Time Frame From Star Trek 2 - 4

[Christopher]

I think if it had been Edith, it might've made it too obvious to Kirk too early what was going on. (Although the novelization asserts that he did revisit Edith, Carol, and other people from his past, and that Picard just happened to show up while he was in an Antonia fantasy instead of one of the others.)

Me, I would have just mentioned "Carol" or "Gillian," neither of whom we were ever likely to see again anyway and whom don't require a lot of exposition. If audiences recognized the names from the earlier movies, cool. If not, no harm done.

Carol, maybe (though I never liked Bibi Besch much), but I never really thought that Gillian was interested in Kirk. It seemed to me (though maybe the novelization is coloring my recollection) that whatever flirtation he attempted with her pretty much bombed, either because she was too focused on the whales to be interested in romance or because he was a couple of decades too old for her. Yeah, she did kiss him goodbye at the end, but it felt more like a friendly gesture than a burgeoning love affair.

 

[22 Stars]

Yes, the end of IV shows a friendly kiss-off, very rare for Kirk, and his look of befuddlement always gets a laugh, like 'wait... you mean I DIDN'T get the girl in this one!'

 

[Iamnotspock]

Carol, maybe (though I never liked Bibi Besch much), but I never really thought that Gillian was interested in Kirk. It seemed to me (though maybe the novelization is coloring my recollection) that whatever flirtation he attempted with her pretty much bombed, either because she was too focused on the whales to be interested in romance or because he was a couple of decades too old for her. Yeah, she did kiss him goodbye at the end, but it felt more like a friendly gesture than a burgeoning love affair.

I wouldn't say it felt like a burgeoning love affair either but I think there was at least some attraction once Gillian knew the truth about Kirk, and that he wasn't just some madman who claims to be from the future. The turning point, I think, is the moment when he quotes Whales Weep Not, and she looks at him like a kindred spirit.

It's obviously not enough though...

Yes, the end of IV shows a friendly kiss-off, very rare for Kirk, and his look of befuddlement always gets a laugh, like 'wait... you mean I DIDN'T get the girl in this one!'

Indeed. It's like the 23rd Century equivalent of;
Kirk: "Hey, can I have your number?"
Gillian: "Don't worry, I'll call you."
Kirk: "But you don't have my..."
Gillian: (halfway to the shuttle port) "Bye!"

 

[RPJOB]

I think if it had been Edith, it might've made it too obvious to Kirk too early what was going on. (Although the novelization asserts that he did revisit Edith, Carol, and other people from his past, and that Picard just happened to show up while he was in an Antonia fantasy instead of one of the others.)

Me, I would have just mentioned "Carol" or "Gillian," neither of whom we were ever likely to see again anyway and whom don't require a lot of exposition. If audiences recognized the names from the earlier movies, cool. If not, no harm done.

Carol, maybe (though I never liked Bibi Besch much), but I never really thought that Gillian was interested in Kirk. It seemed to me (though maybe the novelization is coloring my recollection) that whatever flirtation he attempted with her pretty much bombed, either because she was too focused on the whales to be interested in romance or because he was a couple of decades too old for her. Yeah, she did kiss him goodbye at the end, but it felt more like a friendly gesture than a burgeoning love affair.

You just shuffle things around a bit and have the "aha!" moment be the appearance of Edith instead of the horse jumping the ditch moment. Kirk & Picard return to the cabin, Kirk see's Edith and then realizes what's going on.

It was our last look at Kirk and it just felt a little hollow that the greatest love of Kirk's life is someone we'd never heard of. Is it in keeping in previous lost loves showing up? Yes it is. However, it could have been a defining moment for the character and the fans, finally finding out which woman was Kirk's greatest love. Making it Edith wouldn't have affected how things played out for the non-fans but I would imagine that the fans would have given out a cheer or shed a tear when it was revealed to be Edith.

In a movie about lost opportunities it would have made a much more emotional impact for those who knew the back story. Would the loss of Robert and Rene have been as great if TNG had never done Family?

 

[Christopher]

You just shuffle things around a bit and have the "aha!" moment be the appearance of Edith instead of the horse jumping the ditch moment. Kirk & Picard return to the cabin, Kirk see's Edith and then realizes what's going on.

