Simple explanation: Admiral Morrow is an ass.
Why The Huge Gap Between TMP & WOK?
- Thread starter DeepSpaceYorks
- Start date
No argument there.
Both TWOK and TSFS base their dates on real life. TWOK is actually 15 years after Space Seed. TSFS is 20 years from The Cage. Unfortunately the dates in TFSS are just silly. Star Trek is 20 years old at that point. Not the Enterprise.
Of course Morrow's line is really just shorthand for "Hey man, Star Trek is old. Time to put you guys out to pasture." To which the answer is "No."
As some have mentioned earlier, TWOK can really exist without TMP. I used to think Spock's character was a result of being post-Vejur. But really, he's just mellowed with age.
Not only does TWOK exist without TMP, but it also assumes that Space Seed looked pretty much just like TWOK. Khan having Marla's TWOK era Starfleet insignia isn't an anachronism. It just always looked like that! That's also why Khan has TWOK-era cargo canisters. The Enterprise hasn't been refit. She's always looked that way and now she's old.
Of course the thinking between TWOK and TSFS (and TMP) are all completely separate and not really meant to be reconciled.
Of course Morrow's line is really just shorthand for "Hey man, Star Trek is old. Time to put you guys out to pasture." To which the answer is "No."
As some have mentioned earlier, TWOK can really exist without TMP. I used to think Spock's character was a result of being post-Vejur. But really, he's just mellowed with age.
Not only does TWOK exist without TMP, but it also assumes that Space Seed looked pretty much just like TWOK. Khan having Marla's TWOK era Starfleet insignia isn't an anachronism. It just always looked like that! That's also why Khan has TWOK-era cargo canisters. The Enterprise hasn't been refit. She's always looked that way and now she's old.
Of course the thinking between TWOK and TSFS (and TMP) are all completely separate and not really meant to be reconciled.
Yeah, I have a head-canon in which all that's the case. It really solves a lot of problems to just go with that! 
It's worth noting that Harve Bennett took a loose approach to continuity with The Six Million Dollar Man, as was typical for most series television of the day. For instance, "The Seven Million Dollar Man" referred back to the events of the pilot movie, but replaced Barbara Anderson's character with a different woman who'd filled an equivalent role -- in addition to the show's previous retcons of making Steve an Air Force colonel instead of a civilian astronaut and making Oscar Goldman, rather than Darren McGavin's character Oliver Spencer, be responsible for Steve's operation. And the titular second bionic man in that episode was named Barney Miller, and the sitcom of that name premiered the following year, so when they brought the character back for a sequel episode, they just changed it to Barney Hiller and pretended it had always been that.
So naturally Bennett applied the same kind of retconning to the Trek movies wherever it was convenient. Sure they had movie-era tech 15 years ago. Sure Chekov was there. Sure Khan's followers were all white, Nordic types instead of the multiethnic group Scotty described in dialogue. Sure Kirk had a son we'd never heard of before. They used what bits of continuity they found useful and made what changes were convenient. Consistency was secondary to the needs of the moment, as it usually was in series television in that era.
You try living for years on a dead planet and see if your hair doesn't turn white
Meyer also seems to think coninu
Does it mean "I can't be bothered to read the Star Trek writer's guide or do math"?
Chekov: Just because he was never seen doesn't mean he wasn't there and didn't encounter Khan at some point. At any given time, there were 390+ people aboard you don't see in any given episode. Besides, Pavel could have been assigned to the Enterprise briefly in another, non-bridge capacity. Or be a passenger along for the ride to wherever they were going, to transfer somewhere else, only to come back to the Enterprise later.
Khan's followers: Maybe the harsh conditions of the planet bleached their skin. Or a side effect of Augments becoming old which had been slowed down by the cryogenics.
Kirk's son: Given the way Kirk was portrayed (lots of relationships), it's entirely possible he had a kid at some point that was never mentioned in the series. It would be surprising (statistically) if he didn't.
Khan's followers: Maybe the harsh conditions of the planet bleached their skin. Or a side effect of Augments becoming old which had been slowed down by the cryogenics.
