Star Trek [Archive] - Page 2 - Lounge of Tomorrow

Prudence

05-19-2009, 04:59 PM

I haven't read the gazillion or so prior reviews, so I'm probably just restating stuff that's been rehashed over and over again.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm glad the franchise has been revived. Revival at this point was probably going to require some actual changes and not just doing a better movie in the same mold as before, and thus I concede that some of the things I don't like were probably necessary if there's to be any more at all. I liked young Spock and Bones. And I'm not generally a purist - especially when it's acknowledged up front that this isn't a true "prequel" and not really meant to be shown in a contiguous series with the other films - so I don't mind any changes to previously established story lines.

However, there were a lot of things that bugged me. The sequence with the kid in the car was completely unnecessary and shouldn't even have been there. Complete waste of time and a disruption. Young Kirk was mediocre; seemed like he didn't have enough to back up his attitude and seemed too much like he was playacting. Scotty I really wanted to like - Simon Pegg, what's not to like? - but his introduction was ham-handed and nothing about him reminds me of the original at all. And the sidekick? Really? Mostly mute alien sidekick? Ish! Sulu and Chekov I wasn't fond of either - I wouldn't have known who they were. And Uhura? Worst of all. I realize that the original version is basically a switchboard operator, and that's not exactly inspiring for today's society, but I didn't like her character, didn't understand why she and Spock apparently had a relationship out of nowhere, and would be just as happy if she were never seen again.

Music in films lately has been annoyingly contemporary at times, and the same thing happened here on occasion - but mostly in the previews, and I can't really hold the movie responsible for that.

The whole thing seemed too fasat paced for me. Already in command of a ship? Really? I was expecting this adventure to get him out of his original school troubles, but not set him up as captain right then. You can suspend my disbelief on technology and explosions and how long people can hold their breath and the accumulation of coincidences, but a military-based organization just is NOT going to promote people that fast. I can't go there.

The one really unique part of my viewing was the earthquake timed for the Kelvin destruction. That will probably not be repeated, sadly.

Chernabog

05-19-2009, 05:33 PM

Kelvin? Vulcan? eeh.. it's all poppycock.

Gemini Cricket

05-19-2009, 05:44 PM

Young Spock is hot.

Cadaverous Pallor

05-19-2009, 07:03 PM

Young Spock is hot.You know, we thought of you when the Nokia ad happened.

And yes, he totally is.

innerSpaceman

05-19-2009, 07:20 PM

It's a hot-off between young Zach Spock and young Leonard Spock. Both have / had IT. Yum.

As for fast military promotions, that was truly regretable. I might have cringed more if the laughable territory hadn't been covered decades earlier when everyone connected with Star Wars was instantly promoted to general or admiral. So.frelling.stupid.

And thus, alas, I didn't blink an eye when Star Trek did the same thing.

Gemini Cricket

05-19-2009, 07:36 PM

You know, we thought of you when the Nokia ad happened.

Ha. I missed it.
:)

I nearly barfed during an ad for Sephora during Angels & Demons, tho.

Alex

05-19-2009, 08:02 PM

territory hadn't been covered decades earlier when everyone connected with Star Wars was instantly promoted to general or admiral. So.frelling.stupid.

At least in Star Wars they are in the middle of an actual war where rapid field promotion is reasonable. The Civil War produced several generals in their early 20s.

Alex

05-19-2009, 08:03 PM

I nearly barfed during an ad for Sephora during Angels & Demons, tho.

Was there actual product placement for Sephora that I missed or are you referring to the scene where a store could be seen in the background?

That didn't bother me since that really is a Sephora store in that location.

Ghoulish Delight

05-19-2009, 08:48 PM

Ha. I missed it.:O

How?! Nokia ringtone followed by 10 foot high Nokia logo, center frame. I know you've been busy with work and stage, did you nod off during that scene?

innerSpaceman

05-19-2009, 09:24 PM

Yep, GC ... when the product placement is so obnoxious it bothers even me, you know it was huge, obtrusive, and inappropriate on screen.

You were getting popcorn,right?

Ghoulish Delight

05-21-2009, 01:25 PM

All this talk of Spock and Kirk...

