Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

[MHJH]

Who cares about dollars earned per dollar spent? If you spend a dollar and make 235 million and one dollars, that's shocking and extremely cool, but if you spend 150 million and make 385 million, you're still 235 million dollars richer.

The initial investment matters quite a bit. Is it worth the gamble to stake so much money on one property? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We'll surely get a sequel to this flick, but as the profit per dollar shrinks, and the initial investment gets higher, as it invariably does, the risk isn't worth it. Profit per dollar is incredibly important.

And besides, larger overall profit doesn't just mean the movie did well, it means there's increased visibility for all kinds of ancillary sales. I bet Star Trek toys sold a hell of a lot better this Christmas than they had in a while, don't you think?

I don't understand how a technically larger gross leads to greater visibility, when fewer people have actually seen the movie. As for Star Trek toys selling better this year than in the past few, you're absolutely right. Best ever? I really doubt that.

It's more or less impossible to define "most successful", but given the incredibly negative buzz for the franchise as a whole after Nemesis and Enterprise, it certainly ranks among the highest from any reasonable perspective. So either way, Dimesdan's point is pretty inarguable.

Obviously not, since I'm arguing . And, again, I'm not arguing that JJs movie didn't improve Star Trek's standing among the public, but I honestly don't see that this one movie has had anywhere near the impact that, say, TWOK and TVH had.

And really, I'm done now. This is way off topic and I don't want to get banned.

 

[Christopher]

And, again, I'm not arguing that JJs movie didn't improve Star Trek's standing among the public, but I honestly don't see that this one movie has had anywhere near the impact that, say, TWOK and TVH had.

Those movies had years for their full impact to be felt. The new Star Trek came out in theaters less than eight months ago and on DVD less than two months ago. It's really premature to be drawing conclusions about its overall impact.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'd say that Playmates suspending their Star Trek line of toys (based on the new movie) doesn't exactly qualify as a good indicator of what that overall impact is gonna be.

And I'd say the box office success of the movie spoke more towards the audience's hunger for new Star Trek, not necessarily a hunger for this version of it. Considering that Avatar's made a billion damn dollars, the money is definitely there to be made, so with all the built-in advantages Star Trek has, like a rabid audience that's ready, and wanting, to support whatever comes out, the real question is, why didn't this movie do better? It was a mediocre big budget blockbuster in a sea of big budget blockbusters, and that's all it was intended to be, a big, loud, blockbuster summer movie to go right alongside Transformers 2: Electric Boogaloo.

And pardon me while I channel Harlan Ellison, circa 1976 (since this year's model seems to have lost his way a tad), but that is the real insult, that they didn't even try for something a little higher in the intellectual scale. They shot right for that middle of the lowest common denominator, scientifically illiterate action movie herd where you don't have to generate any more brain power than it takes to read the opening credits. Remember when Star Trek was supposed to be the antidote for those kinds of movies? Now it's a complete sell-out, which is precisely what Roddenberry feared would happen once he was gone from the scene.

Okay, rant over.

Hey, kids, a new version of the Concordance is in the works! Stay tuned for more news as it happens!

 

[Dick Whitman]

Beyond the new movie what other additions would there be?

The last update featured spin-off appearances of TOS characters played by the same actors. So obviously the DS9 and Voyager episodes that continued this trend would also be included.

But what about TOS characters which were recast? Like Zephram Cochrane, T'Pau, and Surak.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But what about TOS characters which were recast? Like Zephram Cochrane, T'Pau, and Surak.

Well, both Saaviks were in the last book.

 

[Christopher]

^But both Saaviks were in movies that were undeniably TOS. The question is about TOS guest characters appearing in non-TOS productions with different actors in the roles.

And the last Concordance did not include "Rightful Heir," featuring a recast Kahless (and it came out after that episode, and did include DS9: "Blood Oath" from a year later). So if this edition follows the same parameters, I'd think the answer would be that it would only include productions featuring the return of actual TOS cast members. So I think the only additions to what was covered in the last version would be "The Sword of Kahless," "Once More Unto the Breach," "Flashback," and the new movie (since Nimoy is in it).

 

[Dark Gilligan]

It's still debatable just how much these characters still qualify as TOS characters; their personal histories are completely different, Chekov's age is off by several years, Spock is completely out of character, whether he's being played by Nimoy or Quinto, the ship is over twice the size of the original, the technology is wildly inconsistent, not only with TOS but with itself, etc.

The new film is set in an alternate universe with a divergent history (as is the Mirror Universe), so your comparrisons above are meaningless. Elder Spock is TOS Spock though, just as Kirk, Uhura, McCoy, and Scotty were still themselves when they shunted into the MU. That was the intent of the film makers and most importantly of Leonard Nimoy himself.

You don't believe that. Fine. But you represent the smallest of minorities. I just hope that in whatever role you're playing in the new Concordance, you can do so without the bias and hyperbole you've consistantly shown here.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm not writing it, so don't worry. I'll certainly make my concerns known, and suggest what I think is the best way to deal with a given subject (I would think "Rightful Heir" should be included, for instance), but if Bjo says something is in or out, I'm certainly not in a position to override her. If it's out, it's out. If it's in, my job is to put it in the way Bjo wants it in.

What I'm saying here is how I see it going down once the final analysis is in, that it'll be in, but because of the alternate timeline aspect, it'll be off to the side.

Look on the bright side, if this were a new edition of the Encyclopedia, the ruling would much more harsh, thanks to all the inconsistencies and contradictions. And I wouldn't have to raise a finger for that to come about.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Fair enough.

