IDW Star Trek Ongoing...

[Hartzilla2007]

Well I've been rereading the ongoing comic in preparation and so far from what I've heard and seen from previews about Into Darkness they do have a few easter eggs for the film, such as the phaser rifle design and...

Spoiler: Into Darkness

Where McCoy got a dead tribble from

 

[Pauln6]

It felt like a cruel slap in the face for Majel.

Oh c'mon!

Fans have been panicking here for months re "Who's going to voice the computer now that Majel is gone?" I wasn't expecting to see Chapel onscreen, and I loved that she scored a mention in a funny and informative scene.

I saw the Chapel namedrop as an acknowledgement of the Chapel/Marcus friendship that was a major part of the bonus material in the ST III novelization (or a fluke coincidence).

I would also not be surprised if Chapel finds Korby on her own this time, perhaps in an IDW comic, for a spin on "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" It would be an interesting adventure for Science Officer 0718, too, when the Enterprise is called in to help.

I was both pleased but also a bit miffed that the security guards they chose to feature appeared to be Hendorff and Boma. Nice to see a comic character brought to life

Hendorff was namedropped in IDW's comics and STiD, but he's Cupcake from the first movie. And credited as "Cupcake" in this movie.

So how is he "a comic character brought to life"?

What I mean is, they could have referred to a relationship between the characters AND featured Chapel in a minor role (namely the research element of the plot or just as a nurse).

I THINK they did it because they intend to do the episode in the comics as you suggest and establishing this link now means that will be able to include Carol in that story (we don't know how often the character is likely to feature since she is not one of the Big 7) but in the meantime, I'm apprehensive and annoyed. Chapel was one of the few recurring women and she was played by Mrs Roddenberry. The fact that she was not well written in the sixties should be no bar to writing her well now. Was there really any need to officially strip the character out of the franchise? That really does show a total lack of respect for the character.

BTW I was talking about Boma - although I didn't spot his name in the cast at the end, I assumed that was who it was meant to be since he has been recast as a redshirt in nuTrek.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was talking about Boma - although I didn't spot his name in the cast at the end, I assumed that was who it was meant to be since he has been recast as a redshirt in nuTrek.

Again, Boma was a TOS character. Just 'cos there was an African American security guard in the movie doesn't mean it was Boma.

Was there really any need to officially strip the character out of the franchise?

It was Majel Barrett herself who absented herself from "the Big Eight" before the filming of ST II. She withheld her participation in protest of Gene Roddenberry having been shunted out of the Executive Producer role. My fan club received a media release announcing her decision.

Her participation in ST IV, as Chapel, was due to an invitation by Director Nimoy.

That really does show a total lack of respect for the character.

No, it really doesn't.

Were you not pleased to see Aisha Hinds as the bald (Deltan?) navigator added to the bridge crew?
https://www.google.com.au/images?q=%22Aisha+Hinds%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=fRePUcOTBMnYigfpp4CwAQ&ved=0CCMQsAQ

 

[Pauln6]

I was talking about Boma - although I didn't spot his name in the cast at the end, I assumed that was who it was meant to be since he has been recast as a redshirt in nuTrek.

Again, Boma was a TOS character. Just 'cos there was an African American security guard in the movie doesn't mean it was Boma.

Was there really any need to officially strip the character out of the franchise?

It was Majel Barrett herself who absented herself from "the Big Eight" before the filming of ST II. She withheld her participation in protest of Gene Roddenberry having been shunted out of the Executive Producer role. My fan club received a media release announcing her decision.

Her participation in ST IV, as Chapel, was due to an invitation by Director Nimoy.

That really does show a total lack of respect for the character.

No, it really doesn't.

Were you not pleased to see Aisha Hinds as the bald (Deltan?) navigator added to the bridge crew?
https://www.google.com.au/images?q=%22Aisha+Hinds%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=fRePUcOTBMnYigfpp4CwAQ&ved=0CCMQsAQ

Wasn't the original Boma an astrophysicist? NuBoma from the comics is definitely security and has been shown to double up with Cupcake in the comics. Since the evidence for it being Boma is entirely circumstantial I may be wrong but circumstantial evidence is better than none! FYI I'd have taken any redshirted crewman with a blonde bun to be Janice but they didn't throw me that bone - lol.

