Continuence, Canon & Hope

[maryh]

It has been said that Star Trek was so popular because it offered us hope for the future. Instead of all the pessimism we could associate with the future, we saw that it could be good, something to look forward to and something future generations might achieve.

If this is true I wonder about this movie and the continuance and canon so many wish to maintain. I have expressed an opinion that the writers of ST were trying to weaken the characters from the "Old Guard" in hopes of building up the popularity of the "New Guard" characters. The last time we see Kirk, he died pretty sadly and worthlessly in "Generations". Spock looked like an idiot who had done nothing in 100 years except argue with his father and be a dupe for the Romulans. Scotty looked like a bumbling old fool living in the past. Sarek looked like an incompetent senile old fool.

My question is - if we know this to be the destiny of this movies main re-casted characters, will it effect the entertainment and enjoyment level we will get out of this film knowing where these characters are headed? Does it eliminate the hope for the future we had for these characters? It may seem trite to only want happy endings however, a happy ending is usually associated with hope for the future, and hope for the future seems to be associated with the Star Trek popularity.

Tragedies exist as well as comedies. I would watch the "Mad Max" type future once and only once. But a future vision that offered hope and optimism for the future - I'd watch it over and over again.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I dunno - back in the day (1966) "Star Trek" was popular with us nerds because it was really cool space-opera science fiction, on TV for free once a week. Planet-killer, yeah!

 

[blaXXer]

Yeah you're over-analyzing things. Just sit back and enjoy the movie. Kark the philosophy-crap, Roddenberry wanted to cash in on IDIC symbols back in the day, that'S about it in a nutshell.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

I think you're being a little hard on the 24th century treatment of Kirk, Spock and Sarek. (You'll get no argument from me on Scotty, I didn't like "Relics" at all.)

I know a lot of people didn't like the way Kirk died in "Generations", but I thought he died the way he lived: Kicking ass, taking names, and saving the universe. Not a bad way to go if you ask me. As for Spock, he was remaining true to his principles, and last we saw, still trying to bring about positive changes on Romulus. Again, not really so bad. As for Sarek, well, he was sick. I thought it was an interesting take on things to show a Vulcan version of Alzheimers, or something like it, and I liked the irony that he needed the stoicism of a human (Picard) to hold it together. Maybe not your taste, but just my take on it. I don't think any of these events were meant to disrespect the characters.

In any case, I'm hoping the movie will be used as an opportunity to introduce a new generation of fans to these characters as they are just starting out, with a lot of optimism, (but without the gooey kumbaya-ism that could afflict TNG at times). Try to keep an open mind and give the movie a chance.

 

[Franklin]

I dunno - back in the day (1966) "Star Trek" was popular with us nerds because it was really cool space-opera science fiction, on TV for free once a week. Planet-killer, yeah!

And at a time when TV was so prudish that Barbara Eden couldn't even show her navel, there were those women on Star Trek. Va-va-va-voom, ba-by!

Regarding the OP, bear in mind that of all the TOS characters, the only one whose final fate we truly know is Kirk's. We have no idea about the others. None at all. Not even a guess. Even if we did know, I don't see how it would spoil this movie. People certainly don't mind reading history and biographies even though they know how things ultimately turned out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

will it effect the entertainment and enjoyment level we will get out of this film knowing where these characters are headed?

Maybe they'll wind up somewhere different this time.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why do I keep reading the thread title as "Continence, ..."?

 

[maryh]

Why do I keep reading the thread title as "Continence, ..."?

Maybe because you want me to stop p*ssin' and moaning?

 

[M'Sharak]

Naah, I'm sure what you really meant was "continuance" but, caught out of the corner of the eye, well...

 

[Therin of Andor]

I have expressed an opinion that the writers of ST were trying to weaken the characters from the "Old Guard" in hopes of building up the popularity of the "New Guard" characters. The last time we see Kirk, he died pretty sadly and worthlessly in "Generations". Spock looked like an idiot who had done nothing in 100 years except argue with his father and be a dupe for the Romulans. Scotty looked like a bumbling old fool living in the past. Sarek looked like an incompetent senile old fool.

Kirk's death wasn't worthless - he saved an entire planet's population he never met, and 1000 people on a starship. Spock knew his mission would always be unfinished, but kept trying to make little inroads on reunification. Scotty was living from the past. Sarek was... ill! McCoy was... old!

Why would the writers feel a need to "weaken" TOS characters when most young TNG fans had never even seen TOS - and many refused to "catch up" because they reckoned the 60s SPFX were amateurish?

 

[Philo]

Why do I keep reading the thread title as "Continence, ..."?

Because it's more awesome, I mean sombrero, that way?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The last time we see Kirk, he died pretty sadly and worthlessly in "Generations".

If Abrams eventually wants to de-canonize this by re-staging Kirk's death with Chris Pine in a couple decades or five, he will probably be canonized as a Star Trek saint.

Spock looked like an idiot who had done nothing in 100 years except argue with his father and be a dupe for the Romulans.

I don't think we've had anything close to the full story on Spock. TNG left it hangin'...