|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Apr 22, 2014 13:31:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kreliroth on May 14, 2014 15:14:01 GMT -5
Looks like he got his wish...
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 14, 2014 16:15:14 GMT -5
Looks like he got his wish... On one hand, this really depresses me. On the other hand, this time around Orci won't have anyone to blame for the final product but himself. I want the next movie to be really good if only to wash the taste of the last one from my mouth, but with Orci at the helm I also really want it to fail because he needs to stop getting paid for his shoddy work. So I'm conflicted. Interesting that Paramount went along with it. Last time they picked a somewhat untried director for a Trek movie, that worked out soooo well.... -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 15, 2014 6:10:08 GMT -5
It's an interesting issue.
Will Abrams even have any input on the script or anything at this point, or is this going to be something where he's a producer in name only?
Of the Abrams group, Orci is the one that is the real Trek fan.
Is he going to have true autonomy without the Abrams shackles?
My thing is that this is the 50th anniversary, and I am hoping for some massive all out kitchen sink movie that caters to the event.
I feel that if they just do an ordinary movie, with just this crew, it's going to underplay the significance of 50 years.
I want them to treat Star Trek like they treated Doctor Who.
Doctor Who ran a multi-doctor story, and where what they wanted to do didn't fit into their movie plans, they shot some scenes and released them to the public in advance of the movie.
I think Star Trek can certainly follow that mold.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on May 15, 2014 6:38:59 GMT -5
It would be great if they handled the 50th Anniversary in a similar way to Doctor Who ,but I doubt that will happen. I consider the New Trek films Trek in "Name Only", the same way Mission Impossible is a fantastic TV show and the Mission Impossible films are shameless action vehicles tailored for an overrated actor. All that's really there is the name and the theme music,
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 15, 2014 10:03:00 GMT -5
The problem is that the Abrams films built on the original canon by destroying the prime universe.
It's really a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 15, 2014 11:12:45 GMT -5
The problem is that the Abrams films built on the original canon by destroying the prime universe. It's really a shame. They didn't "destroy" anything. They simply shifted the focus over to a different universe --their own universe. I'm looking forward to watching some of the Remastered TOS episodes on Blu-ray in the coming weeks once all the regular network shows go on summer hiatus, or fall into the cancellation abyss (such as "Revolution"), which is further proof to me that the original timeline still exists and hasn't been overwritten by any damn thing. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 15, 2014 11:18:00 GMT -5
On one hand, this really depresses me. On the other hand, this time around Orci won't have anyone to blame for the final product but himself. I want the next movie to be really good if only to wash the taste of the last one from my mouth, but with Orci at the helm I also really want it to fail because he needs to stop getting paid for his shoddy work. I know what you mean. The question is, who will Orci try and blame if this movie ends up blowing chunks ...Abrams for not having been there during its production perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 16, 2014 7:01:00 GMT -5
Again, there is no evidence within the movie that the prime universe still exists. Star Trek has long established that when you time travel, and change things, your original timeline is messed up.
While it would have been nice for Abrams to simply say he was working in another universe, the fact that he specifically chose not to do that can only mean that the prime universe is gone. Obviously, that can change at any time should they choose to make a comment to that effect, but until they do, they haven't, and there is no prime universe. The real world blu rays don't counter that, nor do casting choices, and Orci's real world theories that have not been proven to be valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 16, 2014 7:37:38 GMT -5
>>Again, there is no evidence within the movie that the prime universe still exists.<<
There's plenty. The technology wasn't right from the moment we arrived there with Nero, along with the fact that these are different people. Khan is not the same man we saw in the original timeline. He's clearly a different guy altogether.
It's an "alternate reality" just as Uhura described it, not an 'undone reality'.
