News Introducing Fact Trek

[Henoch]

There was at least one older guy among Khan's followers in WOK. He was standing behind Khan when the Reliant entered the Mutara Nebula and accidentally laid a hand on Khan during the jolt. Khan glared at him.

You mean this guy:

After searching through IMDb and the web; Memory Alpha lists him as Fletcher Bryant. After checking all the uncredited actors and stuntmen listed as Khan's followers/crewmen, the oldest with given birth dates was 31 years old during the filming of the movie (making him 16 during Space Seed), but, Fletcher Bryant, did not have a listed birthday and did work starting in 1967. Bryant has performed in television series such as Cimarron Strip (1967, with Paul Carr) and Gunsmoke (1967 and 1970, with Paul Fix, Diana Muldaur, Torin Thatcher, and Charles Seel). I would guesstimate his age around 40 during filming in 1981, so, yes, he was probably the oldest of Khan's remaining followers and a mid-twenties adult during Space Seed.

 

[Kor]

There's very little point in trying to rationalize the young age of Khan's movie crew. The movie was cast sloppily, meaning without regard to "Space Seed" and its implied timeline. It's as simple as that. And this was the best of the original-cast films. The whole film series was made by people who didn't care much about continuity, except within the trilogy of II-III-IV.

Even treating TWOK as a standalone story, without thinking too much about "Space Seed," the casting is odd.
Khan says "These people have sworn to live and die at my command two hundred years before you were born."
So not only have the people who we see in the room been with Khan for the last fifteen years, they were also his loyal followers back on Earth in the 1990s. Were they children at that time? They must have been really indoctrinated if they swore to live and die at their leader's command when they were just kids.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Yes, the casting in TWOK is really annoying. Not only because they're way too young, but because they're all white and blond, whereas "Space Seed" said they were racially diverse (without actually showing it in the extra casting). I guess Bennett and Meyer were thinking of the historical association of eugenics and Nazism, which was probably what Carey Wilber was thinking with his original draft of "Space Seed" where the leader was Harold Ericssen. The problem there, though, is that eugenics programs based on white supremacism are idiotic and would never work, because genetic robustness comes from diversity, not uniformity. So the Augments make more scientific sense if they're genetically diverse, as well as being a bit less on-the-nose as an allegory.

 

[Maurice]

<retcon> "augments". </retcon>

Poo.

 

[Damian]

One of the many reasons I enjoyed Greg Cox' book To Reign in Hell so much. He does a lot to try to explain the various inconsistencies between "Space Seed" and TWOK. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a great book with a great story, but there is a lot of continuity building in his novel as well.

How he explains Khan's band of merry supermen appearing like an Swedish 80's hair band has to do with the genes. Most of who we see in TWOK are the children of the original settlers and for some reason all the children of the Augments were born blonde.

Now, I'll grant you, it's likely not very scientific, and it's not a perfect explanation that would stand up to scrutiny. But I don't blame Greg for that. He was basically writing a sequel/prequel novel and he had to end up where TWOK was, with a Swedish 80s hair band. That's more on the casting choices of the makers of TWOK and Greg just did the best he could with an imperfect situation. He also provided an explanation for how the Reliant somehow lost a planet (that was one thing that bothered me from the very beginning, even before I was a die-hard Trekkie---how do you mistaken one planet for another?). That's another case where the explanation perhaps wouldn't stand up to too much scrutiny, but that's also on the movie-makers. Greg just had to do the best he could (though I'm not saying there might not be some viable alternative possibilities as well).

But still, TWOK is my 2nd favorite Trek film. It's got good suspense, some great character moments, and Montalban does a great job, almost iconic. It's just one of those movies that you can't dig too deep on or the house of cards will start to fall apart on you.

 

[Christopher]

<retcon> "augments". </retcon>

Poo.

