Too many stories...

[Kelso]

No, I don't tire of the adventures of Kirk, Spock and the gang. I don't even care if the adventures are consistent with each other, I just want them to be entertaining.

 

[Warped9]

TOS is the original 79 jewels even if some of them are a bit rough. For me they're the essential source materiel, the essential mythology if you will.

That doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy other stories of the the TOS crew in their era. I've enjoyed numerous books of the original characters even if I don't accept them as the part of the essential continuity.

For me TOS is the original and the real Star Trek. Everything is is an adaptation, some of which I enjoy and some I don't. Yet none of it can change what the original is.

 

[Neopeius]

This may sound silly, but I really don't want to see any more Kirk/Enterprise stories.

Don't get me wrong. I love TOS. I love the crew. I love the Enterprise.

But do the math--79 episodes in 3 (or 5) years. That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty. Most ships, even in wartime, get a dozen memorable stories.. maybe.

?

Yeah, but that's reality. In fiction, Columbo or Sherlock Holmes encounter a devious "perfect murder" every other week or so. And nobody on GREY'S ANATOMY ever performs a routine appendectomy, just risky, ground-breaking surgeries. And tv cops pull their guns every week even though a real cop can go for years without getting into a gunfight with a brilliant serial killer.

And amazing things happen to the crew of the ENTERPRISE every week . . .

So what? It's not realistic, but that's how series fictions works.

I don't disagree! Just telling you what I'd like to see.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I agree, but for a different reason. I don't have a problem with cramming a bunch of stories into a short time period. It was already pretty crazy to have the amount of crazy things happen to them in such a short time.

But I'd rather have them move on and tell new stories about new character, or even better just end Trek. All good things...

 

[Captain Rob]

I got it. Again.
Let's do a different show featuring the U.S.S. Reluctant. A 100 year old Kelvin class StarFleet transport plying the back waters of the Federation during the Dominion War. Based loosely on the film "Mr. Roberts", the captain, an aging lieutenant commander desparately chasing promotion leads his ship from port to port delivering the must mundane of supplies. Such as geniune Earth toothpaste and toilet paper. All the while the first officer, a lieutenant wishing for a transfer to combat duty, running his crew of 30 rejects on a mostly automated cargo ship. Each episode being more boring than the previous one. "This week's episode: The Ultimate Computer Virus."
Any takers?

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I got it. Again.
Let's do a different show featuring the U.S.S. Reluctant. A 100 year old Kelvin class StarFleet transport plying the back waters of the Federation during the Dominion War. Based loosely on the film "Mr. Roberts", the captain, an aging lieutenant commander desparately chasing promotion leads his ship from port to port delivering the must mundane of supplies. Such as geniune Earth toothpaste and toilet paper. All the while the first officer, a lieutenant wishing for a transfer to combat duty, running his crew of 30 rejects on a mostly automated cargo ship. Each episode being more boring than the previous one. "This week's episode: The Ultimate Computer Virus."
Any takers?

Sounds like the 70s show Quark.

 

[OmahaStar]

Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person

Oh? By whom?

 

[Shatnertage]

Imagine if the whole show was the stuff that they're usually doing, like charting stellar anomalies and going to trade negotiations, before the plot kicks in. That would be...a little dry.

 

[JarodRussell]

Imagine if the whole show was the stuff that they're usually doing, like charting stellar anomalies and going to trade negotiations, before the plot kicks in. That would be...a little dry.

Would be fun though, for one episode or so.

 

[A beaker full of death]

This may sound silly, but I really don't want to see any more Kirk/Enterprise stories.

Don't get me wrong. I love TOS. I love the crew. I love the Enterprise.

But do the math--79 episodes in 3 (or 5) years. That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty. Most ships, even in wartime, get a dozen memorable stories.. maybe.

Cramming more stories into the same Crew just beggars the imagination!

That's why I've always been a big fan of an Anthology Trek--following a different Crew every episode (whether on screen or in written fiction). That's why Exeter was so promising. I want to see all the ships of the Federation, from the freighters to the Battlewagons.

Anyone else feel this way?

You presume that the stories need to be about Kirk or his crew. Often they were merely our entree into a story that had nothing to do with them -- something later Treks didn't understand. You can't destroy your dramatic hero's life every week. That's why so many of the better episodes were about the guest characters. At its best, it practically was an anthology series.

