Rachel Nichols: Which Part Will She Play?
- Thread starter Samuel T. Cogley
- Start date
Unless it takes place y'know after Kirk and Carol have already hooked up.Babaganoosh said:
Carol was probably the "little blonde lab technician", so if we see her in ST XI, then Gary Mitchell would probably need to be there too, to set her up with Kirk.
Given that the film has been said to be "Spock-centric," I wouldn't be surprised if she were Leila Kalomi. I've been thinking for months that it'd be nice if the film were to explore that dangling thread of Spock's backstory. Except their involvement was six years before TOS's first season, so it would only work if the film covered multiple time periods (which it already appears it will).
On the other hand, we mustn't assume that every single character in this movie is going to be somebody we've seen before. The filmmakers have said they're going to show us other Starfleet personnel besides the familiar Enterprise bunch. Personally, I've been hoping that the unnamed "Federation Captain" character that's been announced (and who is confirmed not to be Pike) will be a woman -- although Nichols is probably too young for that role.
On the other hand, we mustn't assume that every single character in this movie is going to be somebody we've seen before. The filmmakers have said they're going to show us other Starfleet personnel besides the familiar Enterprise bunch. Personally, I've been hoping that the unnamed "Federation Captain" character that's been announced (and who is confirmed not to be Pike) will be a woman -- although Nichols is probably too young for that role.
Rachel Nichols will most likely play a younger Nurse/med Student Christine Chapel in Trek 11. I am almost willing to bet she and young Spock had a thing for each other.
Majel Barret used to get me steamed up every time I saw her in those tight nylons with the Blue Miniskirted uniform with those 1960s Go-Go Boots. I bet there wasn't one cast member that couldn't keep their eyes off of her. She was one Hot Chick ! I have freeze framed my dvds of her once in awhile she is in sickbay with Dr. Mc'Coy. I don't know why Mc'Coy didn't chase here around the "sickbay"
Majel Barret used to get me steamed up every time I saw her in those tight nylons with the Blue Miniskirted uniform with those 1960s Go-Go Boots. I bet there wasn't one cast member that couldn't keep their eyes off of her. She was one Hot Chick ! I have freeze framed my dvds of her once in awhile she is in sickbay with Dr. Mc'Coy. I don't know why Mc'Coy didn't chase here around the "sickbay"
Unlikely, since Spock had no idea Chapel had feelings for him until she confessed them under the influence of the Psi 2000 virus in "The Naked Time." And he never, ever reciprocated her interest, except under the influence of Harry Mudd's love potion in the animated episode "Mudd's Passion."
Sure it is. "This Side of Paradise" tied it up, but how Spock and Leila met, and exactly what happened, is largely unexplored, even by the novels and comics. So it's the first end that's still dangling.
Deleted 2
Vice Admiral
Dammit, where is Beaker when you need a point to be made in his consise, signature style?
I'll give it a try: Leila Kalomi was a throwaway character written in to add romantic tension to a TOS episode. There are about 79 such characters in TOS alone. We do not need to see any of them again.
^
Well said. This film is about, as many of the episodes in the original series were about, telling a good yarn, not filling in the blanks that frankly don't count as blanks. So he met a girl once who fell in love with him. Do we need a notarized reciept of when, where, how, and wherefore this came to be?
And aren't we fine without one? "This Side of Paradise" is my favourite TOS episode, and I'm quite content with what I know of Leila Kalomi: That she loved Spock and he couldn't return that love - because that's all that matters dramatically.
This said, if the film doesn't explain what happened to Kevin Riley, I will burn down something!*
*Not an actual threat. 'Burn' may just be meant in the parochical sense of spurning.
Well said. This film is about, as many of the episodes in the original series were about, telling a good yarn, not filling in the blanks that frankly don't count as blanks. So he met a girl once who fell in love with him. Do we need a notarized reciept of when, where, how, and wherefore this came to be?
And aren't we fine without one? "This Side of Paradise" is my favourite TOS episode, and I'm quite content with what I know of Leila Kalomi: That she loved Spock and he couldn't return that love - because that's all that matters dramatically.
This said, if the film doesn't explain what happened to Kevin Riley, I will burn down something!*
*Not an actual threat. 'Burn' may just be meant in the parochical sense of spurning.
Kalomi is not a "throwaway character" - she was one of the central characters in that particular melodrama. It's true that there were quite a few of these - a couple of new ones almost every week - but referring to them as "throwaways" is inaccurate simply because their episodes and characters may be less riveting to some Trek fans than is, say, Khan Noonien Singh.
Deleted 2
Vice Admiral
^ Khan was a throwaway character as well. A recycled throwaway character. My point is, unless you're writing fan fic, or, one step up, Trek Lit, there's really no reason to expand the backstory of minor characters the majority of the audience doesn't know or care about.
Someone like J.J. Abrams doesn't get paid to do that kind of thing.
Someone like J.J. Abrams doesn't get paid to do that kind of thing.
That's a really, um, idiosyncratic use of "throwaway character."
It defines any character who is not a series regular as a "throwaway" and is not the way that term is actually used.
Ensign Redshirt is usually a "throwaway character" (and often no more than an extra or walk-on), Kalomi or Khan or Matt Decker would be called "featured" or "guest" characters, among other things.
It defines any character who is not a series regular as a "throwaway" and is not the way that term is actually used.
Ensign Redshirt is usually a "throwaway character" (and often no more than an extra or walk-on), Kalomi or Khan or Matt Decker would be called "featured" or "guest" characters, among other things.
^
'Throwaway' might be going to the other extreme, but her background certainly isn't a mysterious unresolved plot point as Christopher and Therin appear to suggest.
She was a guest star who was integral to that week's episode as a love interest, and one of the best of that kind of character that TOS did. She was not a recurring character - as Harry Mudd was, and, counting the films, Khan Singh was - and personally I'm glad she wasn't, her plot seemed well and truly concluded by the fifth act.
'Throwaway' might be going to the other extreme, but her background certainly isn't a mysterious unresolved plot point as Christopher and Therin appear to suggest.
She was a guest star who was integral to that week's episode as a love interest, and one of the best of that kind of character that TOS did. She was not a recurring character - as Harry Mudd was, and, counting the films, Khan Singh was - and personally I'm glad she wasn't, her plot seemed well and truly concluded by the fifth act.
Yes.
Exactly so.
Might be a wee bit of a stretch to call Khan a throwaway character..... 
