Pine On Shatner and Kirk + Reveals Key Plot Point January 22, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast , trackback
Chris Pine is taking some time off this week to promote his latest film Bottle Shock at the Sundance Film Festival. This is his first big press exposure since being cast as James T. Kirk in the new Star Trek — and so inevitably he gets asked a lot about it. Pine talks about his role and his predecessor and even though he tried not to reveal any spoilers a couple did slip through (see bottom of article)
Pine tells Jam Showbiz that he actually reached out to William Shatner after being cast
I wrote him a letter at the beginning of the process just to explain my feelings about the character … I just tried to explain my respect for what he’d done. I want him to be proud of what I do because the man has been involved with it for going on 40 years. He wrote me back and said he hopes the movie goes well and he’d like to meet sometime, which I would love. But you know, he’s a busy man.
He tells EW he doesn’t feel the pressure of the Shat
I actually feel the exact opposite. I think the biggest mistake I could ever do would be to try to re-create what Mr. Shatner did. There are certain qualities that Kirk has that are vital for someone who is a leader of men. And those qualities, I definitely wanted to take from what Mr. Shatner did in the original series. But my job is to take something new, to take that and build upon it, really do my own thing. I just feel no pressure when it comes to that.
He also told CinemaBlend he’s relaxed:
I’m having a great time. It’s a lot of fun. J.J.’s wonderful. I haven’t really thought that far ahead just because I’m neurotic and just try to concentrate on the day-to-day thing. That kind of keeps me in check. Whatever happens will happen. I have no control over it. All I try to do is good work and that’s that
SPOILERS
BELOW
Pine also said the following to EW:
I’ve met Mr. Nimoy a couple of times. He’s been on set and we have a couple of scenes in the film, which will be nice, and I’m excited for those.
Although it has been reported (here and other sites) that Nimoy will travel back in time, this is the first confirmation from a film star that Nimoy’s older Spock will meet the younger Kirk.
Here is a video interview from Variety…not much Trek except that he does note that he is playing Captain Kirk…or as he likes to put it ‘the cap’ (NOTE: TrekMovie.com previously reported that characters in the film, especially Kirk, will be seen at various times and at different ranks)
Learn more about Bottle Shock at the official site
Loading ...
Comments»
Nimoy and young Kirk! Nice!
XDD
Nice to hear from him at last.
I like he is taking a few aspects but mostly doing his thing. Would’n like this to look like a parody. Which whould be the result if anyone mimicked Shat.
Haha, I loved the EW interview:
EW: “Because you’re shooting some small movie, right?”
Pine: “Yes, it’s a small independent back in Los Angeles. It’s kind of like Star Wars and Spaceballs combined. I think they’re calling it Star Trek. It’s going very well. We’re having a lot of fun. It comes out later this year, sometime near Christmastime. I think people will really enjoy it.”
Chris Pine “Blind Dating” scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3Zytw0Tck
COOL
I thought he’d be a commander… but if he’s the captain, what does Pike do?
“We are attempting….time travel…..”
I’d like to know if He’d do Trek 2008 sequels or if He’s contractually obligated.
Matt Damon would’ve been better.
Wait, from what I’ve heard doesn’t this start back in their days at Starfleet Academy? Are they all cadets? If they’re all starting off as cadets, then how can Pine say he’s playing CAPTAIN Kirk? I hope they don’t just promote him to Captain while skipping all the other ranks…that would be insane. Someone going from cadet to captain in the course of one movie is a huge leap, unless the timeframe is broader than we’re aware of. As someone who’s very familiar with the military, that would never happen. You hit every rank, like the steps of a ladder.
Any thoughts?
It’s a prequel and it involves time travel. Why am I cringing?
I suspect they are all contractually obligated to do at least two more sequels, but that’s just my guess. Couldn’t the young Kirk and the old Spock meet in circumstances other than time travel?
I can see humour involved in the scenes with Pine/Nimoy if Quinto is in the same scene – perhaps even Mccoy bewildered at having to converse with 2 Spocks!
‘The Cap.’ lol. That rocks. Nothing to really add here. Just that I’m going to refer to Chris-san as The Cap from now on.
re: 10
I think i read in the memory-alpha site that kirk went right from lieutenant to captain… but i’m not sure.
also, i doubt that this will be a linear movie with them all ’starting’ as cadets and going from there. if we look at some other JJ abrams projects (mi3, lost) there will be a lot of flash forwarding and flashbacking.
Damon would’ve approximated Shatner’s bluster, this guy looks like dead weight to me.
