie-in author. From the information that TOS gives us, it's just as possible that they were Peter's older brothers than younger.
And what kind of crappy parents leave their newborn kids behind to go off into space? I liked The Autobiography of James T. Kirk, but that explanation really makes me dislike George and Aurelan Kirk.
One wonders about the deal with Jimmy Kirk, Riley, Leighton and Tarsus IV, then. "Conscience of King" alone would allow us to think that Kirk's mom and dad were both killed by Kodos, but we now know from Prime Spock's words that at least his dad lived through it all. Where were they when their son was eyewitness to whatever those three kids (and six others of unknown age) uniquely witnessed?
(The senior Kirks apparently weren't among the eyewitnesses, as the computer lists only one Kirk, and then moves up the alphabet. Although it seems there's an "Eames" there at #5 just before Kirk stops the search, or is that "Seamus" or some such?)
In the 24th century, solitary confinement is a popular care method for traumatized kids. Perhaps abandoning of young kids to their own devices has been found beneficial in the 23rd century already?
Timo Saloniemi
(The senior Kirks apparently weren't among the eyewitnesses, as the computer lists only one Kirk, and then moves up the alphabet. Although it seems there's an "Eames" there at #5 just before Kirk stops the search, or is that "Seamus" or some such?)
In the 24th century, solitary confinement is a popular care method for traumatized kids. Perhaps abandoning of young kids to their own devices has been found beneficial in the 23rd century already?
Timo Saloniemi
Agree. The answer is no. TMP should not be ignored.I think this topic has left the rails a long time ago...
I like the idea of it being a point of divergence.... one interpretation that goes from TOS to the TWOK movies and beyond, with unknown adventures between TOS and TWOK open to explore, where Kirk is promoted to Admiral, and the Enterprise always looked that way, and is an old ship nearing the end of its life, and a totally different line where the Enterprise is refit, Kirk saves the planet from V'Ger, and has unknown adventures as the new Captain of the Enterprise from that point onward, leaving everything from the uniforms, surrounding universe and even Khan's fate wide open to reinterpretation and new stories.
Back to the subject in the original post..
Seriously, TMP has it's issues (Deckers uniform showing a bit too much is one image that I'll never wipe from my brain) but to ignore it? you might as well wipe any TOS episode you don't like....
Seriously, TMP has it's issues (Deckers uniform showing a bit too much is one image that I'll never wipe from my brain) but to ignore it? you might as well wipe any TOS episode you don't like....
That's the "Decker Unit"! LOL
Back on topic, short answer... NO! GOD PLEASE NO! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
STAR TREK: The Motion Picture is elegant and beautiful, yet unpretentious and satisfying. To ignore it is to ignore the aspirations this franchise has for itself ... and those that STAR TREK inspires in Trekkies, around the world.
Not really. People don't attend classic car shows to see, say, how well a Continental Mark II does on a dynamometer test. The vast majority are interested in the visual, the original styling and the preservation or restorative work.
J.T.B.: My point was perhaps made too subtly. I am saying that TMP is like one of these beautiful, polished-up cars that, however, doesn't run.
My own would-be classic car (a '66 Pontiac Bonneville convertible that I drove until '91, with a "Phaser Equipped / Warp Drive Powered" bumper sticker purchased at the NYC Star Trek convention in January 1975) was beset by a wide variety of problems that periodically kept it from running - carburetor issues, corrosion in the wiring harness at the firewall, air in the brake lines, etc. One could draw analogies between each of these and the problems that prevent TMP from "running" except for a few minutes at a time. I've got better things to do, though.
Also, thank you for not erroneously calling the Continental Mark II a "Lincoln".
My own would-be classic car (a '66 Pontiac Bonneville convertible that I drove until '91, with a "Phaser Equipped / Warp Drive Powered" bumper sticker purchased at the NYC Star Trek convention in January 1975) was beset by a wide variety of problems that periodically kept it from running - carburetor issues, corrosion in the wiring harness at the firewall, air in the brake lines, etc. One could draw analogies between each of these and the problems that prevent TMP from "running" except for a few minutes at a time. I've got better things to do, though.
Also, thank you for not erroneously calling the Continental Mark II a "Lincoln".
Not even a miracle worker can make TMP's pretentiousness disappear.
When it comes down to it, it is my opinion that while it doesn't really matter in the continuity of the next five TOS movies, it is a damn fine standalone Star Trek movie, one that has a different vibe to the rest but still feels like a, albeit a tad pretentious in its ideas and stubbornness to be the next 2001: A Space Odyssey, extended episode of the series with really high production values. To each his own though, I know people that hate TMP, not just the snail's pace and the fact that they made Kirk an asshole and Spock a vulcan extremist, but the story as well, and when it really comes down to it, like the OP said, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of Trek continuity.
I need to make time to watch this again, it must be twenty five years since I first/last watched it. I never thought of it as pretentious though, but I suppose I can see it that way. The whole warp engine wormhole thing was mystifying to me, and frankly annoying to watch. What were they thinking?
I wouldn't actively ignore it, but it doesn't seem to warrant my attention.
I wouldn't actively ignore it, but it doesn't seem to warrant my attention.
Similar threads
