They're not.
They're just offending your personal opinion of what a "Star Trek" movie ought to be. So far, though, they seem to be on track to satisfying a whole lot of other Trek fans.
Well that's "Court Martial" and "Obsession" gone then (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
- Status
They're not.
They're just offending your personal opinion of what a "Star Trek" movie ought to be. So far, though, they seem to be on track to satisfying a whole lot of other Trek fans.
Eventhough had that movie been made that would have been the end for Star Trek, and I don't mean that the movie would suck and kill the franchise I mean that would be the end of the story.
Yeah, there was not really any blueprint for bringing back a television series as a successful theatrical film in those days. Prior to "Star Wars" it's unlikely that anyone involved on the business end had any behind-the-scenes expectation that "Star Trek" would be an ongoing series of films, no matter what was said publicly. One successful movie would have been an accomplishment in itself, and any further decisions would have been made based on having managed that.
In those days, sequels were expected to gross less than the initial film in a series (there were obvious exceptions, but that's what they were thought to be - exceptions). The rule of thumb was that if a sequel did sixty percent of the box office of the previous film it was successful, and projects were budgeted accordingly.
And TWOK brought in only a few million dollars less than TMP (and since it cost a helluva lot less than TMP, it was insanely profitable for the penny pinchers in the studio front office).
I'd like it if they at least had some sort of reference to Gary Mitchell, who was such a pivotal character in Where No Man Has Gone Before (one of the best TOS episodes, IMHO). Maybe he's off sick and can't graduate with the rest of Kirk's class, as was the case I believe in Vonda N. McIntyre's 80's novel Enterprise: The First Adventure? That would be fine with me
But we probably won't get that though
Look, dude. Gary Mitchell was in one episode. One. Like Number One, Piper, Boyce, Kelso, Dehner and all the others who were only in one episode. They are just not that important in the large scheme of things, and certainly the average viewing audience would not know or care about them anyway. Even characters like Kevin Riley and Yeoman Rand who did have multiple episodes are just not as important as the big seven. And that's the way it is, so just get used to it.
Stupid and insulting to the intelligence of many fans. You say pretend people like Gary never existed. Okay, how about Carol and David Marcus? Or Khan? Or Zefram Cochrane? Or Shinzon? Are we supposed to just forget about all of them because some silly writer/producer/director ignores them?
I'd like it if they at least had some sort of reference to Gary Mitchell, who was such a pivotal character in Where No Man Has Gone Before (one of the best TOS episodes, IMHO). Maybe he's off sick and can't graduate with the rest of Kirk's class, as was the case I believe in Vonda N. McIntyre's 80's novel Enterprise: The First Adventure? That would be fine with me
But we probably won't get that though
Look, dude. Gary Mitchell was in one episode. One. Like Number One, Piper, Boyce, Kelso, Dehner and all the others who were only in one episode. They are just not that important in the large scheme of things, and certainly the average viewing audience would not know or care about them anyway. Even characters like Kevin Riley and Yeoman Rand who did have multiple episodes are just not as important as the big seven. And that's the way it is, so just get used to it.
Stupid and insulting to the intelligence of many fans. You say pretend people like Gary never existed. Okay, how about Carol and David Marcus? Or Khan? Or Zefram Cochrane? Or Shinzon? Are we supposed to just forget about all of them because some silly writer/producer/director ignores them?
You want Zefram Cochrane and Shinzon in the film? The writer is silly to ignore them?
Its not a matter of pretending they never existed, they're just not in the story. You can imagine them being there but off screen if you really really must. Like Chekov meeting Kahn in Space Seed, we didn't see it happen, but we know it did because they recognise eachother in TWOK. Its no biggie. Really its not.
No, I don't want them in the film. And to be honest, I don't really care a hell of a lot about the characters....but I'd never ignore them just so I could do my own thing with the franchise.
But how would you fit them in? Without a shoe horn that is?
Theres a substantial difference between ignoring a character and simply have no purpose for them. A film paying lip service to every irrelevant minor character isn't going to have much time left for a story.
Theres a substantial difference between ignoring a character and simply have no purpose for them. A film paying lip service to every irrelevant minor character isn't going to have much time left for a story.
And you know this because...? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question (and the answer is--it doesn't "contradict those characters"). Seriously, if this film is causing you such visceral agony, why not just ignore it? Of course, you have the right to bitch, moan, complain, gnash your teeth, wail, self-immolate and so on (you don't have the right to assert opinion as fact and expect others to agree, though--no matter what you believe). But all that requires a lot of energy. Why bother? You cannot affect the nature of the film in any way whatsoever, so do yourself (and others) a favour and spare yourself the pain.
The characters don't have to be IN the movie. The movie however, should not make it impossible those characters can no longer be in the "history" of Star Trek. The movie can't CONTRADICT them, and it is.
Has anyone noticed a single person who's positive about this film being talked into being negative about it by a poster here?
