The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > what happend to mitchel, kelso and piper and april
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 01-24-2009, 09:07 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Yelchin is 19, so let's say assume his character is also 19. Which would be no problem if the movie played a few years before the five-year mission.
Considering that this film takes place anywhere from -- let's ballpark it -- 2 to 5 years before Kirk officially takes command, and Chekov gives his age as 22 in a second season episode, making him at least as young as 21 when Kirk takes command, that'd make him as young as 16 years old during this film -- yeah, it's potentially a problem.


Quote:
But I see the stretch, why would you finish Starfleet Academy at such a young age? If lifespans prolong, average education duration should also prolong or at least not be shorter than contemporarily. And while Chekov seemed to be multi-talented like O'Brien, IMO he never seemed to be a prodigy
Compounds the other problem, but I agree with this.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-24-2009, 10:28 AM
only1jamest's Avatar
only1jamest only1jamest is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Yelchin is 19, so let's say assume his character is also 19. Which would be no problem if the movie played a few years before the five-year mission.
But I see the stretch, why would you finish Starfleet Academy at such a young age? If lifespans prolong, average education duration should also prolong or at least not be shorter than contemporarily. And while Chekov seemed to be multi-talented like O'Brien, IMO he never seemed to be a prodigy
I thank that in many ways education duration is expanding but more is being learned at an younger age. When I was in high school pre calculus was being taught at the 11th and 12th grade levels now in many places it is being taught more and more at the 9th and 10th grade level. I have a nice who at age five dose long division and multiplication up the 9's. She hasn’t started school yet, but she has been tested, while her IQ is higher than normal she is not a prodigy.
__________________
Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind. -Data, to Borg Queen, Star Trek: First Contact
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-25-2009, 03:20 AM
Dragonfighter's Avatar
Dragonfighter Dragonfighter is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only1jamest View Post
I have a nice who at age five dose long division and multiplication up the 9's. She hasn’t started school yet, but she has been tested, while her IQ is higher than normal she is not a prodigy.
Homeschooling rocks!

Anyway if I may chime in...

I watched every episode of TOS during its first run (though I missed the pilot WNMHGB). It wasn't until I started watching it on DVD that I have noticed that there is incongruity between star dates and order of presentation. I.E. WNMHGB is the third episode of the first season irrespective of it being the pilot and Mudd's Women is the next story according to star date and is like the eighth episode {The DVD's have the star date and the original airdate next to them on the disc face}. So some disturbance in continuity existed in the original presentation.

Now I enjoyed TNG after the writers figured what to do with two tac officers on the bridge (Yar and Worf). But there were several departures from continuity in relation to TOS. There were also some brilliant port overs, not the least of which was McCoy concluding that androids were ALMOST as bad as vulcans on "Journey to Farpoint".

I vascilated on DS9, at first didn't care for it, but after the writers found they could create tension without everybody yelling the whole script and character development started in earnest, I became a fan. Then sometime after the third season I lost interest again.

Voyager...well I couldn't stand it and I tried. Janeway made me want to slap her and other discontinuity with character types just annoyed me. I think the final nail in the coffin for me was an episode where the away team comes into contact with a man holding a .38 and they are all holding phasers and they disarmed...kinda reminded me of that scene in "Stripes" with the truck and the Czeck soldiers.

I was soooo looking forward to "Enterprise" as it held such promise. I was also a fan of Scott Bakula, but Archer was indecisive and largely too much of a system kinda guy. I mean, we didn't see a "real" captain until Picard. Kirk was a cowboy, Pike more so. I felt the first "captain" should have been nothing short of a bucaneer, the sort of guy that necessitated a prime directive and would be well suited to pioneering intergalactic exploration. Instead he mealy mouthed his way through a few episodes and then the show became about the sexual tension between him and his Vulcan advisor. Again, I quickly lost interest.

Movies?

I enjoyed TMP, both the nostalgic feel when they saw the Enterprise again.

The Wrath of Khan was great IMHO, the continuity of Khan recognizing Chekov explained as his memorization of the crew's roster per Nick Meyer.

Speaking of continuity, Search for Spock bothered the fool out of me. Talk about changes; I mean Robin Curtis as Savik? Just have a different character for crying out loud. And as integral as Spock is to the Trek universe, if he's dead - he's dead.

Once past that, I loved IV, it was great, though not very relevant to the Trek genre...though it did tie some of III into the progression.

V hated it.

VI? My favorite of the original crew's movie adventures though it had certain problems (there is, or was no verb "to be" in Klingonese. And so it goes...

I said all that to say this, there has been continuity issues since the beginning, they have seemed to increase exponentially since Rodenberry's death. With that in mind I have a couple of things to say/ask about the release of the movie.

1) I don't believe an alternate universe explanation is necessary. It is simply a retelling of great mythology.

2) Are we sure that, from the teaser (I truly don't know what information there is) where the launch of the enterprise is the first or a refit?

3) Do we know (from the teaser) whether Kirk riding up on his motorcycle and gazing in wonder at the scaffolded ship is prior to his association with Enterprise or not? And why is it earthborne?

4)Are we sure a "Cliff's Notes" version of an "accurate" history won't be related as part of the story?

5)Redesigns or revisionist versions of Enterprise never bothered me and I am usually something of nitpicker, but I have enjoyed them all.


