Yelchin: Chekov Is No Kirk Or Spock | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Yelchin: Chekov Is No Kirk Or Spock February 21, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Anton Yelchin continues to do the rounds promoting the film Charlie Bartlett, opening this weekend. In a new interview with the Toronto Sun, the young actor goes into depth on his starring role as Bartlett and contrasts it with his very much supporting role as Pavel Chekov. The young Russian-born Yelchin says that he will be honoring Koenig’s classic accent, but also noted that Chekov is not exactly the center of attention. He also confirmed a certain plot point.

Yelchin on Chekov’s accent:

It was fun to take things from the old character and bring them to the new one. Words like ‘wessels … wery strange … Wulcan,’ stuff like that was fun. Everything in the film is as much its own thing as it is very respectful of the original.

Yelchin puts his role into perspective:

It’s like all the other movies, Chekov is there on the ship and in a couple of important scenes, but it’s not like he’s Kirk or Spock

Yelchin finished his scenes on the bridge in January and will be back in March to shoot another scene, but again Pavel is the odd man out. Yelchin reveals:

There is an away team, but Chekov’s not on it

SPOILER

BELOW

When pointing out that playing a supporting role isn’t as challenging as being the lead (as he is in Charlie Bartlett), Yelchin also confirmed what is becoming clearer and clearer about the new Star Trek:

There’s only so many layers you can find to Pavel Chekov. But at the same time, it is fun to sit on the bridge of a spaceship screaming about Romulans

The last time Yelchin talked about what he was ‘seeing’ on the green screens he said it was Klingons. Of course as some one who was not a fan before he started on Star Trek he may get them confused, however TrekMovie.com has confirmed with sources that both Romulans and Klingons are in the film so Chekov may be seeing all sorts of ‘wessels.’

Charlie Bartlett, starring Anton Yelchin opens in the US on February 22nd. More info at IMDB, Trailer below.

 

More from Yelchin at The Toronto Sun

Comments

1. GermanTrekker - February 21, 2008

How could he be in the away team? Isn´t he just a trainee?

2. Jan - February 21, 2008

#1: That’s why he is NOT in the away team.

3. With Life Like Hair and Beard - February 21, 2008

Yeah! Space battle!

4. Kapitaen Stephan - February 21, 2008

Sounds logical.

Perhaps Pavel Chekov is a Cadet in this movie – and aboard the Enterprise as part of his field-training for his last year at the academy.

If that`s the fact I`m looking forward seeing the new cadet-uniforms they`re coming up with.

5. Devon - February 21, 2008

Oh boy, just wait until the Canon enthusiasts hear about this one! I’m getting an itch now, and the only way to scratch is with more Star Trek!

6. Devon - February 21, 2008

Oops, just realized it, they didn’t actually *see* the romulans themselves, but certainly may have encountered their “wessels” especially after the Romulan war. Okay, my apologies. Cool none the less. Thanks ANthony

7. Q-pid - February 21, 2008

God just once, i’d like him to say it. “NUCLEAR Wwwwessels”

8. M-BETA - February 21, 2008

Maybe he is the midget??

But seriously, I have a feeling that Chekov might be the ‘Wesley Crusher’ of this movie.

9. The Last Maquis - February 21, 2008

THAT little Kid is Gonna be Chekov?

10. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - February 21, 2008

M-BETA give the kid a chance , for one, and for two, don’t blame Wes Crusher’s poor reputation on TNG on Wil Wheaton, instead blast your torpedoes at the writers . Wil Wheaton is an awesome guy to meet in person , and he is a funny writer too. Don’t buy it? Fine check out his blog for yourself then and try not to laugh.

http://www.wilwheaton.typepad.com

11. Commodore Redshirt - February 21, 2008

I’m wery wery glad he’s keeping that accent.

12. Petey - February 21, 2008

#10 Wow… what a reaction…. I don’t think anyone has anything against Yelchin to play Chekov.

It would have been a greater travesty to have left Chekov out of the Star Trek movie.

13. M-BETA - February 21, 2008

#10 Fleet Captain Kor’Tar – You really misunderstood.

I liked the Wesley character. I also would like the fact that Chekov could be portrayed in the same vein. A young smart cadet that people would at first underestimate until he saves there lives.

I didn’t say anything negative in my older post, and I certainly didn’t have a go at Wil Wheaton. Don’t be so touchy and defensive. There was no attack.

14. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

Away team? Kirk’s era called it a ‘landing party’. Another sign canon has been tossed in the dumpster.

15. Iowagirl - February 21, 2008

Chekov might be no Kirk or Spock, but that Yelchin guy definitely does a lot more talking than that Pine guy who’s obviously lost his voice for good, and I think Yelchin’s even getting ahead of that Quinto guy who seems to suffer from some sort of aglossia recently. Maybe Quinto’s rebuilding and let’s Yelchin do the babbling in the interval.

If only he knew the difference between Klingons and Romulans…

16. Jon C - February 21, 2008

Romulans?Pre “Balance of Terror”? Uh oh.

17. JimJ - February 21, 2008

#14-On that point, I agree. It’s a landing party, PLEASE!!!

18. Brian - February 21, 2008

A space battle? Klingons? Romulans? These are spoilers? If the movie were being made in a hermetically sealed lockbox, these would still be givens!

19. Paul Martin - February 21, 2008

#15
Beards ears and eyebrows!!

20. Adam - February 21, 2008

No. 14
Please tell me that was sarcasm.

21. Sarah James - February 21, 2008

I’d love to say I loved Koenig’s accent…well…he tried :D
He tried hard and you’ve got to love him for that. As about the size of the part I’m not surprised at all, just glad to have him there, the ol’ Russian. Well and this Yelchin boy is a cutie, isn’t he?

22. jonboc - February 21, 2008

#14…”Away team? Kirk’s era called it a ‘landing party’”

Even Enterprise had the smarts to call the group a “landing party”. I can’t imagine they would put those 24th century words in the mouths of 23rd century exploreres. That particluar term takes me right out of the 23rd century state of mind and plops me right down in the counselor’s seat right next to Picard. Engage? Sure. Pike said it, so that’s cool. But I hope they left “away team” where it belongs.

23. diabolik - February 21, 2008

With Kirk around, every away team mission was a landing party.

But really, I would prefer not to hear that term outside the NG era. However, that’s just the guy talking, doesn’t mean it’s used in the script.

Sounds like Chekov gets to scream some more.

24. Andy Patterson - February 21, 2008

I know he’s new to all this and he’s trying to be respectful of things and not ruffle feathers but I’d actually like to see some development to Chekov’s character. Always thought, along with Scotty, that it was a much undeveloped character.

25. JL - February 21, 2008

“Away team…” Kirk never called it an “away team…” Or anyone else from TOS for that matter.

Try “LANDING PARTY.” Crummy TNG references… ugh

26. Timncc1701 - February 21, 2008

Sounds a little like Yelchin is less than pleased with his lack of attention in the ST movie.

27. Viking - February 21, 2008

#23 – my thoughts exactly. In keeping with tradition, it’s time for Chekov to get a plasma burn, be bitten by a rabid tribble, or have the turbolift doors close on his foot (while in transit).

28. Anthony In Indiana - February 21, 2008

#25 HAHA!

I wonder if Levar Burton had anything to do with changing Landing Party to Away Team.

Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8D1gMmuko

29. sirbroiler - February 21, 2008

How is it a “Landing Party” if they’re not landing anything on the planet.

And…get ready folks…if Romulans are going back in time to destroy the Federation….very likely our crew will encounter a Romulan ship. That’s right…BEFORE Balance of Terror.

That way, Checkov can scream…”Romulan wessels! My precious canon! Dear God! My precious canon! It burns. It burns. Arrrrrrrggggghhhh!”

30. Cervantes - February 21, 2008

#22 jonboc

Absolutely agree with you and others on this point. It’s details like this that will show whether the makers really care about the TOS era ‘feel’ in this. Hopefully it was just a general term, although used in TNG, that has been casually said by Anton.

31. bono luthor - February 21, 2008

Is it just me or have things gone a little (predictably) quiet since the release date was put back?

I wonder if we would have seen the ship or the crew in uniform by now if things were still on track?

32. Stanky McFibberich - February 21, 2008

If they call it “Away Team” that is another strike against.

Cringed the first time I heard the term and each time since.

Putting Chekov in the movie is another blunder.

33. Iowagirl - February 21, 2008

#14
In Abrams’ universe, it’s called “away team”. It means they stay away from the original as far as possible.

#16
Good point. I’m not saying they must be slaves to canon, but the first Romulan encounter is a crucial event and can’t be just explained away or even ignored. Furthermore, “Balance of Terror” is one of the best and most significant eps and in not sticking to the events shown there they would only demonstrate that they don’t respect the original. Thus, IMO Romulans in STXI could be set into the film’s frame only by means of alternative timelines; and that exactly would be the advantage of different timelines and alternate universes – to be able to introduce events to the big pattern without violating established and well-known ken.

34. Gojira Al-Kzin - February 21, 2008

I tend to think that perhaps at least ONE of the references to Klingons/Romulans may have been from a scene during Kirk’s Kobayashi Maru test. A simulation.

Just because he SEES the Wessels doesn’t mean they’re real ones :)

35. SPB - February 21, 2008

#16, #33 –

It’s already been established that the new TREK film will hit all sorts of different timelines and jumping back-and-forth with flashbacks and all…

How do we know that the Romulan scenes are PRE-“Balance of Terror?” Perhaps there are scenes set around the first voyage of the Kirk/Spock crew, coupled with a storyline that happens a few months AFTER “BOT.” The Romulan arc is the NOW part of the film, whereas the Academy/first voyage scenes are the flashbacks.

36. Nev - February 21, 2008

#9

“I was never dat young.”
“No… You were YOUNGER.”

37. Cervantes - February 21, 2008

#35 SPB

My head is ALREADY hurting at the way this may turn out to be ‘structured’…

38. Sebi - February 21, 2008

Canon?? What’s that?

Canon makes good digicams…..

39. Dennis Bailey - February 21, 2008

#15: “If only he knew the difference between Klingons and Romulans…”

Who cares? It’s not important.

As for “Away team,” it wouldn’t hurt them to put in a few references to the popular TNG. Enough people actually watched *that* show so that it wasn’t cancelled early. ;)

40. AJ - February 21, 2008

It was never established that Romulan vessels had remained unseen before BOT, just the Roms themselves. The Feds and the Roms fought a war, after all.

41. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

#40… VERY good point! Some act as if Roms had never been HEARD OF before BOT. But they simply had never been seen in person.

42. Alex Rosenzweig - February 21, 2008

Two thoughts…

1) ENT actually did slip up a couple of times and refer to Away Teams. They usually avoided it, but it was a visible artifact of the syndrome of how the writers often defaulted to latter-era thinking when they got rushed or tired and fell back on what they were conditioned to.

2) If Yelchin spent a lot of time watching various Trek series while getting ready for the role, he might just have called it an Away Team for much of the same reason as my first point: he may have gotten used to the term from watching TNG et al., rather than it being written that way in the script.

43. SPB - February 21, 2008

I MAY GET FLAMED FOR THIS…

…but that’s the ONE thing that always bothered me about “Balance of Terror”… the Federation fought a whole WAR with the Romulans for YEARS and never once got a good look at them??? It seems that whole idea was thought up simply so they could build up to the Big Reveal in the episode where–*gasp!*–the Romulans look JUST LIKE SPOCK!

In hindsight, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and they kind of wrote themselves into a corner with that one. That’s why a whole movie and/or TV series built around the Romulan/Federation war would be a dud… you would NEED to have some sort of face-to-face conflict in there somewhere. If it’s just a bunch of ships shooting at each other, it would get old VERY quickly.

44. trekmaster - February 21, 2008

Did he really say “away team”? In TOS it was called “landing party”…

45. star trackie - February 21, 2008

What scares me this young man, from previous interviews, isn’t a big fan. Hell, he’s a teenager who probably hasn’t given Trek much though in his life. If that is the case, then the terms he uses are probably derived directly from the script and his experiences on the movie.

If this is the case, then we will likely see the term “away team” and the infusion of 24th century “terminology” into the radically different TOS era will be like washing down my sweet delicous milk duds with fish oil. Yuck.

46. British Naval Dude - February 21, 2008

arrrr….

brilliant- this explains why Khan knew him in tha second film… If Checkov was aboard Enterprise since he was an embryo then, hey yarrr, sure he met good ol’ Khannie…

and fur the young actor, well don’t be harsh… fur him Romulans=Klingons and Away Team=Landing Party… not all of us have had time alone at sea to explore the details of Trek… including identifying entire races properly…
harrrrr!

Avast ye, Away Team!

47. Jorg Sacul - February 21, 2008

1. GermanTrekker – February 21, 2008

How could he be in the away team? Isn´t he just a trainee?
2. Jan – February 21, 2008

#1: That’s why he is NOT in the away team.

If he’d been on the away team, you can bet dollars to donuts he’d have died in some horrible fashion. Probably that’s why we always saw Chekov in a gold “command” shirt. He knew better!

48. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#1, #2–He may be a “trainee” or cadet for PART of the story.

#16–It is not necessarily a scenario prior to “Balance Of Terror”. Why is it that some believe everything is set before WNMHGB, when it is clear that the story moves around within the timeline (and possibly in an alternate one)?

