I think if we hear that Gary Mitchell is cast...even for a cameo where he bids Kirk goodbye to go on a seperate mission...then that will be convining evidence that they are going to have respect for canon.
Best canon llitmus test-an appearance by Gary Mitchell.
- Thread starter Mutara Nebula 1967
- Start date
It's already canon - it's called "Star Trek" and Kirk, Spock and McCoy are in it. 
That's respect enough for me. Unless, of course, it's James "R." Kirk. If so, GRRRR!
That's respect enough for me. Unless, of course, it's James "R." Kirk. If so, GRRRR!
Why? Do we know Mitchell was on board the ship when this movie takes place?
He may not be but at least a passing mention from Kirk is merited as it is known that he is Kirk's best friend.
What if this takes place after WNMHGB (but before Combomite/Charlie X/Man Trap)?
Mitchell would then be dead.
(Although I do agree that if this is pre-WNMHGB, then he should be mentioned.)
Mitchell would then be dead.
(Although I do agree that if this is pre-WNMHGB, then he should be mentioned.)
With all respect to the OP, I just don't get the fascination people have with Gary Mitchell being in this movie. He appeared in exactly one out of 700 or so episodes of Trek and was never mentioned again. I'm all for respecting canon but if they get too bogged down in 'respecting' every little element of it, this movie is going to blow. And blow hard.
As others have said, there's way more important stuff to get right. The tone of the film and being faithful to the characterizations of the main crew being two that I can think of right off the top of my head.
Would throwing in a bunch of well loved guest stars from TNG have made Nemesis a better film? Wait, they did that. And we all know how well that turned out. Not that Guinan and Wesley sunk the film, but I think it's plain that they sure as hell didn't save it.
This movie spinning its wheels making little in-jokes and references to a noticeable extent will sink this movie, I assure you.
As others have said, there's way more important stuff to get right. The tone of the film and being faithful to the characterizations of the main crew being two that I can think of right off the top of my head.
Would throwing in a bunch of well loved guest stars from TNG have made Nemesis a better film? Wait, they did that. And we all know how well that turned out. Not that Guinan and Wesley sunk the film, but I think it's plain that they sure as hell didn't save it.
This movie spinning its wheels making little in-jokes and references to a noticeable extent will sink this movie, I assure you.
Also, if a reference to Gary Mitchell were to be made, it would probably contradict canon - because canon is already contradictory on when and how Kirk and Mitchell met, where and when they served together, what their relative ages are, and so forth. And all that confusion from a single episode!
IMHO, the best time to make Kirk and Mitchell best buddies is when Kirk is already a Lieutenant instructor and Mitchell is still a raw cadet. And that is an unlikely timeframe for the movie.
Timo Saloniemi
IMHO, the best time to make Kirk and Mitchell best buddies is when Kirk is already a Lieutenant instructor and Mitchell is still a raw cadet. And that is an unlikely timeframe for the movie.
Timo Saloniemi
How the hell is "canon contradictory" from WNMHGB?
It is no such thing. I'm amused at how you keep missing the point of that whole exchange.
1) Kirk was a lieutenant.
2) Kirk was instructing underclassmen.
3) Kirk was attending classes himself a the time.
4) Mitchell got Kirk to "lighten up" by steering a "little blonde lab tech" towards him who he almost married (presumably this is Carol Marcus).
5) Kirk and Mitchell were friends from that point forward, though we don't know for sure if they were friends BEFORE that point.
What's "contradictory" about any of that?
Answer... it's NOT.
The contradictory thing is that some people INCORRECTLY believe that "to be at the academy means that you're a kid." I've repeatedly pointed out that military officers return for ongoing education and training throughout their careers.
So Lieutenant Kirk was back for his Command Branch training, still holding the rank of Lieutenant but on the promotion list for Lieutenant Commander, after something like six years of prior service (including, undoubtedly, the Farragut and the Republic, and possibly other postings as well).
Seriously... where's the contradiction?
Ok so if I go see this movie, and I've not seen an episode since 1969, why do I care? That's the thing. I could see Pike, kinda a handoff thing; not a big deal. But you can't simply throw people in for no reason whatsoever. Unless there's a good reason to introduce them as a NEW character, why bother?
Most people just don't care. They probably don't knoe.
Most people just don't care. They probably don't knoe.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Why should you care if Mitchell is in the movie? Well, if there's no call in the storytelling for Kirk's "best friend" to be present, then there's no call for Mitchell at all. You're correct. His mere PRESENCE is totally irrelevant.
But if there's a storytelling reason to show Kirk's best friend, it ought to be Mitchell. Why? Well, for those "never seen an episode" people, it makes absolutely no difference if he's named Gary Mitchell or Fred Flintstone. Their enjoyment of the character, or lack thereof, will be solely limited to "is he an interesting character and is he doing something worth watching."
As far as I'm concerned, the only issue is that if the story involves Jim Kirk in any fashion interacting with his best friend, there's no reason NOT for it to be Mitchell... and there IS reason for it TO be him... because a certain segment of the audience (even if a small one) expects it to be him. AND... this will potentially draw people into watching the old stuff a bit more (if, say, they see "Where No Man Has Gone Before" for the first time and see this Mitchell guy who they know from the movie... and see him go "bad," that episode will be that much more impactful to those folks).
No argument there. The trick is to not pull an "Antonia" bit.
You may remember that, right? Remember, Kirk is in the Matrix... oh, I mean in the NEXUS... and he's living his personal fantasy life. And we see that he's happy in a relationship with a woman in that fantasy life.
Why NOT call her "Carol?" The casual moviegoing audience might not have cared WHAT she was called. But it would have made a far better connection for those familiar with it... and thus made the scene more emotionally impactful... had it been Carol Marcus. Even if it were only implied, and we never saw her face (which would be appropriate, since Bibi Besch had just died of cancer shortly before then), it would have been a nice little thing for the fans, WITHOUT BEING A DISTRACTION for the not-so-much-fans.
That's the ONLY reason. If it's the right timeframe, and there's a storytelling reason to show Kirk's buddy, why not have it be someone who we already expect to see, instead of just inventing some new character?
Make sense?
Similar threads