 

[TheAlmanac]

And the last Concordance did not include "Rightful Heir," featuring a recast Kahless (and it came out after that episode, and did include DS9: "Blood Oath" from a year later).

Kahless is kind of a weird case, though, since they're technically two different roles, "Excalbian Illusion of Kahless" and "Genetic Clone of Kahless." I'm not sure I would've made the same call, but I can see why someone might say it's not the same character.

That's different, to my eyes, from "undeniably TOS" characters (Cochrane, T'Pau) shown at a different point in their lives and thus recast.

So if this edition follows the same parameters, I'd think the answer would be that it would only include productions featuring the return of actual TOS cast members. So I think the only additions to what was covered in the last version would be "The Sword of Kahless," "Once More Unto the Breach," "Flashback," and the new movie (since Nimoy is in it).

What about "Trials and Tribble-ations?"

"In a Mirror, Darkly" also presents a weird case, since it's a very direct follow-up to a TOS episode, and (sort of) includes a TOS character by having Zefram Cochrane in the teaser...

 

[OmahaStar]

I'm not writing it

Ok, I don't know you, and am unfamiliar with your posting habits. All I know of you is what I've read in this thread. I'm curious. What's with all the over the top, frothing-at-the-mouth venomous hatred you've been spewing? I get it, you are not a fan of the movie. Why do you feel the need to post this in such a hate-filled way in a thread which is about a book, not a movie? Is there a point you mistakenly believe you're making?

 

[seigezunt]

It's still debatable just how much these characters still qualify as TOS characters;

Oh give me an effing break. This is exactly the kind of petty attitude about the new movie that will doom this particular project.

Bjo deserves better than this.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Oh sure but both acted along the TOS cast. While those appeared in with the TNG and ENT casts.

I would personally hope they would be included.

Star Trek : First Contact. - For Cochrane but as a bonus for the First Contact with the Vulcans which is relevant to TOS specific lore.

Enterprise - The Vulcan Trilogy from season 4. With T'Pau and Surak. Also for similar plot relevancy to TOS

A grayer issuer would be the Mirror Universe episodes of ENT. Which featured the Defiant. Of course that also raises the question of the DS9 Mirror episodes which feature no actual TOS characters.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And the last Concordance did not include "Rightful Heir," featuring a recast Kahless (and it came out after that episode, and did include DS9: "Blood Oath" from a year later). So if this edition follows the same parameters, I'd think the answer would be that it would only include productions featuring the return of actual TOS cast members. So I think the only additions to what was covered in the last version would be "The Sword of Kahless," "Once More Unto the Breach," "Flashback," and the new movie (since Nimoy is in it).

Whoops! I missed the last page of comments when i made my newest reply.

I had forgotten about the recast of Kahless in TNG. Did not realize the timing of that episode was before the last book.

Don't forget "Trials and Tribble-ations". It qualifies because of Charlie Brill as the older Arne Darvin.

 

[Christopher]

^Right about "Trials" -- also because it contains footage from "The Trouble With Tribbles." I missed that one.

 

[Therin of Andor]

What's with all the over the top, frothing-at-the-mouth venomous hatred you've been spewing?

Too, too funny!

 

[seigezunt]

but because of the alternate timeline aspect, it'll be off to the side.

So Enterprise, which had a timeline off of First Contact, also be written out of your expurgated "more Trekky than thou" account?

 

[Turtletrekker]

What's with all the over the top, frothing-at-the-mouth venomous hatred you've been spewing?

Too, too funny!

Agreed. Wow. Just--wow.

 

[Captain Robert April]

but because of the alternate timeline aspect, it'll be off to the side.

So Enterprise, which had a timeline off of First Contact, also be written out of your expurgated "more Trekky than thou" account?

It'll take more than idle chatter from Brannon Braga to shunt Enterprise to the side. It was never explicitly said on screen that it's an alternate timeline (like was done with JJTrek), most of the more egregious boners were dealt with in the fourth season, and those left over can be considered resolved when Archer resolved the Temporal Cold War and fixed the timeline.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Just checked my copy of the '95 version, and the TNG section only goes up as far as "Relics", the only DS9 episode is "Blood Oath". No Voyager.

We've got a lot of stuff to update.

For TNG, we still need "Rightful Heir" (I suspect its omission was a simple oversight).

For DS9, we need "Crossover" (at least a mention, since it relates directly to actions begun in "Mirror, Mirror", complete with a direct reference to Kirk and Spock), "The Sword of Kahless", "Trials And Tribble-ations", and "Once More Unto the Breach".

For Voyager, "Flashback" and maybe a mention of "Q2" for its mention of Kirk's five year mission, and whenever the hologram of Leonardo da Vinci shows up ("Requiem For Methuselah").

For Enterprise, "Broken Bow", "Fight or Flight" (the appearance of the Axanar, first mentioned in "Court Martial" and "Whom Gods Destroy"), "Catwalk" (T'Pol mentions undergoing the kahs-wan ritual), "Future Tense" (the speculation that they might have found the remains of Zefrem Cochrane), "Judgment" (the scenes on Rura Penthe), "The Forge", "Awakening", and "Kir'Shara" (all those appearances by T'Pau and Surak), maybe "Affliction" and "Divergence", for the origin of the non-ridged Klingons, and "In a Mirror, Darkly".

And then, there's JJ's movie.

From there, the list gets pruned, if necessary, by Bjo.