Say hello to Kirk's mom:

http://www.mensfitness.com/images/mf/209747/14674.jpg

Gemini Cricket

05-21-2009, 01:36 PM

:O

How?! Nokia ringtone followed by 10 foot high Nokia logo, center frame. I know you've been busy with work and stage, did you nod off during that scene?
Totally missed it. Not sure how, tho.
:D

The Sephora one seemed planned and obvious to me... somehow.

Chernabog

05-21-2009, 02:06 PM

The blatant Depends Undergarments ads also threw me off. Do we really need to know about the uhura in her panties?

Pirate Bill

05-21-2009, 02:13 PM

Helloooooooooooo Mrs. Kirk!

BarTopDancer

05-21-2009, 10:40 PM

I finally saw it. Fun fun fun movie!!!!! So much fun! I am firmly in the love it camp. I only watched some of the original and all of TNG. I loved all the "dammits". I had no problem with the storyline, the timeline or the history.

The only thing that bugged me is they didn't show Spock telling Kirk where Pike was.

I still don't get why anyone found this tedious and porly written movie to be fun

Because it's a fantasy movie about space and time travel. Oh and they blow stuff up. How can it not be fun?

I also loved the first Transformers movie and will see the 2nd in the theater. So take my review with that filter.

innerSpaceman

05-21-2009, 11:11 PM

Virgin records is still going out business, so I picked up the entire Star Trek series for a steal ... with the cool new special effects.

I just saw an episode with those for the first time a few days ago, and it was bitchin'

Purists can bite me.

Alex

05-22-2009, 04:56 AM

So you won't watch a movie that has 1.4 seconds cut from the original roadshow release but changing the effects is ok?

(I don't really care, I just like the idea of you telling purists to **** off.)

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 07:16 AM

Oh, that's not true at all. An example that comes to mind apropos is Robert Wise's million-years-later director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. New effects, some judicious editing.

Still the most atrocious movie. But improved.

There are many examples. It's case-by-case.

Cadaverous Pallor

05-22-2009, 08:08 AM

Alex

05-22-2009, 08:20 AM

Yeah, they did. Over two years (2006-2008) for re-release of the show into broadcast syndication. The changes are mostly in replacing model and matte shots with CGI. I've watched a couple episodes of the remastered stuff and nothing immediately jumped out at me as truly awful or game changing.

You can view a gallery of side-by-sides here (http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-002/pop.html).

Cadaverous Pallor

05-22-2009, 08:40 AM

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 09:37 AM

Yeah, I was conflicted, too. Till I saw an episode. Then sold.

Pirate Bill

05-22-2009, 09:39 AM

I respect that the people who cleaned up and polished TOS tried to remain true to the original. I also appreciate the beauty and coolness of the redo. But TOS is a product of its time and should be appreciated as such. As hokey and bad the sets, costumes, models, effects, etc. are, the scifi is great and the stories still stand the test of time.

When I began introducing my children to Trek I started them out with TOS. They've grown up in a world of CGI and near realistic special effects. So showing them how things used to be done, before the days of CG, was also part of the experience. And when 10-year-olds can fall in love with a cheesy looking TV show that's 30 years older than them...that's something special. It teaches them that there's more to scifi, and even movies/tv in general than the state of the science behind the tech that made it.

JWBear

05-22-2009, 10:06 AM

Yes. Cool special effects and big explosions are fine, but they are not what makes good science fiction.

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 10:23 AM

BTW, thanks for that link, Alex. I am the most excited to watch the re-jiggered episodes.

I should get around to that sometime in 2010.

BarTopDancer

05-22-2009, 10:32 AM

Yes. Cool special effects and big explosions are fine, but they are not what makes good science fiction.

In your opinion. Obviously those who enjoyed the movie have a different opinion. I get that you didn't like the movie but do you have to constantly bash on those who did by implying we don't know what makes good science fiction or a good movie? "Good" is subjective.

Pirate Bill

05-22-2009, 10:50 AM

I don't think JWBear was bashing or implying that others don't know good scifi. I think he was speaking generally that good scifi is more than just cool special effects. He was agreeing with my post directly above.