James T. Kirk instead of R. was a retcon. Vulcan instead of Vulcanian was a retcon. Starfleet instead of UESPA was a retcon. The Federation was a retcon. David Marcus was a retcon. Data being emotionless was a retcon. The Cardassian War was a retcon. Trill hosts contributing to the joined personality was a retcon. Fiction is a work in progress that constantly refines and improves itself. That's the nature of the beast.

"Augment" is a nice, handy word. It's easier and clearer than "eugenics supermen" or whatever clumsy constructions we were stuck with using before it came along. It's an obvious improvement.

 

[Maurice]

I reiterate.

Poo.

 

[Damian]

James T. Kirk instead of R. was a retcon. Vulcan instead of Vulcanian was a retcon. Starfleet instead of UESPA was a retcon. The Federation was a retcon. David Marcus was a retcon. Data being emotionless was a retcon. The Cardassian War was a retcon. Trill hosts contributing to the joined personality was a retcon. Fiction is a work in progress that constantly refines and improves itself. That's the nature of the beast.

"Augment" is a nice, handy word. It's easier and clearer than "eugenics supermen" or whatever clumsy constructions we were stuck with using before it came along. It's an obvious improvement.

Hmm. I kind of liked Khan's Band of Merry Supermen personally

But seriously, I do tend to agree. And many of those retcons can usually be explained in continuity with a little creative story telling (which I find novels do a good job doing many times). And some are harder to explain and you just have to live with the inconsistency.

But yeah, after 50+ years it's amazing they've managed to maintain one single universe from a storyline perspective. Most other franchises seem to decide it's too much trouble and just do a full reboot. Star Trek really only had one reboot, the Abrams movies, and even those weren't a full-on reboot, but a branch off the original Star Trek universe.

Again, from an overall storyline perspective. Of course there have been changes in production designs and technology. But it's amazing in a way to think there have been 50+ years of shows and movies that share a single continuity. Everything from the original series under Roddenberry, to the movies, to Berman era Trek, to Kurtzman era Trek and everything in between are all, to this day, part of a shared story.

 

[Christopher]

But seriously, I do tend to agree. And many of those retcons can usually be explained in continuity with a little creative story telling (which I find novels do a good job doing many times). And some are harder to explain and you just have to live with the inconsistency.

Despite how the term tends to be used in vernacular (and how I used it above in some cases), a retcon is ideally not an inconsistency. That's the whole point -- it's short for "retroactive continuity," meaning something that comes along later but fits in as part of the existing continuity as if it had been the case all along. For instance, Kirk never said he didn't have a son. Sometimes it conflicts with what we believed, but it's explained that we were misled before and the retcon is the real truth.

As for "Augment," there's no reason the term can't have existed before. Just because it didn't come up in "Space Seed" or TWOK doesn't prove it never existed, because you can't prove a negative. And like I said, it's a handy, efficient term that we didn't have before, which is the only reason we need to use it.

But yeah, after 50+ years it's amazing they've managed to maintain one single universe from a storyline perspective. Most other franchises seem to decide it's too much trouble and just do a full reboot. Star Trek really only had one reboot, the Abrams movies, and even those weren't a full-on reboot, but a branch off the original Star Trek universe.

Well, yes and no. My understanding is that Roddenberry considered TNG sort of a soft reboot of the universe, discarding the parts of prior continuity he didn't like and approaching it as a revised draft. Like a lot of creators, he was dissatisfied with the earlier draft of his work and wanted to take a fresh stab at it with the benefit of greater experience. It was only years later, when TOS fans like Ron Moore became writer/producers, that they started drawing more direct continuity ties and approaching it more as a unified whole than Roddenberry had probably intended.

For that matter, even TWOK is something of a soft reboot, playing fast and loose with the details of "Space Seed" for the sake of its own story. Most series fiction back then had a much looser approach to continuity than audiences expect today. Certainly that's true of Harve Bennett's earlier work like The Six Million Dollar Man, where the series rewrote a lot of the continuity of the pilot movie and often rewrote its own past continuity when convenient (e.g. guest character Barney Miller becoming Barney Hiller in his second appearance to avoid confusion with the sitcom Barney Miller which had debuted in the interim).