How can PIne put his own take on Kirk without emulating Shatner’s portrayal…especially if he’s reacting to Nimoy as Spock???
Ok that first frame of the video….he SERIOUSLY looks like a young Kirk!! Wow!! I guess Pegg is the only one whose not going to look like his predacessor…wow…I’m serious blown away by how much Pine looks like Young Shat.
I’m guessing he says ‘Captain Kirk’ because thats the character we know and love, ‘Captain’ is not just a title or rank…
Well now… This would seem to confirm time travel.
It’s a shame we didn’t have this bit of information to back up some of the points of view/theories that were being expressed, in a very small thread yesterday, regarding the merits of an unknown canadian actor reprisisng a minor role from Trek’s backstory, in order to please fan boys.
: )
#16 I think we really have to give the guy a chance, you know? He would have been hired for a reason, and if he’s an actor then lets wait till we see him act.
If you watch Shat interviewed, sometimes he’s pretty quiet and reflective. It’s not like the “JAMES….T….KIRK…of the starship… ENT-ER-PRISE” bluster is always evident with him.
This guy has got a certain twinkle in his eye that makes me think he can pull off Kirk.
Wait till you see Pegg with black hair and talking scottishly. I’m sure he’ll nail it.
Anthony I promise I am not spamming here, but I just want to say that having read it back after posting I am genuinely sorry for the last sentence of #20 and if I could edit it I would.
Thanks
#22 – I didn’t even realise that until you drew attention to it.
“How can PIne put his own take on Kirk without emulating Shatner’s portrayal…”
Because he’s not trying to act like William Shatner, he wants to act like Captain Kirk, but with his take on it.
Time travel has always had a place in Star Trek, and as long as it used well and within the context of the story, I really don’t think it can ever get old or overdone. It has always been a centerpiece, not only of Star Trek, but of sci-fi in general
#19 “Well now… This would seem to confirm time travel.”
Not to be stubborn but I keep saying that we are still not sure about that. Certainly, something “strange” will happen, but time travel is not necessarily involved.
Will I have to abandon my “no time travel” position sooner or later? :-)
That doofus hat inspires the utmost confidence.
It’s…. young Kirk!
Seriously, they’ve nailed the casting. Well done.
#27 He’s just covering up his toupee.
“…Doofus hat…” I’m with Stanky on this one…lose the hat
But, I’m also with #20. He does look a lot like a young Cap’n. I think he’ll do a good job as long as he does in fact do his own thing with the character.
Come on boys…let’s see some story bits… gimme gimme.
One more thing on the hat again…can you say “equestrian”?
;-)
#29. Bono Luthor – January 22, 2008
He’s just covering up his toupee.
That would turn him into a real Shatner reincarnation.
XDDD
this whole idea of recasting a character based on another actor makes me nervous. remember superman returns?? it seemed to really affect the new supes performance, and the movie over all as well. the best way to recast is to ignore what came before, as in James Bond.
This may be a no win situation.
But we will see next xmas
20 and 22 (Bono)
I think it’s cute that you like the twinkle in his eye! : )
#34
LOL. I’m a married man! Oh talk about dig yourself a hole. I really can’t express myself today without putting my foot in it.
As this is a civil/family site I just felt that I didn’t want to be seen to be making comment more at home on AICN… Anyway, WHATEVER!
I just think Kirk has always had a cocky ’screw you/the system/my orders’ kind of look that Pine seems to have, like while he’s beinf civil to your face he’s plotting the exact moves he needs to make to blow you out of the stars, claim your planet for the FED and nab your woman too!
10: Spock has to serve 11 1/2 years on the E with Pike before JTK comes along. I imagine Kirk was quite busy on the Farragut and Republic racking up pormotions during that time.
When old Spock meets young Kirk he can tell him that he should let try Captain Harrimann save the Enterprise-B. So he can take the captain’s chair of the B and save his own life.
And this will be the scene in which William Shatner can get back into Star Trek.;-)
#37 Go Shaggy!
With time travel comes timelines and all again becomes…a possibility.
Ensign or Lieutenant, perhaps; I don’t see command-grade here.
#35, you nailed the character of Kirk right on the head. As for the hat he is wearing maybe he is hiding a certain hairstyle from view. His sideburns seem very “Kirk like”.
Also, it’s obviously cold where he is at since he is also wearing a scarf, unless he’s going to play Tom Baker in a Doctor Who remake next.
When almost anyone refers to Kirk, it’s not James Kirk, or Jim Kirk, or Admiral Kirk….to most people out there, it’s “Captain” Kirk. I think he is simply describing who he is playing, rather than the role of Kirk, when he was a captain.
