Gary Mitchell in Trek 11 ?
- Thread starter Bones1864
- Start date
If the story calls for "Kirk's best friend" then Mitchell should be there. If it doesn't... then he shouldn't be there. Simple as that!
Then again, Jim and Gary were best friends at the time of "Where No Man". They might have been less than that when first meeting each other, or for the first ten years of their acquaintance. So I wouldn't yell bloody murder if Kirk's best buddy in the movie were some different male character, possibly from his own class.
...The bigger question is, if we see Kirk's Academy days, can we ever accept there not being a Finnegan there?
Timo Saloniemi
...The bigger question is, if we see Kirk's Academy days, can we ever accept there not being a Finnegan there?
Timo Saloniemi
The movie would have a hollow feeling for me if he isn't. I would have to consider a BOYCOTT!
Mentioning Finnegan, come to think of it, I want to see McCoy make a Finnegan's Folly, too. I've always wondered what makes his so good. We need to know.
As far as the Mitchell thing goes, just have him paged. There's a scene in a corridor at the academy, and we hear, "Paging cadet Mitchell. Paging Ensign Finnegan. Cadet Mitchell and Ensign Finnegan, report to Admiral Bennett's office, on the double." Leave it at that.
Let the fans's imagine what trouble those scamps must've gotten themselves into.
Don't equate less-than-stellar novel writing with a lack of character potential.
Mitchell should probably be there . . . I'm still wondering if Piper was the ship's doctor, how does McCoy fit in? Was he one of the lesser ship's physicians who ascends to the chief medical officer post when Piper retires? Who is going to play Piper, if that's the case?
Well, McCoy wasn't a career military guy. His backstory (from the original series concepts) was that he had joined Starfleet after a particularly bitter divorce, after spending a period of time looking for something meaningful to do with his life. Like Hawkeye Pierce, though, since he was a "special skills" type, he got his commission at an elevated rank rather than starting off as an Ensign. (Doctors and Lawyers enter the army as Captain... equivalent to a naval Lieutenant... and bypass the first two officer ranks entirely.)
Now, by the time we see McCoy for the first time in "Man Trap" he's a Lieutenant Commander... meaning at least four years in service (assuming he was the best of the best... if he was just average, more like six years).
We also know he spent a fair amount of that time off the Enterprise. Specifically, as referenced in "Friday's Child" and in the animated shows (which I treat, while not as "entirely canon" as stylized representations of things that really happened... ya know?).
So, here's MY thought... take it for what it's worth.
A young McCoy, just divorced but not yet in Starfleet, meets young Lieutenant Commander Kirk. Kirk is the new XO of a small starship that ends up performing civilian rescue operations. McCoy is also present there, but in a civilian capacity. The two meet and due to Kirk's influence, McCoy becomes convinced that Starfleet just MIGHT be the place for him to make a difference. Year later, when Kirk is given command of Enterprise, he puts in a request for McCoy as his medical officer. McCoy is not available (probably still assigned to the "Friday's Child" planet?) so a near-retirement CMO is assigned for the first mission (a short "probe" mission beyond the barrier, then back home). At the return to base, or shortly thereafter, McCoy would be formally assigned, though. McCoy and Kirk ALREADY have a history... as do Spock and Kirk (from Kirk's Command School Advanced Course days). And it wouldnt' surprise me if Kirk had met Scotty previously.
See, it's not uncommon for a commander to be able to request his preferred senior staff. But it's very unusual (and largely frowned upon) for a commanding officer to request junior personnel (like, say, Uhura, Chekov, or Sulu). Hell, Mitchell would have been pushing it if he were just the navigator.
I've always believed that Mitchell was the first officer in Where No Man Has Gone Before, with Spock being next in the chain of command. It's hard to support that with hard and firm fact, but it's also not possible to dispute it with fact, either, so unless someone can talk to the original author(s), we'll never know. If Mitchell wasn't First Officer, then he WAS Second Officer, though... based upon rank and position... I'm convinced.