The truth is that Trek's continuity is full of contradictions and different interpretations of the universe, and the only reason we perceive it as a consistent whole is because the franchise pretends it is and we choose to play along. We rationalize and gloss over all the contradictions and fool ourselves into believing the pretense that it fits together. New contradictions feel larger to us only because we haven't had as much time to fool ourselves about them.

 

[Damian]

Despite how the term tends to be used in vernacular (and how I used it above in some cases), a retcon is ideally not an inconsistency. That's the whole point -- it's short for "retroactive continuity," meaning something that comes along later but fits in as part of the existing continuity as if it had been the case all along. For instance, Kirk never said he didn't have a son. Sometimes it conflicts with what we believed, but it's explained that we were misled before and the retcon is the real truth.

Yeah, I guess sometimes "retcon" and "reboot" might be used interchangeably. And for some retcons an explanation is sometimes given. Like Spock having a brother in TFF. It's explained in the movie why we never heard about it so it's addressed. And even in TWOK while it's not explicitly spelled out, we are left with the distinct impression that his son is not something he likes to talk about.

And like you noted, some aren't really inconsistencies at all. On another board there was some discussion about TWOK being a sort of 'retcon' and how it might even feel like a 'retcon' of TMP. But that's another case where it's not really inconsistent with TMP. There's nothing that outright contradicts TMP. In universe it was about a decade before so you can explain the reason that incident was not mentioned in TWOK in any way is because a lot has happened in the intervening years. And really, I always thought there was more that tied them together than not. It's the same ship, same set designs (even new sets have a similar aesthetic), the same main characters. You've noted some potential continuity in Spock's character between the two films and it's interesting to note when Chekov rejoins the Enterprise crew on the bridge, he takes up the same station he has in TMP at the weapons station. So however TWOK filmmakers might have felt about TMP, at the end of the day I don't think the intent was to 'erase' TMP from the continuity. It's still part of the history. They just don't follow up on it or use it for their film in any significant way.

Also, like I said, somethings can be explained in-universe with some creative story telling. Sometimes the shows themselves did that, and sometimes novels (and I suppose comics too) do that.

Roddenberry's intents with TNG are sort of the same thing, and in a way even easier to explain since it's 78 years after TVH. He might have thought of it as a soft reboot, but ultimately you don't even have to go that far because of the time difference. Also, Roddenberry wasn't always entirely consistent. He considered TFF and parts of TUC not canonical, sometimes because of ego, and probably because he has some not-so-helpful people backing him up.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I guess sometimes "retcon" and "reboot" might be used interchangeably.

In my experience, "reboot" refers to a series as a whole. I haven't heard it used to refer to a single detail or continuity point.

Although people worry too much about what label to stick on things, as if that's what gives them meaning. Labels are just rough approximations and simplifications, usually very poor at explaining the nuances of each individual instance.

And even in TWOK while it's not explicitly spelled out, we are left with the distinct impression that his son is not something he likes to talk about.

In the novelization, and I think in an early version of the script, Kirk didn't even know David was his son until they met on Regula I. It was as much a surprise to him as it was to David. That actually makes more sense to me than the usual interpretation that Kirk knew all along. (Or learned sometime during TOS, as in Michael Jan Friedman's novel Faces of Fire.)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"Supermen" was perfectly handy and efficient. YMMV.

 

[Ssosmcin]

"Supermen" was perfectly handy and efficient. YMMV.

Well...they were hardly supermen....

 

[BK613]

You mean this guy:

After searching through IMDb and the web; Memory Alpha lists him as Fletcher Bryant. After checking all the uncredited actors and stuntmen listed as Khan's followers/crewmen, the oldest with given birth dates was 31 years old during the filming of the movie (making him 16 during Space Seed), but, Fletcher Bryant, did not have a listed birthday and did work starting in 1967. Bryant has performed in television series such as Cimarron Strip (1967, with Paul Carr) and Gunsmoke (1967 and 1970, with Paul Fix, Diana Muldaur, Torin Thatcher, and Charles Seel). I would guesstimate his age around 40 during filming in 1981, so, yes, he was probably the oldest of Khan's remaining followers and a mid-twenties adult during Space Seed.

