The movies have borrowed the character names Hikaru (Sulu), Nyota (Uhura), and George and Winona (Kirk) from the novels. They could borrow the novels' name Charvanek for the Commander too.
Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?
- Thread starter albion432
- Start date
The movies have borrowed the character names Hikaru (Sulu), Nyota (Uhura), and George and Winona (Kirk) from the novels. They could borrow the novels' name Charvanek for the Commander too.
Well, be fair: they can save the hat. But the lens flares have got to go.
You're in luck. Leonard ran into a financial rough patch and agreed to model the hat for a modest fee:
Not really.
But this happened:
...HIjol...speechless...there's a First...
If you are going to attempt sarcasm, at least get my initial statement right. It was Jar Jar's Trek, not Jar Jar Trek. It's also telling that rather than refute my statement that Warped9's predictions are as valid as any one else's, you resort to attempting to belittle me.
Until this becomes history however, it does not make Warped9 or anyone else's speculation any less valid than your own.
And this has little to do with being a "purist". Had the last two films added anything i considered valuable to the mythos, i'd be all for keeping those additions in any future incarnation. But they haven't. In some cases they have detracted from the characters.
The only real praise i have for the last two films is the casting and musical compositions. Both were excellently done. But since this is speculation about a new incarnation, neither of those is likely to remain.
One word: Uhura. She's now something TOS never has, a lead female character.
Yep.
Well, be fair: they can save the hat. But the lens flares have got to go.
You're in luck. Leonard ran into a financial rough patch and agreed to model the hat for a modest fee:
Not really.
But this happened:
Fantastic.
Pay up The Old Mixer
The past five years of history tell us all we need to know. The two Abrams films are just about the most financially successful Trek films in history, not to mention among the most critically well-regarded. Their detractors like to pretend that the films were flops, but that's completely counterfactual. Hard evidence, not "speculation," shows clearly that these films are hits, more popular than any incarnation of Star Trek has been since the heyday of TNG two decades ago. There can be legitimate criticisms raised of their content and quality, but there is no denying their popularity with the mass audience. At this point it makes no sense to pretend they'll somehow be forgotten.
That's your opinion. Look at the matter objectively, look beyond your own mind and listen to what other people have to say, and it should be clear from this thread alone that there are a lot of people who disagree with that opinion. Several of us have already given examples of things from the films that we believe could or should have a lasting impact, and ways in which the films have added to the characters.
You don't have to like something in order to admit that it will have an impact on the world. There's a ton of stuff about The Wrath of Khan that I hate, but I can't deny that a lot of other people loved it and were heavily influenced by it. There was a lot about TWOK that, in my opinion, detracted from the franchise and the characters, but my opinion alone did not shape reality. Others had different priorities, and what I saw as negatives, they saw as positives.
So when talking about how the public as a whole will react to a thing, we have to look beyond our personal reactions and observe how others are reacting. And the fact is, outside the insular echo chambers of the Internet, the Abrams films are popular and well-regarded.
My sister and I loved Robin of Sherwood! Here in the States it was broadcast on the cable movie channel Showtime. I was in my early teens when it was being produced and was really captured by the series as a whole; the music, the writing, the mysticism, the excellent cinematography, the casting. The series was outstanding in every respect. That's perhaps why it has left a lasting mark on the Robin Hood legend. Even if the introduction of the saracen character is the only lasting mark the series has had on the Robin Hood legend that is still pretty impressive!
On a personal note, the event that occurs at the end of RoS's second season (I won't mention any spoilers since Christopher hasn't watched it yet, but if you know the series then you know what I'm referring to) left me depressed for months afterwards. I had never seen a series go to such a dark place before, and it was a pretty devastating and traumatic experience to go through as a young teen.
As for the topic of this thread, I think the only change the new movies have made that I think is worthy of holding over to future iterations of ST is Uhura's new prominence and importance. Pike being Kirk's mentor makes sense too, since a mentor is, in effect, meant to be an older version of the hero. That is literally what Pike is, an older version of Kirk, so I like it. It never quite rang true for me that Kirk had only met Pike once prior to TOS, when Pike handed the keys of the Enterprise over to him. What made even less sense was that the two men were about the same age according to Mendez. That would mean Pike would have been pretty damn young when he took command of the Enterprise! But beyond that, I can't see anything in these new movies worth holding on to!
^Oh, I know what happened at the end of the second season of Robin of Sherwood. I read about the series in Starlog ages ago, and they had an episode guide to the whole series as well as interviews with many of its cast members.
What's interesting is that the 2006 BBC Robin Hood series did essentially the same thing at the end of its third season, but was cancelled before it could follow through.
Okay, there seems to be a relative consensus that the elaborations on Pike's and Uhura's characters are worth keeping. So there's that, at least. And as I've said, the now-canonized given names for Kirk's parents are probably here to stay, and their Starfleet backstory is likely to be kept as well. As with a lot of this stuff, these are likely to be kept around simply because they're filling voids that prior canon never bothered to fill.
Now, I said before that I'd like it if they kept the new Romulan makeup design, but as I've been saying, we mustn't mistake our personal wishes for what's likely to happen. Different makeup designers tend to bring their own vision to Trek alien designs, keeping the basics but adding distinct variations, so there's no telling what a future makeup designer might decide to do with the Romulans.