>>Star Trek has long established that when you time travel, and change things, your original timeline is messed up.<<
There's very little established as to what happens when someone travels through a black hole in Trek however, which is what happened in ST09. V'Ger landed back in the same universe when it travelled through one in TMP, but it ended up across the universe, whereas Nero and Spock Prime ended up in an alternate universe apparently. Khan, if nothing else, makes that definitively, irrefutably clear. And alternate universes have long been established as a reality in Trek, going all the way back to "Mirror, Mirror" in the original series as you know, and "Parallels" in TNG, to name just two.
>>While it would have been nice for Abrams to simply say he was working in another universe, the fact that he specifically chose not to do that can only mean that the prime universe is gone.<<
I've come to the conclusion that this is what you prefer to believe, for whatever reason, and neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, will be able to talk you out of it obviously. Nevertheless, it doesn't change how I've come to view the situation, and what I now believe regarding it.
There is simply no way it can be the same universe with a Lily-white British Khan. No. Way.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 16, 2014 8:37:17 GMT -5
Any time travel change is an alternate reality.
When Biff took the sports book and changed history, he created an alternate reality. But the Hill Valley that Marty knew did not exist. This is no different.
Every time travel change creates an alternate reality, that has nothing to do with the previous reality.
There is NO evidence that the method of time travel had anything to do with anything, and there is absolutely no evidence that Spock and Nero changed universes. The fact is, Abrams had a clear chance to say just that, and the fact that he CHOSE not to, kills the prime universe.
Parallels and Mirror Mirror have something in common--they both specifically mention that the characters had traveled to another universe. One cannot presume that a universe change happens without a line of dialogue, especially when it's well established that time travel can happen within the same universe, and changes can be made.
A lily white British Khan is a real world casting. From within the confines of the fictional universe, it's the exact same person.
It's impossible to change my mind because all the evidence shows that the prime universe is gone.
Anything else is not supported by anything in the movie.
The existence of Parallels and Mirror Mirror ONLY gives the prime universe a little bit of hope. It gives the writers a chance to change things and re-establish the prime universe, but they have to choose to do so. Until they do, the prime universe has been destroyed.
I actually feel that the next movie should be centered around the prime universe issue.
Perhaps Spock Prime realizes that yes, he is obligated to bring the prime universe back. That makes him an antagonist, but not a villain. Kirk and crew would have to decide whether to stop him or join him. You could have some dilemmas because Spock Prime could save Vulcan, and Kirk's dad, and a lot more. Maybe a war comes that shouldn't have come, and in the real timeline, the war was prevented by a Vulcan killed by Nero. The fate of the Federation is at stake.
The last thing we would see is Spock Prime going back to his proper time, where it turns out he made one change--and we get our Shatner cameo.
The best part is that if they save the prime universe, you can still use the cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 16, 2014 17:46:23 GMT -5
>>Any time travel change is an alternate reality.<<
Of course, unless the people involved end up somewhere else entirely.
>>When Biff took the sports book and changed history, he created an alternate reality. But the Hill Valley that Marty knew did not exist. This is no different.<<
It is different because Biff didn't travel through a black hole to get sixty years into the past to give his younger self that book.
>>Every time travel change creates an alternate reality, that has nothing to do with the previous reality.<<
You're forgetting that I've argued about the potentially limited implications of the term "alternate reality" many times as well, including having confronted Orci with it directly, along with his minion groupies over at that Trek site I don't care to mention by name here. So this is not news to me. I've reassessed the situation in light of the sequel however, and have since arrived at a different conclusion based on what they did in it. And they made it very clear by what they did that it simply cannot be the same universe.
And Uhura's "alternate reality" line can be interpreted in more than one way. Her use of the term does not in and of itself exclude the possibility of it also being an *alternate universe*.
>>There is NO evidence that the method of time travel had anything to do with anything, and there is absolutely no evidence that Spock and Nero changed universes.<<
Of course there is, you're just unwilling to acknowledge it for reasons of your own apparently.
>>The fact is, Abrams had a clear chance to say just that, and the fact that he CHOSE not to, kills the prime universe.<<
You're assuming that he cared enough to even consider it one way or the other, whereas for all we know, he didn't. The guy has always loved "Star Wars", not "Star Trek". He never viewed Trek with the kind of affection and devotion that we have had for it by comparison.