#33–Much of the “canon” in that episode has already been disregarded. For example, instead of Romulans painting “giant birds of prey” on their ships, we ended up with Klingons doing it instead. We also discover that Earth/Federation ships are NOT in fact deploying atomic weapons and maneuvering at sublight speeds 100 years prior to TOS. “Balance Of Terror” is a great episode (a “Das Boot” in space, if you will), but its dialogue has never held up as “canon”. Why does it now, all of a sudden, need to be in order for you to feel that the new team is” respectful of the original”? I do not understand the logic behind your conclusion. If this is disrespectful, then so is the existence of Klingon Birds Of Prey (not the ship design, but the painted markings) and Zephram Cochrane’s warp flight.

#35–Glad I’m not the only one who caught that.

#43–“In hindsight, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and they kind of wrote themselves into a corner with that one.”

They did. However, there are “canon” elements established throughout the first half of the initial season of TOS which are disregarded later in the series and films. If Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams were to disregard some more of the “canon” in TOS, “Balance Of Terror”—why would it be any different? Sometimes I feel like Abrams and co. are being held to a standard which even the legendary TOS writers failed to live up to.

49. Devon - February 21, 2008

Wow, we have people picking apart over whether he said “Landing Party” or “Away Team” in the interview. Great.

50. Devon - February 21, 2008

# 43 – Wasn’t that what “The Wrath of Khan” basically was? Other than the brief view scene, Kirk and Khan had no face to face contact at all. It depends on how it’s executed if it’s done right or not.

51. bill hiro - February 21, 2008

“If Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams were to disregard some more of the “canon” in TOS, “Balance Of Terror”—why would it be any different?”

Because they’re not “legendary TOS writers”. You don’t treat the people that built the house with the same degree of deference that you give to the people who are putting on new shingles. If Misters Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman are going to disregard things established by Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana, et cetera, they’d better do it for a very good reason and not merely “because they can”. They’ve got a whole history outlined for them. Coon, Fontana, et al, did not.

52. AJ - February 21, 2008

Well, at least he’s not sitting on the bridge screaming “Cossacks!”

53. CLS USMC - February 21, 2008

#49. Can’t agree more. I’m a huge fan, conventions, multiple dvd releases ,merchandise, BBS groups, Chat groups et. al. AND I’m not going this frickin psycho over a term that not one of you geniuses can prove is actually in the.. you know.. SCRIPT. If it shows up in the move then have at thee. Until then, Rampant Retarded Speculation ™, should be kept to a minimum.

Remember, RRS ™ bad.

Intelligent Conversation, good.

SEMPER FI

54. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#51–Not good enough. Too much of the first season of TOS has already been disregarded. Even the noted canon experts, Michael and Denise Okuda, have said as much. If the “legendary TOS writers” did not feel bound by it, then neither should Abrams and co. This is not to say that they should toss “canon” out the window, but that the first half of season one has never really been “canon” anyway. It is far too self contradictory and inconsistent. To expect them to adhere to standards which the original writers failed to adhere to themselves is absurd. No matter what they do, it will contradict something in the dialogue of those episodes, just as everything that Coon, Fontana, and even Roddenberry did afterwards was equally contradictory to those initial episodes made when TOS was “finding its way”.

55. AJ - February 21, 2008

I think BOT is just too much of a fan fave to throw into the non-canon bucket. It established a cracking backstory for the Roms/Feds; The war, the Neutral Zone, and Mark Lenard wonderfully conveyed the duality Roms feel about war and duty.

It also attacks bigotry like a tank, and its high bodycount questions the necessity of war when understanding would do us better.

I happily don’t care about the nukes, or whether the Roms/Feds saw each other before BOT. This one definitely stays in my canon bucket.

56. Garovorkin - February 21, 2008

The movie is a reboot while it will more then likely honor the cannon where ever they can. They are not going to be able to do this to everyones satisfaction that much is obvious, as has been pointed out, even the original show and the movies and later tv series did not perfectly follow the established cannon either so at this point, why worry if the movie diverges.Why go on splitting hairs?

57. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#55—I love the episode as well. It should also be noted that Bob Orci cited BOT as one of the episodes they researched extensively in preparation for writing the script, so it stands to reason that they will try to fit their story within what has been established there.

With that said, some of the dialogue has already been disregarded in live action Trek. That is all I am saying.

None of that matters anyway. As I said before, we have no idea WHEN this apparent encounter with the Romulans takes place in the film. It could very well (and IMO, would most likely) take place AFTER BOT, or even within the rumored alternate timeline…

58. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

LOL. I just knew Yelchin’s “away team” reference would cause a stir in this talkback. “Away team” or “landing party”. Whatever they call it is cool with me. I’m just curious to see what kind of Klingon this movie will showcase: smooth or crunchy. I think it’d be cool to see a combination of both.

59. SPB - February 21, 2008

#50 –

Ah, but at least they DID see each other and communicate throught the viewscreens! Maybe they didn’t come to fisticuffs like in “Space Seed,” but they still were able to have great scenes together!

Having a movie or TV series based during the Romulan wars (as many fans have asked for over the years) would be EXTREMELY limiting, if you were to use “Balance of Terror” as a rulebook.

Again, the whole concept of NOT seeing the Romulans for hundreds of years was just a melodramatic conceit for that ONE episode, so everyone on the bridge could turn around and look at Spock and think, “Ooo! Maybe we have a traitor in our midst!” Once you pick it apart, it doesn’t logically hold up.

60. Michelle - February 21, 2008

Man, I must be a terrible Star Trek fan. I’ve seen all episodes of TOS and TNG and I NEVER remembered that in TOS it’s called a “landing party” and TNG introduced the term “away team”. It hardly seems like a gross violation to me. I think some people are overreacting just a tad. We don’t even know for sure if it’s referred to that way in the script.

61. The Vulcanista - February 21, 2008

#55 et al

TVLand aired BOT yesterday morning. That episode still holds up as one of the very best of the best out of all the episodes. And Robert Orci himself has commented at this very blog that BOT was an important episode to them when developing the script.

#51: Remember that Orci also said that any changes to canon would be canon-inspired, or words to that effect; i.e., there will be a very good reason for any changes.

#53: How do you get that little “TM” in your posts?

Peace. Live long and prosper
The Vulcanista }:-|

62. Garovorkin - February 21, 2008

# Ro-Dan and there you have an example of splitting hairs.

63. The Vulcanista - February 21, 2008

Mom! ClosetTrekker is in my brain again!

Peace. Live long and prosper
The Vulcanista }:-|

64. LostOnNCC1701 - February 21, 2008

You know, I’ve always thought of “Landing Party” and “Away Team” as just being two words that are interchangeable for the same thing, and that it is just custom to use one or another, so that’s just a “meh” kinda thing to me.

65. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

I was at the doctor’s office just last week, came down with the Hong Kong Flu™ as it were, anyway, just sitting in the lobby waiting to see Dr. Feelgood®, eagerly awaiting a prescription of Tussionex cough syrup because it has the VicoDrugs© that one needs when one is afflicted with the Hong Kong Flu. A little off topic, but an important part of the story here.

I was reading a TV Guide that was in the waiting room, and they had this little blurb about the new movie – meet the cast, or something along those lines. Suddenly, two added itself to itself, in my mind, and became four. Here I am, every day at the Trek Movie dot com…. NO ONE ever told me that this Yelchin kid is the kid from Alpha Dog!!!

You know, say what you will about JT – but the bottom line is that he was into Britney before she went crazy, before K-Fed – and then his SNL “special box” thing, then Alpha Dog. Co-starring with none other than me main geezah Bruno Willis. And of course, Chekov Yelchin. That my friends, is what Sir JJ™ and the OrcSter® would call a “casting coup”.

Needless to say, I was just a little disappointed in the collective Trek thinktank™ that we’ve got going on here. I read all of your comments. This is a well-versed gathering of subject matter experts. Old hitch1969© is honored to be in your company.

I just wish that someone here, not TV Guide, would have just said, “yeah hitch… that’s the kid from Alpha Dog playing Chekov.” Then it would have all clicked sooner. Still, very cool news though. And always remember to double up those doses – you’ll be glad you did.

BEST!!

=h=

66. CLS USMC - February 21, 2008

#61. Ancient Chinese Secret ™ ;)

SEMPER FI

67. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

™ = ALT+0153
© = ALT+0169
® = ALT+0174

semper fidelis™

=h=

68. Captain Hackett - February 21, 2008

Whenever anyone complains about the violation of canon, it sets off a flaming war.

It disgusts me grossly.

Why can’t we lay off from discussing over the canon issues UNTIL we watch the new movie?

69. steven - February 21, 2008

who gives a f@#$ about canon

just throughing that out there

70. CLS USMC - February 21, 2008

Or put parentheses around tm like this ™ if you dont feel the need to type it out.

#67 And I’ll stick with the good old fashioned short version. It’s worked well these 12 years so thanks but no.

SEMPER FI

71. Captain Hackett - February 21, 2008

Forgive me for swaying from this topic.

It is official that the Paramount Studio switches to Blu-ray format.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/home_entertainment/video/e3ic60f3f2e7077b9b873fe2f3dd382a642

Anthony, may you please do a follow up on the status of the TOS-R 2nd and 3rd season HD DVD boxsets?

Thanks!

72. Katie G. - February 21, 2008

Re: #14. Moogie

Uh-oh. I didn’t realize that.

“Yelchin finished his scenes on the bridge in January and will be back in March to shoot another scene, but again Pavel is the odd man out.. Yelchin reveals:

‘There is an away team, but Chekov’s not on it.’ ”

Wait — it was YELCHIN who said “away team”. He probably just said it wrong. Let’s not put J. J. et al in front of a firing squad just yet.

kg

73. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Canon. I don’t even live my LIFE according to canon. It makes it too hard for outsiders to follow my plot.

If they call a “landing party” an “away team” and that’s enough to make you foam at the mouth, maybe you should ignore this movie. Star Trek is a show, not a museum piece. Shakespeare gets re-interpreted all the time and you don’t find people jumping off of bridges.

As for the Romulans being “seen” by anyone from the Federation before they are “supposed” to, perhaps since this is a time travel based plot, the time line is changed and then get’s corrected.

74. Daoud - February 21, 2008

#16 et al. Romulans before BOT can be seen…. they’re just wearing helmets… Think Spaceballs…. who knows what’s inside that ball! The gold plated helmets cover up ears and eyebrows quite nicely. (And has the advantage of not requiring a couple hours of ear application and makeup!!!)

Another consideration to remember is that what “Romulan” bodies were ever recovered were from Romulan war days were a mix of races… what we’d now call Debrune, or Reman, or Andorian slaves or Aenar slaves, etc. After all, it’s a “Romulan Star Empire”… The empire would have many subject races. With ENT’s showing Romulans using Aenar and Andorian slaves, it’s not a stretch even to consider any recovered Vulcan-looking bodies would be considered to be enslaved Vulcans, without even considering they were *the* Romulan race itself.

The “big kicker” of BoT can remain canonical just fine, if you think about it. And Orci’s smart and already has.

75. Green-blooded-bastard - February 21, 2008

Unbelievable. All this stomach twisting over a frigging term. “Away Team”…”Landing Party”…Who gives a rats fat ass! If you let something like that bother you, wait until they release the first pic of a Klingon! THEN you’ll all have something to gripe about! Will it look like Spock with a beard? Will it look like TNG Klingons? OMG I don’t know who’s to say ItS dRiViNg Me mAd!! Wait, wasn’t that third button on Kirk’s pants stitched with black threading, not very very dark gray? THAT’S NOT CANON!!!

Any of you “canonsteins” that actually had the money (no less talent) to make a new Trek movie would soon find yourselves simply either remaking an old episode, making a 2 hour long TV show (which would suck), or completely not worrying about canon, because if JJ Abrams were to go back and make notes of every little minutia of detail just to please the handful of überdorks that cry canon every time a lit button is a different shade of a specific color, the film would never get made. Ever.

Try not to forget people, when a director films a movie, especially a “re-boot” or remake of previously existing material, the movie itself is still subject to the directors “artistic interpretation” of said material. And no matter how many people here bitch and gripe about the dumbest crap, you’re all still going to go see it, if for anything but to give yourselves more to cry about. To “feed ammo into the non-canon crybaby gun”.

I hope Abrams gives Kirk an eye patch and makes Spock laugh hysterically throughout the entire movie, so when you’re all 80 you’ll still have something to complain about. “I remember when that Abrams fink ruined Star Trek, when I was was just a young geek. Despite the fact that millions saw it and loved it.”

…grow up “adults”

76. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

#74…. best thought-out answer to “why” BOT was the way it was. For whatever reason, I’m willing to accept that’s just how it was. There are stranger things in history than that.

77. Katie G. - February 21, 2008

Sorry, Moogie. Just noticed the rest of the comments freaking out about “away team”….

EVERYONE: YELCHIN IS YOUNG. HE PROBABLY JUST MIXED UP HIS WORDS. Why don’t you wait and see before giving yourselves a hernia? Then if you find they are indeed using the TNG term, hernia away!!

My goodness…

kg

78. Steve Short - February 21, 2008

Do you think the Romulans and Klingons will look any different in the new movie? Will the Romulans and Klingons look more like TOS or TNG ?

79. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#63—And we didn’t even have to meld!

#60–Michelle, that is an excellent point about the script. Yelchin’s knowledge of Trek is obviously limited, and his exposure to TOS is even moreso. I seem to recall him saying that he watched a few Checkov-heavy eps and the feature films. What he is calling an “away team”, may indeed be referred to as a “landing party” in the script.

On the other hand, #64 has a good point as well. The two terms could be viewed as interchangeable. As is often pointed out, just because he/she/it wasn’t shown in a TOS episode, does not preclude it from existence in the 23rd Century Trek Universe.

#70–Oooooorah!

“Ears. Eyeballs. All of you nasties will grab your moonbeams, your little green monsters, and one inkstick! You filthy little mutts will then proceed to the quarterdeck, where you will join the SDI for a mandatory Trek viewing! We will do canon by the numbers……Scribe, who told you to put in Voyager? What is your major malfunction? That’s it….say thank you, recruit Jones! You all owe me!!!!!!”

80. Ensign Harris - February 21, 2008

Who cares. I want to know more about Chris Pine as KIRK!
We have heard some about Quinto and Urban, let’s hear about Pine!

81. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

For the new movie, I’d like to see it this way: “Away Team” refers to beaming down and “Landing Party” refers to shuttling down. Now the terms wouldn’t be interchangeable but method-specific.

82. Sean - February 21, 2008

Oh good grief! If you guys are freaking out about the use of ‘away team’, then I’d simply advise you to stay home next May.

Honestly, if that bothers you this significantly then the changes in set design will likely make your heads explode.

83. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

Dear Steve Short™,

It is my guess that the Klingons will retain the look and feel of TNG and the Trek movies. I’m pretty sure that the Romulans will visually similar to those of Nimbus III.

Take me down to the Paradise City where the chicks are green and oh so pretty. That’s what I’m talkin bout, Steve. You dig?

=h=

84. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

#78. Steve Short asked:
Do you think the Romulans and Klingons will look any different in the new movie? Will the Romulans and Klingons look more like TOS or TNG ?

I’ve never been a fan of the v-shaped ridges that’ve been on the Romulans foreheads from Next Gen on. As for the Klingons, if they decide to stick to canon (a popular term around here) then they should be smooth-headed. I guess we’ll all need to take a wait-and-see attitude.

85. British Naval Dude - February 21, 2008

arrrr…
I wanna hear a cast member say “then Chakotay switched the hyper-drive to maximum and we had a good laugh from the Borg killing Zeppelin Cochrane…”

ohhh… me not be makin’ any fun of yer canon idears… just knowin’ that actors have roles and may not appreciate the characters and history as much as fans do, and that not be bad… that’s an actor goin’ from a job ta the next… When McKellen’s MacBeth was suddenyly Norwegian- now, that be angrifyin’… oh, hold up, that was just a wee dream… like Mr. Mom bein’ Batzman….

harrr…

86. Randall - February 21, 2008

“Landing Party” is a traditional Navy term going back, as far as I can tell, hundreds of years. I believe it originates with the British navy, but was adopted by the American navy as well. It’s classic, elegant, and fits well with the tradition-bound naval theme that the original ST developed–which always gave it a very nice air of correctness and made it just a tiny bit more believable.

“Away Team” is another (albeit small) example of what was so freakin’ wrong with TNG. Why the abandoned “Landing Party” I’ll never know, but it’s telling that they came up with such a lame-ass term like “Away Team.” It sounds new-agey cutesy PC just like everything else on TNG…. “Away Team”—think about it a second and it makes you puke… like “YAY team! Let’s go and do good in the galaxy!”

When I was a kid (early 70s) they changed the designation of school ranks from “grades” (as in 2nd grade) at my school to “teams.” (so you were now in “team 2″) It was pukey then and it’s still pukey. “Team” has one good, real meaning—for a group of men or women in a SPORT who go out and play a game. It is therefore NOT appropriate for a ST setting which is SUPPOSED to maintain a certain fundamental traditional naval-based decorum.

Typical of a show like TNG where they had such lame ass shit as a “ship’s counselor” and children on a starship.

87. Garovorkin - February 21, 2008

Away team or landing party what is big to do about this. its just two simply words, so it insn’t Connonically correct . its it just a tad on the silly side that so much time is being wasted on this and its not by definition a Paramount Issue(no Pun intended here) I can imagine the kind of insanity that is going to result if the film doesn’t meet the absolute correctness standard that some of us are unfairly imposing on it now .

88. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

#86 Randall stated:
“Typical of a show like TNG where they had such lame ass shit as a “ship’s counselor” and children on a starship.”

LOL. I’ll agree that the “ship’s counselor” and children aboard the Enterprise was pretty lame. One of the many reasons why I enjoy TOS much more than TNG.

89. The Vulcanista - February 21, 2008

#66: }:-P

#67: Thanks, hitch!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista

90. Randall - February 21, 2008

Also, let’s not hit-and-run on “Balance of Terror.”

Remember, at that time the writer of the episode had no idea that the Romulans were going to become an ST standard. They were a one-shot deal. In fitting with that, the Romulans were only used in two other episodes of TOS after that.

Yes, I agree that it really just fit a plot point to make the Romulans unseen prior to “Balance of Terror”—but there was adequate support for it in the script—the war occurred at such a primitive time in space travel that they were still using atomic weapons in clumsy ships and there was no such thing as subspace radio. You wouldn’t expect, under those circumstances, for the enemy to have seen one another. Indeed, with a xenophobic race like the Romulans, it makes even more sense that they’d have not given a thought to having face-to-face talks with the enemy.

It was also another keen and neat point in that episode though–the description of the situation that had been prevalent during the Romulan War–primitive ships with primitive weapons that allowed “no quarter, no captives…. nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication.” It created in the mind an idea of space travel only a bit more advanced than today’s—which was believable and had an edge of seriousness to it, it made you FEEL what it would be like in a space war only, say, a hundred years or so from now, when things aren’t as neat and tidy, technology-wise, as in TOS’ time.

But again, the idiots managing Star Trek in the latter days ruined that whole effect with the crappy “Enterprise” series—-making their Enterprise TOO advanced, too damn CLOSE to the Enterprise of TOS. It took away all the believability and seriousness, made it seem far less risky that they were out there in space—honestly, with a hundred years between them, do you SEE that much technology difference between Archer’s Enterprise and Kirk’s? No. They even have transporters! The lack of imagination in this was disgusting to me. “Enterprise” was a chance for them to go back and do an almost kitschier, quasi-1950s-looking show that would have been a GREAT prequel to TOS… but again, they failed.

91. JL - February 21, 2008

#75

Wow. Testy, aren’t we?

92. S. John Ross - February 21, 2008

I thought I had seen the most extreme examples of canon-frothing already, but this away-team flap takes the cake.

93. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

#77: “EVERYONE: YELCHIN IS YOUNG. HE PROBABLY JUST MIXED UP HIS WORDS. Why don’t you wait and see before giving yourselves a hernia? Then if you find they are indeed using the TNG term, hernia away!!”

Katie, IMO Yelchin must have taken the term ‘away team’ from the script, unless he did zero preparation on TOS canon. If this legendary term has been canon-corrupted, I fear what else awaits us.

94. raulpetersen - February 21, 2008

youve got to give all the people involved with this movie some credit!

THEYVE PICKLED OUR HEADS!!! WE DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON!!!

and in this day and age its nothing short of a mracle!

95. Randall - February 21, 2008

One further thing about “Balance of Terror” that many of you may not know.

In James Blish’s adaptation of the episode (his original, early adaptations were based on early scripts versions before they were revised—I believe Blish was writing the earliest adaptations even before Star Trek had been seen in the UK) the plot point of this being the first time the Romulans were seen was not really there—it was specifically mentioned that Romulan bodies had been found in the wreckage of their ships or in space during the war, and that little was known about them except that they were of the same “hawk-like” species as the Vulcans.

So as Blish wrote it, it was more or less known already that the Vulcans and Romulans were related. The episode as revised probably chose to play up the point all the more for the sake of drama.

96. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

#87:
Garovorkin, once canon is violated, whether deemed big or small, where does it end? Having Kirk drink tea instead of coffee? Janice Rand sit on the bridge as the ship’s shrink? Kirk calling Spock ‘Number One’?
Canon is the glue that holds the fabic of all things Trek together. Treat it with respect & it will thrive, violate it and all that we have known & loved is forever lost.

97. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

You are welcome, Vulcanista™. For you, an invitation to my private email address. it’s my supermodeldoug account, it’s for the important people, a select few. For example James Cawley has it; yet BIG DAWG AP not quite yet but maybe someday. Hit me up, we can chat ALT codes.

supermodeldoug@aol.com

Trekmovie.com is a great place to meet with the minds and whatnot, innit?

=h=

98. Gene - February 21, 2008

This may have been mentioned already but I thought they were called Landing Party’s not Away Teams??

99. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#84–” As for the Klingons, if they decide to stick to canon (a popular term around here) then they should be smooth-headed. I guess we’ll all need to take a wait-and-see attitude.”

As has been pointed out here many times before, depicting SOME Klingons as having “ridges” would not violate canon, as it is clear that not all Klingons would necessarily have been affected. It just so happens that the ones we saw in TOS were affected.
As for the Romulans, I hate the TNG look, but either way I don’t think there is anything to complain about. TOS Romulans look like Vulcans, and TNG Romulans look like a species which evolved differently. Perhaps that difference in evolution became more prevalent by the mid-24th Century. Whether Abrams and co. go one way or the other, it can both be justified, and disputed, with equal legitimacy to both arguments.

#88–Amen to that. TNG’s “progressiveness” contributed to the setting becoming overly sterile and less “frontier-like”. Children at frontier outposts–okay, but on board a starship—for Heaven’s sake, no. As for the “counselor”, I get it, but that was one of the things which made McCoy so great. He was the ship’s physician and de facto counselor in one. That is “final frontier medicine”…To each his own. To me, Troi was as useless as a box of tissues for an “Old Yeller” screening at the Vulcan Science Academy.

100. Green-blooded-bastard - February 21, 2008

#86 Randall…

Not to put a dent in your case, because you are right about the Navy using that term “Landing Party”, but if you are going to simply make fun of the term “Away Team” as sounding “new-age” and using childish terms like “YAY team! Let’s go and do good in the galaxy!” perhaps one could make fun of the idea of landing being a party? “YAY landers, we’re going to have a party!”

Ridiculous.

It’s possible that the Navy uses it because in Naval history up to today, all one can do is “land”. Land on a boat via ‘copter, land on land via boat, land on this, land on that. It’s quite possible in the future, we simply no longer “land” as in Star Trek, but materialize, and not necessarily on land itself. It’s possible (and you would have to consult with the writers on this) that they changed it to “away team” simply to signify that they went away from the ship, and are not necessarily “landing” on anything the way two-dimensional thinkers like yourself think. Try to go a bit out of the box, k?

101. raulpetersen - February 21, 2008

80#

a friend of mine had to watch the princess diaries 2 the other day with his nieces, pine is the love interset in it . and i told him pine was kirk and his reaction was ” omg that makes so much sense hes going to be really good!”

bearing in mind he prefers star wars to any trek, i pretty much trust his judgement as i make movies with him!

so im going to have to watch princess diaries 2 now to get an idea of what hes like as he played a right nutter in smoking aces!

102. British Naval Dude - February 21, 2008

#86… yar, Landing Party’s be for them pansy brit sailors… I belong to Boarding Parties!

Arrrr… here I come, phaser in hand…

103. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Landing Party is way cooler than Away Team. And people who like TNG are all nerds. My Trek is WAY cooler than your Trek. And I’m smarter, too!

When our landing party hits the surface, we gonna’ party like it’s 1969!

104. Randall - February 21, 2008

#100 Green:

Don’t give me this “two-dimensional thinking” crap and garbage about “going out of the box.” I’m thinking more three-dimensionally than you are, pal, and as for being in a box, you don’t even know you’re in one.

THE POINT I was making is that in TOS, the use of such terms as “Landing Party” and “bosun” and so forth gave the show one more added dimension of *background* believability. Here you had a LONG tradition that reached back to naval times, and the people of TOS’ time were respecting that tradition… they had made it a tradition of their own. It was another sliver or thread in the fabric of Star Trek that lent the show the air of correctness and “rightness” that made its universe BELIEVABLE.

With TNG though, and the subsequent shows, they ruined that. If “landing” was an antiquated idea in TNG, it was the same in TOS as well. But that isn’t the point, and where you’re utterly dead wrong. The point is the sense, the air, of *background tradition* that makes the universe of Star Trek believable.

105. Devon - February 21, 2008

““Away Team” is another (albeit small) example of what was so freakin’ wrong with TNG. Why the abandoned “Landing Party” I’ll never know, but it’s telling that they came up with such a lame-ass term like “Away Team.” It sounds new-agey cutesy PC just like everything else on TNG…. “Away Team”—think about it a second and it makes you puke… like “YAY team! Let’s go and do good in the galaxy!””

Dude, what in the world? They both mean the same thing. Its just two words. I didn’t think anyone would even blink at it let alone take it so seriously? In fact I haven’t even really noticed until people’s comments in this article.

Even if they say away team or landing party, who cares? What in the world difference does it make?

Geesh.