JWBear

05-22-2009, 11:03 AM

mousepod

05-22-2009, 11:19 AM

Enjoyment is subjective. Quality is objective. Even iSm agrees that there's a lot to 'forgive' in a movie that he thoroughly enjoyed. Generally, I imagine that the inability to articulate why the perceived 'good' outweighed the 'bad' means that it's about enjoyment/taste. The quality is a separate issue.

For me, these threads become contentious when there is confusion between the two.

"I liked it!" and "It's good" aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot.

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 11:28 AM

I agree with the underlying sentiment, but "good" is just as subjective as "I liked it."

There is no inherent quality. It's all in the eye of the beholder and judgmentalist.

And while I'll agree that big explosions are not what makes good science fiction, I think better explosions make that same science fiction better.

If I were displaying Star Trek as an historical artifact, I'd want the cheesy effects left in. For my own pleasure, I enjoy the cutaways to much cooler effects with the same cheesy set direction, acting, and production design.

You might be surprised to learn I don't object to all the special effects changes in the original Star Wars. I happen to think the Battle of Yavin effects are not only cooler looking, but more importantly make the sometimes confusing action more clear to an audience.

I don't watch Star Wars often. But sometimes I'll watch it as a 1977 piece of history with as close as I can come to that (the original sound mix is long gone from any home vid release), but other times I will switch discs right at the end and watch the much improved Battle of Yavin.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 11:47 AM

There is no inherent quality.

Really? Wow.

BarTopDancer

05-22-2009, 11:53 AM

And while I'll agree that big explosions are not what makes good science fiction, I think better explosions make that same science fiction better.

I don't think explosions make a movie good. I think they make a movie fun. But I like explosions and laser beams. I also don't think that the explosions are the only thing that made the movie fun.

But, on the same lines, the Land of the Lost previews look stupid. I don't think any amount of explosions will make that movie good, or fun.

It bugs me when people post things like I still don't get why anyone found this tedious and porly written movie to be fun because it devalues* their opinion.

*that's not the exact word, I can't think of the word. But I think it conveys what I am trying to say.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 12:12 PM

I agree with you, BTD.

There are plenty of things that I don't like that I know are "good". Everything Godard after the mid-1960s, for example.

Conversely, there are lots of bad things that I enjoy. McDonald's, most Italian horror movies, etc.

In this specific example, I think that Star Trek was a "bad" movie that I didn't like. I totally get that many of my friends here and elsewhere really liked the movie. I even accept the possibility that at some point, I'll grow to enjoy the movie, faults and all.

However, I think it's a poor argument that says, "You think it's bad, but I like it. It's purely subjective." The fact that someone can articulate the reasons why they think it's bad means that they're arguing quality, not taste.

Your point is well taken. I hope you see that my point is the same.

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 12:17 PM

This may be just semantics, but what is "quality?"

If you're talking about quality writing, don't you just mean good writing?

Quality production design? How is that different from good production design?

I guess I'm just missing your personal definition of the word ... but for clarity, my definition of quality is something comprised of that which is good. Therefore if good is subjective, so is quality.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 12:23 PM

iSm, you're right about my interchangeable use of 'good' and 'quality'. I just disagree that quality is necessarily subjective.

Perhaps I'm contributing to the confusion by doing this, because I'm critical of the typical use of 'good' to mean 'enjoyment', which I completely agree is thoroughly subjective.

Alex

05-22-2009, 12:47 PM

In reverse though, I see a lot of people take as personal criticism any obviously subjective point of view that isn't prefaced by some form of "in my opinion."

When I saw "raw tomatoes are gross" it really isn't necessary for me to say "in my opinion - and I'm perfectly aware that lots of people disagree and that my opinion is not necessarily any more valid than their - tomatoes are gross."

I get this on movie reviews all the time. "Well, that's just your opinion!!" Well, duh!

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 02:12 PM

Yep, one of my pet peeves. Yes, of course it's my opinion, moron.

Jazzman

05-22-2009, 04:11 PM

I haven't really gotten around to checking out the remastered TOS, but knowing that it passed the iSm test definitely intrigues me. Have to get on that.

