So, then, the Saavik who we first met on the Grissom in STIII, she wasn't the same Saavik who'd cried at Spock's funeral in the previous film?
Poll Is continuity important?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
And they were both
captain of the Enterprise before Pike?
Sure, why not. Do you know how many people have the name "Will Smith" in the US alone?
Why can't there be 2x men named "Robert April" who were the previous Captains of the USS Enterprise.
Problem solved, everybody is happy.
::shrugs:: maybe. Who knows how common of a name Saavik is amongst the Vulcan people.
It could be as common as a average female named Sarah on Earth, in the US, right now.
How many Sarah's (All spelling variations) have you met IRL or know somebody named Sarah or know of someone who knows a Sarah?
The question isn't how many Sara(h)s have I met. It's how many have been interchangeable. I've met many Sara(h)s but none were interchangeable.
But again, as I wrote, no matter if it would be realistic, it's fiction and people in fiction aren't generally given their names without reason, especially not the exact same names as an already established character in the same universe.
And again, there's no solution needed. It's just an actor not matching a animated character model.
But Trek fans want continuity preserved, this is an easy way to do it without much kerfuffle.
Didn't Batman vs Superman have an entire plot schtick about Batman & Superman's mothers both being named "Martha"?
::Shrugs:: Maybe for the sake of plot and extra characters, they were for Spock?
He might have known multiple Saavik's?
Indeed. And as much as it is annoying fiction is not real life. There are cross overs and small universes and encounters with the same characters. Fiction exists as a mutable but highly elevated reality where coincidences are common for the sake of drama. That's not a bug.
Recasting Robert April as black was always going to be considered controversial, especially after all the previous efforts to visually reboot the physical features of other species in Trek and their technology from Discovery onwards. As its as much about owning a bunch of Trek Bros and MAGA people and are using it as bait to draw them out as racists, as is it a message to say that skin color doesn’t matter. Even though those that are excited that there is a black captain of the Enterprise suggest that skin color does indeed matter. Its all politics.
Interesting that the 1960s Batman starring Adam West had both a white AND black Catwoman, who was supposed to be the SAME person and it wasn’t a big deal. It’s almost like the pre-social media world was a lot more chill than todays, where there’s free license to be outraged at everything.
Did he specifically mention being captain of the Enterprise?
Just ask the Terminator.
Batman 66 and Star Trek are very different shows. It's easier to have malleable continuity on a less serious show. . Also, while the comics the character is based on was always recognized as separate, the EU appearances of April (yes yes, I know novels and comics aren't "canon") are ostensibly in the same universe.
Just ask the Terminator.
Batman 66 and Star Trek are very different shows. It's easier to have malleable continuity on a less serious show. . Also, while the comics the character is based on was always recognized as separate, the EU appearances of April (yes yes, I know novels and comics aren't "canon") are ostensibly in the same universe.
I doubt the two fandoms treat continuity the same way.
People were still outraged at everything, they just didn't have a way to put that outrage out to millions of people with a single mouse click.
DC has about 1001 different continuities/timelines/universes, and which is the main one and which is not is always changing.
Interestingly, Doug Drexler posted about continuity yesterday (he's previously done so but deleted it shortly after). Short version, he considers Picard to be a continuation of TNG, but Discovery and SNW to be an alternate timeline. He even suggested like many here that the Temporal Cold War could be the reason for all the changes.
He's just an art guy so it's not authoritative, but Interesting to have a current Trek worker take a stance other than the company line of everything being one interconnected continuity.
He's just an art guy so it's not authoritative, but Interesting to have a current Trek worker take a stance other than the company line of everything being one interconnected continuity.
I've been wanting them to make Disco an alternate universe for years.
He's been involved in Trek since before some of the current production people were even born, so I take his word with a lot of weight.
He's designed ships, helped put together manuals (even unlicensed ones when growing up) but he has never written an episode or influenced a story, as far as I'm aware.
