Will Gary Mitchell make an appearance?
- Thread starter NiteTrek
- Start date
What if we just watch the movie and enjoy it for the story and not fret about the exclusion of a character that was used in one average episode and died, and was never ever to receive a mention again?
I agree with this and would have said it, but then it struck me that Chris Pike was in only three episodes of TOS and was never mentioned again in any onscreen context, and he's in the movie, so at the end of the day, maybe it's not all that unreasonable a request...
Well, I think Christopher Pike is a bit more of a memorable character, and if the story needs them to show someone else commanding the Enterprise before Kirk, they might as well make it him. Still, that's a good point!
Not entirely true. There is a referance to him in Mirror, Mirror. It is said that in the Mirror Universe, Kirk was the Enterprise's first officer until he assassinated Pike and took command.
Yeah -- but the inclusion of ANY character should not be based upon how much screentime that character got in a Star Trek episode. It should be based upon whether or not that character is important -- or even relevant -- to the story the writers want to tell.What if we just watch the movie and enjoy it for the story and not fret about the exclusion of a character that was used in one average episode and died, and was never ever to receive a mention again?
I agree with this and would have said it, but then it struck me that Chris Pike was in only three episodes of TOS and was never mentioned again in any onscreen context, and he's in the movie, so at the end of the day, maybe it's not all that unreasonable a request...
Abrams and Company want to tell a particular story that includes Pike but does not include Mitchell. I don't think they should "force" Mitchell's character into that story simply based on the fact that he was featured in the first pilot and has had almost as much screentime as Pike.
Last edited:
He was in the 2nd pilot, not the 1st..
WNMHGB was pretty obviously just a not-quite-tweaked version of the show that we'd come to know as Star Trek. I really don't get the importance placed on things like Gary Mitchell and other aspects of this episode, which seem to be looked on as the absolute unshakable image of what the Enterprise was like early in the 5 year mission. It was one episode, a pretty average one at that, with a bunch of stuff in it left over from The Cage that was never seen or mentioned again. It strikes me that the team for Trek XI should focus their energies on the series as it actually became. There's a reason that stuff was changed from the pilot, and the ship and crew from, say, Balance of Terror or The Trouble with Tribbles is the iconic Star Trek that is remembered. We don't need the movie based on or filled with references to a different series that was never really made.
There are those who seem to be operating from a position which says that all of it is important, all of the time, and that every tiny detail of every character's career and of every incident must be referenced in the movie JUST SO (right down to the perfectly-executed pointy sideburns (and no - not the silly third-season ones!
)) or it won't really be Star Trek. They are the people who want the seventeen-hour extravaganza, executed in perfect lockstep to canon with full Busby Berkeley splendour.I'd really rather just see a good movie that takes place in the Trek universe.
The Truth is Out There (and it's wearing a sombrero.)
Well, that doesn't make much sense. From what Abrams and the actors have said in various interviews, this is a story of how all the main TOS characters came together. It's a prequel, so how can you focus on how the series actually "became?"
He's telling the story of their origins, not how they were in later years. From what we've seen on screen already in TOS, we know that Spock served with Pike, Mitchell and Kirk. We know Mitchell was a close friend of Kirk's and served on the Enterprise in the early years of the 5 year mission. It's not a crime to wonder if Mitchell will be mentioned at all in the new movie.
Now, since it seems they they will be jumping around the timeline, it's possible that they will totally skip "Mitchell's era" aboard the Enterprise, who knows? We have a year to speculate.
I didn't say set the movie later. I said focus on the show that made up 97% of the broadcast episodes, the iconic series of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and write a prequel which aims towards that. Rather than towards a single episode which established a whole lot of stuff we never see again, looked naff, and wasn't a notably above average episode to begin with.
I know it's not a crime, and my comments were directed at more than just this thread; since the concept of a prequel have been announced, people have focused so heavily on WNMHGB, and, if I may, obsessed, over that being the difinitive picture of what the Trekverse was like, pre-TOS. It was this devotion to the untweaked, unsmoothed ideas of a pilot that I was referencing. WNMHGB is different to The Cage - the first pilot is (largely) entirely different characters, easily thought of as an 'earlier Enterprise mission' and so established by The Menagerie. But the second pilot is just an 'unfinished', if you like, version of the series we actually got. Why not focus on the finished article, and work from there? That's the famous show, the nostalgic appeal, and the casting info to date suggests Trek XI will indeed be a prequel of it, rather than its pilot.
I basically agree with all the points you are making, but the second pilot doesn't look nuff in any way. IMHO at least.
But we really don't know how long Mitchell had served on the Enterprise -- perhaps he got there only a few weeks before WNMHGB. There is no reason to believe that Kirk and Mitchell served a lot of time together prior to WNMHGB (but I suppose it is possible).
My point is that Abrams doesn't NEED to mention Mitchell -- he could completely ignore Mitchell as a presence in Kirk's near-pre-TOS career and not violate canon.
All we know about Mitchell is:
-he was on the Enterprise during WNMHGB,
-while there he and Kirk seemed friendly,
-While Lt. Kirk was Cadet Mitchell's instructor at the Academy, Mitchell fixed Lt. Kirk up with a blond lab tech
It seems to me that none of this is necessarily very important to the story that I think Abrams wants to tell.
Or maybe they're saying that Kirk's original first officer should be around when he's supposed to be.