“But again, the idiots managing Star Trek in the latter days ruined that whole effect with the crappy “Enterprise” series—-making their Enterprise TOO advanced, too damn CLOSE to the Enterprise of TOS. It took away all the believability and seriousness, made it seem far less risky that they were out there in space—honestly, with a hundred years between them, do you SEE that much technology difference between Archer’s Enterprise and Kirk’s?”

Why not? A hundred years ago flight was only a dream, now we have our very own man made objects orbiting space, and getting shot down over a hundred miles above.

“No. They even have transporters! The lack of imagination in this was disgusting to me.”

Wasn’t it said that Paramount asked that Transporters be used?

” “Enterprise” was a chance for them to go back and do an almost kitschier, quasi-1950s-looking show that would have been a GREAT prequel to TOS… but again, they failed.”

Actually, no, the series as whole failed. However, you are talking about the standards for which you as an individual created. So, they failed by your standards. However, I’m not sure what you wanted. For them to go back and have futuristic technology as envisioned in the 1950s? Captain Proton anyone?

106. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

#99. Closettrekker stated:
“As has been pointed out here many times before, depicting SOME Klingons as having “ridges” would not violate canon, as it is clear that not all Klingons would necessarily have been affected. It just so happens that the ones we saw in TOS were affected.”

That’s what I suggested further up in the thread. A mixture of the two types of Klingons would be great. The comic book mini-series “Klingons: Blood Will Tell” published by IDW used this technique to great effect. Seeing “smooth and crunchy” Klingons interacting is just too damned cool, in my view.

107. trekee - February 21, 2008

@90 – Randall

I agree completely – I really liked BoT and it gave such a great feel for *distance* as ships millions of miles away took pot shots, using only sublight engines and effectively using stone knives and bad language to fight, it just felt great.

I like the James Blish reference, there’s a name I’ve not heard in a long while. I used to read everything of his that they put in our local library when I was litle.

And by cosmic coincidence, my HD DVD set watch is just at that episode now, so I’ll crack open a beer and go and watch it now….

108. British Naval Dude - February 21, 2008

#81 part2
Actually we would call our landing parties “Tea and Strumpets” which are obviously allusions to rum and birds… the bread and butter of any good landin party (post mission) and shore leave…

arrrr yeee

109. Devon - February 21, 2008

“THE POINT I was making is that in TOS, the use of such terms as “Landing Party” and “bosun” and so forth gave the show one more added dimension of *background* believability. Here you had a LONG tradition that reached back to naval times, and the people of TOS’ time were respecting that tradition… they had made it a tradition of their own. It was another sliver or thread in the fabric of Star Trek that lent the show the air of correctness and “rightness” that made its universe BELIEVABLE.”‘

For one, this is not meant as a slam, but I can’t believe you are going on this much about a stinking term. There’s nothing about “Away Team” that makes Star Trek TNG “unbelievable.” In fact I don’t think really anyone except yourself or maybe a couple of other people could care less! No offense.

In the case of the terms being used for the sake of canon, okay, maybe stick to Landing Party for the movie. But it shouldn’t be looked into anymore than that. I didn’t even think it was possible one could read into it anymore than that.

110. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Thought I might point out that the person who was responsible for both TOS and TNG was none other than Gene Roddenberry. Look to him for coining the term Away Team. But what did he know about Star Trek?

111. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

“When our landing party hits the surface, we gonna’ party like it’s 1969!”

1138™, your brilliance will be assimilated into the collective. I’m seriously considering giving you my private supermodeldoug email address. I like the way you think!

BEST!!

=h=

112. Spiked Canon - February 21, 2008

sigh….away team. I suppose there will be a scene on a Hollow deck too…..I just can’t get excited about this film anymore

113. Randall - February 21, 2008

#105 Devon:

You’re very naive (and not very bright) if you don’t understand the subtle distinction between certain terms that seem to say the same thing (but really don’t) and can’t understand how “synonymous” terms might NOT really carry the same meaning.

Yes, “dude,” it DOES matter. It mattered in TNG because it was *yet another* (admittedly tiny) indication of how stupidly they blundered in dumbing down and PC-ing the Star Trek universe in taking it from the TOS form to TNG. There were a hundred other larger issues of course–but that IS a tiny one. My guess is that it came from Roddenberry or someone near him deciding that “landing party” sounded too militaristic. Roddenberry *himself* had clearly forgotten all the careful and detailed background imagery he and Coon and others had built up in creating the ORIGINAL Star Trek universe—all the things that made it believable and vital, and keeps it, *to this day*, the series everyone REALLY thinks of when they think of “Star Trek.”

You totally glossed over my point about the “Enterprise” vs. TOS. There were dozens of reason that show bombed, but this was ONE of them, and an important one—they did NOT respect the sense of continuity in PROGRESSION from what they were creating to TOS. As a matter of fact, what you said MAKES MY POINT FOR ME. A hundred years ago flight had just been invented. Yet a hundred years between Enterprise and TOS—and the ships are almost identical with VERY LITTLE technology difference between them.

Cripes.

You also clearly lack the imagination to get what I’m talking about in regards to Enterprise being a chance to do a sort of take-off on a quasi-50s look. I’m not talking about DOING that era, I’m talking about finding inspiration from it.

114. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#100–“…perhaps one could make fun of the idea of landing being a party? “YAY landers, we’re going to have a party!”

No. In that context, the word, “party” refers to a group of people, not a verb or event.

“It’s possible that the Navy uses it because in Naval history up to today, all one can do is “land”. Land on a boat via ‘copter, land on land via boat, land on this,…”

Landing party is a naval term, like “bulkhead”, “deck”, “aye”, “port”, “starboard”, “heading”, etc.
TOS Star Trek adheres to that tradition, in its terminology and its rank structure. It is the same reason why, regardless of gender, officers and crewmen/women are often referred to as “Mister”. I think the poster you responded to was questioning the sudden abandonment of such a traditon by the writers of TNG. The NCC-1701 was no less a seabound vessel than the NCC-1701-D.
With that said, it is quite possible that both terms would be acceptable as a description of a group of people leaving the ship on a temporary assignment.

#96–In that case, you must have a difficult time finding episodes of TOS and the original films which do not contradict 1st season canon (at least the first half of season one). Either that, or your standards are only applicable to what Abrams and his team are doing, and everyone else gets a “magic pass”. What does JJ have to do to get one of those? Direct a Star Trek film which doesn’t contradict ANYTHING previously done? THAT would certainly be “going where NO man has gone before”!!! LOL.

115. Devon - February 21, 2008

“sigh….away team. I suppose there will be a scene on a Hollow deck too…..I just can’t get excited about this film anymore”

LOL

116. Randall - February 21, 2008

#110 I AM THX:

There is every evidence that Roddenberry, in his latter years, had lost all grasp of what made his show worthwhile in the first place. He’d gone overboard in his PC philosophizing, whereas in the 60s he’d had it in a nice balance, understanding that adventure, action, and serious drama were as important as putting the message across.

Roddenberry did a great thing in creating Star Trek. But we should never forget that in all ways he was still basically a mediocrity as a creative mind. There’s no shame in this–so was Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs. They were mediocrities that created great and long-lasting, believable fantasy universes. But they weren’t infallible or always right about their own creations.

117. Woulfe - February 21, 2008

™ = ALT+0153
© = ALT+0169
® = ALT+0174

I didn’t know that, thanks a million

– W –
* didn’t know this *

118. Devon - February 21, 2008

“There were dozens of reason that show bombed, but this was ONE of them, and an important one—they did NOT respect the sense of continuity in PROGRESSION from what they were creating to TOS.”

It bombed because people weren’t watching. It was on a failing network that ended up merging. Simple.

Honestly, did you go up to people in the public and say “Why didn’t you watch “Enterprise” and they said “Because it does not respect the continuity in progression from what they were creating to TOS?”

“You also clearly lack the imagination to get what I’m talking about in regards to Enterprise being a chance to do a sort of take-off on a quasi-50s look. I’m not talking about DOING that era, I’m talking about finding inspiration from it.”

Talk to the set designers about it then.

119. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

the decks are hollow, like a tree? Someone get Sir JJ™ and the Orcster© on the Red Phone® el pronto. heck, it may be time to give them the private supermodeldoug email address too. This sounds serious.

“Mysterious, very mysterious…” – Pablo, The Backyardigans, 2004.

=h=

120. Randall - February 21, 2008

#109 Devon:

Again, you keep harping on the TERM itself, ignoring the argument AROUND it. It isn’t so much the term–it’s WHAT IT REPRESENTS.

Sheesh, for chrissakes. Read my posts and try to open up your mind to understanding them.

121. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Thought I might point out that the person who was responsible for both TOS and TNG was none other than Gene Roddenberry. Look to him for coining the term Away Team. But what did he know about Star Trek?

“I suppose there will be a scene on a Hollow deck too”

Actually, I would imagine that the decks are solid.

122. Doug Abramson - February 21, 2008

I’m not going to get into this stupid “away team” vs “landing party” crap. I do want to point out that all of the stupid, new age stuff in TNG that people have been complaining about were created and/or OK’ed by the SAME man that created and/or OK’ed all of the cool stuff in TOS. Roddenberry changed his mind about Starfleet’s nature. He wanted a less millitary like organization. The first three seasons of TNG, when he was in charge are as “cannon” as the three seasons of TOS.

123. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

Terminology… let me remind folks that this is supposed to be Star FLEET. It’s an organization much like a military one where certain terms must be used. Now if these guys doing this hadn’t paid enough attention to actually put together a list of certain terms, but instead just wrote crap because it was “cool” then this will be an even bigger mess than I fear.

There is a reason the military uses certain terms in avoiding confusion in communication. I doubt you will hear a recon platoon calling back to base warning “some shooting thingy” is coming their way.

124. Randall - February 21, 2008

#118 Devon:

what the hell is your problem? Are you just utterly lacking in imagination or are you simply dense?

Why do you think TV shows sometimes fail? Why do you think people WEREN’T watching “Enterprise”?

Do I really need to explain over and over again why some things work and others don’t? Why do we remember TOS today and not “Lost in Space” or “Rocky Jones, Spaceranger?” It isn’t simply because the scripts were better, though of course that’s one reason. It’s IN PART because the creators of TOS were CAREFUL and did their homework and UNDERSTOOD how to create a dramatic/action TV series, and understood the fundamental elements of fantasy/adventure STORYTELLING.

The creators of “Enterprise” on the other hand DID NOT understand all these things and glossed over and ignored the IMPORTANCE of the structure (in a traditional sense) of fantasy/adventure and of what makes an iconic creation memorable.

Why do you feel you need to argue about this? What point are YOU making? That *nothing* ever matters in how you do things? Then why do them?

125. Devon - February 21, 2008

#114 – “‘With that said, it is quite possible that both terms would be acceptable as a description of a group of people leaving the ship on a temporary assignment.”

Exactly. If they sent an away team over to another ship, why would it be called a “Landing Party?” They aren’t on land. It was just one term used, we knew what it meant, nothing to it.

I just don’t see how (or would ever even conceive someone thinking so much about it that they came up with the conclusion) that the term “Away Team” was PC. I can see that to a degree, but then if that were the case they would have gotten rid of all the other terms that you had mentioned. Something maybe Randall needs to step back and see (or not think so much about.)

However, I think we should all take this time to remember those who were lost in the “Landing Party Renaming” Riots of 1988 near Paramount Studios. R.I.P.

126. Xai - February 21, 2008

33. Iowagirl , etc,

“In Abrams’ universe, it’s called “away team”. It means they stay away from the original as far as possible.”…etc…

Let’s see what is actually shown or said before further condemation is thrown on the pile.

127. Randall - February 21, 2008

#122 Doug:

See my post #116 for your answer.

And it’s “canon,” not “cannon.”

128. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Is not.
Is too.
Is not.
Is too.
Is not.
Is too.

129. Devon - February 21, 2008

#124 – “what the hell is your problem?”

…. I don’t have a problem. Which is the point, there isn’t a problem.

“Why do you think TV shows sometimes fail? Why do you think people WEREN’T watching “Enterprise”?”

Because they had better things to watch on TV? Premise didn’t appeal? Horrible network that didn’t have the coverage as the other networks? Star Trek just not being what it once was so didn’t have the following that it did?

“It’s IN PART because the creators of TOS were CAREFUL and did their homework and UNDERSTOOD how to create a dramatic/action TV series, and understood the fundamental elements of fantasy/adventure STORYTELLING.”

I agree, but what does that have to do with anything we’ve been discussing? Naming something “Away Team” didn’t take away from that.

130. Jordan - February 21, 2008

Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, but didn’t we learn in an interview that Alex and Roberto heavily referenced “Unification Parts one and two” when writing this screenplay? If Romulans are involved in this film, and Spock is the lead character, isn’t it plausible that unification between vulcans and romulans is a plot point?
Then again, the writers didn’t want to rehash anything that had been done before. Also… I can guarentee you in the new film, when we see Spock as a child, we’ll see scenes of him disappearing into the mountains for hours (or was it days) and then refusing to tell Sarek what he was doing. Remember when Sarek revealed that to Picard in “Unification Part One?” I’m sure that’ll be referenced or re-enacted in some way.

131. Devon - February 21, 2008

#126 agreed. I don’t see why some people think what they said in the interview is necessarily what is said in the screen play.

