Try reading the rest of the post.
Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
- Status
Just because they never referenced them again didn't mean they were "officially" expunged from the continuity--to the degree that general audiences even care about such things.
As far as I know, no subsequent Star Trek movie or television episode has ever mentioned the events of "Spock's Brain" again, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's just that nobody was in a big hurry to bring the subject up again if they didn't have to.
Sometimes it's just easier to quietly "forget" about something instead of making a big deal deal about whether it's still "officially" part of the "continuity."
Hell, no "canonical" movie or TV episode has ever referenced Edith Keeler or the giant space amoeba either . . . .
Movies don't come with bibilographies or footnotes. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't need to reference the plot of SUPERMAN III any more than THE WRATH OF KHAN needed to acknowledge "Turnabout Intruder" or "The Way to Eden" . . . .
Everything that happened in the series happened in their movies past, regardless if they mentioned it or not. It wasn't like the movies took place in the middle of the series.
Then why couldn't SUPERMAN III have taken place sometime before SUPERMAN RETURNS--even if they didn't mention it?
I think Greg Cox has a good point. A failure to reference events does not necessitate disowning that part of continuity.
I'll add that announcements made when a movie is in development or coming out, that unpopular aspects of previous continuity won't be respected, can't be separated from the marketing consideration of not putting off moviegoers. Just because they may have said that III and IV were being ignored, that's not the same thing as saying that the events in SR contradicted the events in either of those films. Greg Cox's point is that, at least in the case of III, they didn't.
I'll add that announcements made when a movie is in development or coming out, that unpopular aspects of previous continuity won't be respected, can't be separated from the marketing consideration of not putting off moviegoers. Just because they may have said that III and IV were being ignored, that's not the same thing as saying that the events in SR contradicted the events in either of those films. Greg Cox's point is that, at least in the case of III, they didn't.
"Ignoring" is an ambiguous term. It doesn't necessarily mean: "We have made an Official Ruling that those movies DID NOT HAPPEN." It could just mean that "we're sure as hell not going to reference those particular movies or expect the average moviegoer to care about them."
One could just as easily say that the Trek movies "ignored" any number of old episodes. I don't recall Kirk and Spock reminiscing about "Catspaw" or "Spectre of the Gun" in any of the movies . . . or the Salt Vampire making a surprise appearance. Heck, in TUC, Kirk and McCoy act like they've never met a shapeshifter before . . . ,
Here's the thing: there's no reason anyone needs to absolutely, positively know what Superman (or Star Trek) movies are still "canon" to enjoy the latest adventure. Unless the plot specifically hinges on, the return of Gus Gorman, it really doesn't matter whether SUPERMAN III still "counts" or not. What matters is whether the new adventure is compelling and entertaining--not whether it does or does not fit into some imaginary continuity.
You want to leave something behind, you don't need to rewrite history. You just never mention it again.
But it's not like the Star Trek movie writers came out before the movie and pointed out what episodes will be ignored, Superman Returns writers did.
That's the fault of writers who were running short on imagination. It's not the fault of the series itself or the universe in which the series was set.
That's rather dismissive of everyone who has watched ST from the start (or at least who has seen TOS plus the later series). It's best not to go on the assumption that your target audience is stupid.
You use your imagination, same as all the novel authors who had to work within that restriction. If they'd thrown up their hands and whined, "This is impossible!!!" there would have been far fewer Star Trek novels.
Trying to sort out this paragraph...
Picard met McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, and Spock during the TV series. He met Kirk in the Generations movie.
Sisko met Kirk in a scene that was actually from Mirror, Mirror instead of The Trouble With Tribbles (Sisko was substituted for Marlena Moreau).
Janeway met Sulu and Rand.
Therefore, I am left wondering when all these other meetings happened?
If we're being honest, Star Trek began retelling stories while TOS was on the air by using plots and elements seen in previous episodes and by using plots that has been seen before, either in film, on TV or even in print. It what you do with the elements that make up a story that makes it "good" not if the elements have been seen before.
Of course they didn't say it was the next movie in the series after the Superman IV fiasco/train wreck, no matter what "their intentions" were. Superman III hadn't been exactly smooth sailing at the box office either. Somehow my point about not scaring off viewers didn't take.
Greg and this handsome fellow a few posts further up
It goes back before Voyager - Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a remake of "The Changeling"
Yet with all those novels, we knew everyone would be okay and tension was lost as a result. Introducing an element of doubt, no matter how small, goes a long way.
D'oh!
---
As far as being "short on imagination", whatever that really means, let's not forget that the very first episode filmed riffed Forbidden Planet up and down. Apologies in advance, if someone already mentioned that in this thread.
Gotta jump in again. Assuming that every viewer is not necessarily a hardcore Trek expert who knows the entire history of Star Trek backwards and forward does mean NOT mean you think they're "stupid."
It's just acknowledging that most of your audience is not obsessed with "timelines" and "canon"--and there's no reason they should be. The world is full of smart people who may just have a casual interest in STAR TREK. And your "target audience" is going to run the full spectrum from first-time viewers to lifelong fans. And your goal should be to appeal to all of the above, not just the folks at either end of the spectrum.
As I've written before, Trek is not just for us Trekkies. And "accessible" is not a dirty word.
Last edited:
I'm quite aware that many Trek fans don't know every last detail. My brain glazes over when I see arguments about the technical aspects of some particular make and model of Klingon/Romulan ship. I never notice those things - just like I tend to notice only superficial details of RL vehicles.
The thing is, though, that knowledge isn't critical for enjoyment of Star Trek stories (unless you happen to be someone who has memorized every bit of data about these ships).
What I object to is the idea of "So what if we get something really, really fundamentally wrong? They'll never know the difference!" As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the people involved in TMP had that attitude, and thank goodness his ideas never made it into the movie.
I find the notion of people being unable to tell the prime universe from the Abramsverse to be dismissive and implies that the audience is stupid.
Eh, most people can figure it out. I've introduced more people into Trek with DS9. All I have to explain about Wolf 359 is, "the captain from another series was captured by those cyborgs and made to turn against his own side but was rescued later." They can figure out this happened after Captain Kirk and the intro makes them a bit curious about Picard and TNG. But they still jump into DS9's universe rather easily with what Emissary provides on it's own.
I doubt anyone who watched Dark Knight asked "Why is the Joker still alive, didn't Michael Keaton kill him in the 1989 movie?" At least without being deliberately dense. Same with all the Trek series and the reboot.
I doubt anyone who watched Dark Knight asked "Why is the Joker still alive, didn't Michael Keaton kill him in the 1989 movie?" At least without being deliberately dense. Same with all the Trek series and the reboot.
Who was this person, and what were his ideas?
To most people, the differences just don't rise to the level of something to be bothered about (cf., what R. Star said about the Joker).
This is a complete misread of my post.
I am not talking about "everyone who has watched ST from the start". I am talking about the bulk of the movie audience who has not watched it. We are not the vast audience of which I speak.
STAR TREK is, as perhaps it always was, out of the hands of the fans. And after having read most of the ideas fans have for a new series ... I'm glad that it is! But any timeline that STAR TREK happens to find itself in ... at least it's new product, which there hasn't been enough of for too long, in my opinion. Waiting years between movie sequels is not enough. I need something far more substantial ...
- Status
Similar threads
