yet TOS is relegated to TV land and late night syndication while TNG and DS9 can be seen during the day on Spike. Yep TOS is really alive.
Because when you think about what the Non Fans think you can convert them to becoming fans, building the fan base and keeping the franchise alive...
I DON'T HAVE TO--that's the beauty of FICTIONAL entertainment. I just take what I see at face value, to start, and decide AFTER I've experienced it (film, music, play, etc.) if it was worth the time, money and effort to see. But if you must have an explanation--the people working on Star Trek IV probably thought the version in Trek III was too bland (and hey, it was the same director for both, to boot--a certain original icon of TOS, IIRC. Now what was his name....?) and did not capture the "Klingon feel" sufficiently for the far lengthier screen time it would receive in Trek IV (for the very short time it was on screen in Trek III, the original was serviceable). So Nimoy (yeah, that was his name--too bad he just pissed all over continuity like that
) and company, understanding (unlike some, apparently) that IT'S JUST ENTERTAINMENT decided to "spruce things up"--because he could. That's it. No "rationalizations" necessary. They made a movie and saw an opportunity to revise the visuals in an area that was, in their view, lacking in the previous effort. The same thing is at work today.No, it isn't. If the filmmakers had wanted to be slavishly bound by continuity, they would have either paid whatever Alley demanded to reappear or they would have "killed her off-screen"/"last minute emergency takes her somewhere else so we don't see Saavik". But the writers thought the character was integral to the story, so they recast her. Just like Rachel Dawes being recast in The Dark Knight--Holmes was unavailable (pregnant during the shoot), so they just found someone else. If they wanted to be "slaves to continuity" (and only their own Nolanesque take on it, at that) they could have written her out of the story to avoid the issue.
No it's not, Going from Kirtie Alley to the Curtis girl is the same a changing bridges. Basically it's a new actor playing the role of the enterprise, because the old one is nestled safely in the Smithsonian.
I DON'T HAVE TO--that's the beauty of FICTIONAL entertainment. I just take what I see at face value, to start, and decide AFTER I've experienced it (film, music, play, etc.) if it was worth the time, money and effort to see. But if you must have an explanation--the people working on Star Trek IV probably thought the version in Trek III was too bland (and hey, it was the same director for both, to boot--a certain original icon of TOS, IIRC. Now what was his name....?) and did not capture the "Klingon feel" sufficiently for the far lengthier screen time it would receive in Trek IV (for the very short time it was on screen in Trek III, the original was serviceable). So Nimoy (yeah, that was his name--too bad he just pissed all over continuity like that
No, it isn't. If the filmmakers had wanted to be slavishly bound by continuity, they would have either paid whatever Alley demanded to reappear or they would have "killed her off-screen"/"last minute emergency takes her somewhere else so we don't see Saavik". But the writers thought the character was integral to the story, so they recast her. Just like Rachel Dawes being recast in The Dark Knight--Holmes was unavailable (pregnant during the shoot), so they just found someone else. If they wanted to be "slaves to continuity" (and only their own Nolanesque take on it, at that) they could have written her out of the story to avoid the issue.
It's all ENTERTAINMENT. It's not a religion or a life or death issue. Now, if, in over 700 hours of Trek, not one single iota of "continuity error" had EVER cropped up, then perhaps I'd be slightly sympathetic to the "purists". But I've been watching Star Trek in all of its versions (save the fan films) since 1973 and I've lost count of the "continuity errors" I've noticed (and I do notice them). I simply don't let visual cues or small details like middle initials or Khan remembering Chekov get in the way of enjoying Trek. Far less stressful that way.
Merely asserting it does not make it correct (your objection, that is--just to be clear). If "continuity", in visuals, especially, is so vitally important, then Robin Curtis would NEVER have been cast as a replacement. The writers would have written the character out of the story (happens elsewhere in Trek--they didn't recast Beverly Crusher, they wrote her out of the storylines for that season). Clearly, though, Trek has never been above making visual changes when it suited them (for reasons that had nothing to do with "in universe" reasons). Ridged Klingons (only retroactively "explained" nearly 30 years later), various differences in appearance of Trills and Cardassians, Romulan ridged foreheads and non ridged foreheads, Kahn being 200 years old on TV but 300 on "the big screen, Trelayne viewing things from 900 years in the past vs the Khan era dates placing those things far closer to the TOS era, the bridge in Where No Man vs other episodes, Kor, Kang and Koloth in TOS era vs TNG era (again, prior to Enterprise's "explanation")--I could go on (and on and on). But the bottom line remains the same--when someone wanted to change the visual aesthetic, it was frequently done. Because, in the end, ENTERTAINMENT is the goal, not fundamentalism on a scale that makes the Wahhabi look like late Ancien Regime libertines.
Then it's a setting which is up to the determination of the art director to decide it's look.. If the art director wanted it to be green and filled with plush carpeting than that's what we would get. It's a minor detail but you and Robert and a small minority of others seem to be obessed over it. Just like in my above post in Batman the batcave has changed, Gotham has changed and they are just the same type of elements that the enterprise is. The enterprise is a place that things happen in. It's a backdrop, and they have decided that this is their interpretation of that backdrop.
You are quite masterful at dodging anything you don't want to acknowledge, aren't you? What part of my TEN or so LINE explanation about redesigning the bridge on the Bird of Prey did you NOT understand?I DON'T HAVE TO--that's the beauty of FICTIONAL entertainment. I just take what I see at face value, to start, and decide AFTER I've experienced it (film, music, play, etc.) if it was worth the time, money and effort to see. But if you must have an explanation--the people working on Star Trek IV probably thought the version in Trek III was too bland (and hey, it was the same director for both, to boot--a certain original icon of TOS, IIRC. Now what was his name....?) and did not capture the "Klingon feel" sufficiently for the far lengthier screen time it would receive in Trek IV (for the very short time it was on screen in Trek III, the original was serviceable). So Nimoy (yeah, that was his name--too bad he just pissed all over continuity like that
No, it isn't. If the filmmakers had wanted to be slavishly bound by continuity, they would have either paid whatever Alley demanded to reappear or they would have "killed her off-screen"/"last minute emergency takes her somewhere else so we don't see Saavik". But the writers thought the character was integral to the story, so they recast her. Just like Rachel Dawes being recast in The Dark Knight--Holmes was unavailable (pregnant during the shoot), so they just found someone else. If they wanted to be "slaves to continuity" (and only their own Nolanesque take on it, at that) they could have written her out of the story to avoid the issue.
It's all ENTERTAINMENT. It's not a religion or a life or death issue. Now, if, in over 700 hours of Trek, not one single iota of "continuity error" had EVER cropped up, then perhaps I'd be slightly sympathetic to the "purists". But I've been watching Star Trek in all of its versions (save the fan films) since 1973 and I've lost count of the "continuity errors" I've noticed (and I do notice them). I simply don't let visual cues or small details like middle initials or Khan remembering Chekov get in the way of enjoying Trek. Far less stressful that way.
This isn't a small continuity error, this is blatantly redesigning a bridge.
And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?