>>Parallels and Mirror Mirror have something in common--they both specifically mention that the characters had traveled to another universe. One cannot presume that a universe change happens without a line of dialogue<<
What about a blatantly obvious character change that not even a blind man could miss? Oh, sure --no dialogue devoted to it to even the slightest extent, but what about your own two eyes and ears and what they're clearly telling you?
>>...especially when it's well established that time travel can happen within the same universe, and changes can be made.<<
Except, as I said, black holes allow for out of the ordinary occurrences. Remarkably, in the Trek universe they remain largely uncharted territory.
It's also worth pointing out that real-world quantum theory presently acknowledges such as thing as a distinct possibility, which could also be why Orci and Kurtzman decided to utilize it as a means of achieving some of their key story goals, because it allows for viewer interpretation on the back-end of Nero and Spock Prime having travelled through the singularity to get where they both ended up, albeit at different time intervals.
>>A lily white British Khan is a real world casting. From within the confines of the fictional universe, it's the exact same person.<<
Abrams could have chosen to cast the character more in line with how he was originally described and depicted, but CHOSE not to. That should tell you something.
>>It's impossible to change my mind because all the evidence shows that the prime universe is gone.<<
You just had to disregard the difference between Khan in the original universe, and the very different Khan seen in "Into Darkness" in order to reach that conclusion. I refuse to do that because it's ridiculous.
And we're not talking about a complete and total 'reboot' here because the powers that be gave the audience Spock Prime as a bridge between the original cast and the new cast, and with that comes all the baggage of the original prime universe therefore, including just who Khan Noonian Singh was and who he wasn't.
And by the way, I intentionally used a letter 'a' in his middle name there.
But to think that those two very different casting choices amount to the same thing because the producers decided to do it is delusional, and that's where I won't go along with you, and refuse to change my mind on the matter. You literally have to convince yourself that what you saw originally doesn't matter in order to accommodate it and them, and that's just plain stupid. The powers that be could have opted to honor previously established canon and didn't. That's on them as filmmakers, not somehow on me as a viewer. I'm not obligated to lap up what they produced and adhere to it as the Lord's Gospel from on high somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 17, 2014 21:02:39 GMT -5
There is absolutely no evidence that the method of time travel was relevant toward the preservation of the prime universe.
The only thing we know is that they time traveled. There is nothing that indicates it's a different universe a la Mirror Mirror.
The only reason you reassessed is because you don't like the actor that played Khan because he was British. I get that, but within the confines of the universe, it's the same guy.
Abrams seemed to be a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it too. There's no way he didn't know that he was messing with the prime universe. And I can't find it, but I am sure that there is an interview pre 2009 where he said it's the same universe.
Yes, Abrams could have chosen a better choice for Khan. Scotty and Chekov are all wrong too, but that doesn't mean anything.
The bottom line is that within the canon of the universe, which is all that matters, there is NOTHING that indicates the prime universe exists in any fashion.
Not saying it CAN'T happen, but it hasn't yet.
For me, there's no better 50th anniversary story.
So it won't happen.
If it isn't, we are not dealing with the same characters. The whole point of using Spock Prime was to keep things going.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on May 18, 2014 7:39:49 GMT -5
If Spock Prime's universe wasn't destroyed, if his "alternate universe" exists, why doesn't he go home?
Gary, why did you write Khan Noonian Singh with an A in the middle name?
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 18, 2014 14:26:12 GMT -5
>>There is absolutely no evidence that the method of time travel was relevant toward the preservation of the prime universe.<<
Very uncharacteristic of Spock to not want to go back and undo the damage done by Nero to his home world, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps that was because he knew full well that he wasn't actually in his own universe and didn't want to interfere with the development of the universe he landed in. His actions are not consistent with the character we know otherwise, and therefore couldn't be considered logical.
I submit to you that Spock decided to not go back in time to change what Nero had done because he knew a multiverse/parallel universe scenario was in play.
