Yep, it’s been fun. I should add that i was thinking along the lines of the original crew continuing to interact, but not necessarily within the same location. An Admiral Chekov, for example, in San Francisco might have far more contact with someone on another planet than with the guy in the next office.

I suppose it’s just a matter of perspective – I don’t think the crew really showed their ages a great deal until Trek VI, at which point they were had the characters retiring. Shatner was still reasonably fit in Trek V, and Dee still had some meat on his bones (then again, he was the ship’s surgeon, not the ship’s ninja). In fact, when Trek VI came out, I was a bit surprised how much older everyone looked in such a short time period. Perhaps, given Trek V’s abyssmal box office, they let themselves go assuming they wouldn’t be making any more movies! :)

You have to think of the bridge as a storytelling device (or conceit). It was a simple way to connect those 7 characters in a common goal for the audience. Sure, other devices could have been used, but you have to consider the fact that it would become increasingly difficult for a writer to come up with believable methods of reuniting these 7 people over and over again for each movie. Keeping them on the bridge was a stretch in some ways, but less so than the extraordinary circumstances necessary to bring them into common surroundings from disparate locales across the galaxy. After all, if it didn’t make sense for them to serve together for so long on one ship, it certainly wouldn’t make sense that they’d all be transferred to the same offices at Starfleet Command, right?

Regardless, it’s been fun discussing it without either of us resorting to a flame war or name-calling. =)

You’ve placed more emphasis on some points than I intended. I wasn’t suggesting a new crew to replace the original crew, then carrying on with them in Enterprise-centric stories. I’m suggestng stories that would have involved the orginal crew, and also suggesting their involvement need not have come on the bridge of the Enterprise. Hence, the need for new people to crew that ship.

If those stories had been financially successful, they might have spawned new movies and new TV series of Enterprise-centric stories using that new crew, with the original crew showing up just often enough to tease ratings and ticket sales.

(Instead, we jumped, what, 70 years, ahead to Picard’s ship. I loved the show, but, under the circumstances, the clean break was inevitable.)

The original crew could still have been the focus of the story, but certainly many stories about them somewhere off that bridge are possible.

I agree people wanted to see Kirk, et al, back in the saddle. But, certainly, by the time we got to, at least, the last two films, they should have been out of the saddle and walking thoses horses at a pretty slow pace. With some exceptions, the actors were too old to play those characters. I think the gap between the actor’s ages and appearances and the age and appearances of their characters was so obvious that it detracted from the success of those films.

I’m skeptical, too, about the overall impact of the fan base on the future of Trek. I have my doubts that it is large enough to secure the success of any movie of TV series, since that success is measured in tickets bought and advertising sold. Quite likely, though, that we fans can sink the new movie, if we don’t like it for reasons no normal people would understand and throw a collective public hissy fit.

We’re going to have supper so I’ll look it up.

And RE: #126

didn’t they orchestrate something to get Worf back on the Enterprise to make it about that same ensemble (uh, that was “First Contact” I think). And I don’t really care. I know it’s kind of contrived but I love it anyway.

kg

21 decks, if my memory serves me.

Hmm…it seems like we’re more or less in agreement, but the devil is in the details.

You said: “I don’t think it was necessary to being everyone back to the Enterprise to have good stories. That’s essential to my point. Each new movie saw me just that much more unwilling to accept their presence on the Enterprise. At that point in their careers, they would all have been doing something else.”

Here’s where we seem to be unable to reach a common ground. 4 out of 6 Trek films (Trek’s II-V) all take place as part of one story. III picks up immediately after II, IV a few months after III, V a few months after IV. It seems like you think it’s implausible they’d all still be together, but honestly it wouldn’t make any sense for them to seperate at that point. Again, I think your gripe could only be fairly leveled at Trek VI (and possibly II).

I’m not sure who you’re referring to in terms of a ‘bumbling’ Captain…Decker was an excellent Captain, as was Spock. The only bumbler in the bunch was in Generations, and that wasn’t really a TOS movie (plus it handed the torch over to another crew, effectively doing what you seem to have wanted).

I understand what you’re saying about the characters, their situations, etc. However, the fact remains that there is no way that the film producers were going to introduce a whole new crew back in the 80’s. When TMP came out, people had been waiting 10 years to see Kirk in the command chair, consulting with Spock, asking Scotty for more warp power, etc. There would have been a full-on revolt had they tried to bring on new characters to replace them (people were already irked about the Xon character that would have replaced Spock in Phase II). It may have made sense from a logical storytelling standpoint, but it did not make sense from a real-world standpoint – i.e., ‘We would like to make money on these movies’.

Those 7 characters are what people cared – and continue to care – about. Hell, look at all the folks just on these message boards that are desperate to have Shatner put his uniform on one more time! I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I do understand the emotional connection to the character that drives them to that desire. In fact, it’s likely that attachment that is giving us a new movie based on TOS in the first place. It is a proven formula. Keeping an ensemble together for an extended period is a challenge to any screenwriter, but in addition to creativity it usually involves the audience taking it with a grain of salt.

So I suppose my bottom line is this – yes, the scriptwriters were locked into the notion that they needed to include the 7 principals in stories, but they were also justified in that notion. Introducing new crews is fine in a TV format, but it just wouldn’t have worked on the silver screen. At the time these films were being released, the public wanted to see the adventures of those 7 people, aboard the Enterprise.

kg

>>” … it would be far more plausible to see the entire crew serving together on the same ship for a long period, as opposed to serving in different parts of Starfleet, then magically being called into the same situation. ”

I agree, and it’s what I saw happening in the films.

I don’t think it was necessary to being everyone back to the Enterprise to have good stories. That’s essential to my point. Each new movie saw me just that much more unwilling to accept their presence on the Enterprise. At that point in their careers, they would all have been doing something else. I would have preferred the films explore that, bringing new crewmembers onto the Enterprise. Not the NG cast, since that show was placed decades in the future.

For example, instead of having Kirk return to the Enterprise by taking over from a bumbling new captain (also not very believable; you’d think StarFleet bumblers don’t get to command starships), they might have given the job to an effective and dynamic leader and crew, who would be able to stand on their own. Plenty of story opportunities there, bringing in the original crew in their new, presumably, important jobs.

Bottom line: I think the scriptwriters got locked into the notion that a TOS movie had to be about those 6 people on the bridge of the Enterprise. That limited their creativity, and, at least for me, stretched credulity.