Okay, and how the hell do they get a 34-year-old Joan Collins to appear in a movie made when she was over 60? There's a difference between what would be nice to do and what's actually possible within the limitations of the real world.

 

[RPJOB]

Why so angry? It's a discussion about a movie.

How good a look did we actually get at Antonia? This good.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1859.jpg

You could do something similar with Edith. Put an actress in period dress on top of the hill. Maybe give her a basket of flowers or something instead of the horse.

It's not like they decided they couldn't show Cochrane in First Contact because Glenn Corbett was dead. Who says it would HAVE to be Joan Collins and even if it were you could shoot her from a distance so her age isn't apparent if need be.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not angry. "How the hell" was just an expression of the extreme unlikelihood of the premise.

And if you're not going to see her face anyway, what does it matter whether it's Edith or Antonia? Wouldn't it be a complete waste of the Edith Keeler character to treat her so cavalierly?

 

[22 Stars]

I say it would have been a nice touch to call the character Edith instead. I expected it, in that moment and was disappointed they didn't. It's a bit fan-boy but I would have liked it.

And it could have been an older mature, imaginary Joan Collins that lived, or some use of CG enhancement if you prefer.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I think if it had been Edith, it It was our last look at Kirk and it just felt a little hollow that the greatest love of Kirk's life is someone we'd never heard of. Is it in keeping in previous lost loves showing up? Yes it is. However, it could have been a defining moment for the character and the fans, finally finding out which woman was Kirk's greatest love. Making it Edith wouldn't have affected how things played out for the non-fans but I would imagine that the fans would have given out a cheer or shed a tear when it was revealed to be Edith.

In a movie about lost opportunities it would have made a much more emotional impact for those who knew the back story. Would the loss of Robert and Rene have been as great if TNG had never done Family?

This is basically how I felt about it.

How good a look did we actually get at Antonia? This good.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1859.jpg

You could do something similar with Edith. Put an actress in period dress on top of the hill. Maybe give her a basket of flowers or something instead of the horse.

It's not like they decided they couldn't show Cochrane in First Contact because Glenn Corbett was dead. Who says it would HAVE to be Joan Collins and even if it were you could shoot her from a distance so her age isn't apparent if need be.

This.

 

[Iamnotspock]

And it could have been an older mature, imaginary Joan Collins that lived, or some use of CG enhancement if you prefer.

Not in 1994.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I prefer RPJOB's suggestions.

 

[Christopher]

You know, I think it's only reasonable to assume that the screenwriters did consider using Edith or someone else from Kirk's past, but decided for narrative or pragmatic reasons that it had to be a new love interest. Screenwriters spend months coming up with film screenplays, and they devote far more thought and care to it than a bunch of fanboys engaged in idle chatter on the Internet. And surely we all know what a devoted TOS fan Ron Moore is, so it would be ludicrous to think he was somehow unaware of these possibilities. I'm sure all the options under discussion here occurred to the screenwriters, but turned out not to be feasible.

 

[RPJOB]

And it could have been an older mature, imaginary Joan Collins that lived, or some use of CG enhancement if you prefer.

Not in 1994.

Kirk could have imagined that he rescued her from 1930 whatever and she returned with him to the 23rd century where they grew old together. Voila, she's aged the same as Kirk. Let's not forget that this isn't the real Edith, it's Kirk's perception of Edith.

 

[RPJOB]

You know, I think it's only reasonable to assume that the screenwriters did consider using Edith or someone else from Kirk's past, but decided for narrative or pragmatic reasons that it had to be a new love interest. Screenwriters spend months coming up with film screenplays, and they devote far more thought and care to it than a bunch of fanboys engaged in idle chatter on the Internet. And surely we all know what a devoted TOS fan Ron Moore is, so it would be ludicrous to think he was somehow unaware of these possibilities. I'm sure all the options under discussion here occurred to the screenwriters, but turned out not to be feasible.

In my first mention of turning Antonia into Edith I started out saying "If it were me" not "This is what Ron Moore should have done". I'm not Ron Moore and I never claimed to be. However, that doesn't mean we can't look at a film and imagine what it would be like if there had been some minor changes.

