Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[Bryancd]

I actually have no problem with small continuity fudges like Chekov and TWOK and would be fine with seeing a McCoy on the Enterprise prior to WNMHGB in a new film. I get more bent whith some of the liberties they took on "Enterprise".

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

I actually have no problem with small continuity fudges like Chekov and TWOK

To be a continuity fudge, it has to contradict something.  Which episode or movie states that Chekov was not a member of the Enterprise crew during the events of "Space Seed?"  The audience not seeing him is not sufficient evidence.

would be fine with seeing a McCoy on the Enterprise prior to WNMHGB in a new film.

I think they should avoid using McCoy in stories set before "Where No Man Has Gone Before," because it felt like McCoy didn't join the crew until some time between the 2nd pilot and 3rd episode.  Now, if they feature McCoy as a character stationed somewhere other than the Enterprise, that's fine by me.

I get more bent whith some of the liberties they took on "Enterprise".

Blah... I think the show had great continuity aside from a few lame episodes, but then every Star Trek show has a few lame episodes.

[Bryancd]

"Enterprise" was a continuity disaster, IMO.
This Chekov discussion is now officially going nowhere.
As far as McCoy, yeah I could see him being part of the project but not as a crew member of the Enterprise, maybe they run into him and he becomes part of the story.

[Jen]

...Play nice boys.   :angel:

If Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

But if we're talking about who we'd like to see in the film, then I for one hope they find some way to pay homage to all the characters. Even if its just a one minute appearance of Walter Koenig playing a background character. A  little nod to the original crew would be nice. I'd be very happy with a cameo appearance from the original actors who's characters shouldn't be on the ship yet.

As a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Picturesâ€"they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise. The recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men. They just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

This Chekov discussion is now officially going nowhere.

Indeed, since you won't answer my question when I ask for evidence of the continuity violation.

As far as McCoy, yeah I could see him being part of the project but not as a crew member of the Enterprise, maybe they run into him and he becomes part of the story.

One possibility is for the crew to bump into him while he's working on a starbase or something.

If Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

Scotty's Scottish. :P

But if we're talking about who we'd like to see in the film, then I for one hope they find some way to pay homage to all the characters. Even if its just a one minute appearance of Walter Koenig playing a background character. A  little nod to the original crew would be nice. I'd be very happy with a cameo appearance from the original actors who's characters shouldn't be on the ship yet.

I believe Leonard Nimoy is going to make a cameo.

As a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Pictures—they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise.

The big wigs don't write the episodes, so they have absolutely nothing to do with the story's continuity.  That falls on the shoulders of the writers.

The recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men.

You can thank UPN for putting Seven and T'Pol into catsuits.

They just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

None of the movies have had space vixens except for a gal here and there in a cameo role, so I wouldn't be concerned.

[Bryancd]

Fine, since you refuse to drop it. Continuity for TOS is ONLY what appeared on screen, not what can be interpreted later. That's all there is to it. If Gene R. didn't put in on the show it didn't happen. That's what canon is. Continuity must follow canon, so by definition, since Chekov is not seen until Season 2, he wasn't there. You can't just make up a good backstory and call it canon.
Look, I really don't mind Chekov knowing Kahn, doesn't bother me in the least, but by definition it IS a violation of continuity. If you don't agree, that's fine, that's cool, no worries. :)

[Ktrek]

...Play nice boys.   :angel:

As a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Pictures—they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise. The recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men. They just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

I think that's an unfair assessment Jen. They have given equal time to eye candy for the women as well as far as I can see. Sexuality will always be a part of TV because it's part of our humanity. Now, I would have preferred no catsuits but I wouldn't stop watching because a female character wears one any more than I would stop watching because they found a way to get Archer or Kirk's shirt off for the women to enjoy.

Kevin

[Rico]

Trying to not get sucked into this space/time/repeating discussion loop.  ;)   

But it's Khan, not Kahn.   :)

[Bryancd]

I agree with Jen that the use of sexuality in "Enterprise" was overt but not unexpected considering the era in which it was made. It does seem odd watching a Star Trek product and seeing that, but now we are just showing our age ;).


Not that Jen's old by any stretch! Just us old boy's ;)

[Dan M]

You can thank UPN for putting Seven and T'Pol into catsuits.

Thanks, UPN!!!

The sexuality in Enterprise and especially Voyager was downright timid compared to the female guest stars/eye candy in TOS.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Fine, since you refuse to drop it. Continuity for TOS is ONLY what appeared on screen, not what can be interpreted later. That's all there is to it. If Gene R. didn't put in on the show it didn't happen. That's what canon is. Continuity must follow canon, so by definition, since Chekov is not seen until Season 2, he wasn't there. You can't just make up a good backstory and call it canon.
Look, I really don't mind Chekov knowing Kahn, doesn't bother me in the least, but by definition it IS a violation of continuity. If you don't agree, that's fine, that's cool, no worries. :)

I suggest you read this web page.  It explains that a continuity violation is something that contradicts an established fact.  Now, in order for Chekov's recognition of Khan in The Wrath of Khan to be a continuity violation, there would have to be a scene or dialogue that established that Chekov was not on board the Enterprise during that first season.  As far as I know, Chekov simply appeared in Season 2.  He didn't get an introduction episode, he was just there.  Logic suggests he was either transfered from another post or simply reassigned from somewhere else within the ship to the navigation console on the bridge.  The Wrath of Khan established Chekov was on the Enterprise during Season 1, he simply wasn't seen because his character had not yet been created.

If you want to tell us that Chekov was not on the Enterprise, that's cool.  Provide evidence to convince us, otherwise it's just an opinion.

You can always expand on an existing story with a subsequent story so long as you're not contradicting established facts.

I agree with Jen that the use of sexuality in "Enterprise" was overt but not unexpected considering the era in which it was made. It does seem odd watching a Star Trek product and seeing that, but now we are just showing our age ;).

I think the strong sexuallity was a result of the network, not necessarily today's standards.  Neither Stargate show had sexuallity anywhere near what we'd see in Enterprise.  If you look at UPN's other shows, you'll notice that they're all sexed up.  UPN had the idea that there weren't enough fans watching, so they had Voyager (Seasons 4-7) and Enterprise sexed up to appeal to horny guys. ::)

[Geekyfanboy]

Hey Guys... I think we have gone off topic a bit... can we bring this topic back to Star Trek 11. If you wish to continue your discussion on Star Trek continuity issues or sexuality on Star Trek please create another thread and continue there... Thanks

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Wow, we did get off topic with Chekov and The Wrath of Khan, didn't we? :laugh: I appologize! :ninja Let's get back on topic as requested. :biggrin

Do you think we will see the starship Enterprise in the movie?  If we do see it, do you think it'll be the main setting or merely be a background ship?

[Trekkygeek]

It would be typical of the makers to just show the Enterprise in the final five minutes of the movie. Man i really don't want them to do a prequel.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

That's not typical... out of 10 movies, they've only done that once. :blink