[kevin]

I actually once recently read a theory somewhere and someone did in fact hold that almost everything except the campfire was a Kirk dream.......hey if it worked for them.........why not anyone else!

And you do have to show that the future is not set (to borrow from another franchise) but that some work was involved in making it and keeping it that way. This is why certain aspects of the new film don't phase me at all. There are a lot of ways to express these ideas overall.

In the case of DS9 yes they did do something similar (which I very much value and enjoy), but I would counter that they didn't do it by veering drastically away from the characters or the origins of the series premise. Here the DS9 story had it's seven full seasons to play out slowly and steadily (the War/Conflict storyline was ultimately played out over 5 whole years, not two hours) and DS9 started off as a darker take on the Star Trek universe anyway. This had allowed it to prime us for stories that took the characters (and the Federation) into far murkier water - with obviously some lighter episodes in there as well - therefore I would argue that it had more of the general tonal consistency for it's material choices.

For example, by the time that Sisko had to make his choice in 'In the Pale Moonlight' we had years of consistent and cumulative events depicted that slowly took him to the point he had to make it.

[horatio]

It is not just a theory, it is the only perspective from which TFF becomes close to endurable.

Well, the lack of in-between-movies consistency is a problem of single movies so perhaps it is not a bad idea to now do a lose trilogy once again?
If I understood you correctly one problem at which you are hinting are Meyer's racistified characters in themselves but also that they seem unnatural:

In TWOK the bad guy identified himself with Ahab and quoted Melville, it was a bit stylized but still OK.
In TVH Spock said something like "judging by the pollution content in the atmosphere we have arrived in the late 20th century" and you realize that this is a Meyerian line which is great but an overuse would again create an artificial atmosphere.
In TUC he went went too far. The Klingon villain randomly quotes Shakespeare, Spock quotes Doyle and refers to 20th century Earth history, Chekov talks about Cinderella, the Klingon chancellor looks a bit like Lincoln ... it becomes too stylized.

[kevin]

Well, I think that Kirk can be slimly justified due to David. I don't entirely buy it as an excuse for him to want the whole race dead, but in the grander scheme of things I give it the general benefit of the doubt. I do believe it's inconsistent with TFF but events are depicted as they are depicted.

The problem is making that so for all the others as well. It isn't a fit for them. Unless they are all feeling David's death but let's put into perspective the fact even Kirk hardly even knew 'my son' before his untimely death so even at that Fatherly grief causing hatred and the crew following him too also pushes things too far.

They would have to have always been like that, I feel - but they never were previously. And where characters did say anything that could be construed that way, they were generally checked for their words and not seemingly freely permitted to say them.

Meyer definitely has a foot in the literary past (that's fine, except as noted, when, for example Klingons randomly start spouting Shakespeare. I've never been entirely convinced that added depth to the character but I suspect Meyer believes otherwise and, well, it's his movie at the end of the day so.....) and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

The revising of Starfleet in TWOK to an 1805 Hornblower/Jack Aubrey vibe worked for that film (it's ultimately as inconsistent as the shift between TOS and TMP but it ended up working in that particular film) but you have to try and keep in mind it's also the future that you're meant to be depicting.

Funnily enough, I was listening to Meyer today on the 1951 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' DVD commentary and he talked a little about his working on the Trek films and how he had wanted to introduce less 'sterility' into Trek - he used the example of Kirk holding and reading a physical book, and wanting things like realer buttons on consoles and tangible, tactile things - and he did that. The weird thing is, that's not a million miles away from what Abrams wanted to do visually as well. Just the method of showing it differs maybe.

But that was always a general bugbear of mine in later Trek anyway - how everyone in TNG onwards (and parts of the films) were all so obsessed with the 20th Century!! TOS never needed that and they still were able to do stories about racism and contemporary (then) issues.

[horatio]

Kirk's anger might have been amplified by his guilt of not having spent more time with his son. Sure, it wasn't his neither his fault that the Klingons shot him nor that Carol never told him about their child, but I guess that you would feel guilty nonetheless.
But Kirk's deep hate it is a stretch nonetheless, the "intervention" of the writer clearly sticks out.

About the book, Meyer might take too much credit here, there have been books in Trek before and after TWOK:

[Quark]

Since we are on the subject of Meyer, it's interesting to note that he bought a ticket from me two days ago at my job. He came with a younger woman, which I'm assuming was either his date or his wife, and went to see Winter's Bone. He seems like a nice guy and even though I'm sure he is a senior, he still bought a normal price ticket. Maybe to keep his youth to that girl. Who knows, but yeah it was sweet. He signed the receipt and everything. I just wanted to say to him, "I loved Star Trek VI!"

[HRH The KING]

Star Trek VI is IMO, the best TOS movie, but Valeris was a bad character.

It should have been Saavik. Robin Curtis was willing to reprise the role.

[thestartrekker]

To be honest, the only thing that really bugged me was the uniform inconsistency for Valeris. Red shirt collar and cuffs under the jacket, yet a grey lapel/shoulder strap for the rank insignia. What was that about?
Courtesy of Spikes Star Trek page:
1.) Rank insignia: Everyone in the movie referred to her as "Lieutenant Valeris," but her uniform showed the rank insignia of a Lieutenant Commander.
2.) Shoulder strap colour: Her shoulder strap was grey, although she was the helmsman of the Enterprise-A. The correct shoulder strap colour would have been yellow ochre.
3.) Shirt colour: Spock stated that Valeris has already graduated from Starfleet Academy. Thus, her turtleneck shirt shouldn't have been red, because that's the colour for cadets and trainees. Moreover, the shirt colour has to be of the same colour as the shoulder strap. The correct shirt colour would have been yellow ochre.
4.) Pants stripe: Her pants stripe was red, although a red stripe is only worn by command officers. The correct pants stripe colour would have been yellow ochre.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by HRH The KING

Star Trek VI is IMO, the best TOS movie, but Valeris was a bad character.

It should have been Saavik. Robin Curtis was willing to reprise the role.

I agree with you about Saavik. It would have made her betrayal of Spock that much more powerful.

[Quark]

Yeah, it could be like the betrayal of Anakin from Obi-Wan...only better written.