132. Dr. Image - February 21, 2008

I always hated, “away team.”
Then again, I’m starting to sorta hate TNG in general, after watching it in reruns. Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.
Gimme TOS or DS9. Period.

133. Randall - February 21, 2008

#129 Devon:

Okay, clearly you enjoy arguing simply for the sake of it, or *are* simpy dense.

“Because they had better things to watch on TV? Premise didn’t appeal? Horrible network that didn’t have the coverage as the other networks? Star Trek just not being what it once was so didn’t have the following that it did?”

WHY do you think the premise didn’t appeal? WHY do you think Star Trek was not what it once was?

FOR CHRISSAKES I AM TELLING YOU WHY.

Get your head out of your ass and realize this ISN’T just about about “landing party” vs. “away team.” I SAID again and again it is only a SMALL, tiny indicator of what went totally wrong between TOS and TNG. SMALL, TINY…. yet every little thing IS significant *when taken in aggregate.*

134. Valar1 - February 21, 2008

they move the film back a few months and everyone starts eating their young. Away team or Landing Party – who gives a flying fart?

135. CmdrR - February 21, 2008

The trouble with great episodes like “Balance of Terror” is that later writers are drawn to it as source material and then build on it in ways the original writer never intended. The idea that the Romulans hadn’t been seen in a couple of generations allowed for some real tension throughout the original episode. But, then you had to muck things up with Klingon-Romulan alliances/wars and Enterprise-era ‘who duh heck are dos guys?’ situations. Worse, who decided that Romulans needed brow ridges? a) they look awful and b) why then would anyone confuse Romulans with Vulcans?

If JJ wants to cut through this Gordian Knot of confused canon, GREAT! Let’s watch and be amazed.

136. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

If the movie JJ makes violates Enterprise wholesale, I for one will be thrilled. I never considered it “real.” He could ignore it completely, or even contradict it in every way, and I wouldn’t even mind.

137. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

#136 Then why bother to call it Star Trek, and use TOS characters no less? If it wasn’t so damn good why they bothering? OH YEAH… a schizophrenic would say something is so great that it should be changed.

Psych 101

138. Iowagirl - February 21, 2008

#96
-..violate it and all that we have known & loved is forever lost. –

I don’t think that the fundament TOS gave us might be “forever lost” by Abrams’ re-imagination. Of course, there are inconsistencies and discontinuities – it would be foolish to deny that, but there are many important and meaningful cornerstones which have constituted the series’ persisting success and its iconic standing. Those cornerstones, e. g. the characters’ distinctive traits, prominent events which frame the characters’ development, etc. couldn’t be ignored or distorted without coming into conflict with the underlying testimony. This is a strong fundament and it’s been existent for 40 years. The new film may give us it’s illustration of additional events which we may accept or forget, but it cannot extinguish the original mold. Such a potential claim would be nonsensical, and I think it would be as nonsensical to lose much sleep over it.

139. AJ - February 21, 2008

Roddenberry created entertainment, and if you were alive in the 1980s, that’s the way it was. PC was in.

Yet, in “Farpoint” he pretty much told everyone that 20th century military generalities reflected a more primitive era. “Even when we wore costumes like that, ” etc. In “Generations,” the brief scene on the tall ship shows a marked lack of familiarity with naval tradition on the part of the TNG crew, except for Riker. Military tradition is a vestige of a more primitive time, and humanity just got over it. Perhaps ENT should have paid more attention to it, being set earlier.

As for ENT and its technology, TNG is just as guilty. I read once that Roddenberry thought that by the 24th century, ships would be obsolete, and beings would travel from planet to planet via long-range transporters. But 1701-D had phasers and photons and tractor beams, shuttles and transporters. TAS showed us the 1st holodeck, so NCC 1701-D was simply an oversized Hummer. ENT could have benefited by shooting nukes, or a less livable shipboard space for the crew. But Trek needs a bridge, sickbay, briefing room, crew lounge, officer’s quarters, and shuttlebay, because it’s Trek. ENT did not need a transporter, but the writers gave in.

140. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

I wouldn’t like to see ENTERPRISE removed from “canon”. The fourth season, under Manny Coto’s supervision, was excellent. We were given the excellent two-parter “In a Mirror, Darkly” and the explanation of the Klingon forehead issue. Also, the concept of the Vulcan Katra was fleshed out and we got to see the Andorian’s home world.

141. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#116–I would take it a step further and say that the network executives “holding Gene’s leash”, was part of the reason for that “balance”. If Roddenberry had been free to do whatever he pleased with the show, it would probably not resonate with fans 40 years later the way it does. At the same time, without Gene pushing the envelope, it would probably be equally less relevant today.

#125–Devon, I think you and Randall “got lost” in your discussion, which somewhere along the way became disturbingly personal. Randall named the departure from the traditional naval term, “landing party”, as one of the many reasons he didn’t feel TNG lived up to TOS standards. That is his opinion. You have yours. Obviously, both series have their supporters and detractors, while some like both series nearly equally.

The worst part is, we don’t know if Yelchin used that term because it is in the script (or whether that term will be eventually edited to “landing party”), or if his admittingly passing familiarity with Trek is limited to knowledge of TNG-era stuff, and he just used the term on his own. Even if it is scripted somewhere, it is not necessarily a blow to “canon” (which has been battered again and again for 40 years anyway). Two different people can use different terms to describe the same thing. It is quite a stretch to say that this means “canon” is disrespected.

Let’s take opinions for what they are—harmless opinions. We all get too imersed in this sometimes, and sometimes a third party can see things much clearer as to what they are.

Peace, my friends. Let’s not get this thread shut down.

142. Red Shirt - February 21, 2008

Did someone say this movie has been delayed?

143. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

Away Team
Landing Party
Away Team
Landing Party

I hope Yelchin and/or Orci is reading this thread. If I were either of them I’d be getting a kick out of it.

144. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

Here’s a preview of the next Trek movie… Scottish Style…

http://www.funny-video-stuff.com/viewmovie.php?ad_key=XIEHVPJVQUEC&tracking_id=918613&id=720

145. Marian Ciobanu - February 21, 2008

- Hmmm..just the new “E” looks now so …weird…a 60’s starship ..made in..future…sounds so strange…Looks more like a ‘Rosswell thing’..

146. falcon - February 21, 2008

Well, a couple of comments regarding some of the issues brought up:

1) WHO THE HELL CARES if it’s called a “landing party” or an “away team”? They both sound kind of, well, stupid. However, the US Navy calls it a “landing party,” so as far as I’m concerned that makes it official.

To #125: A landing party going to another ship is called a boarding party.

2) Roddenberry was getting up in years by the time TNG came on the scene, and I’m sure his sensibilities had changed from the time he created the original Trek. Plus, there was the softening relationship with the Soviet Union, and bad hair and parachute pants and Madonna. So TNG was more a reflection of those times, just as TOS was a reflection of the uncertainty we all felt in the ’60s.

3) As far as Klingons and Romulans go, the reason there was no face-to-face contact with the Rommies during the war was because imaging technology was incompatible. Think NTSC versus PAL. It wasn’t until they stole some of our technology that we could see them. (How’s that for a plausible answer?) And the Klingon/Romulan alliance could have stretched back to pre-Kirk days as far as we know. That was never brought up in the series.

And to #130 – Spock’s disappearance into the mountains referenced by Sarek in “Unification” was actually (IIRC) brought up in the Animated Series episode “Yesteryear” by D. C. Fontana – because Spock was half Human, he believed he needed to be “more Vulcan than Vulcans” and decided to pre-train for the Kahs-wan ritual before he actually took it. That’s why he took off for the hills.

147. myrth - February 21, 2008

Wow, this thread is by far the sadest thing I have read online in a long time. its a term in a fictional show. They both convey the meaning of guys who go some place on a mission. For god sake you are psyco-analyzing a fictional term. I have loved Star Trek since i was very little, and have tried to defend people who love the show, but i can’t make excuses any more, i can’t say that the steriotypes are exagurated or over blown pictures of Trek fans because apparently they are not. We really are sad, obsessive, rabid people that will argue and kick and scream and generaly act like children over 4 words, extrapolating the entire worth of a multi million dollar production of a term that will probably be said once or twice. Its a sad, sad day. If this is what Trek produces, then mabye it should be left to die a quiet death than to produce yet another generation of us.

148. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Why are we still having this completely stupid discussion over why one Star Trek show is better than the other? The mere fact that one feels compelled to argue such points only lessens ones intelligent argument.

TOS had it’s Spock’s Brain.
TNG had their skants.
DS9 had Quark’s sex change.
Voyager had Kes having intimate relations at the age of 3 (ewww)
Enterprise had grouchy Vulcans.

Nothing is perfect. Quit arguing about which is better. It belittles the arguer.

Once upon a time, this thread was about Anton Yelchin, a young guy who is in a movie called Charlie Bartlett and as Hitch pointed out, Alpha Dog. He’s also in this movie coming out next year called Star Trek. Seems the young guy doesn’t have a big role but is enthusiastic none the less. Good on him.

149. Marian Ciobanu - February 21, 2008

#144 : HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

150. Randall - February 21, 2008

#141 Closettrekker:

I don’t think network execs in 60s TV had much to do with the success of Star Trek as an icon. TV execs today (some of them anyway) are a shade smarter and more hip, but that should only make us recall how dimwitted these guys could be way back in the day. These were guys who knew how to make simple action shows and westerns, but had little appreciation for subtlety—they were the guys that used to say things like, “who needs all this detail, just build a rocket, stick some guns on it and let’s fly this show.”

Roddenberry knew better (at the time) and knew the devil *was* in the details.

But likewise, Roddenberry was also a younger man then, and only 20 years out (in 1965) from his experiences in WWII. He was from a generation that had lived through all these terrible traumas—war and depression—and that had pumped him with some idealism. At the same time, it had been a tough, no-nonsense time, the 1930s and 40s, and that can be seen in the films and novels of the era. Roddenberry grew up steeped in all that as many did in his generation, along with the pulp fiction that was big then, and all these things fed his creativity when it came time for him to cough up Star Trek.

I do think the balance that made Star Trek successful (as an icon) was mostly in Roddenberry back then—Gene Coon had a lot to do with it, as did Bob Justman and DC Fontana, and James Black and a few other writers. They all collaborated on an inspired idea. Roddenberry, as I pointed out earlier, was one of those middling creative minds like Doyle and Burroughs and many, many others (JK Rowling for instance and Tolkien) who manages to create this marvelous vision of a fantasy universe that then becomes iconic—but that doesn’t mean he was the best judge, from then on, as to how to maintain it. As he got older he became distanced from the inspiration of his youth that had helped him formulate Star Trek, and this inspiration was replaced with his naive and utopian idealism and PC ideas that watered down and spoiled TNG.

151. Sean - February 21, 2008

#141

A calm and rational approach…on THIS thread? IMPOSSIBLE! ;)

152. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#140–“I wouldn’t like to see ENTERPRISE removed from canon.”

Nor would I. I think ENT is very underrated Trek. It is not TOS, but neither are the rest of the spinoffs. Once I finally was able to see it (on dvd, after its cancellation), I found it to be my favorite spinoff series.

I’m glad Checkov isn’t being given too much significance in this film. As for his use of the term, “away team”—I don’t give that much significance, either.

153. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

Here’s an exceprt from an IESB article on the change of relese date for trek:

“So why May, Star Trek? There’s two distinct explanations:

Best case scenario, Star Trek is the most amazing and impressive film anyone has ever seen. The studio is so incredibly confident in it that all other summer blockbusters can just get out of its way as it becomes the biggest movie of all time.

I really, really wish that were the case but somehow, I doubt it and explanation number two is probably a little closer to the truth:

There’s no way the film is going to be done by this Christmas. There’s rumors that the budget has grown immensely and that Paramount is looking a final price tag north of $200 million dollars. Star Trek — as much as I love it — has the potential to bomb and bomb hard. If the whispers are true of a budget that high, this film is only going to a real success with a franchise following it.

If it is a matter of waiting so that what goes on-screen is the best possible Trek film, I’m all for it but I’d be inclined to wait even longer if that’s what’s best for Trek. I’d love to see it still hit this December but if the move is a necessity rather than a marketing gimmick, even December of 2009 seems preferential.

Will Star Trek get gutted by Wolverine? We want to know what you think, send me an email and let me know your thoughts.” Silas@iesb.net

Whole article here:
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4335&Itemid=99

154. Sean - February 21, 2008

Even back in the beginning stages of Trek Gene needed a counterbalance to his creativity. Thankfully, he had Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Bob Justman, etc. Just look at the battle between Gene & Harlan E. Even way back then, Gene was already starting to back himself into a creative corner in many ways.

And while most TV executives are indeed creatively bankrupt, I do think their extreme plus Gene’s extreme created a positive middle ground where the Trek we love was born.

155. Sean - February 21, 2008

#153

Where is he getting that $200 million figure??? I’d be shocked if they’re THAT overbudget on this. What could they possibly be spending it on?

156. Randall - February 21, 2008

#153 Diabolik:

There’s one point of logic in that argument that kills it. No studio would allow a budget, in this day and age, on a project like “Star Trek” to go so far overboard. If they’re pumping such big money into it, then they’re behind it. No question about it.

