Too many stories...
- Thread starter Neopeius
- Start date
Chekov gives his age in the dialog in Who Mourns for Adonais? Kirk states his in The Deadly Years. Whether or not those are good episodes is up to you to decide.
I'm not really all that hung up on it, since it is pretty much a new take on it all. But keeping a character's established age internally consistent is also a part of good storytelling. It's having respect for those who DO pay attention to details. Does it kill the story? Naaaah, but it sticks out as something for continuity buffs to complain about. Whether or not "it is a reboot, with just a fig leaf of time-travel", that fig leaf is still a story point. If you personally want to ignore certain points to smooth over rough spots, that's your choice, but other like to have consistency. It shows the writers and producers did their homework and cared enough to pay attention to details. Will the general audience care? Of course not, but they don't care about ANY continuity details. Yet the writers still added a bunch for the fans. They made this change to get Chekov in the film, so be it. It just happens to bug some people. So be that too.
But, I don't let it ruin the movie experience. It's not nearly as bad as making Kirk the Enterprise captain before he graduates from the academy. ;-)
I'm not really all that hung up on it, since it is pretty much a new take on it all. But keeping a character's established age internally consistent is also a part of good storytelling. It's having respect for those who DO pay attention to details. Does it kill the story? Naaaah, but it sticks out as something for continuity buffs to complain about. Whether or not "it is a reboot, with just a fig leaf of time-travel", that fig leaf is still a story point. If you personally want to ignore certain points to smooth over rough spots, that's your choice, but other like to have consistency. It shows the writers and producers did their homework and cared enough to pay attention to details. Will the general audience care? Of course not, but they don't care about ANY continuity details. Yet the writers still added a bunch for the fans. They made this change to get Chekov in the film, so be it. It just happens to bug some people. So be that too.
But, I don't let it ruin the movie experience. It's not nearly as bad as making Kirk the Enterprise captain before he graduates from the academy. ;-)
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 . . . .
See... you're a writer, you know what it's like. If you write a novel and tell me that it's supposed to be a comedy, then it is. Why should you be lying about your own intentions? And I'm going to judge it by your statements, why shouldn't I? The whole point of getting Leonard Nimoy to play old Spock was to make clear that it's connected to the original universe, not only the real franchise, but the fictional universe. That's why there's a comic book out there that connect TNG with Star Trek 2009. That's why there's Star Trek Online that connects TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT with Star Trek 2009.
It's not ten years, it's two.
Prime Chekov is 22 years old in 2265 - Who Mourns for Adonais
Abramsverse Chekov is 17 years old in 2258 - Star Trek 2009
Which makes Prime Chekov 15 in 2258 or Abramsverse Chekov 24 in 2265.
Greg,
If they hadn't sold us this film as a prequel/sequel to what came before it really wouldn't matter. But since they did sell it that way they could at least be consistent with what came before.
And Dayton's explanation is probably the best you can do when explaining the discrepancy.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
he's adorable nuchekov he's awesome what were your thoughts on him
My thoughts exactly.
Live action Star Trek is done as far as TOS is concerned. The only way for new stories to be consistent with it is as novels, comics and/or an animated series or film. Only an animated show or film could be seriously criticized for being consistent with continuity (assuming it was meant to consistent be in the first place).
Recently I enjoyed IDW Comics Star Trek: Romulans by John Byrne. I felt it read very much like an authentic TOS story. Even so I don't accept is as official because there are too many coincidences and convenient name dropping in it. Even so it was a fun read. I feel the same way about many of the TOS novels I read in the '70s and '80s and early '90s.
Recently I enjoyed IDW Comics Star Trek: Romulans by John Byrne. I felt it read very much like an authentic TOS story. Even so I don't accept is as official because there are too many coincidences and convenient name dropping in it. Even so it was a fun read. I feel the same way about many of the TOS novels I read in the '70s and '80s and early '90s.
The only character that reminded me of the original was McCoy. Strangely enough, Urban was the only actor who walked on the set with the intention to channel DeForest Kelley's performance. All the other actors were all about re-inventing what their predecessors did before.