>>The only reason you reassessed is because you don't like the actor that played Khan because he was British. I get that, but within the confines of the universe, it's the same guy.<<
And I reiterate that that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard because the apparent difference is so striking.
They don't get to flush the fact that Khan was written as a Sikh Indian out the nearest airlock for the sake of their own convenience and/or preference. You make a change that radical you're saying something to the audience --either that you don't care about the original casting and previously established canon and will do whatever you damn well please, or that you're intent on making an in-universe statement by having done it. Either way, it's a clear indicator that it can't be the original prime universe. Khan was never that white, and he certainly didn't have a British accent. He was never that strong either. The only way he can be justified is through the conclusion that he's someone else entirely from the character we already knew, and just happens to share the same name.
>>Abrams seemed to be a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it too. There's no way he didn't know that he was messing wieth the prime universe. And I can't find it, but I am sure that there is an interview pre 2009 where he said it's the same universe.<<
Well, he's certainly gone back on that since then even if that were the case. I can show you interviews where he states flatly that the original timeline wasn't affected by the events of their first movie, and that it still exists.
And I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that that's outside the film, and that what he says in interviews is therefore bupkis. But there's no arguing how they radically altered Khan in their sequel, and that's something I will not ignore.
And let's also be clear that I don't have anything against Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. His profile was simply all wrong for that role is all.
>>So it won't happen. If it isn't, we are not dealing with the same characters. The whole point of using Spock Prime was to keep things going.<<
Spock Prime never even sees the new Khan. He simply hears his name mentioned. And if he is our old Spock, and he were to have seen him, he'd have had to acknowledge that he wasn't the same guy. And if he did see him and didn't do that, then I would have been forced to conclude that he's not our Spock either; that he's a different Spock from yet another parallel universe, which TNG established there to be a multitude of.
And truthfully, our even arguing about this at this point is ridiculously absurd. These aren't the same actors, the sets are nowhere near the same as what was originally depicted in the TV series or the later movies that followed featuring that original cast, and now they're casting a villain who just happens to have the same name, but doesn't have the same ethnic background or origin. In fact, if I were to draw any conclusion about the new Khan proving it's a different parallel universe, it's that in this universe, British Colonialism apparently continued in India beyond where it ended here, and that it also somehow explains how the new Khan got his name.
But I am not going to waste any more of my time or energy being angst-ridden and uptight about how Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman wiped out the original timeline via their last two movies supposedly. As far as I'm concerned they established in the sequel that it can't be the same universe because Khan isn't the same guy/character. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 18, 2014 14:35:44 GMT -5
If Spock Prime's universe wasn't destroyed, if his "alternate universe" exists, why doesn't he go home? Gary, why did you write Khan Noonian Singh with an A in the middle name?
Because I believe the way it's come to be spelled is incorrect, and I don't like the way it's apparently been codified. For one thing, my own recollections, which go way back, had it spelled as "Noonian". The a newer spelling with an 'e' emerged later on, mainly on the Internet I believe, in more recent years.
And the screenplay for "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", if you look at it, also supports my contention. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 18, 2014 19:23:10 GMT -5
1) The Khan thing kills it for me too. Even if we want to believe that the original timeline was wiped out and altered by Nero and them traveling back in time (which is the clearest possibility just based on the first movie), the Khan stuff makes that far less likely. And not just his ethnicity, though that sticks out plainly. What about the fact that in "Space Seed" everyone knew who Khan was. He was a household historical name, like Adolph Hitler or Napoleon. But in STID, NONE of the characters know who he is. Even if we want to believe that they are all just young and stupid, at least Scotty should know. How do you explain that? Nero and Spock's time travel doesn't wipe out school history lessons.
2) Regarding the spelling of Khan's middle name, I think it's always had an E. Because Dr. Soong's name has an A and I remember them having different vowels. However, this may not have been consistent in script stages. What does "These Are the Voyages" say?