Ya know... we're all convinced that Karl Urban is playing McCoy... but do we know that? What if he's playing Mitchell? Any way to confirm the "McCoy" bit with an official release from the production?
It just amazes me how obsessed so many folks have become with this character. Just my opinion, but I never found him that particularly interesting or strong a character.
I'd give good odds that if anything, the bridge crew (and Piper) from WNMHGB will be retconned away.
Starting over like this, it just makes sense to have the story flow smoothly straight from Pike's Enterprise to Kirk's manned with the crew most folks have come to know.
Imagine the exposition needed to explain away Piper, Kelso, and the fate of Mitchell (why such a good friend is not part of the crew). Throwaway lines that would muddy the story and be there only to satisfy the most for hard-core fans. It's unnecessary baggage this time around.
???
You really think that real life means never having anyone but your personal "group of bestestest buddies EVER" around?
It's impossible for me to imagine why anyone would insist that the audience must know every person that they see on-screen in advance of the film, and if they don't, "it'll suck."
All this discussion about "the average moviegoer won't care about Mitchell... they really want to see Sulu and Chekov" is the exact OPPOSITE of what it's being portrayed as.
The "average moviegoer" couldn't care less if Sulu and Chekov or Mitchell and DePaul are at the helm. ONLY THE FANBOYS CARE.
The "average moviegoer" wants a show that has interesting characters put into interesting situations, told in an interesting and exciting way. Their familiarity with those characters in advance is largely irrelevant... a badly acted, uninteresting character who happens be called Sulu (and who isn't really the same guy they know already anyway!) is NOT going to be more popular with the "general audiences" than a really fun, interesting character they've never seen before named Smith or Jones... or Mitchell.
It's the acting, writing, and direction that will make for audience satisfaction. Name-familiarity makes NO difference to anyone but the uber-fans.
That's why my take is... if the film is pre-WNMHGB, or PART of it is (and that's what I expect... multiple timeframes!), and in that setting Kirk's best friend is an important story element or if it's set on the Enterprise during that time, Mitchell is appropriate.
Not because we're so uber-fannish. But because there's no reason NOT to use him.
The "general audience" won't GIVE A DAMN, EITHER WAY. They'll just care if the characters they're given interesting or not, regardless of who those characters are!
ONLY Trek fans really NEED to have him there, and ONLY Trek fans really DON'T want him there, either!
Ultimately, the question you should be asking is this... is there anything to be gained by invalidating elements of canon? And please, if you answer that, answer it in a thoughtful and reasoned fashion... addressing the points I've made above, ideally.
I understand what you're saying, but this isn't real life. It's fiction. During the run of TOS, you'd have thought the Enterprise had a crew of about ten people. Or at least ten that did anything important and interacted.
This movie is apparently about how an extraordinary group of people came together to form a legendary crew.
I'm certainly not saying that everyone must know the names of those characters going in or it'll suck. On the contrary. But folks are probably coming to the movie expecting to see the characters they've at least heard about over the years.
As far as who cares about what names goes, I'd claim only the most rabid fans would care if Kirk's friend Gary Mitchell specifically is in the film. I'm sure Kirk had plenty of buddies at Starfleet besides Mitchell. So, if names don't matter, then let's see a scene with a friend named David Umbrellastand. Who but the fans familiar with WNMHGB would care if it's Mitchell, or not? What difference would it make? I certainly don't see why Trek fans NEED him there.
One point I was trying to make earlier is taking the time to explain "why Mitchell" in the film would require pure exposition that would probably be unnecessary to moving the story.
It's possible that Abrams finds a way around the whole inconvenience of the WNMHGB crew (not just Mitchell, but Piper and Kelso and such) standing between Pike's crew and the magnificent seven taking over the Enterprise.
Or, he could decide not to let a pilot that wasn't meant to air in the first place stand between him and telling his story. And, I'd be fine with that.
Similar threads