...Actually, when Dehner says that Kirk "asked for [Mitchell] aboard [Kirk's] first command", it sounds to me as if the request was turned down by Starfleet.
Dunno why. Perhaps I'm corrupted by the McIntyre novel or something. But my impression remains one of Kirk trying to be nice to his on-and-off friend, yet failing in face of bureaucracy. Certainly the dialogue can be interpreted that way, thus excusing any and all other choices for Kirk's first XO.
Timo Saloniemi
Dunno why. Perhaps I'm corrupted by the McIntyre novel or something. But my impression remains one of Kirk trying to be nice to his on-and-off friend, yet failing in face of bureaucracy. Certainly the dialogue can be interpreted that way, thus excusing any and all other choices for Kirk's first XO.
Timo Saloniemi
Fair enough. I guess I always found it quite drab compared to the series we eventually got, that's all. Probably an unfair term to use though on the episode's own merits, so I retract it.
We know (or can infer) that Mitchell has been there long enough to get into Yeoman Smith's knickers (or to have made sufficient progress to the point where she seems at least receptive to the idea.) It's not a stretch to suppose that he hasn't been there too long, as we see him still scoping out other (presumably new, to him) scenery in the corridors en route to the turbolift.
As far as I'm concerned, he is. However, as Jackson Roykirk ably pointed out above:Or maybe they're saying that Kirk's original first officer should be around when he's supposed to be.
It's perfectly plausible for Mitchell to be around at the right place and time without it being at all necessary for that to touch on anything in this movie.
The questions, dear Grape, are these: how much time (out of roughly one hundred thirty minutes) do we want to spend revisiting or referencing already-known and already-mentioned events? Is Mitchell's presence really required, or would it merely be name-dropping for the fanboys? At what point does one cross the line from mere continuity porn into the realm of getting in the way of the new story?
Well, another question would be, if something is worth doing, is it worth doing right?
If I remember correctly, Mitchell was characterized as Kirk's "best friend." It's been a while, so I'm ready to stand corrected on that. As for spending time revising already known and mentioned events, this is a prequel. Is it more important to have Carol Marcus, George Kirk, Spock's parents et cetera than it is to have a guy who was actually on the Enterprise in that time frame? And if the answer is yes, in story terms, then hopefully they will at least throw in a line about picking up Mitchell when they reach Antares or something. Or at least not say anything to contradict his existence (boy, did my standards fall during the course of that paragraph or what?
).On the other hand, McCoy and Chekov are in it, so maybe the main action takes place soon after "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Who knows how much jumping around in time is going to go on?
But this is the minefield they stepped into when they decided to do a prequel; there are established facts that must be dealt with. So will they have the artistic integrity to deal respectfully with what they've been handed or will they be all kewl and run roughshod over it? This time next year, we'll know.
And if it's successful, both artistically and commercially, we can start wondering where in continuity the sequel will fall.
I've seen nothing so far to indicate that they're interested in doing it any other way, but I've also seen nothing to indicate that the story required Mitchell's presence.Well, another question would be, if something is worth doing, is it worth doing right?
No real argument there. I believe the line
"Gary told me you've been friends since he joined the service, that you asked for him aboard your first command."
covers that, more or less -- good friends, if not best friends.
I don't think I'm seeing a drop in standards. It is realistic, though, that everybody and every event can't be in the movie, or we end up with that sprawling 17-hour monster I've mentioned before. It's one Star Trek movie, not Der Ring des Nibelungen.As for spending time revising already known and mentioned events, this is a prequel. Is it more important to have Carol Marcus, George Kirk, Spock's parents et cetera than it is to have a guy who was actually on the Enterprise in that time frame? And if the answer is yes, in story terms, then hopefully they will at least throw in a line about picking up Mitchell when they reach Antares or something. Or at least not say anything to contradict his existence (boy, did my standards fall during the course of that paragraph or what?
We don't, really, but we're pretty sure that there's some, and that there will be material covering time-frames both before and after WNMHGB.
That we will. I'm optimistic, at this point.
This time next year, we can start that thread. Right now, it's all up the air.And if it's successful, both artistically and commercially, we can start wondering where in continuity the sequel will fall.
The time frame of both the academy and first mission, as well as that friendship, should indicate it; if I were assigned to write Kirk's initial outing on the Enterprise, Mitchell would be at the top of my list of elements to include. In fact, that's why I wandered into the forum; specifically to see if anything was being said about him, as I hadn't heard anything. And I'm sure these guys are intending to do it right-- they're a good team, if not perhaps the right team (we'll see)-- but it's very fashionable to be cavalier about things like canon and continuity these days.
I keep flip-flopping. Every time I hear something that makes me optimistic, I hear a counterpoint that brings me back down to Earth.
^Honestly, I don't think you're entirely alone there. We all want "the same thing we know" AND "something new and cool" which in itself is a big contradiction.
And then when you turn it into "what we know, but new and cool", I wouldn't want to be JJ Abrams for anything at the moment...perhaps less so next May.
And then when you turn it into "what we know, but new and cool", I wouldn't want to be JJ Abrams for anything at the moment...perhaps less so next May.
Captain Pike was also referenced in "Mirror, Mirror", when Kirk discovers how Mirror Kirk took over the ISS Enterprise - by assassinating Mirror Pike.
Similar threads