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 18, 2014 23:59:34 GMT -5
1) The Khan thing kills it for me too. Even if we want to believe that the original timeline was wiped out and altered by Nero and them traveling back in time (which is the clearest possibility just based on the first movie), the Khan stuff makes that far less likely. And not just his ethnicity, though that sticks out plainly. What about the fact that in "Space Seed" everyone knew who Khan was. He was a household historical name, like Adolph Hitler or Napoleon. But in STID, NONE of the characters know who he is. Even if we want to believe that they are all just young and stupid, at least Scotty should know. How do you explain that? Nero and Spock's time travel doesn't wipe out school history lessons. 2) Regarding the spelling of Khan's middle name, I think it's always had an E. Because Dr. Soong's name has an A and I remember them having different vowels. However, this may not have been consistent in script stages. What does "These Are the Voyages" say? -TK
But you're also forgetting that my memory goes back farther than yours, and that I've been a fan quite a bit longer thanks to age, which I can't really take any joy in saying at this stage of my life. However, I really don't remember Khan's middle name being spelled with an 'e' prior to the 90s, and I'm really not even sure just where that latter trend started.
Good point about the Enterprise crew not remembering Khan in "Into Darkness" by the way, although it took a while for them to figure out just who Khan was in "Space Seed" as well, and it wasn't until they established who he was for certain that their memories were jogged and they started to recall who he was from history. Even when Khan provides his first name after having come out of suspended animation they still don't know just who he is and who they're dealing with. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 19, 2014 9:18:47 GMT -5
Spock Prime's motivations are unclear, and due to poor writing. Spock Prime SHOULD be looking to undo Nero's damage, in the most logical way possible. For all we know, that's exactly what he's working on, and for me, THAT would be the plot of the third movie.
Spock's poor writing is not canonical evidence that the prime universe exists.
Regarding Khan, I'm not disagreeing that Cumberbatch as Khan was dumb casting, but within the movie universe, it's the same guy. It's like when Spock Prime went up to Pegg and was like, "what's up Scotty?" even though Pegg looks nothing like Doohan.
I also agree that anything the producers/writers say outside the film is meaningless.
It's just evidence that Abrams wants it both ways. All he had to do was write a line of dialogue saying that Spock went through time and into another universe as well.
That he chose not to do so gives the presumption that all that happened was time travel, and nothing more, which means the timeline was altered.
Nothing in STID has anything to do with the prime timeline. Khan is a historical figure. It was him.
Not knowing who Khan was, IS something that happened in Space Seed too.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 19, 2014 15:32:35 GMT -5
I can't go by it frankly, because the author cites six website sources in the bibliography, among them startrek.com, startrekhistory.com, and one of Cram's favorites--trekcore.com, so with that being the case, and given that I did say at the outset that what I believe to be the misspelling has since been codified apparently, Marc Cushman could have simply gotten it referenced to him incorrectly at one of those sites and just went along with it, thinking it was the correct spelling. And if I'm not mistaken he only refers to Khan by his full name once in the book.
But you're also forgetting that my memory goes back farther than yours, and that I've been a fan quite a bit longer thanks to age, which I can't really take any joy in saying at this stage of my life. However, I really don't remember Khan's middle name being spelled with an 'e' prior to the 90s, and I'm really not even sure just where that latter trend started.
[/quote] For what it's worth, Herb Solow and Bob Justman spelled it with an A in Inside Star Trek. I think the only real way to settle it for sure is to obtain documents from the era (scripts, memos, etc). Even older Trek reference books are harder to come by these days, even in libraries. -TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 20, 2014 1:07:50 GMT -5
>>Spock Prime's motivations are unclear, and due to poor writing. Spock Prime SHOULD be looking to undo Nero's damage, in the most logical way possible. For all we know, that's exactly what he's working on, and for me, THAT would be the plot of the third movie.<<
You're going to be waiting a L-O-N-G time for something that's more than likely never going to happen.
>>Spock's poor writing is not canonical evidence that the prime universe exists.<<
It's not evidence that it doesn't either for that matter.
