star trek generations

[eyeresist]

Plus people now are more critical of movies in general. We've become a tougher crowd.

Well that's a direct effect of technology. See something once or twice you tend to say good or bad. Have unlimited access to it and now you can pick it apart and know what you want to see in a sequel or similar film. So expectations are higher before the film rolls.

I think the rise of high quality serialised television is a big factor, as it's created a fan culture more concerned with world-building logic, sustained characterisation, and long-term consistency. This was never an issue with TV episodes and movies that were meant to be experienced independently.

NuTrek was supposed to be an escape from that pressure, cleverly evading 45+ years of Trek backstory, but then they shot themself in the foot by having OldSpock and Kahn in the sequel.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I think they showed that though there are some similarities with the old universe, the new one is unfolding in a different manner. Khan was still drifting around but was found earlier. Jim Kirk didn't have his dad as a calming influence and so was far more... immature.

 

[Lance]

That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked"and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.

This is a fascinating side-discussion. I've long thought how, for example, Carol being replaced by Kirk in the Genesis tapes for the Star Trek sequels, or Jor-El being replaced by Lara in the Superman sequels, didn't matter so much back then. When you only had the chance to see movies at the theater and it was like two or three years between movies, details like that weren't so noticable. In the age of home video and the ability to rewatch things or view them as 'marathons', that lack of consistency stands out like a sore thumb and are often held up as 'mistakes' by armchair critics (who seem unable to place a movie into context of the time in which it was made). In theaters, the detail that went into recreating 1955 Hill Valley in Back To The Future II felt miraculous, and while that still holds true to some extent today, the ability to watch the movies ad infinitium, and one after another, serves to highlight the little things they didn't quite manage to replicate...

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^I thought Kirk was put in to explain what had happened after the events of Trek II.

 

[fireproof78]

^^
Indeed. I thought that the Kirk tapes were essentially his after action report to Starfleet, with him summarizing information that probably was not generally known by top leadership.

 

[kirkfan]

I think they showed that though there are some similarities with the old universe, the new one is unfolding in a different manner. Khan was still drifting around but was found earlier. Jim Kirk didn't have his dad as a calming influence and so was far more... immature.

It also looks like he never had a brother. So maybe it was his little brother and that would explain why he was never born.

 

[FormerLurker]

George was always his older brother. IIRC, he is described as such in What Are Little Girls Made Of. I'll have to check, it may just say brother, but I thought it said older.

 

[Dukhat]

I think they showed that though there are some similarities with the old universe, the new one is unfolding in a different manner. Khan was still drifting around but was found earlier. Jim Kirk didn't have his dad as a calming influence and so was far more... immature.

It also looks like he never had a brother. So maybe it was his little brother and that would explain why he was never born.

Sam was in ST'09 before his scene was cut and was turned into "Johnny" for some inexplicable reason. Why he couldn't have remained being Sam when Kirk drives by him makes no sense to me.

 

[FormerLurker]

To forestall the George/Sam debate, George Samuel Kirk was introduced by proxy in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", with android Kirk describing him as "Only you call him Sam." Later, the screenwriter of "Operation Annihilate" doesn't pay attention to that line and has McCoy ask Kirk "What about Sam, your brother?" So in universe, everyone is supposed to only know him as George Kirk (junior*). But, also in universe, at least one other person calls him by Jim Kirk's childhood nickname for him, with much fan speculation for why Kirk calls him that.



*This is revealed much later, perhaps even as late as ST'09.

 

[kirkfan]

To forestall the George/Sam debate, George Samuel Kirk was introduced by proxy in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", with android Kirk describing him as "Only you call him Sam." Later, the screenwriter of "Operation Annihilate" doesn't pay attention to that line and has McCoy ask Kirk "What about Sam, your brother?" So in universe, everyone is supposed to only know him as George Kirk (junior*). But, also in universe, at least one other person calls him by Jim Kirk's childhood nickname for him, with much fan speculation for why Kirk calls him that.



*This is revealed much later, perhaps even as late as ST'09.

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

 

[Dukhat]

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

 

[FormerLurker]

Unless he gets a mention in the third film, he's an unknown quantity.

 

[kirkfan]

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

"Younger" as I said is impossible, unless his wife inseminated herself with his semen after his death and I don't think she would do that. So it could only be an older brother.

 

[fireproof78]

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

I know it is in the comics and therefor not admissible in court, but one IDW comic had George show up, living a similar life as in TOS Prime, though his outlook on life seems to be a bit harsher.

I know the deleted scene was supposed to show George running away from home, and the James Kirk zooms by him in the Corvette. Obviously, being deleted that scene is also not indicating anything, save for the possibility of George appearing later on.

 

[kirkfan]

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

I know it is in the comics and therefor not admissible in court, but one IDW comic had George show up, living a similar life as in TOS Prime, though his outlook on life seems to be a bit harsher.

I know the deleted scene was supposed to show George running away from home, and the James Kirk zooms by him in the Corvette. Obviously, being deleted that scene is also not indicating anything, save for the possibility of George appearing later on.

I think we could have used a few scenes to explain what the hell was going on.

 

[fireproof78]

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

I know it is in the comics and therefor not admissible in court, but one IDW comic had George show up, living a similar life as in TOS Prime, though his outlook on life seems to be a bit harsher.

I know the deleted scene was supposed to show George running away from home, and the James Kirk zooms by him in the Corvette. Obviously, being deleted that scene is also not indicating anything, save for the possibility of George appearing later on.

I think we could have used a few scenes to explain what the hell was going on.

Indeed.

 

[BillJ]

It's funny, I've watched this movie for years and today just noticed when the Enterprise-B goes to warp, it is the Excelsior model shown. It has none of the stuff they bolted on.

 

[kirkfan]

It's funny, I've watched this movie for years and today just noticed when the Enterprise-B goes to warp, it is the Excelsior model shown. It has none of the stuff they bolted on.

It happens to me all the time. People tell me new things about movies that I've seen many times. But that's mostly because I tend to focus on dialogue, people and actions and not so much on collateral details.

 

[FormerLurker]

So he's Kirk's big brother then, otherwise he couldn't have been born since Kirk's father died the day he was born.

But in the Abramsverse, Kirk doesn't seem to have a brother, younger or older.

I know it is in the comics and therefor not admissible in court, but one IDW comic had George show up, living a similar life as in TOS Prime, though his outlook on life seems to be a bit harsher.

I know the deleted scene was supposed to show George running away from home, and the James Kirk zooms by him in the Corvette. Obviously, being deleted that scene is also not indicating anything, save for the possibility of George appearing later on.

The scene where Kirk roars by in the Corvette was in the theatrical release. The dialog was relooped so Kirk yells, "Hey, Johnny!" instead of "Hey, Georgie!" because the earlier scene showing the Kirk brothers having difficulties under their 'uncle's' iron fist was cut out.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It's funny, I've watched this movie for years and today just noticed when the Enterprise-B goes to warp, it is the Excelsior model shown. It has none of the stuff they bolted on.

Wasn't it a reuse of a shot from Star Trek VI?

That's not quite as egregious as the reuse of the destruction of Chang's Bird-of-Prey late in the film for the destruction of Lursa and B'Etor's ship. The Excelsior going to warp wasn't any special, but the destruction of Chang's Bird-of-Prey was pretty stylish and memorable.