It’s much more likely, given the giant budget and having Abrams involved that the execs at Paramount are trying to set the film up to be a big money-maker…. by ensuring it’s big budget, released at an optimum time, and is high in production values. They also may not want to rush it, as part of this.

I don’t think it’s just a marketing gimmick—I think with that kind of money, Paramount wouldn’t be f**king around. If it’s true, then they’re serious.

157. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#150–I agree with most of what you are saying, but I was referring more to some of the things that Majel Barrett Roddenberry said about her husband’s ideas back then. She says that there were many, many things that Gene wanted to do which the network execs either didn’t get or thought were too controversial. Some of it was simply unpalatable for the general public at that time.
Remember that Gene’s original idea was more like “The Cage”. It was the network’s reservations which led to the recasting of nearly everyone but Spock (although Gene is fully credited with DeForest Kelley’s replacing the other guy). Do you really believe that, right or wrong, Majel Barrett as the first officer would have gone over well with the general public in America then? Or that Star Trek would have endured for even 3 seasons as purely cerebral sci-fi, without the action that the network execs wanted to see? This is the “balance” to which I was referring. I honestly believe that if Gene had been allowed to run free with Star Trek, even with the input from some of the great Trek writers, it would not be as good. Network execs, particularly back then, often get a bad rap (and deservedly so), but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

158. AJ - February 21, 2008

I do not recall anyone saying that ST11 will reference “Unification.” Is that true?

159. Diabolik - February 21, 2008

157… Agreed…. ST:TNG was hampered by Gene’s efforts to keep it as far from TOS as he could,,, not even wanting to see Vulcans, Romulans or Klingons. It was the efforts of some of the others that brought him around on the Klingons, specifically Worf, and it was after his control waned that we finally saw references to TOS, Romulans, etc in later seasons, and saw some real action.

160. star trackie - February 21, 2008

““Landing Party” is a traditional Navy term going back, as far as I can tell, hundreds of years. I believe it originates with the British navy, but was adopted by the American navy as well. It’s classic, elegant, and fits well with the tradition-bound naval theme that the original ST developed–which always gave it a very nice air of correctness and made it just a tiny bit more believable.

“Away Team” is another (albeit small) example of what was so freakin’ wrong with TNG.”

Well said Randall.

It’s those that DON’T care about such traditions that I worry about. These traditions, these little details are all a huge part of what made Star Trek what it was. Not the spin-offs…but Kirk and Spock. STar Trek. If you don’t care about the traditions that helped create Trek’s universe, you might as well go watch Lost in Space and pretend that the Jupiter is the Enterprise. I mean, according to some of you, if Spock wears an eye patch or is a robot that yells “Danger Danger”..what does it matter? After all…It’s a NEW Star Trek..a NEW Spock!
Sheesh.

And many of those who just don’t care are 24th century fans first and foremost anyway. That’s why it IS only a couple of words to them. When TNG gets “re-imagined” and Picard, with his full head of red hair and beard is ordering his crew to “Make it Happen!”….maybe you’ll understand.

161. Randall - February 21, 2008

#160:

Thank you. Needless to say, we’re in complete agreement.

162. Captain Hackett - February 21, 2008

British Naval Dude

Out of curosity, were you ever involved in any landing parties?

163. Ensign Ricky - February 21, 2008

Ooooh, man. Lots of hostility in this thread….I can hear Anthony mumbling something about “pedantic b*stards” now, lol :-)

I personally could not care less what terminology they use, I’m just hoping for a good, entertaining film. Considering JJ & co.’s past successes, I don’t think that we’ll be dissapointed.

164. Ensign Ricky - February 21, 2008

#163 ….sorry, my spelling is horrible……

165. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#158–Bob Orci did say that TNG “Unification”, TOS “Balance Of Terror”, and some others were used a research tools, but he never said that they would be “referenced” in the film. I took it to mean that they rewatched those episodes as background research, nothing more.
With that said, since we last see Spock on Romulus, it would stand to reason (IMO) that the events in “Unification” would have particular relevance to the jumping point of their story.
Furthermore, BOT, TDY, and TEI are key to their behavioral research on TOS-era Romulans, and there are a number of TNG-era episodes which serve a similar purpose regarding TNG-era Romulans. Speculation, of course, but I think a logical explanation as to what Bob was talking about.
He also mentioned reading some of the novels as source information, as well as regularly using Memory Alpha as a source for canon guidance.

166. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

Actually what is the most sad are those who whine about where the discussion/debate goes. Obviously there are plenty here wishing to discuss and debate the thing. I think it’s a nice little mental exercise myself even if it digresses.

So if you feel compelled to rant about it, go elsewhere, read that, and post there.

Eesh.

167. Captain Fantastic - February 21, 2008

wasn’t it Roddenberry who came up with the term ‘away team’ for TNG?

168. Randall - February 21, 2008

#157 Closettrekker:

Yes, in fact I do think people would have accepted a female first officer and most of Gene’s other ideas. You’re buying into the network execs’ arguments, essentially.

In hindsight, over the last 40 years, we’ve learned how utterly wrong those execs were in terms of judging the television viewing audience. You’re trying to give them some credit, and I understand—but in this venture you’re barking up the wrong tree, honestly. You’re forgetting that it wasn’t just Roddenberry who challenged these clowns, it was more serious talents like Rod Serling as well, and many others (Paddy Chayefsky, John Frankenheimer, etc. etc. etc.) who went up against the TV exec mind, fighting very similar battles. It was quickly realized how right Serling et al were, as Roddenberry was—the viewing public in the 1960s was ready for a LOT more than TV execs were capable of understanding.

What bears this judgement out is that we had to go on waiting another ten years for TV to even begin to catch up with what was already old hat in the general public—all the changes that had gone on not only in popular culture but in society as well. By the time we get shows like “All in the Family” and “MASH” and “Maude” and so on, the mindset they represented was already at least a decade old.

Pop culture has falsely taught us that the “big change” occurred at the end of the 60s… but the undercurrent was there long before. People were fed up with Vietnam as early as 1965/66, and the idea of women’s lib, while primarily a late 60s/early 70s “thing,” was in the air when Kennedy was in office, and its roots go as far back as WWII.

TV execs in the 50s and 60s, I think grossly under-estimated their audience.

169. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

#16

No, what is most sad is that this is a thread that is supposedly about Anton Yelchin. But it was derailed by an off hand comment that might not even have anything to do with the movie.

170. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

Umm…. #166

171. Randall - February 21, 2008

#169 I AM THX:

And seriously, what is YOUR problem? Do you *really* think it’s “sad” that a point came up and people wanted to talk about it? People have little enough reason to carry on conversations these days as it is. Don’t try to stifle them further.

I wish Anton Yelchin all the best in his career, if he’s any good, but cripes, beyond that I couldn’t care less about the kid. Who would beyond Anton himself and his family and friends?

You’re being a bit uptight there, pal.

172. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#168–I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on some of that, particularly some of your revisionist history (I have a B.A. in American history). The vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly supported The Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, and did not become “fed up” with Vietnam until after the Mei Lai massacre, and more so by post-Tet 1968. And although women did take a necessarily more significant role in the workplace during WWII, they were just as quickly shuffled back into the home gradually as the military downsizing progressed. You are correct that women’s lib was “in the air” during the early 60’s, but it was not until around the time of the advent of the birth control pill(1972?) that the “women’s lib movement” really began to take hold of the mainstream American woman. “The Cage” was produced in late 1964 or early ’65, if I am not mistaken. At the time of Gene’s original Star Trek pilot, there were nearly as many American women who felt that women should never occupy positions of power and great authority as there were those who felt they should. I think you are remembering the 60’s as it was post-1968, and you seem to forget that things were much different prior to that.
I don’t want you to misunderstand me, as I think Gene’s ideas were often progressive, and morally defensible for sure, but it is naive to think that the general American public was as forward-thinking as he was. Now, were this show targeting a female audience, it very likely would have been more prudent. However, we all know that Star Trek was aimed at males, age 18-24. You can debate whether that should have been, but it was nonetheless. Now, it should be noted that Americans were culturally far behind the nations of Europe on such issues, but as we know, Star Trek was marketed to an American TV audience (and a male one, at that).

“TV execs in the 50s and 60s, I think grossly under-estimated their audience.”

This is where we agree in general, and I think Gene proved it by racially integrating the bridge crew and depicting flag officers of color (not aboard the Enterprise), among some other subtle (and some not so subtle) political statements. There was no significant backlash. While I agree that the execs were behind the curve on the ideals and morals of the average American household, history keeps me from agreeing that they were as dramatically so as you suggest.

173. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

The kid did a pretty good job in Alpha Dog. The scene where they kill him gave my girlfriend nightmares for a few days. I’m not sure why. Perhaps someone in her family was executed like that or something? Who knows. She really took it personal though.

I’ve been fascinated with the whole Jesse James Hollywood™ thing. I thought that Alpha Dog did a pretty good job of telling the story in a based on a true story kind of way. JT was absolutely wonderful in it too. It’s pretty cool to watch late at night when it comes on HBO as your getting ready to pass out from one too many beers. Just winding things down with some Alpha Dog. Eating some nachos.

Yelchin brings alot to the table that way. I’d have been WAY more excited to learn he was the new Chekov had I made the Alpha Dog connection earlier than last week. That dude had not ONE but TWO chicks in the swimming pool. Thats the part of the movie that I dream about at night. My girlfriend is SO doom and gloom. But she does the laundry and cooks the meals and mommies the children. I can’t complain.

BEST!!

=h=

174. Anthony Pascale - February 21, 2008

i think some chill pills need to be passed out around here

calm down people and dont get personal

175. Steve Short - February 21, 2008

If Star Trek Enterprise had been on one more year they may had explain how the Romulans got their smooth foreheads for the 60’s Star Trek . Maybe it was the same way the Klingons got their smooth foreheads, but it took him longer to return back.

176. I AM THX-1138 - February 21, 2008

You’re right, Randall. I’m way out of line. Even I am outraged at the personal attacks I have been launching. Anthony should ban me. It was nice knowing you all.

THX-1138 signing off.

177. star trackie - February 21, 2008

159 “157… Agreed…. ST:TNG was hampered by Gene’s efforts to keep it as far from TOS as he could,”

I agree. There was so much “wanting” for TNG to stand on it’s own that new Age -post TOS Roddenberry deliberately steered as far away fromTOS as he could. And because of that radical change, many fans of TOS, myself included, were put off by it. TNG was and IS a completely different animal. Not a bad animal, but absolutely different. All of a sudden, Trek got talky,…full of B pots and nice good people who seemed to solve every threat by re-configuring the main sensor array. Gone was the action/adventure. Gone was the humor. Gone was the romance. Gone was the fun.

For those that remember the ill fated Brady spn-off series of the 80s. The Brady bunch all came back, but everyone was all serious now. It was drama. It was more realistic…a more ‘serious” Brady family for a more “serious” time. It didn’t have a laugh track. It had little in common with the iconic corny show of the 70’s that so many adored. It was bad. It got canceled.

TNG is like the Brady’s..many original fans stayed away because it was so utterly different. But unlike the Bradys, TNG found new fans…fans who DID enjoy the template of storytelling that TNG was laying down or who really dug all the techno jargon.. And they ate it up for 20 years and more power to them, they found something in the new formula they liked.

But whatever they were eating was not made of the same ingredients that made TOS delicous to my taste buds. For all the 24th century afficianados, I’m sorry, but this IS a TOS movie..when the lines blur I don’t like it.

I just hope JJ is using the original recipe.

178. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

177 …valid points on NG. But also as valid is that it was an original crew and premise (albeit with some similarities i.e. Date/Spock “human” thing). NOT a reinvention.

179. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

LOL wait a minute… isn’t reinvention an oxymoron? How can you invent something already invented. :)

180. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#177–I was never a big TNG fan either. They lost me at “Farpoint”. I won’t rehash why I don’t like it the same way I like TOS, but I just didn’t feel it.
However, I think you have to bear in mind that one of the goals of the new film is to tie it all together. With that in mind, I think we CAN expect some homage to TNG. You are right, this IS (for the most part) a TOS-“era” movie. But how much homage to TNG is too much? Will a reference to an “away team” (instead of my preference, and yours, I would expect–“landing party”) ruin it for you? Will it even affect your level of appreciation or lack thereof for the film? Now, granted—if Captain Kirk says “Make it so”, or “engage”, or if there are holodecks, counselors, and children on the ship, I will walk out of the theater. But can we not accept that, even in the 23rd Century, one man’s “landing party” is another man’s “away team”? I have heard “canon” explanations for much larger contradictions than that!

181. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

With all the debate going on here, I’ve given the whole “Away Team” versus “Landing Party” thing a permanent press cycle through the old hitchBRAIN™, and I think I have the solution that is going to make everyone happy.

Let’s say these scenes are filmed, and Chris Pine is looking over at Lt. James Cawley or Quinto, or whohaveyou, and he’s all talking about putting together an “Away Team” and this and that. OK. Let’s assume that much based on the facts that we already know today.

It’s an easy fix, we just clean that up in post. Sir JJ™ does some callbacks for Pine, Quinto, JC™ and anyone else that said, “Away Team” in the scenes that were filmed. You loop in those actors saying, “Landing Party” even though their mouths are saying “Away Team”.

