What difference does/would any of that actually make, in the end? There was no "divine plan" to address the change in TMP, either. But you obviously already know that. So, I don't see your point. It seems like you're the one who's trying to make in not work, instead of sitting back and letting it work itself out, as it always has.
The first of those premises is potentially false, and the second is definitely false. Just because Kol was the leader of the House of Kor does not necessarily mean he was Kor's direct ancestor, nor Kor his. And every Klingon does not look the same in DSC, nor in any other era (except perhaps in TMP itself).
Again, your point is...? And this supports it...how?
Again, false.
Yes. And standard operating procedure is: change first, explain later. (Or not explain at all. But the lack of a definite explanation being given doesn't preclude there being one, or several.)
Quite. I was saying in another thread recently (I think it was that crazy Size Argument™ one, of all places, but the discussions here bleed together a lot, I find) that it reminds me of watching Bob Ross on PBS when I was a kid. He would get to a point where I would think: "That looks fine just the way it is." And then he would slap some whopping great smear or gob of dark paint right smack in the middle of it that would cover up some part I liked. And I'd for a brief moment think: "WTF? He just ruined it!" But then he'd add something else, and then more, and gradually but surely it became beautiful once again, even though it was now a rather different image than what I had anticipated at the outset, and one that I might not have chosen to paint over the initial "early draft" version, had I been the painter myself. And he would frequently address this explicitly as being part of the whole point—and indeed the whole joy—of the exercise. I'm paraphrasing here, but he would basically say: "Don't be afraid of ruining it...there are no mistakes; it can be whatever you want it to be."
Quite. I was saying in another thread recently (I think it was that crazy Size Argument™ one, of all places, but the discussions here bleed together a lot, I find) that it reminds me of watching Bob Ross on PBS when I was a kid. He would get to a point where I would think: "That looks fine just the way it is." And then he would slap some whopping great smear or gob of dark paint right smack in the middle of it that would cover up some part I liked. And I'd for a brief moment think: "WTF? He just ruined it!" But then he'd add something else, and then more, and gradually but surely it became beautiful once again, even though it was now a rather different image than what I had anticipated at the outset, and one that I might not have chosen to paint over the initial "early draft" version, had I been the painter myself. And he would frequently address this explicitly as being part of the whole point—and indeed the whole joy—of the exercise. I'm paraphrasing here, but he would basically say: "Don't be afraid of ruining it...there are no mistakes; it can be whatever you want it to be."
Just go with it, say I. Let them follow whatever artistic vision or ad hoc course they may choose, and try to relax and enjoy the ride, seeing where it all goes. You may like the picture when it's done, or you may not. But do give them a chance to paint it first before judging, eh? And as Yoda might say, don't be afraid to unlearn what you have learned in the process.
-MMoM
Nonsense. Meyer presented a clearly defined artistic vision. I'd even argue it was the single biggest artistic departure (from what came before) of anything in the franchise's history.
IIRC, casting information actually refers to Kol as Kor's brother.
Well, I'd hope their intended audience would be any and all of us who want to see what they would do with Star Trek, whatever it may turn out to be. Of course, they can't afford to wholly ignore the existence of those who adamantly don't want to, but will nevertheless hatewatch and grouse about it anyway. (Not that I mean to suggest you or @Arpy to fit that descriptor, of course. I don't. Yet there are such folks out there, and in here with us today, no doubt.) The best thing they can do with regard to that crowd is troll them like they did with that "D-7" reference, heckling the heckler. Who knows, maybe someday they'll even get the joke. (Of course, there's always the hazard of getting so wrapped up in that as to lose track of one's thread—no pun intended—too, and the further risk of alienating the rest of the audience in the process. It's quite possible to lose control of the room in trying too hard to keep control of it, etc.)
Indeed. TWOK may be low on my list of Trek films that I enjoy but there is no dismissing the artistic merits of the film or story construction.
I would not make that argument. I only stated that I appreciated how TWOK was put together not that it broke cinematic ground or something.
But speaking of Kor...did he look like this?
Or like this?
Well, I'd hope their intended audience would be any and all of us who want to see what they would do with Star Trek, whatever it may turn out to be. Of course, they can't afford to wholly ignore the existence of those who adamantly don't want to, but will nevertheless hatewatch and grouse about it anyway. (Not that I mean to suggest you or @Arpy to fit that descriptor, of course. I don't. Yet there are such folks out there, and in here with us today, no doubt.) The best thing they can do with regard to that crowd is troll them like they did with that "D-7" reference, heckling the heckler. Who knows, maybe someday they'll even get the joke. (Of course, there's always the hazard of getting so wrapped up in that as to lose track of one's thread—no pun intended—too, and the further risk of alienating the rest of the audience in the process. It's quite possible to lose control of the room in trying too hard to keep control of it, etc.)
If they set out with the goal of giving any particular audience precisely what they expect, they are doomed to fail. They must indeed create what they want to create for themselves, and hope that there are enough of us willing to let our expectations give way and/or otherwise accommodate our enjoyment of it, plus enough of those who had none to begin with, to make up a sufficiently robust audience.
I'm pretty sure Nick Meyer has stated fairly directly that this is more or less exactly what he did with TWOK: he made the movie he himself would want to see, and kept his fingers crossed that the audience would go along with him and enjoy it too. And of course, they did.
-MMoM