Kirk's son: Given the way Kirk was portrayed (lots of relationships), it's entirely possible he had a kid at some point that was never mentioned in the series. It would be surprising (statistically) if he didn't.
Of course any one of those things can be rationalized after the fact. People have been doing that for decades. But that is not at all the point. The point is not about whether fans can imagine rationalizations after the fact, because of course they can. The point is that the filmmakers themselves didn't concern themselves with continuity to such a granular degree. That's just not the mentality they had.
Indeed, the ability of audiences to rationalize inconsistencies to themselves is exactly what the filmmakers were counting on when they made those changes. Their attitude was that it was okay to get close enough, because if the audience was willing to buy into the story, then they'd forgive or work around whatever inconsistencies there were. Of course, to an extent, film and TV producers who retconned their shows were counting on most of their audience not to remember the exact details all that well, because back then they didn't have wikis or websites they could readily consult. But that was just part of the larger sense that the details were negotiable in service to the story. The filmmakers didn't have to reconcile every last thing, because the audience would either do it for them or just not notice in the first place.
Indeed, the ability of audiences to rationalize inconsistencies to themselves is exactly what the filmmakers were counting on when they made those changes. Their attitude was that it was okay to get close enough, because if the audience was willing to buy into the story, then they'd forgive or work around whatever inconsistencies there were. Of course, to an extent, film and TV producers who retconned their shows were counting on most of their audience not to remember the exact details all that well, because back then they didn't have wikis or websites they could readily consult. But that was just part of the larger sense that the details were negotiable in service to the story. The filmmakers didn't have to reconcile every last thing, because the audience would either do it for them or just not notice in the first place.
But these days, everybody holds them accountable for it-just look at all the backlash inaccurate science-based movies get.
How is it that many of the same people who point to apparent contradictions in the Bible are unwilling to find a reasonable explanation for how two supposedly antithetical statements can both be true, yet they jump all over attempting to explain a movie/TV series' canon or just plain ignore the discrepancies? *shakes head*.
Okay, rant computer, end program.
I'm just glad there are records now for writers who want to get the "facts" about their fictional world straight.
How is it that many of the same people who point to apparent contradictions in the Bible are unwilling to find a reasonable explanation for how two supposedly antithetical statements can both be true, yet they jump all over attempting to explain a movie/TV series' canon or just plain ignore the discrepancies? *shakes head*.
Okay, rant computer, end program.
I'm just glad there are records now for writers who want to get the "facts" about their fictional world straight.
Why would it be surprising? Maybe he's just very careful about using contraception... or had a space-vasectomy, or regularly gets some sort of shot or pill from McCoy that neuters his little swimmers.
I'm about Kirk's age as of TOS, and I have successfully not fathered any children, and that's using current 20th/21st century methods of contraception, let alone 300-years-in-the-future sci-fi methods.
Not everything has 100% success rate, even now. And remember, you're dealing with alien biology on the woman's side as well in some cases (not in Carol's), for which these methods may not be as effective.
BTW, you're explaining something which was never said with something else that was never said.
BTW, you're explaining something which was never said with something else that was never said.
And you're raising that objection in support of something else that was never said.
And you're raising that objection in support of something else that was never said.
LOL.
I remember reading an old magazine interview with Harve Bennett that brought up the 20 year old line from TSFS. He said it was originally going to be 40 years, but shortened it so not to confuse casual viewers. I started reading this thread in hope someone else remembered it and save me having to read through all my old Starlog magazines. If I find it, I'll be sure to post it for you guys.
Why would it be surprising? Maybe he's just very careful about using contraception... or had a space-vasectomy, or regularly gets some sort of shot or pill from McCoy that neuters his little swimmers.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Contraception_injection
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Contraception_injection
Just because it was available doesn't mean he availed himself of it.
Not really, I was just wondering why it was 'statistically surprising'. Anyway, he had one child, it's perfectly possible he had more. It's also perfectly possible and not-at-all surprising that he didn't.