Everything connecting is not something I'm really interested in for the simple fact that I don't remember every detail of a show. I have alot of different interests and my brain has to jumble all that on top of life. Just tell good stories. If there's reason to connect things, then fine.. I haven't watched much of the new trek (because my trek fandom started late and I'm more interested in the old series) but I watched Strange New Worlds, really liked it and I didn't have to feel like I had to have seen the Discovery parts because it was explained why it mattered to the story in the first ep.
I'm also not bothered by changing races of people, or pushing Women as more important to a time period than just info dumps that look cute on the bridge. A show from the 60s (that I adore) has flaws that a show made today can fix. That said, When I heard of Discovery, and I saw that Burnham was going to be related to Spock, I rolled my eyes. Felt very Star wars.. and unnecessary but again, its not that big of a deal because if they tell good stories, it doesn't really matter and plus, I don't try to say shows from 50 years ago perfectly align, the only ones that should reach that are the ones being made today, but they aren't all doing the same thing so it can be a little awkward..
Anyway, like what you like but I wouldn't get too wrapped up in changes from a different era of trek. Just causes headaches.
I'm also not bothered by changing races of people, or pushing Women as more important to a time period than just info dumps that look cute on the bridge. A show from the 60s (that I adore) has flaws that a show made today can fix. That said, When I heard of Discovery, and I saw that Burnham was going to be related to Spock, I rolled my eyes. Felt very Star wars.. and unnecessary but again, its not that big of a deal because if they tell good stories, it doesn't really matter and plus, I don't try to say shows from 50 years ago perfectly align, the only ones that should reach that are the ones being made today, but they aren't all doing the same thing so it can be a little awkward..
Anyway, like what you like but I wouldn't get too wrapped up in changes from a different era of trek. Just causes headaches.
When I watched TMP when it came out in '79, and saw the new Klingon look both of my eyebrows went up. Not because it surprised me in a negative way, it was because I thought it was so cool. I understood immediately what it was, they now had a movie budget and the art of makeup had come a long way since the '60s.
It never occured to me that there should be an in'story explanation, I didn't need one, they were just supposed to have looked that way all along.
And going back to watching TOS after TMP, the smooth Klingons didn't bother me one bit.
To be honest, I have never even remotely tried to think in terms of alternate universes, it's all just totally make believe fictional stories to me. Since it's all just pretend, I had no trouble further pretending the Klingons just always looked that way.
Maybe I'm not a true Star Trek fan despite the fact that I 'religiously watched Star Trek all the way from the original run of TOS up until I went blind watching Enterprise.
Robert
It never occured to me that there should be an in'story explanation, I didn't need one, they were just supposed to have looked that way all along.
And going back to watching TOS after TMP, the smooth Klingons didn't bother me one bit.
To be honest, I have never even remotely tried to think in terms of alternate universes, it's all just totally make believe fictional stories to me. Since it's all just pretend, I had no trouble further pretending the Klingons just always looked that way.
Maybe I'm not a true Star Trek fan despite the fact that I 'religiously watched Star Trek all the way from the original run of TOS up until I went blind watching Enterprise.
Robert
Hey no one's saying that if you aren't bothered by continuity issues then you're not a true Star Trek fan... unless they did and I missed it. It's a long thread.
It seems to me that some people are just mentally wired up to care a lot about continuity and other people aren't.
It seems to me that some people are just mentally wired up to care a lot about continuity and other people aren't.
Man, I hope the showrunners make the decision to alter course of casting and make James Kirk black. I would love to see if you would hold to the same statement.
So I'm not a Trek fan, huh?
And,as you write, that was a crucial plot point in the movie wasn't it? Plus pretty sure those names pre-date the DC universe, so there was no issue otherwise.
Plus they still had different last names.
I would see it no different from the April re-cast. I would not mind one bit.
In fact, if SNW should lead to a new series centred on Kirk's time as a Captain of the Enterprise, I would hope they make changes to the cast when compared to TOS.
Last edited: