I actually did as well, to the point where I wasn't even sure it was the same actor. I was very young, of course, but I do remember thinking that.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I actually did as well, to the point where I wasn't even sure it was the same actor. I was very young, of course, but I do remember thinking that.
My god, he is a love instructor!
No no. He was only named after one.
Imagine if Picard's son got nothing but speeches that he handed out at every vague opportunity while Old Man Picard got to play action hero. 10/10, best season ever?
To me Movie Kirk just looked like TOS Kirk with a brown, curly toupee.
His face in the early movies was close enough to the way he looked in the late '60s that the hair was the only real visual difference.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is set in 2287 according to both Memory Alpha and startrek.com, so Kirk would be 54. We don't know how big the gap between STII and STIII is – long enough for the Enterprise to get more battle damage and for Saavik to regenerate into Robin Curtis and her and David Marcus be transferred to the Grissom. And although STIV starts "three (Vulcan?) months" after the end of Star Trek III there's necessarily some big gaps between scenes at the end, which could conceivably be several weeks to several months in length.
As a poster on TrekBBS, I go by the Okuda Chronology. As longtime hardcore fan, I think a ton of stuff happened between the movies as seen in the comics as novels of the time. As just a viewer of the movies, one after another, I go by what see while watching them.
So it's like I'm viewing them and interpreting them on three different levels.
IMO, as a viewer, 5-10 months total had to have passed from TWOK to TFF.
So it's like I'm viewing them and interpreting them on three different levels.
IMO, as a viewer, 5-10 months total had to have passed from TWOK to TFF.
Thank you for making me feel good about my gym membership.
No, James R. Kirk took down Gary Mitchell.
There are *lyrics*?It's a lot like the version of "Ilia's Theme" with lyrics ("A Star Beyond Time")....which almost permanently ruined that otherwise beautiful piece of music for me forever.
You know I'm going to look this up now, right? I'll write from the funny farm.
Yep.No, James R. Kirk took down Gary Mitchell.
Oh no, I don't disagree (don't agree with them), fans seemingly want such dark outcomes.
My headcanon was that Yorktown's engineering immediately took crowbars out and started getting everyone together and they didn't need the sail in the end anyway.
As for where the ent-A came from, another headcanon: Federation at this time was obviously doing a build up, connies kick ass, so they probably were just churning them out anyway to toe off with the Klingons and they just renamed this one Enterprise.
OK, that's not as bad as I expected. I'll have to listen to it without the lyrics tomorrow - it may just be a case of good music with relatively innocuous lyrics.
I just realized, if they'd kept it "James R. Kirk", the "R" could've been for "Robert", and
We'd have Captain Jim-Bob Kirk.
I'll see myself out.
I think I’d say it’s closer to the low end of your estimate, maybe six months tops.
Each movie is about a week, around two weeks between TWOK and SFS seems sufficient to transfer the trainees and Saavik/David (the extra damage we’ll have to assume happened with Khan), three months between SFS and TVH, a month or two between their return with the whales and taking the 1701-A for a spin, then another month or two between TVH and TFF.
The biggest two unknowns (I'm assuming that it's not very long between TWOK and TSFS even assuming time to get to Ceti Alpha and back to Earth) are "How long did the trial take?" and "How quickly did they take Enterprise back to dock after 'Let's see what she's got' and how long was she there after they did so?" Both of those could bump up the time between the Bounty splashing down and Captain Kirk climbing a mountain. (WHY is he climbing a mountain?)
Do you realize that out of six films we only got to see the Enterprise fully operational with an entire crew in ONE film? What the hell, people?
Do you realize that out of six films we only got to see the Enterprise fully operational with an entire crew in ONE film? What the hell, people?
Perhaps this will be controversial. I find the Enterprise-E kind of ugly and aesthetically unappealing in terms of both ship design and sets. The bridge, in particular, is really bland and uninspired. Instead of making it feel like an evolution of the E-D bridge, it’s basically just seems like another of the ten thousand redresses they did on the original Enterprise movie set. I wish they’d done something a bit more interesting visually, such as have it in multiple levels. At least they dispensed with the cluttered little consoles at Riker and Troi’s seats for Insurrection. Let them just sit and play Tetris on their tricorders instead.
In a Mirror Darkly was juvenile, exploitative, and embarrassing, and shouldn’t have been made. Unfortunately, it pre-empted or perhaps inspired the Picard season 3 writing style of putting bad fanfic filled with continuity-wank onto the screen.
The Earth-Romulan war (or Coalition-Romulan war?) should never be fully dramatised on-screen. The implications are that it was obviously as deeply destructive as the Trekverse’s version of WWIII, with long-lasting consequences, and that’s enough for the viewer. No adaptation would likely do the event justice for budgetary or creative reasons, and more causal viewers won’t care. Knowing what stores not to tell too illustratively is more important than many fans seem to realise, unfortunately.
Fans overlook how much heavy lifting TUC does in terms of subtle world-building the Klingons; seeing articulate, urbane even, Klingons Gorkon and Chang for the first time since certain TOS episodes makes it far believable that the Klingons as a race would have their own interstellar state, and even be a future Federation member than just seeing the average “football hooligan in space” type Klingons usually relied upon by Trek writers.
The Earth-Romulan war (or Coalition-Romulan war?) should never be fully dramatised on-screen. The implications are that it was obviously as deeply destructive as the Trekverse’s version of WWIII, with long-lasting consequences, and that’s enough for the viewer. No adaptation would likely do the event justice for budgetary or creative reasons, and more causal viewers won’t care. Knowing what stores not to tell too illustratively is more important than many fans seem to realise, unfortunately.
Fans overlook how much heavy lifting TUC does in terms of subtle world-building the Klingons; seeing articulate, urbane even, Klingons Gorkon and Chang for the first time since certain TOS episodes makes it far believable that the Klingons as a race would have their own interstellar state, and even be a future Federation member than just seeing the average “football hooligan in space” type Klingons usually relied upon by Trek writers.
Last edited:
DING DING DING!
I'm sure I've mentioned before that while the D bridge isn't my FAVORITE (<-- TOS guy), it really is unique, and as it turns out, a cul de sac. Every other ship we've ever seen was a variation on the TMP set. Even during TNG. Except for the con and ops consoles. Those suckers got ported to EVERYTHING.
It kind of amuses me the sudden outpouring of love for the TNG set. Because I think "That's funny. You've been avoiding it like the plague for 30 years."
TMP took the TOS bridge (and ship) and updated it while keeping most of the layout. First Contact (and DS9 and Voyager) took nothing from TNG but the swivel stations and LCARS. Hell, the Star Trek V set was more of an outgrowth of TNG than any of the 24th century shows or movies.
The redone theme for "IN A MIRROR, DARKLY" alone justifies its existence.
Never mind how much fun that two-parter was.
Never mind how much fun that two-parter was.
Similar threads
