Superman Returns can fall in that category. Even if all the TV series didn't count, there were animated movies that didn't follow Christopher Reeve's Superman like Returns did.
Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
- Status
Superman Returns can fall in that category. Even if all the TV series didn't count, there were animated movies that didn't follow Christopher Reeve's Superman like Returns did.
Yes. YES! A thousand times, yes!
Now that would be THE opportunity to have Star Trek boldly go where no other franchise has gone before.
Star Trek II ignored I, and VI ignored V. Every Highlander sequel ignores all the others and the ending of the first one. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance ignored the first one. Friday 13th Part V ignored IV, picking up in an alternate post-III continuity. And as you pointed out, Universal Soldier: The Return ignored the two telemovies, and then Universal Soldier: Regeneration ignored The Return and the telemovies, picking up again after the original.
How does ST VI ignore V?
Kirk goes from drinking and being friendly with Klingons to being a racist bastard who wants the entire species left to die for the murder of his son. Scotty and Uhura's relationship from V is ignored in VI etc.
Well, he was hardly being friendly with all Klingons, and saying he's 'a racist bastard' who wants all klingons to 'die' is an extreme exaggeration of STVI. What he says is that the Klingons, collectively, not individually, can't be trusted and the federation shouldn't be making dearmament deals with them (because they will not keep them). The 'Let them die' line is very clearly a reference to the Empire, not to the Klingon species.
I'd completely forgotten about Scotty and Uhura in STV, though. That one is completely ignored in VI, as you say.
I'd completely forgotten about Scotty and Uhura in STV, though. That one is completely ignored in VI, as you say.
"They're animals!"
"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I've never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy."
He's definitely speaking of the people, not the political body.
Now re-watch V, where he smiles and salutes the Klingon captain, where Scotty and everyone are having a great time totally at odds with VI's "guess who's coming to dinner"
"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I've never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy."
He's definitely speaking of the people, not the political body.
Now re-watch V, where he smiles and salutes the Klingon captain, where Scotty and everyone are having a great time totally at odds with VI's "guess who's coming to dinner"
Well, to be fair, if you were making a film series of your life, how many flirts and girlfriends would be "ignored" in the next installment?
So something the suits who ultimately decide where the franchise is going are likely to be unwilling to do since know one has done it before and it could blow up in their faces?
Hmm. That would definitely qualify, I admit.
Well assuming it goes anywhere because right now it sounds like they're just talking about doing it.
Yes, he definitely (very understandably) does not like Klingons. That doesn't mean he wants them to die. It also doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be friendly to a specific individual klingon who has proven himself trustworthy, or even to simply suppress any latent antipathy he is feeling for the sake of completing his mission as smoothly as possible.
The STVI dinner scene is very clearly not just about the fact that they're Klingons. It's about the fact that they're Klingons on their way to Earth to negotiate a permanent cease fire which Kirk believes is an idiotic idea which could destroy the Federation, and the fact that he's been ordered to roll out the red carpet for them despite his major objections, partially because Spock 'volunteered' him for the job.
If they were there to negotiate a trading agreement or something mundane, Kirk would've easily kept any residual resentment in check, because it just wouldn't be relevant to the mission at hand.
To get back to the actual topic, I think your definition of 'ignoring' sequals is rather broad. Just because a plot line is dropped or added here and there without explicit explanations doesn't mean TMP and WOK or TFF and TUC don't all happen in the same continuity. Contrast that to, for instance, Superman Returns which factually writes over everything that happened after Superman I by saying Kal el went to find his home planet and didn't come back until years later.
It would've been an interesting twist to the character but Paramount never would have allowed that to happen.
If you look a few posts farther back, you'll see that line was already addressed. But to repeat myself - that line was very clearly a reference to the Empire, not the species. There isn't a single reference anywhere in the movie to suggest that the Praxis incident could in any way cause an actual extinction event. (How would that even work? An explosion on one moon killing a species spread out across how many different star systems?)
So, yes, Kirk had no problem whatsoever letting the Klingon Empire die. Why would he?
- Status
Similar threads
