Writing In A New Chekov

[Relayer1]

O.K. - first and foremost, his death is an awful tragedy, for him, his friends and family, and to a much lesser extent, his fans.

Personally, I'd seen him in two Trek movies and one Terminator film. He made little impression in either. Of the Trek cast, only Urban and Quinto have anywhere near made the role their own. Most have been unimpressive to say the least. I'd not bother one bit if they recast - in fact, I may prefer another actor in the role.

I've checked IMDB and he's done quite a lot of other stuff, he may well have been a talented actor. Whether he was or wasn't does not make it better or worse.

P.S. - Was using CG to give Paul Walker an exit from Fast and Furious tasteless ? I didn't think so...

 

[The Wormhole]

IMO, using a CG replacement for an actor should only be done in situations where they've already filmed so much that reshoots with a different actor just aren't practical, like with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Hunger Games sequels.

 

[Relayer1]

IMO, using a CG replacement for an actor should only be done in situations where they've already filmed so much that reshoots with a different actor just aren't practical, like with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Hunger Games sequels.

Like putting in an 'exit' for him at the end of Beyond.

 

[BillJ]

Plus, while I appreciate Michelle Specht, I think her character is utterly pointless and brought in just to give Vic's girlfriend a part.

Winner. The character has added nothing of interest to Star Trek.

Like putting in an 'exit' for him at the end of Beyond.

We're four weeks from worldwide (most of it) release, I doubt that is even within the realm of possibility.

 

[DonIago]

I agree with others that it would have been nice if this thread could have waited a few more days. Then again, it would be nicer if there was no rationale for this thread at all. :/

I'm assuming there will be at least a title card dedication for Yelchin with the next film.

I really hope he won't be recast. That just seems disrespectful, to me. Obviously that doesn't apply if we're discussing a larger reboot scenario.

Personally, I'd like the character to die in-universe. Simply not mentioning that he's gone seems similarly disrespectful, not to mention a glaring example of ignoring the elephant in the room.

That said, given the general success TPTB have had with at least the prologues of the new films, I could imagine a scenario where an unseen Chekov is on a ship (Reliant would be fitting) that's crippled or destroyed, not only precipitating the larger events of the film but giving the characters something poignant to react to.
If we want to enter the realm of utterly wishful thinking, a memorial to the fallen crewmembers led by Walter Koenig as a Starfleet admiral would be wonderful.

 

[Relayer1]

We're four weeks from worldwide (most of it) release, I doubt that is even within the realm of possibility.

You're probably right.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I really hope he won't be recast. That just seems disrespectful, to me.

I still don't understand why it's disrespectful. Yelchin's identity and self-worth were not tied to this role. He was not fixed to play Chekov for the rest of his life -- in fact, I think he would have hoped that didn't happen. No actor wants to be singularly associated with some fictional character.

I would say that suggesting it's disrespectful is somewhat selfish, just because you don't want to see someone else play Chekov.

 

[Commander Richard]

If they don't go with a female character, they could bring in a new guy who's also named Chekov. This Chekov would be Pavel's younger brother. Four years younger to be exact.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

No actor wants to be singularly associated with some fictional character.

Given his young age, he might be. The coverage I've seen only really shows Chekov footage and red carpet stuff.

If they don't go with a female character, they could bring in a new guy who's also named Chekov. This Chekov would be Pavel's younger brother. Four years younger to be exact.

Piotr lives, you mean?

 

[Commander Richard]

^ Not necessarily. What I was getting at was that Chekov Prime was born in 2245 and Abrams' Chekov was born 4 years earlier in 2241. He's the only member of the big 7 who's not exactly the same person. If nuChekov had a younger brother who was born 4 years later, he wouldn't be named Pavel but he'd be more analogous to Chekov Prime.

 

[DonIago]

I still don't understand why it's disrespectful. Yelchin's identity and self-worth were not tied to this role. He was not fixed to play Chekov for the rest of his life -- in fact, I think he would have hoped that didn't happen. No actor wants to be singularly associated with some fictional character.

I would say that suggesting it's disrespectful is somewhat selfish, just because you don't want to see someone else play Chekov.

