TOS followups in later series....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Wow, I didn't know we were allowed to cuss in this forum!
But yeah...Abrams didn't need to do what he did. He could have put it within the "Prime" timeline and made it fun and original, but I just don't think he wanted to go to the effort.
But yeah...Abrams didn't need to do what he did. He could have put it within the "Prime" timeline and made it fun and original, but I just don't think he wanted to go to the effort.
The effort? The effort to do what? Make a prequel set in the Prime universe? We already know exactly what happened to all those characters afterwards. How could you possibly create any suspense? What would be the next movies be about? A feature-length TOS episodes, where you know in advance that every main character survives, that none of them has a significant relationship outside of expendable guest stars, that they all go to their 5-year old mission - and exactly what kind of people they'll all turn out to be? Well, wouldn't that be exciting, and such a great opportunity to be creative and provide both great suspense and great character development in the future.
Oh please, not THIS "argument." In every movie, the audience knows that the majority of main characters are going to survive, whether we've seen the character's future or not. It's usually a twist if the character dies. Going into the theatre, you know that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy aren't going to be killed off. So is there REALLY suspense from that? Did anyone REALLY think "Oh wow, one of these main iconic characters might be killed off in this film because their future is uncertain in this reality?" The answer is "no."
A skilled director can create "suspense" (although I wouldn't have called ST09 "suspenseful") no matter what we know about the character's future.
Yep, that's the thinking Paramount goes by. Whatever rakes in the dough - quality doesn't matter.
We're talking about a franchise, a series of movies, not one single movie. It was unlikely that any of them would be killed off in this movie, but in the sequels, it is a possibility, especially if there is a limited number of movies - like a trilogy. A more likely possibility than it is in a TV show. (And anyway, characters being killed off is not the only issue I mentioned.)
And if we're going to talk about this movie, would Vulcan be blown up if it was a straight prequel? Nope. Or they'd find a way to "rectify" it by the end of the movie. Would you say that the audience "knew" before they watched the movie that there's no way in hell they's actually blow up Vulcan?
If your only argument is "oh, please, you're not going to bring up suspense and character development - we know this would never happen in Trek movies anyway, they are always predictable enough"... well, call I can say is that you don't seem to have a very high opinion of the Star Trek franchise in general.
Or, if you are actually arguing:
Um, no, they don't. What kind of movies do you watch?
Well, duh. That's the point, movies have to have twists (whether it is a character's death or something different) to be at least somewhat exciting, rather than utterly predictable (even if you prefer to watch the predictable ones). And twists are rarely possible when we already know the future.
So you honestly thought that there was a chance that Kirk, Spock, or McCoy might actually be killed in the film, because it took place in an alternate reality where their futures were uncertain? Yes or no should suffice as an answer to this one.
From a narrative standpoint, you know that's not going to happen - particularly with Kirk and Spock. The narrative of the film went to the trouble of showing us their childhood and early adulthood - the narrative focuses on those characters and depends on them to bring the narrative further into the story. The death of either one would force the narrative to shift its focus onto another character; suddenly, instead of being about Kirk and Spock, it would have to be about Sulu or Chekov, and that wouldn't have happened (it would REALLY have been bad, then!).
From a narrative standpoint, you know that's not going to happen - particularly with Kirk and Spock. The narrative of the film went to the trouble of showing us their childhood and early adulthood - the narrative focuses on those characters and depends on them to bring the narrative further into the story. The death of either one would force the narrative to shift its focus onto another character; suddenly, instead of being about Kirk and Spock, it would have to be about Sulu or Chekov, and that wouldn't have happened (it would REALLY have been bad, then!).
Similar threads