I wasn't pleased that Chekov was promoted to chief engineer but I was very pleased that he was replaced at navigation by a woman. I hadn't assumed that she was meant to be Deltan - I was rather hoping that if they went Deltan they would have teased us with the possibility that she was Ilia (with a south asian actress) but every gal is a plus in my book. My issue is more a case that regardless how many new women they introduce, they seem to introduce even more men with an obvious gender bias in the kinds of roles.

I'm aware of the history of Majel's involvement but this is a reboot set at the time when her character was involved. They really went out of their way to involve Chekov (despite throwing him around because they can't settle on how to use him) but have now gone out of their way NOT to involve Chapel. That does not seem to be a good way to pay homage to the character or the actress.

I'd be interested to know how you think they COULD pay homage to her character though. Reintroducing her as a recurring character in WaLGmo would be a good start. They certainly shouldn't do the story without her.

I did enjoy the one-shot this month though - it was one of the strongest so far, apart from Redshirts. I will give them credit that NuSulu does seem to be a well-rounded character, despite being so unassuming. It was really nice to see him demonstrate the kind of moral fibre that NuKirk so obviously lacks at this point.

 

[Therin of Andor]

That does not seem to be a good way to pay homage to the character or the actress.

A namedrop in two films is enough homage for me.

If the script had required an actress be engaged to deliver medical dialogue, you can bet Chapel would have been there. As it was, the scripted required Carol. And they made her Christine's friend.

So you didn't get Rand or a physical representative of Chapel this time, but you did get Carol in a meaty role, a new bald female navigator and the return of Madeline, who even got lines!

 

[Christopher]

To be blunt, it's not the filmmakers' job to "pay homage" to any given actor, no matter how important she was to the past franchise. It's their job to tell a story that works in and of itself rather than just as an exercise in nostalgia. And that means using characters in ways that serve a purpose in the story. Movies don't have as much room as series TV to flesh out supporting characters, so they have to limit themselves to the supporting characters that contribute something useful.

And let's face it, our feelings about the actress aside, Chapel's importance as a character isn't all that great. The only thing that ever really defined her aside from her job as nurse was her crush on Spock, which doesn't fit into the new paradigm with Spock in a relationship with Uhura. She was in fewer than 1/3 of the series' episodes and never played a major role in the movies except maybe in TMP. The fact is, she's expendable. At least they mentioned her, which is something.

 

[Pauln6]

To be blunt, it's not the filmmakers' job to "pay homage" to any given actor, no matter how important she was to the past franchise. It's their job to tell a story that works in and of itself rather than just as an exercise in nostalgia. And that means using characters in ways that serve a purpose in the story. Movies don't have as much room as series TV to flesh out supporting characters, so they have to limit themselves to the supporting characters that contribute something useful.

And let's face it, our feelings about the actress aside, Chapel's importance as a character isn't all that great. The only thing that ever really defined her aside from her job as nurse was her crush on Spock, which doesn't fit into the new paradigm with Spock in a relationship with Uhura. She was in fewer than 1/3 of the series' episodes and never played a major role in the movies except maybe in TMP. The fact is, she's expendable. At least they mentioned her, which is something.

I don't agree fully. Trek has fallen into that pit too often in all the franchises. Why was Chekov promoted to chief engineer if it wasn't a poorly thought out attempt to pay homage to the character? Why use McCoy instead of Cupcake (or Chekov for that matter since he is reasonably qualified) to work on a bomb if it wasn't an homage to the character from one of the sillier moments in STVI? There were plenty of other ways they could have used the characters that made more sense. They are incredibly indulgent with these characters all the time even where it doesn't really work in the story (unless you're 12).

There were lots of nameless supporting characters in the movie any one of whom could have been tweaked with minimal effort to represent pre-existing characters.

And Christopher, you pay homage to supporting characters all the time in your novels even where doing so is not important to the plot! It's one of the things I admire

It is true to say that Chapel falls off the edge of the recurring characters because she rarely left the ship and did little overall (except save Spock's life once) but she appeared in almost as many episodes as Chekov, and they went out of their way to include him and to give him things to do that were never really part of his TOS character. Why is it so justifiable for Chekov but wrong to update Chapel to hand out more than hyposprays and moon over a man? I think you guys are justifying a double standard.

Since they decided to keep her as a nurse instead of a scientist, I can understand why they couldn't give her a major role (although as I say, the tribble research would have been perfectly in character). I stand by what I said. Writing her out completely is disrespectful to the actress and the character and to the women in the franchise generally.

 

[Christopher]

I don't agree fully. Trek has fallen into that pit too often in all the franchises. Why was Chekov promoted to chief engineer if it wasn't a poorly thought out attempt to pay homage to the character?

Bad analogy. Chekov has long been considered one of the core characters, not merely a supporting character.

Why use McCoy instead of Cupcake (or Chekov for that matter since he is reasonably qualified) to work on a bomb if it wasn't an homage to the character from one of the sillier moments in STVI?

Let me remind you that the film has not yet premiered in the United States. I haven't seen it, and I'd appreciate not being spoiled.

Anyway, individual moments are one thing, but if a character isn't needed in the story at all, then nostalgia alone is not sufficient reason to include her.

There were lots of nameless supporting characters in the movie any one of whom could have been tweaked with minimal effort to represent pre-existing characters.

But they didn't have to. The purpose of these movies is not to pander to fans of the old. Their primary purpose is to reinvent and reintroduce Star Trek for a new audience, a new generation of fans. The occasional bit of nostalgia doesn't hurt, but it is not an overriding mandate.

And Christopher, you pay homage to supporting characters all the time in your novels even where doing so is not important to the plot! It's one of the things I admire

Novels are much longer than movie scripts. There's far more room for such things. Movies are more like short-story writing in that they demand a far more streamlined, economical approach to storytelling.

And I try to make continuity references or homages only in ways that do contribute something significant to the story I'm telling. Otherwise I usually cut out such references. Easter eggs can be fun, but they should never be included for the exclusive purpose of being an Easter egg. Everything in a story should have some relevance or meaning for that story, or it shouldn't be there at all.

Why is it so justifiable for Chekov but wrong to update Chapel to hand out more than hyposprays and moon over a man? I think you guys are justifying a double standard.

It's not about right or wrong, and it's not about one character versus another. My point is simply that nostalgia in and of itself should not be the exclusive or overriding consideration behind a storytelling decision.

Personally, I think Chekov should've been left out of the new movies, since by all rights he should've been a preteen at the time of the first film. But modern audiences perceive the "regular" TOS cast as the core group that appeared in all of the first six movies, and that includes Chekov. It would've been unrealistic to expect him not to be included. But Chapel never managed to rise behind the level of an "optional" supporting player.

Writing her out completely is disrespectful to the actress and the character and to the women in the franchise generally.

I still don't see how it's disrespectful to the actress. If anything, it seems more disrespectful to claim that an actor's whole identity and worth are defined by only one of the characters they played in their career.

 

[Pauln6]

Novels are much longer than movie scripts. There's far more room for such things. Movies are more like short-story writing in that they demand a far more streamlined, economical approach to storytelling.

Writing her out completely is disrespectful to the actress and the character and to the women in the franchise generally.

I still don't see how it's disrespectful to the actress. If anything, it seems more disrespectful to claim that an actor's whole identity and worth are defined by only one of the characters they played in their career.

Sorry about the spoilers, I've been flitting threads.

I agree with what you say about having more leeway in a novel but also it is easy to do very minor nods in movies so it's pro's and cons.

I certainly never claimed that her whole identity was defined by Chapel. In fact, Majel thought Chapel was boring. She is, however, the character relevant to this particular topic and she could easily be made to be far more interesting than she was originally.

 

[Christopher]

^Sure, she could have been. I just disagree with the implication that the filmmakers were somehow obligated to include her for no reason beyond nostalgia for the previous incarnation of the franchise, or that they've somehow committed an offense by choosing not to do so.

 

[JD]

Honestly, other than the fact that she was played by Majel Barrett, I really don't think that was anything that extraordinary about the character. At least nothing that makes her any more worthy of an appearance than any of the other recurring characters that haven't appeared yet, like Lesley or Kyle.