After a couple of weeks now since seeing it, and also after repeatedly having to straighten out the time travel, alternate timeline/reality plot to numerous people who were confused as frack, I have to amend my initial review and simply say that, though I still absolutely love the film, the time travel bit was totally stupid and they would have been better served to just straight up reboot the series. We all knew it was a reboot, so why not? What was there to lose?

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 05:30 PM

Yeah, true. But, heck, why not time travel. It's a trek thing. They've done it like 6 times, twice in the movies alone.

And even though Alternate Universe was done only once TOS (though also once or twice on spin-off series), it's become the pop-cultural template for all Alternate Universe fictions ... and so I believe is widely accepted and understood.

Combining the two (i.e., having an alternate timeline that, so as not to freak out fans, can leave the original time line still in existence on some other plane of time/space/dimension/fiction) is Star Trek 101, and I thought would be easily understood and accepted.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 06:10 PM

Speaking for myself, a hopeless nitpicker as previously admitted in this thread and demonstrated in countless movie discussions, the time travel gimmick was absolutely instrumental in my enjoyment of the film, more than any reboot without it could have possibly been. It worked for me, it accomplished precisely what Abrams set out to do with it, abruptly, explicitly, and (to be melodramatic about it) viscerally saying, "Don't even bother trying to fit this all in to what you already know."

There have been 40+ years of "consistent" pieces of this universe's storyline presented to its audience. It's hardwired into fans' brains to be beyond picky about it, especially when talking about the original characters. To my mind, a complete reboot, without the time travel schtick to tie it into that 40 year history, would have just left me feeling like it was trying to compete with what we already know for my love and attention. Whereas this way allowed me to accept it as another chapter, still connected to the series and the movies, despite the radical changes it involves. It maintained that link that I've become acustom to in the 25 or so years that I've been a fan. And yet still gave a Star-Trek-plausible (lord knows that in the 40+ years there's plenty of precedent to set the bar of plausibility pretty low) reason to indulge the new elements that he wanted to bring to it.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 06:18 PM

See, GD, that's what I don't buy. You claim to get your cake and eat it too, but if you're going to call yourself a nitpicker, what about the fact that time travel in this movie resulted in a completely different result than time travel in any other instance of the Star Trek universe?

As a nitpicker, you're fine with a deus ex machina "fix" for some crazy inconsistencies in character-based storytelling even if it changes the physics that was underlying the entire world.

That seems just silly.

In my opinion, of course.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 06:53 PM

I don't understand what you mean about it being completely different than any other instance. The only difference is that they didn't do something at the end of the movie to reverse the change. That doesn't change the physics. Hell, if anything, it's far more believable than the fact that every time some previously unknown physical phenomenon rips through the fabric of space and time, them clever Federation folk manage to find a way to reverse it within hours or days.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 06:59 PM

I won't, by the way, defend it as perfectly executed. But the question was asked as to why he even had to bother resorting to the deus ex machina method. I gave the reason I think they did, it was to bridge that gulf. It was a little clunky and sloppy, but it's presence was enough for me to forgive that because I got what he was going for with it. I can certainly understand how it might not have worked for everyone, but it worked for me. And I know I would not have been as forgiving of such sloppiness had it not been there.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 07:11 PM

I'm just saying that in the various Star Trek series and movies, the concept of time travel has occurred almost 50 times, and never (in my memory) did it conveniently create an alternate universe the way it did in this movie.

If that's the case, then the device of time travel to appease nitpickers doesn't work, because it would create the biggest "nit" ever.

If I'm wrong, and I admit that I'm not able to recite chapter and verse all of the ST episodes where time travel happened, then I'll be more forgiving.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 07:29 PM

Time travel/alternate universes (I'd lump the two devices together) have happened many times that created different versions of the characters (most notably, the evil beard versions, or Q turning Picard into a pussy). The only difference in this case is that it wasn't all put back together again in the end. That doesn't violate anything.

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 08:01 PM

the concept of time travel has occurred almost 50 times, and never ... did it conveniently create an alternate universe the way it did in this movie.

No, they just didn't feature that as a story point ... because those particular stories didn't require it - - meaning the change of everything going forward from the way it "was."