And is it really adding anything to the conversation by ridiculing the idea of Star Trek fans discussing a Star Trek movie on a Star Trek message board in the movie topic? Isn't that exactly what his has been set up for? It's not like we're calling Moore a hack and insisting that Generations-R insert Edith over Antonia using CGI and then edit the movie as we said. We're just discussing possibilities and what could have beens. Maybe we need a CGI Christopher saying "Get a life" ala Shatner on SNL.

Is there anything else about the movie we shouldn't discuss?

It's all in fun Christopher. Nothing more to it.

 

[Christopher]

I just think that a discussion of "what might have been" should take the realistic limitations on a production into account. Sometimes what "might have been" actually couldn't have been because it would've actually been impossible to achieve in practice.

If people are just idly musing about possibilities in a fantasy world, that's one thing. But too often, fans turn it into attacks on the competence or judgment of the writers and producers, and that's often grossly unfair because it fails to consider the real-world limitations they had to work around. If you mean it all in good fun, I appreciate that. But not everyone is so good-natured about it in my experience.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I haven't seen anyone attack the competence or judgment of the writers. We're just saying what we would rather have seen or why the scene didn't work for us. You're the one bandying about terms like 'fanboys' and 'idle chatter.'

 

[Christopher]

Okay, I'm sorry. I've seen it done many times in years past, so I'm sensitive about it.

And I guess I'm too aware of the filmmaking/creative process to be able to think about the topic "what I'd like to see in a movie" as separate from "what's logistically/practically achievable in a movie." The practical limitations and compromises are just too fundamental a part of the film/TV production process, as opposed to prose fiction where you can do just about anything. As a writer myself, I look at a work from the creators' point of view, so I'm thinking more in terms of the thought process that went into it than in terms of what an audience might've liked to see in the abstract.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I know the sort of posts you're referring to but I think that this thread has been conducted in a civilized and well-argued manner all round.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Sooooo, as far as the timeline of the three "Genesis Trilogy" films, there are a couple of questions that arise by having Kirk and co being stuck on Vulcan for 3 months after stealing the Enterprise:

1) Vulcan is a member of the Federation. There were no extradition procedures? They couldn't just insist the crew come back to face charges? Or send someone to get them? McCoy says they "could have at least sent a ship" but why didn't they? I know Sarek owes Kirk and his guys a big debt, and probably bought them some time, but it hardly seems like a delay would help their case.

2) Saavik was not implicated in any wrongdoing. She was the sole survivor of the Grissom. Surely she would need to be debriefed ASAP. Would Starfleet just let her hang around for 3 plus months? Yes, the original idea was that she stayed behind because she was pregnant, but that never made the final cut and that wouldn't prevent her from having to report. Yes, she could have been debriefed and took some leave, but it was never mentioned.

3) It took Saavik 3 months to say some vague words to Kirk about David? 3 months to finally get around to telling Kirk what he already knew?

4) I understand the necessity of presenting an operational BoP to Starfleet, but why do all this work to drive home from Vulcan? Why completely reconfigure the bridge for such a short trip? And what happened that the BoP needed 3 months of repairs? It seemed in pretty damned good shape at the end of III. Did Scotty do most of the work alone? Surely Vulcan is as advanced, if not more, in starship repair. And how does it help the Starfleet Engineers study the enemy ship if Scotty made so many changes?

5) After 3 months, Chekov is the only person to change clothes? Maybe it's not the Klingon stench McCoy needs to cloak…

Yes, I see the need to have some kind of time go by, I guess to explain why Kirk and Scotty put on so much weight and look older. But without those 3 months, most, if not all, of these points would be erased. Spock could still be seen as just as recovered in a week as 3 months (those damned Vulcans shake these thing off so quickly).

Anyway this is what pops in my head after watching the film a couple times too often.

 

[RPJOB]

You're the one that brought the writers into it. I was still very much in the "I think it would have been cool if..." area of discussion. I don't recall anyone bringing up the judgement or competence of the writers until you did now. But, I guess that now kills the discussion. Pity.

However, I fail to see how a discussion of changing one non-speaking character and how that would have affected the emotional impact of the film can be considered disparaging.