Nimoy/Spock was there at the beginning of the original "Star Trek" and he's there at the end. No one else was except Majel Roddenberry.
Works for me.
Works for me.
Until Star Trek XII:Another Search For Spock.
I recall (though it's POSSIBLE I'm mistaken) that this was actually stated on-screen in an original episode. I'd have to go back and watch 79 hours of DVDs to find out for sure, though, and I just don't have the time right now!
really , it is way to describe the earlier star trek films as well as some of the tos episodes themsevles.MisterPL;1533032[b said:In other words, it's a reboot, folks.
remember tos wasnt always totally strict with its own canon.
just curious do you consider the series a reboot from where no man has gone before since there are differences between it and the series itself.
I've always had that impression as well (Think he may have said as much more then once? Do know in later years he wasn't Kirk's biggest fan...) and am glad he didn't get it the first time around as what we actually got was more interesting.I think TNG might have been closer to what Roddenberry had envisioned from the start.
I agree with this completely. Roddenberry's ideas, when he was allowed complete and total control over everything, weren't nearly as impressive as he'd have liked us to have believed.I've always had that impression as well (Think he may have said as much more then once? Do know in later years he wasn't Kirk's biggest fan...) and am glad he didn't get it the first time around as what we actually got was more interesting.I think TNG might have been closer to what Roddenberry had envisioned from the start.
Sharr
HAHAHAHAHA!!! No fair! You're trying to use logic here...Lamest theory ever put forward around this place. Why does it need to be so complex and conspiratorial? (and this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest having a previous actor in a movie to 'pass the torch described this way... it show desperation)Having the Nimoy Spock in this thing just emphasizes that the writers were either to stupid or too lazy to come up with a totally fresh and new story,
Can't it just simply be, their story and plot called for it? Not having seen the film can't say for sure but it is the simplest more likely reason.
Sharr
HAHAHAHAHA!!! No fair! You're trying to use logic here...Lamest theory ever put forward around this place. Why does it need to be so complex and conspiratorial? (and this is the first time ever I have seen anyone suggest having a previous actor in a movie to 'pass the torch described this way... it show desperation)Having the Nimoy Spock in this thing just emphasizes that the writers were either to stupid or too lazy to come up with a totally fresh and new story,
Can't it just simply be, their story and plot called for it? Not having seen the film can't say for sure but it is the simplest more likely reason.
Sharr
And I agree with you completely.![]()
I recall (though it's POSSIBLE I'm mistaken) that this was actually stated on-screen in an original episode. I'd have to go back and watch 79 hours of DVDs to find out for sure, though, and I just don't have the time right now!
That IS, however, why T'Pol wasn't ever "in Starfleet." She was "attached" but (at least in the "normal timeline") never took a Starfleet commission. She was a Vulcan "navy" officer on detached duty with Earth Starfleet.
Spock was the first Vulcan Officer to serve in the FEDERATION Starfleet.
When TNG first came out, I do agree it was much more like he'd originally intended. And honestly, it was AWFUL. Believe it or not, I think Berman SAVED "Star Trek" by treating it like a business. He also eventually nearly killed it, largely due to the same sort of thing that Roddenberry fell into... thinking of it as being "his."
It took a few people who really got it... Michael Pillar key among them... to turn the crap that was S1/S2 TNG into a show worth watching. And when Pillar started to withdraw, the quality got worse, FAST.
As far as I'm concerned, the best of TOS trek was the work of Gene Coon, and the bet of TNG Trek was the work of Michael Pillar.
Why? Because both of these guys were more about telling good stories than about preaching... and I see a lot of the same qualities in Abrams, which is why I'm cautiously optimistic about the upcoming film.
there's no canon to directly contradict it, either.
there's no canon to directly contradict it, either.
Ok, I'm sure I'm just asking to be bitch-slapped back into Trek-Trivia-Obscurity, but what about the Intrepid? Are you suggesting Spock has been in Star Fleet longer than everyone on that ship?
Of course, it could be argued that Spock was the first/only Half-Vulcan in StarFleet.there's no canon to directly contradict it, either.
Ok, I'm sure I'm just asking to be bitch-slapped back into Trek-Trivia-Obscurity, but what about the Intrepid? Are you suggesting Spock has been in Star Fleet longer than everyone on that ship?
That has always seemed pretty unlikely to me, too.
Are you suggesting Spock has been in Star Fleet longer than everyone on that ship?
I agree with this completely. Roddenberry's ideas, when he was allowed complete and total control over everything, weren't nearly as impressive as he'd have liked us to have believed.I've always had that impression as well (Think he may have said as much more then once? Do know in later years he wasn't Kirk's biggest fan...) and am glad he didn't get it the first time around as what we actually got was more interesting.I think TNG might have been closer to what Roddenberry had envisioned from the start.
Sharr
Roddenberry put together a good team of very skilled people, all of whom contributed AT LEAST as much to what "Star Trek" became as he did. And my real disillusionment with him began when I started seeing him claiming credit for things that I KNEW had been the work of others (Gene Coon, John Black... hell, Alexander Courage for that matter!). He tried to build his own myth... apparently he took the JOKE NICKNAME of "Great Bird of the Galaxy" a little too much to heart?
When TNG first came out, I do agree it was much more like he'd originally intended. And honestly, it was AWFUL. Believe it or not, I think Berman SAVED "Star Trek" by treating it like a business. He also eventually nearly killed it, largely due to the same sort of thing that Roddenberry fell into... thinking of it as being "his."
It took a few people who really got it... Michael Pillar key among them... to turn the crap that was S1/S2 TNG into a show worth watching. And when Pillar started to withdraw, the quality got worse, FAST.
As far as I'm concerned, the best of TOS trek was the work of Gene Coon, and the bet of TNG Trek was the work of Michael Pillar.
Why? Because both of these guys were more about telling good stories than about preaching... and I see a lot of the same qualities in Abrams, which is why I'm cautiously optimistic about the upcoming film.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.