 

[Paris]

Just read issue #20. I must say...this series is underwhelming. So many opportunities, so many weird little continuity errors. Most of them were mentioned up thread. Hopefully the next arc is worthwhile. If not, I'm out

 

[Pauln6]

Honestly, other than the fact that she was played by Majel Barrett, I really don't think that was anything that extraordinary about the character. At least nothing that makes her any more worthy of an appearance than any of the other recurring characters that haven't appeared yet, like Lesley or Kyle.

I agree that Chapel was not 'extraordinary' as a character (Helen Noel made much more of an impact in her one appearance) but that does not also mean that she could not make a meaningful contribution to a story. She certainly had more personality than Lesley & Kyle plus she was a woman - and there is a very visible shortage of women in the franchise at the moment.

Janice Rand on the other hand had bags of personality and is easily updateable and easily includable even if only in a minor capacity. She was more memorable than Kyle, Desalle, and Lesley but she didn't make the cut either.

Minor Spoiler:
Carol Wallace has a specific significance to the plot that the generic supporting crew will not generally have. Other characters may only be needed for a role that is relevant to their skill set or to showcase their personalities. Chapel stumbles because her skills set is eclipsed by McCoy while she is chained to sick bay. For this reason, I hope it is their intention to do something with her in the comics and I hope that a 'modern' Chapel will not be so passive in terims of her story contribution when she finds Korby this time round!

 

[Therin of Andor]

And Christopher, you pay homage to supporting characters all the time in your novels even where doing so is not important to the plot!

Christopher doesn't have seven paid cast members expecting to get plenty of things to do in his novels, so he can farm out subplots to aliens who'd usually get two (or no) lines onscreen, or be wearing a latex appliance that precludes dialogue.

 

[Pauln6]

And Christopher, you pay homage to supporting characters all the time in your novels even where doing so is not important to the plot!

Christopher doesn't have seven paid cast members expecting to get plenty of things to do in his novels, so he can farm out subplots to aliens who'd usually get two (or no) lines onscreen, or be wearing a latex appliance that precludes dialogue.

That's true - lol. Mind you, Kitty Pryde was played by three different actresses in the X-Men trilogy. While it might have been nice for her to have had a more significant role from the first movie, her presence in cameos was welcomed by fans and when she eventually played a major role in the third movie the actress picked was great (and probably one of the best things in the film actually). There are ways and there are ways.

 

[Thrawn]

So, if I want to read all the comics that might be relevant to the new movie, it's all the collections of the ongoing Trek series plus "Countdown To Darkness". Is there anything else?

 

[Christopher]

So, if I want to read all the comics that might be relevant to the new movie, it's all the collections of the ongoing Trek series plus "Countdown To Darkness". Is there anything else?

Pretty much. The only other Abrams-related comics are the prequels to the first film -- Spock: Reflections, Countdown, and Nero -- and of course the movie adaptation itself.

 

[Pauln6]

I really enjoyed the movie adaptation and countdown to darkness comics. I hope we don't have to wait too long for the adaptation of this movie.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I've seen the movie, and I noticed something.

Spoiler: Into Darkness

In the scene where Kirk and Pike are arguing and Kirk is defending his record, it's hard to tell since they're talking over each other, but I'm pretty sure Kirk says something like, "How many crewmembers have I lost since I took command? None, that's how many! Not one!" Which would call the canon status of any of the comics where crewmembers died into question.

I also see why Countdown to Darkness referred to the Bajoran woman as Mudd. It's because there was that line in the film about "the K'normian ship we confiscated after the Mudd incident last month." I strongly suspect that the screenwriters intended that to be a reference to Harry Mudd, but for some reason the comics' writer decided to tell a very different story and just grafted on the character name in an awkward way. I mean, why would Kirk refer to the events of CtD as "the Mudd incident" when she was such a peripheral character in the story? Another continuity problem is that the comic ends with Pike assigning Kirk to the Nibiru mission, which -- given the really, really fast warp velocities we see in the Abramsverse -- suggests a much shorter interval between them than one month.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

^ Oh sure! That reference you get! But they couldn't possibly have been referring to Jonathan Archer in the first movie!