Then you release the “Away Team” version on HD-DVD, the “Special Landing Party Edition” on Blu-Ray – everyone’s happy and the movie’s an absolute success financially because of dopes like me that buy the same repackaged Star Trek products every few years because we have to have them. SO dudes like me buy both editions.

Then como se dice, “sequel”?

=h=

182. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

#180 – I would hope they at least keep to certain terms consistently to reflect a true structure to the organization they depict.

You simply cannot have exacting communication if each individual is allowed to refer willy-nilly as they would describe it personally.

The fleet would be destroyed in a nanosecond with everyone running around trying to figure out what was being instructed. LOL

183. Randall - February 21, 2008

#172 Closettrekker…

Okay, you have a BA in American History– but no offense—I’ve studied history myself and have an MA. And I’m probably older than you are—I was born in the early 60s, and was *there,* albeit as a child (but I had older siblings born in the early 50s, so I also gleaned a lot from them as well as my parents). At any rate, trust me, I’m not forgetting how different the early 60s were as opposed to the late 60s. We’re talking about minor points in a pop culture TV show here, and what people would be willing to accept/watch. Nothing more serious than that.

Anyway, you’re picking out moments in history that stood out, but I can assure you, people were unhappy with Vietnam before the Tet offensive and Me Lei. The opposition to the war didn’t pop up overnight because of Tet and the massacre.

And yes, women *were* “shuffled” back into servitude in the 50s, but my point was, the *seeds* for the change were planted during WWII. The dissatisfaction in society with the role of women was slowly growing during the next decade, and came blossoming out in the mid-to-late 60s, and grew to full fruition in the 70s.

Point is, you’re right in a sense, of course—but we’re not talking hard-and-fast history here, we’re talking about the intelligence of the public and their willingness to accept certain ideas, and *when* they were willing to accept them. And while you’re correct from a certain angle, you’re also making the mistake of thinking that public opinion turns strictly on isolated historical events. Usually it doesn’t. Usually such “moments” in history simply explode already-simmering changes.

You say the American public wasn’t as “forward-thinking” as Gene Roddenberry—well I’m sorry, but then you’ll have to explain where he got his prescience. See, you’re putting Roddenberry and his ilk (Serling et al) in a vacuum, separating them from context. They HAD a context, though. I pointed it out. Their generation had been through culture-breaking times. I say, rather, that Roddenberry and the rest were *representative* of their times and their generation. Sure they were in the forefront, but not “far out” from what people their own age and younger were thinking. Because they’d all been through it. Roddenberry was from Texas, of all places—hardly the font of forward, hip thinking. Particularly back in *his* day. So where do you think he got his progressive notions?

I’m telling you–like many of the rest of his generation, he got it from seeing the horror of WWII and the misery of the Depression.

184. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

#183 – good points. Too late to burn my man-breast bra?

185. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

hEY Randall – I might be taller than you.

Then again, maybe not. But my dad could beat up your dad, I bet.

uh huh uh huh uh huh

=h=

186. star trackie - February 21, 2008

#180; “But how much homage to TNG is too much? Will a reference to an “away team” (instead of my preference, and yours, I would expect–”landing party”) ruin it for you? Will it even affect your level of appreciation or lack thereof for the film? Now, granted—if Captain Kirk says “Make it so”, or “engage”, or if there are holodecks, counselors, and children on the ship, I will walk out of the theater. ”

Good question. Since Spock will come from the future, I suppose there has to be some type of reference and I can live with that just as I lived with Spock in Unification. It didn’t set well, but I endured it knowing it was a stunt to hype Trek 6. The two shows and their respective styles are so different from one another, that cross-referencing the two never seem to work. These apples and oranges really don’t mix well at all and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if they stopped trying.

If Kirk says “away team”, it will take me out of the story every bit as much as him saying “make it so.” Why? Because, simply, Kirk never said it. It wasn’t in his vocabulary. No one ever said it. And it shouldn’t be in the vocabulary now just to add a “wink” to the TNG crowd. Now, having said that, should someone ELSE say it…someone new, say some red-shirt that we’ve never seen before in the context of the TV series…then it would go down a lot easier. I still would wince and grumble , but yeah, I’d get over it….especially if, after muttering the words “away team here”, the red-shirt got zapped.

187. Randall - February 21, 2008

#185 hitch:

Grow up, dork.

188. YUBinit - February 21, 2008

#186 – Even better the Red-shirt is corrected by Kirk in saying “ensign, according to Star Fleet Directive 186 the term “away team” should be replaced by the phrase “landing party”.

At which time as he is thumbing through in confusion the latest directives release the shuttle bay depressurizes before he’s through the door.

189. hitch1969© - February 21, 2008

Randall,

You have mettle and moxy and are a worthy competitor. You have gained this dork’s respect. I’m going to do something that I rarely do and give you my personal and private email address. It’s the supermodeldoug account. Only Vulcanista and James Cawley have this; AP and THX-1138 are on the waiting list moving their way up, but I am going to give you cuts and butts in line ahead of them. Let’s have a back and forth, a dialogue, if you will.

supermodeldoug@aol.com

=h=

190. star trackie - February 21, 2008

#188- lol I like it!

191. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#182–“You simply cannot have exacting communication if each individual is allowed to refer willy-nilly as they would describe it personally.

The fleet would be destroyed in a nanosecond with everyone running around trying to figure out what was being instructed. LOL”

LOL, indeed.

#183–I assure you, I am an old fart as well (LOL). And I am from Texas as well (I’ll try not to take offense). Need I remind you that it took a Texan to shove The Civil Rights Act down the throat of a reluctant Congress? I’m not really offended, you are simply another victim of the national media’s long illegitimate portrayal of Texas—a state where there are more millionaires and college educated Americans than any other.

And while I never intended to suggest that public opinion on Vietnam changed overnight, I think you are grossly underestimating the impact that those two singular events had on swaying the anti-war view from “obscurity” to “mainstream”.

As I said before, we agree on more than not. The main point of argument really boils down to whether the general American public would have accepted (or more importantly, taken seriously) a female who is second in command of such a large ship of the line at the time the show debuted. I suppose that is a question which cannot be thoroughly answered (to a definitive conclusion anyway) more than 4 decades later. It is, after all, an opinion either way–not fact.

My original point was to point out that some of Roddenberry’s (RIP) more unrealistic ideas about what to do with Star Trek were often tempered by network execs. That was the opinion of his wife, and I happen to believe that is a reasonable opinion.

“So where do you think he got his progressive notions? I’m telling you–like many of the rest of his generation, he got it from seeing the horror of WWII and the misery of the Depression.”

What you have just described is the catalyst for his vision of a better future for mankind. On that we can agree. Where we will disagree yet again is on the notion that many of the rest of his generation obtained such “progressive notions” from those horrific experiences (at the very least about the makeup of society as regards to gender roles).

If anything, the notions which most of his contemporaries got out of WWII was quite contradictory to what he envisioned his Federation to be founded upon (see The Prime Directive), and the policies born of that were overwhelmingly supported. Since you brought up Vietnam as an example, take a moment to remember what age group was in power during that time, and another to recall what their objectives were and the consequences. Do you actually believe that Gene’s ideals, born of the war, and those of his contemporaries, born of similar experience, were anywhere near one and the same? I still believe that Gene was far more bold and ahead of the curve as compared to most Americans at that time, as does anyone who knew him and speaks of him today. I remain firmly convinced that America in general was not ready for EVERYTHING he had to say and wanted to express. We can be thankful that he was allowed to express some of that in Star Trek. We can be equally thankful that there were those around him (other writers, and yes–even network execs) to temper some of his ideas and make them suitable for the audience he was addressing.

192. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

On the latest thread Yelchin says he had no prior knowledge of ST before the new movie so for me this confirms he got the term ‘away team’ from the script. TOS era is no more, de-canonized & stripped of it’s inner soul & replayed with TNG wordplay.

193. Katie G. - February 21, 2008

Wow. I thought this thread was about Yelchin talking about how Chekov compares to Kirk and Spock etc. I’m lost… (no pun intended).

kg

194. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#192–You forget his earleir statement here that, while he had no knowledge before being cast, he has since watched Checkov-heavy episodes of TOS and the feature films to study his character. That is what propmted his discussion with JJ over the accent. Your last statement only verifies that you are not remotely in grasp of what the “inner soul” of TOS is. It has never been so fragile as to crumble at a mistake in dialogue. If it had, TWOK would have sunk the ship with Ricardo Montalban’s mistaken timeline! Your posts make me laugh, though.

195. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - February 21, 2008

My apologies M-BETA , I jump to battle stations too soon , my bad .

196. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#193–Unfortunately, his referral to a “landing party” as an “away team” caused the thread to immediately spin out of control and into canon wars and beyond. I’m done for now though–gotta go make some calls and get home to the family.

197. AJ - February 21, 2008

I think TNG got caught up in the PC trap a bit too quickly, but one could tell GR was chomping at the bit to get stories out there about diversity and non-violence. Indeed the whole “we don’t need money in the 24th century” notion was strange, coming during the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, and smack in the middle of 1st-run TNG ( I have a BS in Russian Language and a minor in Russian Area Studies ;-) ).

Problem is, the Romulans became silly political backstabbers, and the Klingons became loud whingers. They lost their 1960s parallels, the Chinese and the Russians. And then the Borg showed up, and it’s all about shield modulations.

I think we as fans need to allow Trek to age, and evaluate its social messages as such. A 40 year old franchise covering 3 centuries of the future needs a whole lot of flex when being interpreted as an “oeuvre” which continues to evolve.

PS: Even though I do not like the TNG Roms so much, Commander Tomalok is terrific. RIP Mr. Katsulas.

198. Katie G. - February 21, 2008

Wow. There are really going to be a lot of red faces if we find out that YELCHIN ABSENT-MINDEDLY SAID THE WRONG TERM and wasn’t quoting the script.

#23. diabolik

“However, that’s just the guy talking, doesn’t mean it’s used in the script.”

#42. Alex Rosenzweig

“…[Yelchin] may have gotten used to the term from watching TNG et al., RATHER THAN IT BEING WRITTEN THAT WAY IN THE SCRIPT.” (kg’s emphasis).

#60. Michelle

“…We don’t even know for sure if it’s referred to that way in the script.”

#72. Katie G. (ME!!)

“Wait — it was YELCHIN who said “away team”. He probably just said it wrong. Let’s not put J. J. et al in front of a firing squad just yet.”

#79. Closet-Trekker

“What [Yelchin] is calling an “away team”, may indeed be referred to as a “landing party” in the script.”

Ooops. Re: #63. …Moogie

No offense, Moogie but I hope you’re wrong. It would be nice to keep it the way it was but I won’t diss the movie because of that.

kg

199. AJ - February 21, 2008

198: Why are we talking about Boris Yeltsin? Isn’t this the “Balance of Terror” thread?

200. 1701 over Gotham City - February 21, 2008

WESSELS!!
hot damn!!

That’s all I care about :)
It might not be a correct Russian accent, but it IS Chekov!!

Goodie :)

201. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

#198:
Katie, I hope I’m wrong too. The term ‘landing party’ is an important part of the original Enterprise’s lingo & TNG updating it would destroy yet another tradition.

#194:
I indeed know what the inner soul of Trek is about, Yelchin watching episodes to research a secondary role is not the same as understanding what makes ST tick. Far as the landing party/away team debate goes, as Tevye once said, without tradition our lives would be shaky as a fiddler on the roof.

202. Joseph Brown - February 21, 2008

I’ll admit I haven’t read all of the above comments, so, if I make the same point or a similar point to one already made, I apologize.

If Balance of Terror is completely ignored, it would be a very bad thing. However, that doesn’t mean that certain things in it couldn’t be worked around. Both sides of the canon – anti-canon debate, generally misunderstand the purpose of canon. Fictional canon isn’t meant to be held to with strictness to the minutest detail. Fictional canon is meant to convey a continuity within a universe. Yes, canon should be respected and held to relatively strictly, but there has to be some give. Canon shouldn’t smother creativity. In fact, canon is meant to fuel creativity. I mean, for a creative person ways can and will be found to work around or bend canon without breaking, ignoring, or not respecting it.

At least until I see the movie, I have faith that Mr. Abrams and company have remained faithful to canon without being slaves to it. I hope other Trek fans will as well.

203. Katie G. - February 21, 2008

Re: #199. AJ

You know, you just may be right! :-)

kg

204. Xai - February 21, 2008

Unbelievable.
The actor uses a phrase that likely is NOT in the movie and you’d swear someone burned a bible.
This one little thing is not worth the personal attacks I’ve read.

Please…. get over it.

205. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#201–Does your reasoning apply only to what the new guys are doing, or do you feel the same way about the countless canon violations from one TOS episode to another? How do you feel about the feature films, one after another (TMP, TWOK, TSFS) obliterating canon? Are JJ, Orci, Kurtzman, etc. the only artists you hold to such standards, or was the “inner soul” of TOS destroyed as soon as TWOK opened with—-“In the 23rd Century”? By your standards, that contradiction makes Yelchin’s slipup (or a potential dialogue error for that matter) look miniscule in comparison. I’m just curious, because otherwise you have your own serious continuity/consistency issues. I could go on and on with contradictory canon in TOS and the films, but let’s start with that simple one, since you are the self-proclaimed defender of TOS canon and its “inner soul”…

206. Sarpedon - February 21, 2008

No offense to anyone, but personally, I could care less if the term used is ‘Landing Party’, or ‘Away Team’, or… frakking ‘Beam Squad’, as long as the story is a thrilling, awe-inspiring, character-driven, cinematic adventure among the stars! I think that’s all people should hope for and wonder and worry about. Not quibbling if it will adhere to these very minor pieces to the canon tapestry.
The only thing I’m waiting anxiously to see is if JJ and co. can conjure the spirits of Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc., and, successfully, honorably, bring them back to life on the big screen, along with the biggest star, the Enterprise! The characters are of superior importance – over everything else! And all signs, at least to me, have shown they will get them right.

