[
RJ, there's more of that funny business with nested quotes dropping out, so bear with me -- I'll try to make this coherent without cut/pasting all the bits back in.]
That's certainly a valid point about the Academy; graduation likely precedes his teaching days. But as for "first mission," I mean literally first mission. Captain Pike is in it, so it's likely we're to see him taking command. Plus, the story is said to be the beginning of his friendship with Spock, so it can't be too far into the five-year mission. From a 'historical' perspective, since Mitchell isn't there and McCoy is, it should take place right after "Where No Man..." and show Spock filling the void left by Mitchell's death; that gives you both story and character consistency.
Okay, here's the thing: we know certain characters will appear, but I'm not sure you can assume that the story will be taking place all in this time-frame or that. We know that there are bits which occur both before and after the events of WNMHGB; we've been told that there is time-travel involved; presumably, there is a coherent story which logically connects these various bits. Perhaps this story just doesn't have anything directly to do with Mitchell. He could still be just as important in Kirk's development as a Starfleet officer -- perhaps he'll be mentioned by name or alluded to in such a way that we know who they're talking about -- but remember too that this isn't just a Kirk movie and that the story may simply deal with other events and other places where Mitchell wasn't present. Mitchell's existence isn't contradicted; he's just somewhere else at the time.
No, in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal; but in the context of this phase of Kirk's life, it should be very important. If you told a story about my high school graduation, you'd need to include my best friend at the time. At this point, I haven't seen him in 22 years and I knew him for less than 20% of my life and dwindling; but that's no reason to retcon him out of my biography.
Again, do you know for certain which phase(s) of Kirk's life the movie deals with? You're presuming we'll see this, that and the other thing, but what if the story picks up just after something or leaves off just before something else? Those events, places, people may have bearing on what we see (and should, really) but we don't necessarily need to see them if the story doesn't call for it. Neither Gary Mitchell nor your friend are retconned out of anything; they just don't figure in this part of the story.
RJ, you might also be interested in
this item in the
Trek Today News forum, as well as the
article to which it links.
Yeah, I saw that; it's one of the articles that made me feel optimistic. But then I'll read something about JJ saying it should be more like
Star Wars or hemming and hawing about it being a reboot.....
If you read the interview in question, Abrams did not say that it should be more like Star Wars but rather that he wanted to include some of the more action-oriented elements found in those movies. If you think about it, that notion makes plenty of sense, given that he's aiming for a wider audience than the hunkered-down Trek hardcore.
As for "reboot": that term should either be nailed down securely to some concrete definition which means the same thing to everyone, or it should be shitcanned yesterday as a completely useless, "it means whatever I say it means" example of pure balderdash. I can't stand that word in a movie-making context; it's worse than irritating.
you know normally i am ok with a little tweaking of it because well frankly tos did but i like for things to be in the spirit of belonging.
and frankly i am with rj in some of the stuff he is saying.
the writers said they are wanting to explore the orgins of the characters and how they became who they were.
well to me unless where no man has gone before is totally ignored i dont see how you dont adress mitchell.
They may very well address him in the movie -- I mentioned above several ways in which that could happen, including mentioning him by name or by alluding to events which involved him -- but as far as we know right now, he doesn't appear as a character with lines.
he was kirks best friend from the time he was an instructor at the academy until his death in wnmhgb. he is also mentioned as serving with spock for a number of years.
we also know he saved kirks live as well as very possibly having a big impact in how kirk turned out.
Hey man, I remember you back at the academy. A stack of books with legs. The first thing I ever heard from upperclassmen was, Watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink.
i know i am not the only one who wondered how kirk transformed from that to the captain we know.
and that iam also not the only one who wondered if kirk turned into that after what happened aboard the farragut and the death of captain garrovick.
orci said.. Thirdly, there seemed to be a genuine gap in what we knew about these characters' origins. It wasn't just remaking an origin story, it was telling it for the first time. There seemed to be unexplored territory. We couldn't believe it when we sat down to think about it."
but while yes there is a lot of unknown about kirk especially his family background due to episodes like obsession and where no man has gone before we are aware of certain important aspects of kirks prior existance.
i just sorta wonder if the writers actually saw those two episodes.
in the end whether they did or didnt wont be the determining factor in whether i like the film or not.
but, i do believe in ignoring certain things that are known about kirk they are losing a certain rich flavor to the story.
I'm not so sure they're ignoring things about Kirk, but realistically, they can't put all of it into one movie. The comments by Orci which you quoted above suggest that they've studied this pretty thoroughly and want to set their story mostly in the spaces between what we already know to one extent or another. It's quite possible that several of the things you mention above -- Kirk's Academy-instructor days and Mitchell, Spock's earlier career, Kirk and the
Farragut tour, etc. -- could have bearing on the story which we see without being shown directly; ideally, it would be as if they're just off-camera or out of the frame somewhere, exerting influence on what we see without being visible themselves.
Will there be new material added to the canon? Of course there will, but we already know the other stuff anyway, even if there's some of it we haven't actually seen yet. That's cool; that's what imagination is for.
I hope all of this has made sense, but you'll excuse me if some of it doesn't -- I'm still on my first pot of coffee of the day (and my typing has been spectacularly inept.
)