Pine-Kirk doesn't behave at all like Shatner-Kirk. Which can be explained because Nero killed his father, and he never had to live through the Tarsus IV massacre, and he went straight from cadet to Captain, so he will never be the Lieutenant who takes command of the Farragut when the Cloud attacks.
I found Quinto-Spock to be very different from Nimoy-Spock, but there's no explanation given. I never got the impression that TOS-Spock was mentally instable. What I found the most odd was the direct comparison between Quinto and Nimoy. Nimoy's voice is so iconic, Spock is not the same character without this distinct voice. In a movie that has a meeting of the young and old version of the same character, I'd regard this as a big casting error. Either they should have cast an old actor with a soft voice similar to Quinto's, or a young actor with a distinct voice similar to Nimoy's.
Sulu started out as a physicist in TOS, before Kirk transferred him. In this movie he started as the helmsman.
Scotty, yeah. TOS Scotty was serious enough to be capable of commanding the Enterprise when Spock and Kirk were not available. Pegg-Scotty didn't give me that impression AT ALL.
I think Uhura is totally messed up by the Small Universe Syndrom this movie extremely suffers from. She not only meets Kirk in Iowa, takes part in Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test along with McCoy, she's also the room mate of Kirk's affair, and has an affair herself with Spock, who happens to be the one who programmed Kobayashi Maru.
And I never thought Uhura was a linguist, she was a communications specialist. She couldn't speak Klingon because that's what the universal translator is for, but she was capable of modulating alien signals according to salinity, depth and pressure in Earth's oceans. ENT's Hoshi was a linguist, needed when the universal translator wasn't invented yet. 100 years later, in TNG, both the linguist and communications specialist part were integrated into the computer, so that Worf had only to push one single button to submit "We come in peace." in all possible languages on all possible frequencies.
Chekov never was a Wesley Crusher type superkid. Which is explained within the movie because he isn't TOS-Chekov, he is someone who has been born 2 years earlier and has been named Pavel Chekov.
The problem is, Kirk and Pike are the only characters whose changes can be explained by Nero's time travel, because they were directly affected by the Kelvin's destruction. All the others should have been unaffected. McCoy is unaffected, for example. The rest of the characters is strangely misbehaving without any explanation given.
Pine-Kirk doesn't behave at all like Shatner-Kirk. Which can be explained because Nero killed his father, and he never had to live through the Tarsus IV massacre, and he went straight from cadet to Captain, so he will never be the Lieutenant who takes command of the Farragut when the Cloud attacks.
I found Quinto-Spock to be very different from Nimoy-Spock, but there's no explanation given. I never got the impression that TOS-Spock was mentally instable. What I found the most odd was the direct comparison between Quinto and Nimoy. Nimoy's voice is so iconic, Spock is not the same character without this distinct voice. In a movie that has a meeting of the young and old version of the same character, I'd regard this as a big casting error. Either they should have cast an old actor with a soft voice similar to Quinto's, or a young actor with a distinct voice similar to Nimoy's.
Sulu started out as a physicist in TOS, before Kirk transferred him. In this movie he started as the helmsman.
Scotty, yeah. TOS Scotty was serious enough to be capable of commanding the Enterprise when Spock and Kirk were not available. Pegg-Scotty didn't give me that impression AT ALL.
I think Uhura is totally messed up by the Small Universe Syndrom this movie extremely suffers from. She not only meets Kirk in Iowa, takes part in Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test along with McCoy, she's also the room mate of Kirk's affair, and has an affair herself with Spock, who happens to be the one who programmed Kobayashi Maru.
And I never thought Uhura was a linguist, she was a communications specialist. She couldn't speak Klingon because that's what the universal translator is for, but she was capable of modulating alien signals according to salinity, depth and pressure in Earth's oceans. ENT's Hoshi was a linguist, needed when the universal translator wasn't invented yet. 100 years later, in TNG, both the linguist and communications specialist part were integrated into the computer, so that Worf had only to push one single button to submit "We come in peace." in all possible languages on all possible frequencies.