207. Ro-Dan - February 21, 2008

“Beam Squad” sounds good to me. How about “Beam Team”? ;)

208. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

#205:
There is a major difference between adjusting canon & rewriting it. TMP taking place in the 23rd century was conceived by Roddenberry himself so what is exactly is the issue with the opening reference in TWOK? That Khan says ‘200 years ago” later in the film? That’s an writing error, not an attempt to de-canonize Space Seed. There are always minor canon ripples that must be forgiven, if the new film indeed uses the term ‘away team’, then that becomes a deliberate violation of TOS terminology.

209. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

Plus, I wish to add that ST 1-6 took place after TOS, allowing canon adjustments. The law of canon rules very differently when depicting periods already well established..

210. Sarpedon - February 21, 2008

#207 – How about “Beam Team”?

LoL! Quite imposing! Clearly, that should be the term. ;)

211. Closettrekker - February 21, 2008

#208–“Space Seed” was “decanonized” as soon as it opened with” …In the 23rd Century”….Your double standard makes zero sense. Canon adjustments? What is that? In TOS “Space Seed”, it was the 22nd century. That isn’t an adjustment, that is a 100 year violation.
So if Khan’s dialogue is a “writing error”, then why would Orci’s script using the term “away team” (if that is indeed the case) be any different? What would classify one as an “error” and another as a deliberate violation?

#209–What page of the rulebook is that on?

212. I Love My Moogie - February 21, 2008

#211: “What page of the rulebook is that on?”

Gene Roddenberry’s rulebook, for he placed TMP in the 23rd century.
Are you equating Abrams & Orci with The Great Bird of the Galaxy? If Roddenberry jumped ST ahead 100 years, as creator it was his choice to adjust the canon. Harve Bennett & Nick Meyers simply continued to place ST in the same timeline as TMP. The term ‘landing party’ is clearly indigenous to TOS Starfleet protocal, even Mark 5 used it. TNGing the TOS timeline would, IMO, clearly shows disrespect to an era many of us have devoted our lives to.

As with all citizens of the Federation, you are entitled to your opinion & I respect your right to choose the opposing position on this issue.

213. mada101 - February 21, 2008

IMO, they used “landing party” during TOS because it was a more nautical term (a sailing ship used to send a landing party to an island for supplies or whatever). TNG decided to use a more sci-fi/PC term like “away team”.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if they used “away team” or “landing party”. This film is a reboot. Abrams can do as he likes (and even if it was canon, ENT already used both, so…).

#211. Closettrekker – February 21, 2008

The dates in TOS were deliberately contradictory – Roddenberry didn’t want Star Trek to be tied to a specific date. That’s also why the Stardates don’t make any sense. It wasn’t until the movies and TNG that they started to ‘solidify’ the universe.

While it’s true that certain details in TOS have to be taken with a grain of salt, you have to look at that time period with everything that has been established in the other four (or five, depending on your personal choice) Trek series’ in the back of your mind. If TOS gave three different dates for something, but TNG onwards stuck with one, then you have to take the TNG one as canon. It’s all about moderation.

So why are so many people concerned about this new movie and it’s treatment of canon if we can just pick and choose bits of TOS like this? Because Abrams appears (and I bold and underline ‘appears’) to be altering things for the hell of it, or parts of TOS that were well-established and non-contradictory in the first place.

214. Yelchin revela mais detalhes sobre o filme « Startrekbr’s Weblog - February 22, 2008

[...] sobre atuação com telas verdes, revelou que estaria vendo naves Klingons em cena. Fonte do site The Trek Movie confirmou que ambas as naves, Romulanas e Klingons, estarão no filme, só não soube dizer se [...]

215. Closettrekker - February 22, 2008

#212, #213–I maintain that if Orci’s script uses the term “away team” (assuming it was not just a personal mistake made by an actor playing a minor role), then it is an oversight–not unlike Nick Meyer’s “oversight” in TWOK. The opening line says, “In the 23rd Century…”, and yet Khan says later (in the same film) that “On Earth…200 years ago, I was a Prince, with power over millions.” He also reaffirms the date of the Botany Bay’s departure as being 1996.
No one here is clamouring about Meyer ripping out the “inner soul” of Trek canon, or claiming that he is disrespectful. He made an error. That’s it. You have no idea whatsoever as to Bob Orci’s intent. Calling one instance of dialogue error a “deliberate violation”, and the other a “writing error” is absurdly hypocritical. Mr. Orci deserves the same courtesy you extend to past Trek writers who have made similar mistakes.
In TOS, “Balance Of Terror”, Romulan ships are described as being painted like giant birds of prey. In STIII, that was changed to a Klingon practice (Romulan ships were thereafter referred to as warbirds, and appeared unpainted). That was NOT Gene Roddenberry’s call. After TMP, his next work on Star Trek was TNG (where coincidentally, Roddenberry chose to change “landing party” to “away team”). Again, no one is complaining (although once again we are talking about a much more grievous error/ canon violation).

“The dates in TOS were deliberately contradictory ”

Actually, they just had not decided yet on how far it should be set in the future.

So 20 years after TOS, it is okay for Roddenberry to change the appearance of Klingons, and to change the timeline, but not the term “landing party” to “away team” (that was HIS “correction”, made to depict Starfleet mission teams as less military)?

And it is okay for the painting of ships like birds of prey to be changed from a Romulan practice to a Klingon one, and for dialogue in TWOK and TSFS (the Enterprise is 20 years old?) to be contradictory to canon, yet Orci’s script is held to an entirely different standard?

I say that is ridiculous, and the argument you present is a straw house!

216. I Love My Moogie - February 22, 2008

#215: “You have no idea whatsoever as to Bob Orci’s intent.”

Sir, neither do you, so why are you acting like his PR agent?

As for TSFS, the Enterprise being 20 years old is a mistake, but it was said by an desk-bound Admiral in a passing comment, not by Kirk or anyone that would clearly know better.

As for the Bird of Prey, Spock states in The Enterprise Incident that Romulans & Klingons were sharing designs.

TWOK opening title argument is getting tired, sir. Roddenberry set ST in the 23rd century, Meyer followed that. For whatever minor canon errors Meyer made in with the ‘200 years ago’ line it pales to the overall fact that he solely revived & restored ST’s honor. Without Meyer there would never have been new ST after 1982.

As for Gene Roddenberry, ST was his baby & his canon to tweak. TNG used the term ‘away team’ to clearly seperate it from century earlier Starfleet terminology. If it’s used in STXI, it shows a carelessness & lack of respect for the canon Roddenberry & Gene Coon had set.

The true regret is that Paramount didn’t give STXI to James Crawley, the only film maker who truly honors canon & the only talent who can truly bring us back to the days of Kirk.

217. AJ - February 22, 2008

Let’s reiterate that an actor said this to an interviewer. We were not watching a Star Trek film.

I read on Memory Alpha that ENT used the expression “Away Team” as well, so it makes the terms canonically interchangeable throughout the timeline.

218. star trackie - February 22, 2008

#215 “Mr. Orci deserves the same courtesy you extend to past Trek writers who have made similar mistakes.”

The big difference is Mr. Orci is a fan. A HUGE fan. Nick Meyer is not and was not. If “away team” is included and replaces “landy party” I’d bet you credits to navy beans he knew exactly what he was doing and made the artistic decision to give a “nod” to TNG.

While Meyer’s mistake was simply that, Orci and the writers puting “away team” in the scrip…if it is, in fact, in the script…was done with intent. They are much too knowledgable to make that kind of error. That’s the difference that i see.

219. AJ - February 22, 2008

216: I think James Cawley is just as giddy to see new TOS as we are, but would be terrified to have it all rest in his hands.

The goal of the film is to move forward, and not “back” with the best crew in the galaxy. If they have the same tools, i.e. phasers, duotronic computers, transporters, tricorders, impulse and warp engines, etc., and they reference known races, Starfleet. Pike, etc., and have Nimoy in a major role, and be a great story, it’s gonna come pretty darn close to nirvana for most of us.

Have to agree with 216, that TWOK saved the series despite Kahn’s rounding error.

220. Closettrekker - February 22, 2008

#216–“As for the Bird of Prey, Spock states in The Enterprise Incident that Romulans & Klingons were sharing designs.”

He did say, “Intelligence reports the Romulans now using Klingon designs.”

What does that have to do with a cultural practice of painting those designs like giant birds of prey? It was a canon error. It did not make the movie less enjoyable, but it was an error nonetheless—and one you choose to give a pass on.

“For whatever minor canon errors Meyer made in with the ‘200 years ago’ line it pales to the overall fact that he solely revived & restored ST’s honor. Without Meyer there would never have been new ST after 1982.”

Of course. But like Mr. Orci said, they needed an A-list name like Abrams to successfully pitch this big budget Star Trek movie to Paramount. So Abrams is reviving Trek now. Yet you hold them to standards which not even the great Nick Meyer could live up to. Not only that, but you claim it is “ripping out the inner soul of TOS”.

“As for TSFS, the Enterprise being 20 years old is a mistake, but it was said by an desk-bound Admiral in a passing comment, not by Kirk or anyone that would clearly know better.”

And yet Yelchin, who is a young actor playing a role which has never been anything but minor, should no better? He may have done just that–made a mistake. You have not seen the script. You do not know if it is called an “away team” or a “landing party”, or if it is, whether that error will be caught and corrected. Who knows? Bob may see our posts and realize that it should be changed to “landing party”.

“TWOK opening title argument is getting tired…”

What is “tired” is your constant negative rants about a film you have yet to see! The fact that you link the term “landing party” directly to the “inner soul” of TOS is even more absurd. That minor term has nothing to do with depicting Gene’s vision of a utopian future for mankind, one of exploration and wonder. It was a reactionary vision born of the horrors Gene himself had seen mankind perpetrate, resulting in the deaths of millions. A dialogue error in this film is as insignificant to that vision as all of the contradictory dialogue in TOS and the original films was. None of that is the “soul” of TOS. If it was, that “soul” would be completely incoherent and unrecognizable. It is not. It is intact and, in fact, carries the strength of a $130-150 million budget for a feature film! Instead of appreciating the fact that someone is putting alot of effort into getting more people to get on board with that vision, you spend your posts crucifying them over minutia. That, my friend, is what is tired! I couldn’t care less about Meyer’s dialogue errors. It doesn’t mean a thing, and neither does the term “away team” or its predecessor–“landing party”.

#217–You are right, AJ, it did. There is no question that it would not be a canon violation, and for that reason. Personally, I like the classic term of “landing party”, but whether it is one or the other is really insignificant.

#218–I think it can still be just an oversight, or if anything, a nod to Gene Roddenberry’s preference and what has been established recently in ENT. Other than the fact that 1987 is when Gene implemented that change, I do not feel it has to have anything to do with TNG. It’s clear to me that since it was used in ENT (set before TOS), as well as in the 24th Century spinoffs, we need to accept that either term would be acceptable to describe the same thing. I just don’t see it as a legitimate issue.

#219–I agree with her comment about Meyer as well. I just don’t agree with her assessment of the significance of the term “away team”. I do not feel that it is any more significant than Meyer’s dialogue error in TWOK, or the one in TSFS for that matter.

There is nothing wrong with what Mr. Cawley does. Watch it. I will too. He doesn’t have a problem with JJ’s movie!

221. Closettrekker - February 22, 2008

Sorry, AJ, the last paragraph was meant as part of my response to #216.

222. I Love My Moogie - February 22, 2008

#221:
At this point in time we’ll agree to disagree & continue the canon debate in May ’09 : )

223. Closettrekker - February 22, 2008

#222–We can close the door on that particular debate, but with all of us having to wait until May, the canon-wars are just getting started.

224. Joel Roller - February 22, 2008

Actually Chekov was supposed to be a “young Captain Kirk in training” so said “Inside the world of Star Trek” – from a canon book written by Gene Roddenberry in 1969!

So….somebody’s GOOFED HERE…. and it wasn’t me folks!

225. Closettrekker - February 22, 2008

#224–I’d never neard that before. I wonder why then he was written and portrayed as a total goofball. I read a novel once where he was Sulu’s first officer aboard the Excelsior. Despite having seen him in a similar role aboard the Reliant in TWOK, it was difficult getting past his role on TOS and the films as a goofy, injury prone, comic relief guy in order to accept him as a command grade officer.
Sounds to me like Gene did not put a lot of thought into that description.

226. Randall - February 22, 2008

#189 Hitch:

Didn’t you just give *everybody* your address?

227. non-belligerency confirmed - February 23, 2008

i was thinking they should alternately use the terms “away party” and “landing team” in the new film. not that it would make any sense, but that it would screw with moogie, which would crack me up.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.