 

[BillJ]

Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person

Oh? By whom?

Wouldn't he have to be?

The Star Trek 2009 version is roughly two years older than his Prime universe counterpart.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ I chalk that up to Daddy Chekov being a Kelvin survivor and, happy to be home in one piece, gets busy with the old lady earlier than he might have been had the ship stuck to its original mission/schedule.

(I mean, that sounds better than "The writers can't do math," right?)

 

[jwb]

I think the original series left a ton of great stories untold, which is one reason why the films starring Kirk and company had a higher batting average (hit-wise) than TNG (which did most of their best work while the series was on the air and didn't have as much territory to explore by the time the films came around.) That said, I think your anthology idea is an interesting one and would love to see it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person

Oh? By whom?

Wouldn't he have to be?

The Star Trek 2009 version is roughly two years older than his Prime universe counterpart.

That's just trivia. He's simply a new variation on an old character. If a Sherlock Holmes movie makes Watson a little older or younger this time around, it doesn't mean Holmes has a brand new partner. They're just tinkering with the character a little, as always happens when a new adaptation takes place. Or a character gets recast.

Dr. Frankenstein's fiancee was blonde in the original 1931 movie, but a brunette in the sequel. (Because they recast the part.) Does that mean that she's a whole different person? And that Henry broke up with the one fiancee and got engaged to different girl with the same name when nobody was looking?

Chekov is Chekov. Minor details like his birth date don't change that.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The Star Trek 2009 version is roughly two years older than his Prime universe counterpart.

Actually, Series Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk. That would make NuChekov about 10 years older than Series Chekov. Or something.

That's just trivia. He's simply a new variation on an old character. If a Sherlock Holmes movie makes Watson a little older or younger this time around, it doesn't mean Holmes has a brand new partner. They're just tinkering with the character a little, as always happens when a new adaptation takes place. Or a character gets recast.

Chekov is Chekov. Minor details like his birth date don't change that.

If they were doing a straight re-imagining of the concept, I'd agree. But they went to all the trouble to point out that everyone's lives were changed because of one temporal incursion, so they are supposed to be the same people. A 10 year age change is not minor in that case, and the implication is that the death of George Kirk caused Pavel Chekov to be born a decade earlier. That's one hell of a specific butterfly effect.

The differences in Frankenstein vs Bride were done long before continuity was a concern for people. I'm sure most people didn't notice. These days, pains are taken to keep the actors similar to a degree. Besides, they didn't replaced Mae Clarke with Mae West or someone older. They kept the actresses somewhat close in age.

Honestly, I really wish they just went with a straight reboot rather than selling it as an altered-timeline sequel. Then none of this crap would be an issue.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Believe me, having Nimoy Spock have one last adventure makes it worth all the age and spaceship changes and continuity shakeups in the world (or rather, in two timelines!)

I really think it's easiest to say TOS Chekov was bullshitting when he said he was 21. I'm 26, and it hurts - but not quite enough to lie about it...yet

Btw, Chekov should have been 14 in 2258, going by the 1994 Star Trek Chronology.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I don't even know what years the original series is supposed to take place. Neither did they, so there ya go. ;-)

 

[Greg Cox]

The Star Trek 2009 version is roughly two years older than his Prime universe counterpart.

Actually, Series Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk. That would make NuChekov about 10 years older than Series Chekov. Or something.

That's just trivia. He's simply a new variation on an old character. If a Sherlock Holmes movie makes Watson a little older or younger this time around, it doesn't mean Holmes has a brand new partner. They're just tinkering with the character a little, as always happens when a new adaptation takes place. Or a character gets recast.

Chekov is Chekov. Minor details like his birth date don't change that.

If they were doing a straight re-imagining of the concept, I'd agree. But they went to all the trouble to point out that everyone's lives were changed because of one temporal incursion, so they are supposed to be the same people. A 10 year age change is not minor in that case, and the implication is that the death of George Kirk caused Pavel Chekov to be born a decade earlier. That's one hell of a specific butterfly effect.

.

But I don't recall the exact year that Koenig's Chekov was born ever being a major plot point in the old series or movies. Unless you look it up on wikipedia or something, how is a viewer even supposed to know that this Chekov wasn't born the same year as the earlier version?

