But I don’t see how you can take a very, very broad description of just a couple of years of history of the whole known galaxy and translate that into no exploration. See, exploration happens on a much smaller scale, typically on the ship level, not at the level of galactic politics, and there isn’t a darn thing that suggests that it couldn’t be happening all during the events and situations as described. In fact, we know from the events of “Star Trek: Titan” that it *is*. :)

Heck, we know that the big-picture stuff was going on all over the place during TOS, too, but before the movies started making the Enterprise the focal point of half the conflicts in the region, back while it was still being portrayed as just one ship among many, it was going along on its merry way, doing its missions, and building the series that you and I both agree is still the best of Trek.

I think the individual players’ ships in the game will be doing much the same thing. This is just the high-level overview.

(Heck, even in reality, there are hundreds, thousands, even millions of day-to-day situations that the people of Earth live through, all while the big-picture politics is going on in the background.)

My suggestion would be to see if the setting of the game itself works, rather than dismissing it because you’re frustrated by the fact that that description you referenced focused on the background stuff.

Again… the reboot argument fails, this time for confusing a very broad description of the grand political picture with an inability to allow for exploration and adventure.

I read the descriptions of Trek games here at:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/08/30/cryptic-begins-outline-for-future-history-of-star-trek-online-answers-game-questions/

If this is the future of Trek – its doomed. Too big of a world, too many differing groups and aliens at war with each other, too much history, too much continuance, too much politics, too little science, too much fantasy – not enough exploration. Its become a soap opera, fantasy novel in outer space instead of science fiction adventure story where they explore the unknown. It will be extremely hard hooking anyone but hard core Trek fans with that description of Trek’s future. As I read that my desire for a reboot became larger.

I could never get my kids into Trek

I believe most of the people you refer to are dead or in a care facility.
There’s no pleasing you regarding these writers, directors and actors, and that’s too bad.

Actually, Ben Finney was depicted as being a friend of Kirk’s (to the point that he actually knew Finney’s daughter) from the early portion of his career. Of course, that friendship would become strained to the point of obsessive vengeance on Finney’s part…but nevertheless.

For that matter, Kirk seemed to be friends with just about every Starfleet officer of his age or older the crew encountered in TOS, whether they be fellow starship captains, starbase commanders, or whatever.

I would never suggest that Mitchell and Kirk are not friends…that much is clear from the dialogue. Best friends? I don’t know if that is quite so clear. I had many similar experiences of bonding with fellow Marines who, to this day, I consider friends. However, my “best friend” is still a guy I have known since the 8th grade. I don’t discount the possibility at all, but the notion has always been more “fanon” than “canon”.

My point was simply to dispell the notion that Mitchell was so important in Jim Kirk’s life that he HAS to be depicted in this film. I do not feel that is the case.

Once again, since Mitchell is at the Academy when Kirk is already a Lt., he should not be in any of the Academy scenes when Kirk is a cadet.

Since Chekov is at the navigator station on the bridge when Kirk is depicted as Captain of the Enterprise, then presumably, the events on Delta Vega have already passed at that point and Gary is already dead (or at least buried).

Unless Kirk is depicted in command prior to Chekov’s appearance as the ship’s primary navigator, Gary Mitchell’s depiction in this film would likely not even make sense.

Despite all of that, I still believe that (as a nugget to the fans) Paul McGillion’s “mystery character” will indeed be Gary Mitchell. I just hope his appearance is in a time period which makes sense (like the Pike-to-Kirk change of command ceremony perhaps).

I went to see Transformers and expected to be bored for 2 hours. I ended up really enjoying it. I thought it had some very clever bits script-wise.

It seems perfectly logical to me that Kirk & Mitchell would be best friends at that time in their lives. Both were similar personality types with similar views and goals. Obviously they bonded in a way that made them seek each other out once their days at the Academy were done. They were involved in each other’s social and personal lives, and they served together, risking their necks for one another. Certainly sounds like best friends to me, especially since no other friend of Kirk’s from that time period was ever depicted.

I’ve always liked the notion that Jim lost Gary, but gained Spock & Bones as best friends. On the old VHS box for WNMHGB, it used to read on the back cover, “As one friendship ends, another is just beginning.” Nice.

Why would you even argue such a benign point as Jim & Gary being best friends? You’re splitting Tribble hairs again.