This story, of course, required that. And the completely Star Trekian trope of time travel provided a great way to handle it.

And yes, add a new and obviously time travelish quirk to the 51st Star Trek time travel story. Finally. Better late than never. Am I to now to complain that Star Trek never addressed the paradoxes of time travel satisfactorily in its other outings, so is now precluded from doing so because of tradition?

And did they ever say anything to explicity assert the universe was unaffected by all that constant time travel?

For instance, there were only two more episodes of Next Generation after they time traveled in the First Contact movie. Who's to say the future of the universe came out Exactly As It Was before Zefrem Cochrane knew the future?

I'm sure we could find little butterfly-effect potentials in all the time travel episodes. So why didn't we think the altered time line might somehow be different?

Because it was never shown to affect what the characters did from that point on. Star Trek episodes always moved linearly into the future. This is the first one to go back and start over, so to speak. Now's the time to tell you .... they've been changing the future all along!

mousepod

05-22-2009, 08:30 PM

OK... I've been doing a little more reading. GD is talking about the "Mirror Universe"... and there are plenty of other "parallel" universes in Star Trek canon.

So given all that... doesn't that just mean that the characters in the movie we just watched are parallel versions of the characters we knew and loved from TOS?

If that's so (and now I'm going back to the point I initially made in this thread), why should I be automatically emotionally attached to the crew of this parallel Enterprise? Any more than the bearded Spock from the Mirror Universe, for example?

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 09:06 PM

I dunno why? I was emotionally attached to bearded Spock. Or maybe that was sexually attached, I'm not sure.

Well, obviously it was because he was also played by Leonard Nimoy, which was a starting point to me really liking the developing character of bearded Spock.

Similar with this reboot. We start with extending the good will of how we feel about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al. and give these new guys a chance to fill those boots.

Most people loved the way Zach Spock filled them. Plenty of people are pleased with the Urban McCoy fit. And there's perhaps less of us that feel Pine's fine in Shatner's boots.

The spirit of the proceedings and the actors' interpretations sold me on the new gang by movie's end. That's saying something, because there have been many Trek movies where the spirit of the proceedings barely sold me on the already-beloved gang.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 09:17 PM

Your point is legit, iSm.

Worked for you, didn't for me.

But I'm glad we're arguing on the same page.

Alex

05-22-2009, 09:32 PM

How about this idea, the destruction of Vulcan sends the rebooted franchise into an existential nihilistic crisis.

Everybody grows beards.

It turns out that Abrams new altnerate universe is actually the Mirror Universe.

mousepod

05-22-2009, 09:43 PM

Alex...

cool.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 10:10 PM

Your point is legit, iSm.

Worked for you, didn't for me.

But I'm glad we're arguing on the same page.Agree with what iSm said. And for me, it was the time travel conceit that afforded me that "good will" from the get-go. It set up the characters as starting from a common point, and diverging due to the change in the timeline.

If I want to justify it with the Mirror Universe, I could argue that these versions are from a very close neighbor in the collection of parallel universe that branched of in a way that only slightly affected almost the same people but for some small changes. As opposed to the Mirror Universe versions which are clearly from a parallel universe with major differences that has resulted in drastically different personalities for our heroes.

innerSpaceman

05-22-2009, 11:08 PM

I think I'd rather see the origin story of the Mirror Universe crew.

sorry, watching Mirror, Mirror right now on the full series DVDs i got for a steal at going-out-of-business Virgin hollywood last nite.

Nephythys

05-26-2009, 06:47 AM

I finally saw it. Fun fun fun movie!!!!! So much fun! I am firmly in the love it camp.
I also loved the first Transformers movie and will see the 2nd in the theater. So take my review with that filter.

Ditto to both. We can have our own love it thread.:D

alphabassettgrrl

05-28-2009, 11:39 PM

Finally saw ST.

I agree with both those who loved it and hated it.