Thanks for letting me chime in,
DF
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-28-2009, 08:54 AM
braylix braylix is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4
Default

after reading the threads instead of doing a alternate universe, which is treks excuse for every screw up, take a page from next generation, for the fist mission, with kirk as captain, in kirks ships log explain the enterprise is set to rendeuve with the constitution or some other starship to pick up helms man lt kelso, cmo dr piper and first officer gary mitchel, nero interferes and the enterprise is delayed this expalins the missing crew members, and a young checkov who is on his cadet cruise(taken from the stg roleplaying game) as to fill the position mccoy who is a doctor not cmo has to fill the role in pipers absence makes more sende then alternate universe bull krap
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-28-2009, 08:59 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by braylix View Post
after reading the threads instead of doing a alternate universe, which is treks excuse for every screw up, take a page from next generation, for the fist mission, with kirk as captain, in kirks ships log explain the enterprise is set to rendeuve with the constitution or some other starship to pick up helms man lt kelso, cmo dr piper and first officer gary mitchel, nero interferes and the enterprise is delayed this expalins the missing crew members, and a young checkov who is on his cadet cruise(taken from the stg roleplaying game) as to fill the position mccoy who is a doctor not cmo has to fill the role in pipers absence makes more sende then alternate universe bull krap
Dang touchy aren't we?
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-28-2009, 09:36 AM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
Homeschooling rocks!

Anyway if I may chime in...

I watched every episode of TOS during its first run (though I missed the pilot WNMHGB). It wasn't until I started watching it on DVD that I have noticed that there is incongruity between star dates and order of presentation. I.E. WNMHGB is the third episode of the first season irrespective of it being the pilot and Mudd's Women is the next story according to star date and is like the eighth episode {The DVD's have the star date and the original airdate next to them on the disc face}. So some disturbance in continuity existed in the original presentation.
I wasn't around during TOS's first run, but the order on the season DVD sets is by broadcast date. If the official order of events is the Production Order, which is the number by each episode on the DVD menus, then everything makes much more sense. Stardates being out of order is not a problem for me, since there are reletivisting time variances when dealing with FTL and Warp travel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
Now I enjoyed TNG after the writers figured what to do with two tac officers on the bridge (Yar and Worf). But there were several departures from continuity in relation to TOS. There were also some brilliant port overs, not the least of which was McCoy concluding that androids were ALMOST as bad as vulcans on "Journey to Farpoint".
There were a few retcons in there, but nothing too big. When talking about events X hundred years ago, there's a lot of flexibility in there. If something doesn't contradict what we've seen, I'm fine with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
I vascilated on DS9, at first didn't care for it, but after the writers found they could create tension without everybody yelling the whole script and character development started in earnest, I became a fan. Then sometime after the third season I lost interest again.
I loved what I saw of DS9, but I only had so much time on my hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
Voyager...well I couldn't stand it and I tried. Janeway made me want to slap her and other discontinuity with character types just annoyed me. I think the final nail in the coffin for me was an episode where the away team comes into contact with a man holding a .38 and they are all holding phasers and they disarmed...kinda reminded me of that scene in "Stripes" with the truck and the Czeck soldiers.
I enjoyed parts of it. Again, the number of hours in the day prevented me from following the whole series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
I was soooo looking forward to "Enterprise" as it held such promise. I was also a fan of Scott Bakula, but Archer was indecisive and largely too much of a system kinda guy. I mean, we didn't see a "real" captain until Picard. Kirk was a cowboy, Pike more so. I felt the first "captain" should have been nothing short of a bucaneer, the sort of guy that necessitated a prime directive and would be well suited to pioneering intergalactic exploration. Instead he mealy mouthed his way through a few episodes and then the show became about the sexual tension between him and his Vulcan advisor. Again, I quickly lost interest.
Enterprise had a lot of good things for it, but it really didn't do that much for me in the end. The 4th season was a lot of fun for it's links into the TOS continuity more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
Movies?

... (snip)
Pretty much agree with your views here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
I said all that to say this, there has been continuity issues since the beginning, they have seemed to increase exponentially since Rodenberry's death. With that in mind I have a couple of things to say/ask about the release of the movie.

1) I don't believe an alternate universe explanation is necessary. It is simply a retelling of great mythology.
The Alternate Universe explanation is the writer's way of keeping it legitimate. This way, it is a reboot for those that want it to be, and it is part of the existing continuity for those who want that. It's a peace offering, and is there to help prepare us for the fact that things WILL be different.

The Countdown comic book series is also an explanation as to how the movie can fit into existing continuity, but the average moviegoer will not need any of it, and it likely won't be mentioned in the movie at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
2) Are we sure that, from the teaser (I truly don't know what information there is) where the launch of the enterprise is the first or a refit?
I believe the writers have confirmed this to be in Iowa. This is the Enterprise being built, not a refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
3) Do we know (from the teaser) whether Kirk riding up on his motorcycle and gazing in wonder at the scaffolded ship is prior to his association with Enterprise or not? And why is it earthborne?
I believe that the Enterprise is seen in Iowa, and Kirk was going to that facility to join Starfleet. The Alternate Timeline explanation may allow for the construction of the Enterprise to be moved. Being earthbound was done for dramatic reasons, and it emotionally works to see Kirk look at his future on his way to join Starfleet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
4)Are we sure a "Cliff's Notes" version of an "accurate" history won't be related as part of the story?
I don't believe too much should be said. Too much exposition can kill a story for audiences. Once they are hooked, they can find out about the history established in the countless hours of visual media. The basics can be deduced within the ship itself, and the idea of Starfleet Academy, what Starfleet is, the Enterprise, Vulcans and Romulans become self evident by simply showing them, and through natural dialogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
5)Redesigns or revisionist versions of Enterprise never bothered me and I am usually something of nitpicker, but I have enjoyed them all.
The Alternate Timeline explanation is there to allow for all of the changes, and provide a reason for them. I've enjoyed all of the different incarnations of the Enterprise, especially the TMP refit. Still to this day, she's probably one of the best miniatures ever put to celluloid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfighter View Post
Thanks for letting me chime in,
DF
Thank you for sharing.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.