>>Regarding Khan, I'm not disagreeing that Cumberbatch as Khan was dumb casting, but within the movie universe, it's the same guy.<<
I simply don't see that as possible.
>>It's like when Spock Prime went up to Pegg and was like, "what's up Scotty?" even though Pegg looks nothing like Doohan.<<
They did a fair job of showing a resemblance upon his introduction in their first film, but that aside, Pegg is still playing Scotty as a Scotsman. They didn't decide to change him to a Jamaican, for instance.
>>I also agree that anything the producers/writers say outside the film is meaningless.<<
In their defense --and believe me when I say that I take no joy in coming to their aid on this-- but they did provide some story support in the form of the Comic Series "Countdown", which shows the prime universe having survived in the end, apparently unscathed.
>>It's just evidence that Abrams wants it both ways. All he had to do was write a line of dialogue saying that Spock went through time and into another universe as well.<<
Have you forgotten that I confronted Orci about this directly, and at length, right on his own home turf? Did you ever read that exchange between us? I imagine you did, but I'm curious nonetheless. However, if for no other reason than spite, it's clear he, either with or without his colleagues, won't do it. So I'm not sure why you're so determined to let these people have this kind of power and hold over you.
>>Nothing in STID has anything to do with the prime timeline.<<
It was a sequel to their first film, and therefore a continuation of a sort.
>>Khan is a historical figure.<<
With a specific historical background regarding his race, national origin and identity, which was not at all consistent in STID. You're placing so much emphasis on a line of dialogue when changing a major character into something he never was should be at least as important. It's as though you're determined to miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 20, 2014 7:17:21 GMT -5
Countdown is not canon either. I would accept Countdown if it was filmed, even as a vignette, like the Paul McGann regeneration.
THAT would qualify.
But not a comic book. Just like even official novelizations are only canon to the extent something was put on screen,comics are not canon to the extent they add.
<<It's not evidence that it doesn't either for that matter.>>
True, which means we are dealing with presumptions. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you have to go with past precedent and what you see on screen. Every example of switching universes was crystal clear. There was a line that said, "we're in another universe," or "you're from another universe."
Without that line, the presumption has to be that it's the same universe.
We also know for a fact that despite Orci's wishful thinking, in Star Trek, you can wipe out a timeline with time travel. History CAN be changed. Therefore, the only presumption is that Nero's adventure wiped out the prime universe.
CAN this presumption be overridden?
Yes.
But that would require some level of dialogue in a movie (or a vignette). A comic book, or an interview, or anything else won't cut it.
Over to Scotty--yes, he was still a Scotsman, but Pegg looks NOTHING like Doohan. We the audience are supposed to understand that James Doohan was too old and too dead to return as a young Scotty, and deal with it.
Chekov was also well established as the same character, despite his character being too old. He should be like 10-11 years old in that movie.
<<Have you forgotten that I confronted Orci about this directly, and at length, right on his own home turf? Did you ever read that exchange between us? I imagine you did, but I'm curious nonetheless. However, if for no other reason than spite, it's clear he, either with or without his colleagues, won't do it. So I'm not sure why you're so determined to let these people have this kind of power and hold over you.>>
It's not about LETTING them have power. Unfortunately, there are rules about what is canon. I can't decide what's canon and what's not. There are rules. If I were a canon czar, I would include the Shatner books. I also would have made the writers properly preserve the prime universe.
But I'm not, and they didn't.
And Khan is still Khan. Carol Marcus was apparently raised in Britain in the new timeline and has a completely different accent. Cumberbatch Khan and Montalban Khan are the same guy, just like Pegg and Doohan's Scotty.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 20, 2014 12:51:51 GMT -5
>>And Khan is still Khan. Carol Marcus was apparently raised in Britain in the new timeline and has a completely different accent. Cumberbatch Khan and Montalban Khan are the same guy, just like Pegg and Doohan's Scotty.<<
No, they're not, Marc, and this is why we're never going to have a true meeting of the minds on this.