Chekov never was a Wesley Crusher type superkid. Which is explained within the movie because he isn't TOS-Chekov, he is someone who has been born 2 years earlier and has been named Pavel Chekov.
The problem is, Kirk and Pike are the only characters whose changes can be explained by Nero's time travel, because they were directly affected by the Kelvin's destruction. All the others should have been unaffected. McCoy is unaffected, for example. The rest of the characters is strangely misbehaving without any explanation given.
^Way to totally miss the point of a reimagined Star Trek!
It's not reimagined, it's a sequel to TOS and TNG taking place in an alternate universe.
Hey guys! Can we stop arguing about Chekhov's age for a second? The Doctor Who forum's calling--they want to talk about how to definitively date the UNIT stories.
I understand that some people take this more seriously than I do, but for me Chekhov's age didn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie the first time I saw it. (I'm not saying that nothing else did...but that's not the point of this thread, so I'll let it go at that.)
And it's secondary to the OP, which is: is there still life in the original Star Trek? Can the original characters be used to tell stories that are compelling? Or has that well been pumped dry?
BTW, I can appreciate the difference of opinion here, because it makes me think more critically about what I value in Trek storytelling.
I understand that some people take this more seriously than I do, but for me Chekhov's age didn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie the first time I saw it. (I'm not saying that nothing else did...but that's not the point of this thread, so I'll let it go at that.)
And it's secondary to the OP, which is: is there still life in the original Star Trek? Can the original characters be used to tell stories that are compelling? Or has that well been pumped dry?
BTW, I can appreciate the difference of opinion here, because it makes me think more critically about what I value in Trek storytelling.
No, it's a reboot but one trying to have its cake and eat it too. There is no honest connection between ST09 and TOS.
It's not reimagined, it's a sequel to TOS and TNG taking place in an alternate universe.
People do like to follow characters and actors. Has there ever been an anthology-type TV series that has been a ratings winner? Any of the "Twilight Zone" or "Outer Limits" series and remakes often received critical acclaim, and are usually fondly remembered. The focus has to be clearly upon the story being told, or the character arc of that one episode's featured star, but who cares/notices if you've missed an episode?
No, it's a reboot but one trying to have its cake and eat it too. There is no honest connection between ST09 and TOS.
It's not reimagined, it's a sequel to TOS and TNG taking place in an alternate universe.
I believe Leonard Nimoy would disagree with that. And since he's been involved with Star Trek in a professional capacity for over four decades, I think that trumps what you just said.
I do not agree with the idea of the thread title.
In the Star Trek universe, outer space is supposed to be fascinating and full of wonderful things, instead of dead and boring like it is in the real-world.
As such, it makes sense in the story world for there to be tons of interesting adventures for the same one crew exploring outer space.
Having said that, an anthology show with new crews every week wouldn't have made much difference since the characters on TOS receive no development whatsoever, and indeed cannot because they are hamstrung by the show's primitive episodic format.
But the anthology style also carries the problems of regularly having worse actors and/or less interesting characters than say, Spock. Therefore, better to fix the problems with the format of the existing show rather than make any anthology style show with new crews.
Too many interesting adventures for one spacefaring crew is not a problem, though.
In the Star Trek universe, outer space is supposed to be fascinating and full of wonderful things, instead of dead and boring like it is in the real-world.
As such, it makes sense in the story world for there to be tons of interesting adventures for the same one crew exploring outer space.
Having said that, an anthology show with new crews every week wouldn't have made much difference since the characters on TOS receive no development whatsoever, and indeed cannot because they are hamstrung by the show's primitive episodic format.
But the anthology style also carries the problems of regularly having worse actors and/or less interesting characters than say, Spock. Therefore, better to fix the problems with the format of the existing show rather than make any anthology style show with new crews.
Too many interesting adventures for one spacefaring crew is not a problem, though.
^ What he said (other than the idea that the episodic format is "primitive"). See my comment on a previous page. Generally, the plots were not about the regular cast (remember when tv episodes contained actual stories, each of which had a plot?)
I think the OP should just stop reading and watching SERIAL FICTION.
Similar threads