I disagree. What the dialogue tells us in WNMHGB is this :

1) Lt. Kirk was an instructor in one of Gary Mitchell’s classes at SFA

2) Mitchell served aboard the Enterprise under JTK’s command during the early days of the 5 year mission

3) Mitchell save Kirk’s life at one point on an alien planet

4) Kirk considers him a friend

5) Unbeknownst to Kirk, Cadet Mitchell at one point “aimed that little blond lab technician” at him, and Kirk almost married her

The notion that they were “best friends” is one invented by fans, and not actually ever supported in the dialogue.

Since Mitchell is at the Academy when Kirk is already a Lt., he should not be in any of the Academy scenes.

Since Chekov is at the navigator station on the bridge when Kirk is depicted as Captain of the Enterprise, then presumably, the events on Delta Vega have already passed at that point.

Unless Kirk is depicted in command prior to Chekov’s appearance as the ship’s primary navigator, Gary Mitchell’s depiction in this film would likely not even make sense.

On that you may be right.

“IMO a reboot gives future Trek a greater chance of entertaining me better because it will have greater potential for the unknown, the undefined, unpredictable plot twists, unfamiliarity, greater uncertainty, more peril and less predictability.”

I don’t see a reboot as doing any of those things more than continuing with new stories in an existing continuity, and I see no value in saying, “Everything we’ve built so far no longer matters for our continued storytelling.” Really, if one wants to no longer be constrained by what’s established, don’t use a pre-existing property. Build a new one. I continue to play with Star Trek because I love Star Trek’s world. Something else with the same name? Meh. No point to it for me, nor does it strike me as a fun or beneficial way to spend my time.

“A reboot simply gives us potential for another 5-year mission. Two are better than one!!”

Not when one is simply retreading over the old one, saying, “Yeah, we’re not gonna pay any attention to that, so we can make it *new and exciting*!” If you want new, then don’t go back over the old ground. Do something *new*! New characters, new situations, no proconceived notions at all. And if one feels constrained by an existing universe, go invent a new property that can be built from scratch.

For me, it really is that simple.

#113 – “It is great stories involving the iconic TOS characters which will keep Star Trek entertaining. There is plenty of room for telling more of those stories without rebooting the entire 5 year mission. Knowing what eventually happens to the characters would be no different from seeing one of the films and later watching a TOS episode for the first time.

It always remains entertaining. It is not a question of “will they survive?”, rather, it is a question of “how will they survive?”.”

Exactly! I continue to read stories set in the TOS era and elsewhere not because I am worrying about whether they live or not. I know when Spock dies (and is reborn), and I know when Kirk dies. So what? I read those stories because they themselves are entertaining, and because I love to journey with those characters as they deal with a situation or solve a problem or figure out a mystery or what-have-you. A reboot would change none of that, and yet would take away the big-picture stuff that I love so much. For me, at least, it’s a losing proposition.

#116 – “To explore STRANGE NEW worlds – NOT ones we have already know and have already explored.

To seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations – NOT looking back on how we met them decades ago or what happened to them since our last encounter.

To boldly go where no man has gone before – NOT going back to places we visited before already knowing whats there and simply following up.”

A reboot is not required for any of that. In fact, a reboot offers the temptation to “let’s look at that old situation again, but do it *differently* this time!” Again, not a winning combination for me.

“If you want the original crew back, most of their adventures seem to have already been written.”

Ahh, there may be the interpretive issue… I don’t see that as the case at all. After all, if one doesn’t count the books and such, big, important parts of the lives of the original crew have never been touched on, like, I dunno…how they all came together (’til the new film, of course :) ). Or the end of the 5-year mission. Or how many years between the other movies? Lots! Over 15 years, at least.

“A reboot eliminates this while bringing back the unexplored, the unexplained, the unknown and the unpredictable.”

All I need for the unexplored, the unexplained, the unknown and the unpredictable is a story that doesn’t have any hooks to previous stories. See, some of the problem the continuity-opponents have is they seem to think that continuity requires every story to reference what came before, or be a sequel or prequel or spinoff of something else. And, yes, staying in one world offers the *opportunity* for all those things (which is a good thing!). But it does NOT require them, nor–as we have seen many times in many stories–is it intrinsic.

Once again, for me at least, the reboot argument fails because it assumes things as automatic that there’s no basis to assume.

You don’t think there were any poor projects being produced back in the 50’s? Because those are some mighty fine rose-tinted glasses you’ve got on if that’s the case.