Now, people who discover Star Trek through these movies and grow up watching them might very well come to think of Scotty as a comedy character with Keenser as his sidekick, so that might potentially be carried forward; except that Keenser is just a bit player and there's little more to him than short jokes, so that's something that might not leave enough of a mark to be carried forward. Then again, as I've mentioned, reboots often happen in reaction to a prior work rather than emulation of it. I mean, look at how Uhura's been fleshed out in contrast to her lack of development before. Look at how Paul Dini took the obscure, Z-list Batman villain Mr. Freeze and turned him into one of the most powerful and unforgettable characters in the rogue's gallery. Maybe some future creator will look back in frustration at how Keenser's potential as a character was wasted and reinvent him as a rich, multifaceted character. There's no telling what could happen in a reboot.
What's interesting is that the 2006 BBC Robin Hood series did essentially the same thing at the end of its third season, but was cancelled before it could follow through.
Okay, there seems to be a relative consensus that the elaborations on Pike's and Uhura's characters are worth keeping. So there's that, at least. And as I've said, the now-canonized given names for Kirk's parents are probably here to stay, and their Starfleet backstory is likely to be kept as well. As with a lot of this stuff, these are likely to be kept around simply because they're filling voids that prior canon never bothered to fill.
Now, I said before that I'd like it if they kept the new Romulan makeup design, but as I've been saying, we mustn't mistake our personal wishes for what's likely to happen. Different makeup designers tend to bring their own vision to Trek alien designs, keeping the basics but adding distinct variations, so there's no telling what a future makeup designer might decide to do with the Romulans.
Now, people who discover Star Trek through these movies and grow up watching them might very well come to think of Scotty as a comedy character with Keenser as his sidekick, so that might potentially be carried forward; except that Keenser is just a bit player and there's little more to him than short jokes, so that's something that might not leave enough of a mark to be carried forward. Then again, as I've mentioned, reboots often happen in reaction to a prior work rather than emulation of it. I mean, look at how Uhura's been fleshed out in contrast to her lack of development before. Look at how Paul Dini took the obscure, Z-list Batman villain Mr. Freeze and turned him into one of the most powerful and unforgettable characters in the rogue's gallery. Maybe some future creator will look back in frustration at how Keenser's potential as a character was wasted and reinvent him as a rich, multifaceted character. There's no telling what could happen in a reboot.
There's nothing telling about it. Warped9 can think whatever he wants. I was pointing out the unoriginality and stupidity of your joke. Nothing personal.
Next time, if you want to make fun of Abrams, at least make a joke that hasn't been said a million times already.
Agreed. No reason to not keep the names and backstories which have been been established for Kirk's parents. In fact, any blanks these movies fill in for the characters (as long as they're not just downright dumb) might as well be carried over.
You may be right, but I sure hope not! That character was the last thing we needed in a Star Trek movie, and I cannot stand the new Scotty, it's one of the lowest points of the new films in my opinion.
Only time will tell.
^Again, what any of us may prefer as individuals is a totally different topic from what future creators who aren't us might decide to do.
Agreed. Again, time will tell. Looking forward to seeing just what it does tell!
Maybe. It seems like all she is is moody love interest of Spock. Not a full character yet imho. (Though more than TOS-Uhura was.) Neither is McCoy, really, either: just comic-relief De Kelley impression.
(A very good one, I might add, and one of the things I like about nu-Trek. I like nu-Scotty too. I like that he quit. I could see old Scotty doing that too.)
Oh absolutely. The TOS characters having such open backstories within actual canon material (we learn only very little really in TOS and the movies, even about characters like Kirk and Spock, most everything else is merely inference or 'fanon') means that a lot of those elements are almost certainly going to become ascended to importance in later reboots/reinterpretations of these characters. *We* all know that Shatner's Kirk apparently knew his father, because the TOS bible says so, but that was of course never elaborated on screen, and while it makes for a good dramatic difference now, it might become set-in-stone for later versions of Kirk (or, conversely, it might be ignored, kinda like how various different interpretations of Superman have played with whether or not Pa Kent is still alive in the 'present day' or not).Christopher said:
Nevertheless, I definitely think its inevitable that some of these kinds of things will 'leak' into future interpretations of these characters.
I have to agree about Uhura, really. Yes, nu-Uhura is a more overtly central character than her TOS counterpart often was (and a good thing too), more proactive, and when she's not making doey eyes at Spock she's an excellent addition to the canon. However, her being a satellite of the Spock character does lead to unfortunate implications, that ultimately she is being used as a 'token love interest' as well.
I think a version of the alternative Uhura jettisoned of all the relationship stuff and made into a "core part of the command structure" would be a very welcome development of an otherwise under-developed character. The scene with her speaking Klingon in STiD is a good case in point: it's a role that only Uhura could possibly play in the script, her skills as a linguist are used very efficiently, making her important to Star Trek (unlike, again, her TOS counterpart most of the time).
Last edited:
Bah. Robin Hood is still Errol Flynn.
The biggest legacy is likely to be in the Style and Swagger categories. Abrams' movies get mocked in some quarters for lens flare and associated silliness, but they've certainly put to bed the possibility of any future studio product being content with just elaborating on the old show.
Uhura's reinvention as a sassier, more forthright and central-to-the-action figure won't be possible to walk back in any future incarnation that uses her. SpockHura I'm... less sure about.
Greenwood's Pike is one that I hope inspires future versions that get to do more than be Kirk's mentor. Likewise, Richard Robau -- ah, we hardly knew ye -- is a character that I hope gets some play and revisiting in different visions of Trek.
Those are the big ones for me. (I wish I could say I saw the rest of the cast's roles being similarly influential on the future, but I don't see it.)
Similar threads