Yes, Carol Marcus could have been raised in Britain in this 'altered' reality, which is why I didn't even bring her name up.
But I am not going to look at how they gave Khan a complete makeover and turned him into something and someone he wasn't originally and say to myself, 'Yeah, Gee, he's obviously the same guy because that's what we're supposed to believe'. Bullshit.
If they wanted that they would have cast the character more in line with what was originally intended and perhaps even paid some lip service to his background as well, but they didn't.
And their having gotten Chekov's age wrong can also be viewed as further proof that it isn't the same place as far as I'm concerned at this point. Why? Because it's not consistent with the original prime universe and what was shown in it, regardless of what we're now 'supposed to think'. Arguably Chekov did not belong on the Enterprise because he was about a dozen years younger than Kirk in TOS.
And you didn't answer my question.
Have you ever read through my exchange with Orci? Because he tries to fall back on two principal arguments in our conversation. A) A Many Worlds scenario is in play supposedly, and he even tried to insult my intelligence in the process for supposedly not understanding the concept, which I found pretty funny given that he provided no substantive basis for it in their first film. And B) That Spock Prime remembers his own past as also being proof that the prime timeline wasn't affected and didn't change, which again, was amusing as well because the memories of the time travelers usually weren't affected in TOS either. In short, he was trying to be too cute by half, and I refused to let him get away with it by having pointed out where his two arguments clearly fell short. And his groupies there truly despised me for it.
But I digress.
The point I intended to get at there is how can you expect a guy who's that brazenly duplicitous to give you what you want? I'm telling you, based on that kind of direct deceptiveness leads to only one conclusion: they ARE NOT going to give you what you want and are hoping for. Ever. And I refuse to believe that the Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley/Doohan/Nichols/Koenig era of Trek was all for naught.
And they finally provided me with a real basis to disregard the events of what they've done along those lines in their first movie by how they depicted Khan in their sequel. End of story. I'm not going to change my mind about it.
And clearly I'm not going to change your mind either.
Fine.
So from now on, when you start this stuff about how they wiped out Shatner's era of Trek, I'm simply going to do my best to just ignore you.
Because that's what their Trek re-imagining is worth, and that's exactly what it and they deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 20, 2014 13:06:01 GMT -5
I can't go by it frankly, because the author cites six website sources in the bibliography, among them startrek.com, startrekhistory.com, and one of Cram's favorites--trekcore.com, so with that being the case, and given that I did say at the outset that what I believe to be the misspelling has since been codified apparently, Marc Cushman could have simply gotten it referenced to him incorrectly at one of those sites and just went along with it, thinking it was the correct spelling. And if I'm not mistaken he only refers to Khan by his full name once in the book.
But you're also forgetting that my memory goes back farther than yours, and that I've been a fan quite a bit longer thanks to age, which I can't really take any joy in saying at this stage of my life. However, I really don't remember Khan's middle name being spelled with an 'e' prior to the 90s, and I'm really not even sure just where that latter trend started.
For what it's worth, Herb Solow and Bob Justman spelled it with an A in Inside Star Trek. I think the only real way to settle it for sure is to obtain documents from the era (scripts, memos, etc). Even older Trek reference books are harder to come by these days, even in libraries. -TK
Agreed, but I've already looked at "The Making of Star Trek" by Gene Roddenberry and Kahn's full name doesn't appear to be listed there, which doesn't surprise me because the character's name was originally Ericsson, and got changed late in the game, after that book made it to the publisher apparently, so I wasn't at all surprised by that. Interestingly enough I was in the middle of reading about "Space Seed" in "These Are The Voyages" over the weekend when we began talking about this. But I have other books where Khan's middle name was spelled with an A, and I think Justman and Solow referring to his name that way, along with the actually script for TWoK by the way, which I alluded to previously, are strong indicators that I'm correct about this. Thank you for pointing that out though.
In the meantime, I'll continue to look when I have time.
|
|