To be fair, Montalban does not look as old as his age in Space Seed either. I remember being surprised to find out that he was 46 (b. 1920) when SS was shot. So "the older than they look" argument works for me.

 

[Maurice]

Getting back to Fact Trekking...

They changed Kirk's knowledge of David during pickups and editing. It was scripted and shot as a surprise to both, then changed when they did the pickups of the fight and aftermath. This likely precipitated dropping the bit (in the theatrical cut anyway) in the ladder well where Kirk excitedly tells this news to Spock, who replies blandly, "Faaascinating."

Next time, ask.

 

[MAGolding]

Even treating TWOK as a standalone story, without thinking too much about "Space Seed," the casting is odd.
Khan says "These people have sworn to live and die at my command two hundred years before you were born."
So not only have the people who we see in the room been with Khan for the last fifteen years, they were also his loyal followers back on Earth in the 1990s. Were they children at that time? They must have been really indoctrinated if they swore to live and die at their leader's command when they were just kids.

Kor

Possibly Khan intended the Botany Bay to take only his followers but other "supermen" showed up with their faimiles and begged to be included in the escape from the extermination of the "supermen". And Khan would only let men, women and children who promished total loyalty and absolute obedience to him to board the botany Bay.

Thus everyone who managed to get aboard the Botany Bay had swore total loyalt to KHan at one point or anohter.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Getting back to Fact Trekking...

They changed Kirk's knowledge of David during pickups and editing. It was scripted and shot as a surprise to both, then changed when they did the pickups of the fight and aftermath. This likely precipitated dropping the bit (in the theatrical cut anyway) in the ladder well where Kirk excitedly tells this news to Spock, who replies blandly, "Faaascinating."

Next time, ask.

Always my least favorite addition in the TV and director's cut. It never felt right. Now they removed the line but kept the footage which does nothing but extend the scene, disrupt the flow and require music editing. I just woulda left it out of the Blu Ray.

Many of the restored scenes were cut to begin with for good reason.

 

[Damian]

Although people worry too much about what label to stick on things, as if that's what gives them meaning.

Pretty much how loosely the word 'canon' is used.

In the novelization, and I think in an early version of the script, Kirk didn't even know David was his son until they met on Regula I. It was as much a surprise to him as it was to David. That actually makes more sense to me than the usual interpretation that Kirk knew all along. (Or learned sometime during TOS, as in Michael Jan Friedman's novel Faces of Fire.)

The problem there is in the movie itself Carol and Kirk have that conversation about how he told her he did what she wanted, he stayed away. So it's....wait for it....canon (yeah, had to throw that in).

"Supermen" was perfectly handy and efficient. YMMV.

In universe it's possible the term "Augment" wasn't used until later, perhaps created by Dr. Soong himself to references his supermen. Then retroactively applied to earlier ones (though in Star Trek novels--I don't recall any shows after Enterprise referencing supermen and/or Augments).

 

[Christopher]

In universe it's possible the term "Augment" wasn't used until later, perhaps created by Dr. Soong himself to references his supermen.

Or maybe it was used all along and we just didn't hear it. Like "Federation." The term was never used until "Arena," with "United Federation of Planets" not established until "A Taste of Armageddon," but we retroactively assume the name was in use all along. Fictional universes retroactively expand their worldbuilding all the time. It doesn't mean the thing didn't exist before, just that the writers hadn't yet thought to establish that it did.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Like "Federation." The term was never used until "Arena," with "United Federation of Planets" not established until "A Taste of Armageddon," but we retroactively assume the name was in use all along.

So, in other words, it was a retcon.