Well, among other things, there are plenty of other characters they could tap instead, new or from the Primeverse, so why recast Chekov in any case? You say it's selfish not to recast, but I think in a way it's more selfish to recast, when there are so many other ways to handle the situation that would show more respect for the situation.

It's a gesture, that's all.

 

[Dales]

thinking about the whole thing is just so sad and teary but I think Paramount will replace him with another actor. rest in peace Anton.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The problem with movies every 3-4 years, we expect all the characters to be in each one. 24+ episodes per year for any number of years, we don't have much of an issue with a character not being in one or two episodes here or there.

Sometimes we don't even notice. I've been re-watching Voyager and it was near the end of one episode I realized Harry Kim did not appear (please, no Harry Kim jokes, it's not the time or place).

I think having Chekov mentioned as transferring to another ship in ST4 would be good enough and maybe if there's a ST5 he could be recast.

 

[M'Sharak]

Perhaps "hateful" was a smidgen harsh. It's just that this whole thing has reminded me of times when I've heard people talking about how seemingly without emotion people were at funerals. As someone who tends to be fairly stoic at funerals (in a crisis, right or wrong, my instinct is to become "the rock"* that everyone else can lean on, and keep an eye on what is logically necessary to get through it - something I learned from another Trek character), I know that that doesn't necessarily mean that the emotions aren't there. There's no correct way to handle some things - people who handle things like I do get considered "heartless", and people who allow themselves to break down for a bit can be considered as "weak" or "useless in a crisis", and neither of those is necessarily right.

"Hateful" was overstating things, but I do get what you were going for with this post—different people respond to tragedy and loss differently—and I agree that everyone should be allowed to process it in their own way and in their own time. There is something to be said, however, in favor of a measure of sensitivity toward those who might have been more strongly affected, and the opening post seemed a bit lacking in that regard.

If Dryson pushed ahead with discussing Trek matters on a Trek board, that doesn't mean he didn't experience the same moment of stunned shock and loss that I did when I heard the news. And more, with no offense intended to Dryson, I think it's clear from some of his other postings here that he has some serious mental/emotional issues and perhaps doesn't respond to things quite "normally" (whatever that means). Others here are doubtlessly high-functioning autistic. And I just don't feel like seeing anyone trashed because they aren't "mourning correctly".

(emphasis mine)

The underlined portion, though - don't do that.

In this forum, you are given a great deal of freedom to address the substance of anyone's post. Argue against this point or that, pick it apart, deconstruct it and reassemble, whatever - but comments as to the mental or emotional state of a particular poster or to "others here" being "doubtlessly high-functioning autistic" go too far. Stick to criticizing the post; never analyze the poster or posters.

 

[themanthebelly]

Why not have Chekov promoted between films and a new character replace him? All it would take in Trek 4 would be a few lines.

Kirk to new navigator: "You've got some pretty big boots to fill, the crewman you're replacing was fast-tracked to captain". Bones (gesturing to Kirk): "Beat his record too. Youngest captain ever." Kirk (with a fond smile): "So you keep reminding me".

Then perhaps later: "Sulu: "Can't we contact Pavel?" Kirk: "Afraid not, the USS Anton is way out beyond the Milky Way, discovering brave new worlds... Or saving the universe."

Or something like that.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

He wouldn't get captain yet. He shows in Into Darkness that he has the aptitude for multi-divisional service. I like the suggestion that he might have gone for additional training (see the beginning of James Swallow's The Latter Fire)

 

[themanthebelly]

He wouldn't get captain yet. He shows in Into Darkness that he has the aptitude for multi-divisional service. I like the suggestion that he might have gone for additional training (see the beginning of James Swallow's The Latter Fire)

Why not? Beyond is set a few years after STID, Trek 4 presumably another few years or more after that. Plenty, plenty of time for all that to happen.

 

[Commander Richard]

I agree that Captain might be a bit much. My suggestion was First Officer of the Reliant. Still quite an accomplishment and a good nod to the Prime character.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Stick to criticizing the post; never analyze the poster or posters.

Okee doke. Sorry. I was arguing in their defense - not saying that to demean anyone. But I take your point.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

No one took offense by Sean Kenney playing Captain Pike in "The Menagerie".