I'm going to apologize for the one thing. So far as I know, he had the rest of it coming.

I've been saying I was going to write this thing since I got posting privileges in September, but it just takes me a while to get around to things.

Okay, so the idea was to get different actors to play the parts. The actors would be younger, on a lower pay scale, and mostly have nothing better to do so no scheduling problems. That way, we could have movies more often. There were a lot of rumors for a long time. I started hearing stuff in the eighties, but for all I know it started in the seventies.

I remember hearing it was mostly a done deal that this guy would be the new Captain Kirk.

Advertisement

And then the whole idea was tossed, and he just got this cameo instead.

So I'm not surprised that we eventually got a Star Trek with all new actors playing characters from the original series, I was just surprised that there seems to be so much wrong with it. And also, that actors don't seem to be on a lower pay scale with nothing better to do, so that we do not get a movie every year or every other year. Now I guess it will be every four years.

There were a lot of complaints. But I don't really want to talk about why the women are in short skirts (though I don't know why they have short sleeves), or why that class of starship is on the ground (though when and where it's on the ground is another problem), or why there are no female captains (cause it's the original story when there weren't any female captains).

Advertisement

But just this one side point, if there were no female captains, what happened to her, and why make her first officer if it's a done deal that she'll never make captain?

Moving on.

So everyone has their little problems with the film (cause damn it, the ship is on the f**king ground), but I guess that my main problem is that the timeline is obviously wrong, cause everyone knows that Spock is a lot older than Kirk.

Advertisement

Okay, so let me back up a bit and say that I was reading one of the numerous 109 articles where we get yet another opportunity to say how much we did not like the 2009 movie Star Trek. (I have no idea which one it was.) And several people were complaining about the scene where the Vulcan children were picking on Spock, cause Vulcan children would never act that way.

I had to point out they were wrong. That is exactly how Vulcan children behave. We already knew this since the seventies.

Advertisement

In fact, we already knew this in the sixties watching the original series.

Advertisement

So no matter how illogical you think it is for Vulcan children to behave this way, they are children, and they behave this way, and we've seen it before. This isn't something J J Abrams made up to upset you. J J Abrams got this one right. I don't care if you don't like it. This is the way it is supposed to be, because D C Fontana wrote it that way, and that is the end of that.

So that made me want to watch the animated episode Yesteryear, I've got the DVDs somewhere, and I found it a couple of places online.

Back to stuff the J J Abrams got wrong. We all know that in the original series Kirk was in his thirties (youngest starship captain and all that), McCoy was older than Kirk, and Spock was older than both of them. If you wanted to try writing a Star Trek script, or later, a Star Trek novel, there was background information on the characters that you were supposed to be aware of, but you weren't really supposed to use. Spock didn't go to Starfleet Academy instead of the Vulcan Academy, he went to Starfleet Academy after the Vulcan Academy. But you weren't allowed to write stories about any of that stuff, only mention it in passing, minor stuff that wouldn't be a problem if edited out. Or you might write a book about a historical Klingon figure, give a very young Spock a cameo appearance during a game of chess, and have some other character named McCoy make a joke about changing grandson Leonard's diapers.

Advertisement

After all this stuff was decided during the first season, it was decided that maybe it wasn't a good idea to remind people that these three characters were not nearly the same age, and maybe the audience should not get to see Dr. McCoy's grown daughter, etc... I don't remember McCoy's age actually being changed, just that it wasn't a good idea to point out how old he really was.

Now, it doesn't seem like anybody really thought it was a terrible idea to write books about what might have happened to Spock before he was on the Enterprise, or what happened to the crew between the end of the five year mission and what happened in the first movie, just that Pocket Books already had plans for that sort of thing.

I quit trying to read all those books. I think Ballantine had two or three dozen books that I read, and then Pocket Books was going to try publishing a book every month. Reading one book a month before one has a job is not that big a deal, but trying to buy that many books starts to add up. And then The Next Generation had books, and Deep Space Nine had books, etc.... I probably read more than a hundred books before I gave up. I don't know if there was some big announcement made that Kirk and Spock are now the same age. I read The Star Trek Chronology that had them listed as almost the same age, but I just thought that was them being lazy. Hey, Shatner and Nimoy are practically the same age, probably Kirk and Spock are too, right? We all knew that was wrong. We'd all known that was wrong for about twenty years.

Advertisement

Okay, so I wanted to watch Yesteryear, and I get around to doing that, and...

...wait a minute...

...thirty years...?

Must have heard that wrong...let me listen to that part again....

Hmmmm...thirty years....

Okay, so if he was seven, thirty years before, that makes him thirty-seven...and Kirk was thirty-four, right? So, three years later...Kirk would be...thirty-seven...?

Advertisement

Okay, that cannot be right.

Well, let's see...thirty years ago...?

I know, it isn't necessarily Earth years, it's Vulcan years or years of the planet they are on, and I have no idea how long a year is on the planet they are on.

Advertisement

Vulcan years are longer than Earth years, but not by enough. If the test is for seven year old males, and that is seven years on Vulcan, then Spock was about nine in Earth years. And thirty years ago in Vulcan years is like thirty-seven or thirty-eight in Earth years. So nine plus thirty-seven or thirty-eight makes Spock forty-six or forty-seven.

The math still does not work. So it must have meant thirty years as in years for the planet they are on, and I have no idea how long that year is in Earth years.

Anyway, whatever is going on here, this was what D C Fontana wrote. So I suppose that J J Abrams and people writing chronologies and such have to be forgiven for mistakes that stem from this.

Advertisement

So I apologize for complaining about this one thing that he got wrong. All the other stuff he got wrong, so far as I know, he still got it wrong, and the Enterprise should not be on the ground anywhere (much less on the ground in Iowa when either it was in space being built or already had Captain April....)