The Chekov thing never really bugged me. It’s made clear on several occasions via dialogue in TOS that Chekov was on board the Enterprise during season one, just not seen.

One example, IIRC, is Kirk’s second use of the Corbomite bluff!

There are all kinds of fun explanations one can come up with to resolve continuity “gaffes,” and I’ve played the game myself. I think the point I was trying to make is that when I watched the various Trek movies for the first time, I was sort of “thrown out” of the viewing experience by things that didn’t mesh with my fanboy encyclopedia of knowledge I walked into the theater with. When Khan recognizes Chekov (probably the biggest continuity blip in “Wrath”), I sort of had to spend a moment or two readjusting my knowledge. I’m not saying it was a disaster to have Chekov rather than, say, Sulu, in that scene, but it did yank me out of a great, tense moment in the movie.

I guess I’m gently arguing that it wouldn’t harm anything to let someone with a deep knowledge of the show vet the movie scripts and offer alternatives to things which contradict “canon” — alternatives that won’t mess with the storytelling, but will help keep viewers like me from having too many of those “yanked-out” moments. The Klingon bird of prey is a good example. Would the ship have been any less cool if it had been called a Klingon destroyer or corvette or gunship?

Boy, I sound like some cranky old fart of a Trek fan. Sorry! I’m really more of a “to each his own” kinda guy! Really!

Scott B. out.

For reasons that I guess I can understand, most people think unless an artist can pull an image out of his head without looking at anything, it’s cheating. Michelangelo (and just about every other naturalistic artist ever) used models from which to do his great frescoes and sculptures. Norman Rockwell used copious photo reference in order to pull off his masterful illustrations. There’s no shame in using reference.

I’ve heard comic book artists say that one should shoot his own reference, but sometimes that’s impossible. Certainly one can’t shoot his own pictures of a young Shatner in order to create a comic book page.

That cover is a really nicely designed piece, and the drawing is excellent. Shatner’s is an extremely difficult likeness to pull off, even when tracing from a good photo.

Scott B. out.

So, on that your statement is correct. Kind of reminds me of what they used to do on the old Gold Key covers sometimes!

My mistake…. I was thinking the STR promotional poster, not the comic, if that’s what you are referring to. The mixed news reports make it hard to know what one is talking about in the talkback comments!

But the cover is obviously based on photos. But I do think they are re-drawn from them for that.

I don’t get it…. would you have them cut out the photos and glue them onto the paper for the collage? Photoshop is how it’s done now. It’s not cheating, it’s professional graphics.

Examples include . . .

1: They were the children of the crew of the Botany Bay, who grew up faster as a consequence of their genetic engineering.

2: They aged at a different rate because they were genetically engineered. Khan was engineered earlier than them.

3: (stretching it!) The Botany Bay crew are genetically engineered and periodically slough off their outer skin, revealing younger versions. Khan is a differently-engineered being from them or hasn’t sloughed off his skin yet, unless he’s covering his hand up because the process has actually started there!

A little imagination allows you to develop all sorts of ideas. That’s why I hate the ‘convenience continuity’ so common in most spin-off novels!

Nicholas Meyer said, when Khan’s glove was discussed, that it’s the unexplained elements that get people thinking and talking. You can guarantee that ‘The Secret of Khan’s Glove’ would have been one of the mysteries ruined by ‘Justice League of Star Trek!’

As for the novels, I’m pretty sure there was a modicum of internal consistency between the various books in the early days, but increasing numbers of series and movies that have contradicted them means many of the books can’t help but contradict one another.

In many ways the best thing a story set earlier in the timeline can do is not show anything of import: just tell a good story!!!

Those are two things that bugged me as well.

And I also have a lot of books on the Andy Griffith Show.