In terms of the narrative, he's the same character: the impetuous young Russian ensign with the comically broad accent, who sits next to Sulu on the bridge. If he looks like Chekov, and talks like Chekov . . . he's Chekov.

Why get hung up on minutiae that has no bearing on the plot? Who cares if this is the "same" Chekov? It's a STAR TREK movie. He's Chekov.

 

[JarodRussell]

The Star Trek 2009 version is roughly two years older than his Prime universe counterpart.

Actually, Series Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk. That would make NuChekov about 10 years older than Series Chekov. Or something.

That's just trivia. He's simply a new variation on an old character. If a Sherlock Holmes movie makes Watson a little older or younger this time around, it doesn't mean Holmes has a brand new partner. They're just tinkering with the character a little, as always happens when a new adaptation takes place. Or a character gets recast.

Chekov is Chekov. Minor details like his birth date don't change that.

If they were doing a straight re-imagining of the concept, I'd agree. But they went to all the trouble to point out that everyone's lives were changed because of one temporal incursion, so they are supposed to be the same people. A 10 year age change is not minor in that case, and the implication is that the death of George Kirk caused Pavel Chekov to be born a decade earlier. That's one hell of a specific butterfly effect.

.

But I don't recall the exact year that Koenig's Chekov was born ever being a major plot point in the old series or movies. Unless you look it up on wikipedia or something, how is a viewer even supposed to know that this Chekov wasn't born the same year as the earlier version?

In terms of the narrative, he's the same character: the impetuous young Russian ensign with the comically broad accent, who sits next to Sulu on the bridge. If he looks like Chekov, and talks like Chekov . . . he's Chekov.

Why get hung up on minutiae that has no bearing on the plot? Who cares if this is the "same" Chekov? It's a STAR TREK movie. He's Chekov.

Oh yeah. One time writers say look, it's a proper sequel and those are all the same characters because it stems from the TOS universe, but when they get the ages of the characters wrong by 10 years, it's okay because it's suddenly just a reimagination and it doesn't matter.


I wouldn't be complaining if it was supposed to be a Batman Begins or BSG style reboot, but the writers insisted on multiple ocassions that this was a sequel to all the Trek that came before.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually, Series Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk. That would make NuChekov about 10 years older than Series Chekov. Or something.



If they were doing a straight re-imagining of the concept, I'd agree. But they went to all the trouble to point out that everyone's lives were changed because of one temporal incursion, so they are supposed to be the same people. A 10 year age change is not minor in that case, and the implication is that the death of George Kirk caused Pavel Chekov to be born a decade earlier. That's one hell of a specific butterfly effect.

.

But I don't recall the exact year that Koenig's Chekov was born ever being a major plot point in the old series or movies. Unless you look it up on wikipedia or something, how is a viewer even supposed to know that this Chekov wasn't born the same year as the earlier version?

In terms of the narrative, he's the same character: the impetuous young Russian ensign with the comically broad accent, who sits next to Sulu on the bridge. If he looks like Chekov, and talks like Chekov . . . he's Chekov.

Why get hung up on minutiae that has no bearing on the plot? Who cares if this is the "same" Chekov? It's a STAR TREK movie. He's Chekov.

Oh yeah. One time writers say look, it's a proper sequel and those are all the same characters because it stems from the TOS universe, but when they get the ages of the characters wrong by 10 years, it's okay because it's suddenly just a reimagination and it doesn't matter.


I wouldn't be complaining if it was supposed to be a Batman Begins or BSG style reboot, but the writers insisted on multiple ocassions that this was a sequel to all the Trek that came before.

But, basically, it is a reboot, with just a fig leaf of time-travel. Let's not lose the forest for the trees. As I've written before, worrying about whether this is the "same" Chekov is kind of like worrying about how many Romulans can dance on the hand of a pin . . .

It's a meaningless abstraction that has nothing to do with telling a good story.

And why does Chekov's exact age even matter? It's like Elizabeth Frankenstein's hair color. It doesn't have anything to do with the plot and was probably ignored by 99.99% of the audience.

Maybe people are more hung up on continuity these days then they were back in the old days, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps people were simply more sensible back then, and didn't expect movies to be judged like encyclopedia entries . . . .