Sure it's fun, but I had to turn off all logic and the lens flare and camera-point-of-view rotation things *really* annoyed me and I wanted to strangle whoever thought that was a good idea. I liked the humor bits and the "standard" lines that are only funny because they're so cliche. I liked the industrial look to Engineering. I hated that they didn't show us Kirk reclosing the valve after he drops Scotty out. I liked Simon Pegg as Scotty. I liked Uhura a lot. Hot hot woman. Loved Spock Prime. Loved that he... "stretched" the truth. For some reason this was endearing, when the Vulcan on "Voyager" annoyed me because she lied all the time and I thought that was not allowed by Vulcans. I guess they could lie if lying were a logical course of action but I haven't found that to be true.

BarTopDancer

06-01-2009, 09:04 PM

I'm watching a Star Trek TNG episode where they run into another USS Enterprise that came through a time rift altering the course of history.

Kevy Baby

06-01-2009, 09:13 PM

I'm not watching anything as our frickin' TV is busted!!!

Pirate Bill

06-02-2009, 09:18 AM

I'm watching a Star Trek TNG episode where they run into another USS Enterprise that came through a time rift altering the course of history.

I just recently watched an episode of the animated series (which is accepted to be canon) where Spock uses the Time Guardian to go back in time and save his younger self to correct a change to the time line. But he doesn't put the time line back completely when he fails to save his pet saber-tooth-bear-thing. They mention that this may cause time ripples, but we never know what they might be.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-08-2009, 09:42 AM

Zachary Quinto Rocks the Porn 'Stache (http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/2009/06/zachary-quinto-rocks-the-pornstache/)

Ghoulish Delight

06-08-2009, 09:43 AM

Pfffft. Did he pencil that in?

Alex

06-08-2009, 09:45 AM

Yeah, if that is a proper porn stache then porn staches have lost their mojo.

innerSpaceman

06-08-2009, 10:37 PM

Yeah, sorry not a porn stache. Oh, except maybe a Mexican porn stache, and that's where he was headed ... so kinda makes sense.

JWBear

06-09-2009, 09:42 AM

Maybe it's for a part.

Cadaverous Pallor

06-09-2009, 10:01 AM

Eeeww, used car salesman mustache. Boo.

Moonliner

06-09-2009, 10:29 AM

I think it's obvious. The next Trek is a remake of Mirror Mirror and that's his evil Spock look.

Alex

06-09-2009, 11:36 AM

Nailed it (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=284351&postcount=303).

Ghoulish Delight

06-09-2009, 04:18 PM

Apropos of nothing, I've always thought that instead of that weak theme music they used on Voyager they should have revived the captain's voice over, but made it "These are the enterprises of the Star Ship Voyager".

But then, maybe they did and Janeway just sounded lame doing it.

innerSpaceman

06-09-2009, 10:48 PM

I love the Voyager theme music, done by that hack Jerry Goldsmith, who's other Star Trek theme became Trekiconic when they had to rescue Next Generation's opening from the lame theme used for the pilot by reusing the theme from the first movie.

Oh, and the Voyage opening credits are stunningly beautiful.

Lastly, I find it hard to believe Capt. Janeway would sound lame saying anything, and most anything she says I believe has a chance to make me hard.

Ghoulish Delight

06-10-2009, 07:08 AM

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

innerSpaceman

06-10-2009, 08:19 AM

Sorry, loved that show and everything about it.

Well, for a few seasons anyway.

It helped to have taken a lot of LSD at one time.

alphabassettgrrl

06-10-2009, 08:42 AM

I liked a lot of things about Voyager. Including Capt. Janeway.

JWBear

06-10-2009, 08:59 AM

Ever wonder what the love child of Chris Pine and Zack Quinto would look like?

http://hewholaughs.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/spork.jpg?w=313&h=441

SzczerbiakManiac

06-10-2009, 09:34 AM

That makes me stiff in my nethers.

innerSpaceman

06-10-2009, 10:03 AM

Yowza.

Interestingly, this morning i was listening to DVD commentary of "First Contact" by the screen writers (had to rent it for a geek project I'm working on). Apparently the commentary was recorded some time after the last Next Gen film, Nemesis. They were talking about the difficulty of maintaining Star Trek continuity among 700 episodes of TV and movies over a span of 35 years.

And so they went on at some length about the necessity of any new film that might revive the franchise (then in the doldrums) to come up with a way to chuck the continuity entirely, lest they be stranged by it.

Heheh.