Has anyone noticed a single person who's negative about this film being talked into being positive by a poster here?
Didn't think so.
Has anyone noticed a single person who's negative about this film being talked into being positive by a poster here?
Didn't think so.
So, did TOS "contradict" the existence of Dr. McCoy in the two episodes of TOS besides WNMHGB in which McCoy did not appear (What are Little Girls Made of? and Errand of Mercy)?
The characters don't have to be IN the movie. The movie however, should not make it impossible those characters can no longer be in the "history" of Star Trek. The movie can't CONTRADICT them, and it is.
What about the 12 various episodes in which Scotty did not appear, or the 27 episodes spread throughout the shows' 3-year run that Sulu was nowhere to be seen?
How is not having Mitchell on the bridge in this film any different than not even mentioning McCoy's name in Errand of Mercy or What are Little Girls Made Of?
...actually, on second thought it IS in fact different since we know McCoy was part of the crew in those two episodes I mentioned, but we have no idea when Mitchell joined the crew. Mitchell could have joined the crew only one month before WNMHGB.
Reading about all the changes Abrams seems to be making to the Trek mythos, it seems he is in some ways very like the character of Trelane, i.e. "Intellect without discipline", "It's my game, and my rules".
I can cope with the Enterprise being built on the ground, and even to a degree Scotty's new backstory. Once you get past that, however, all common sense gets flushed down the bog.
I can cope with the Enterprise being built on the ground, and even to a degree Scotty's new backstory. Once you get past that, however, all common sense gets flushed down the bog.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
So, did TOS "contradict" the existence of Dr. McCoy in the two episodes of TOS besides WNMHGB in which McCoy did not appear (What are Little Girls Made of? and Errand of Mercy)?
The characters don't have to be IN the movie. The movie however, should not make it impossible those characters can no longer be in the "history" of Star Trek. The movie can't CONTRADICT them, and it is.
What about the 12 various episodes in which Scotty did not appear, or the 27 episodes spread throughout the shows' 3-year run that Sulu was nowhere to be seen?
How is not having Mitchell on the bridge in this film any different than not even mentioning McCoy's name in Errand of Mercy or What are Little Girls Made Of?
...actually, on second thought it IS in fact different since we know McCoy was part of the crew in those two episodes I mentioned, but we have no idea when Mitchell joined the crew. Mitchell could have joined the crew only one month before WNMHGB.
Because the James Dean Kirk that jumps out of a car just before it plummets off of a cliff, and is doing nothing but rebelling everywhere including happily climbing onto ships he's not supposed to be on, is not a stack of books teacher that needs help becoming the James T. Kirk we all know by having a blond lab assistant sent his way.
So, did TOS "contradict" the existence of Dr. McCoy in the two episodes of TOS besides WNMHGB in which McCoy did not appear (What are Little Girls Made of? and Errand of Mercy)?
The characters don't have to be IN the movie. The movie however, should not make it impossible those characters can no longer be in the "history" of Star Trek. The movie can't CONTRADICT them, and it is.
What about the 12 various episodes in which Scotty did not appear, or the 27 episodes spread throughout the shows' 3-year run that Sulu was nowhere to be seen?
How is not having Mitchell on the bridge in this film any different than not even mentioning McCoy's name in Errand of Mercy or What are Little Girls Made Of?
...actually, on second thought it IS in fact different since we know McCoy was part of the crew in those two episodes I mentioned, but we have no idea when Mitchell joined the crew. Mitchell could have joined the crew only one month before WNMHGB.
Because the James Dean Kirk that jumps out of a car just before it plummets off of a cliff, and is doing nothing but rebelling everywhere including happily climbing onto ships he's not supposed to be on, is not a stack of books teacher that needs help becoming the James T. Kirk we all know by having a blond lab assistant sent his way.
So? Could you point me to the episode where we learn that Kirk never drove a car over a cliff? Or the one where he recalls his blissful childhood? I think I missed those.
This isn't a new observation, and it may have been mentioned a number of times before upthread, but perhaps it should be stated again: Everyone realizes the timeline is screwed up, right? We don't know how much, but it is. Perhaps enough that Mitchell and Kirk never met, and so on.
Call it a cheat by Orci and Kurtzman to tell their own story if you will, but after the Kelvin was attacked, all bets of what we knew or thought we knew are off. What they promise is that it will all make sense and fit in the end. It's a matter of trust. It's a matter of patience.
Call it a cheat by Orci and Kurtzman to tell their own story if you will, but after the Kelvin was attacked, all bets of what we knew or thought we knew are off. What they promise is that it will all make sense and fit in the end. It's a matter of trust. It's a matter of patience.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Uh... which part of what I wrote don't you get, the English, or... the English?
Please see my thread 'Abrams' "Revisions" - what I'm okay with and what I'm not' for a list of the things I'm fuming about...along with a list of some things I'm not too bothered about.
- Status
Similar threads