#37 Shaggy, not to burst your bubble. But if Kirk survived the Ent-B incident, he would still be dead in the ‘present’ Spock’s lifetime.
#9
http://www.moviewavs.com/0058536645/MP3S/Movies/Team_America_World_Police/mattdamon2.mp3
re: 40
Regardless of any reasons, it’s a doofus hat.
Want warmth? Wear one of those earflap hats.
Want to look like a doofus? See video.
If Kirk is not “killed” (transferred to the Nexus), he will not assist Picard against Soran. Picard will fail and the Veridian system will be destroyed, and with it, the Enterprise-D. Now with Picard dead and the Enterprise destroyed, there is no ship that follows the Borg sphere in 2373. Note that Picard with the Enterprise was the only one who was still present after the Borg’s changes in the timeline, because the temporal wake protected them from any changes.
Remember, the 1701-E with Picard was the only ship that could prevent the Borg from assimilating Earth in the past!
CONCLUSION
If you change Kirk’s disappearance into the nexus – the Borg will have the entire quadrant assimilated long before our Trek storyline even began!
Isn’t that the most heroic death Kirk could possibly have had? Shatner could be grateful… Kirk’s sacrifice saved the entire Federation timeline from the Borg :D :D :D :D
45. NCC-73515
So we can say that Kirk not only died saving the universe, but saving Star Trek and TOS itself. Can there be a most worthwile and honourable death for him than that?
He sacrificed so we all could enjoy TOS!
I read an interesting idea in TV Guide.That this movie portays Jim Kirk cheating and scaming his way thru the Academy. If that is true count me out. There is no reason for Spock to travel back in time either. It is just a “bone” to draw us all in. Looks like the movie won’t stand on its own. I would rather see the “Enterprise” crew. I just hope Gene does not turn over in his grave.
# 47 Okay. So what Spock really needs to say is:
“Jim, to go out like a punk is illogical. If you ever find yourself in a half baked MacGuffin called ‘The Nexus’ when you leave it is imperitive that you kill the dude from Clock Work Orange.”
#45 – Excellent points! As much as I hated Kirk’s death (not the idea, but the…ahem…execution), your post does paint his death as an epic, heroic sacrifice. Kirk’s death saved…well, everything!
So there’s no need to bring him back at all. (I’m sure this won’t stop the Shat Squad, but maybe it’ll give them pause.)
LET THE IRRATIONAL HATRED FOR THIS MAN BEGIN!
I’m looking forward to Pine’s performance even more than Quinto’s. I’m glad he’s smart enough NOT to resort to “Shatner-isms.” Should be very interesting to watch.
Now why should all the new actors look like their predecessors?? The new Battlestar Galactica looks in NO WAY like the original series. They even made some characters different sex! And does that make the new series bad? No, it’s a big succes and the series is much better now.
Why time travel? It seems to me this accidental spoiler of his just as easily suggests an alternate universe. The old Spock might cross over to meet the young Spock in a parallel dimension.
This is Abrams, ya know. “Lost” hinges on such disparities in time & reality.
Either way, something to chew on.
And I continue to like Pine’s casting. He’s smart & has the right look, and he doesn’t have one of those pipsqueak nasally stunted-boy voices that so many young actors have today. He’ll do fine.
This story just confirms that Shatner should be in the movie.
First of all, if Old Spock (Nimoy) meets young Kirk, then the timeline will definitely be altered, and Old Kirk could be alive as a result.
Second, Shatner’s appearance would allow the torch to nicely be passed to Pine.
I’m always struck by those who say that Shatner couldn’t play a pre-Generations Kirk because he has gotten too old and fat. Well, although he has aged, he would still be more convincing as a pre-Generations Kirk than Pine would be as a young Kirk.
Hey, maybe Old Spock will tell young Kirk how he dies, and that’s how Kirk has always known that “I’ll die alone.” (Although he wasn’t technically alone.)
or young Kirk goes to the future to meet older Spock
Call me old fasion, but I decided not to read the spoiler in this thread. I wonder how many others didn’t bite at the temptation?
I want the full excitement December 25.
#6
He won’t be captain for the entire film. For those parts of the film that Kirk is NOT the captain, Pike will be the captain.
I digg Chris Pine.
“I’m always struck by those who say that Shatner couldn’t play a pre-Generations Kirk because he has gotten too old and fat.”
I hear ya, bro. Such people just need to use their imaginations a little. With proper makeup and cinematography, he’d look just fine. Having Bill as a pre-Gen Kirk wouldn’t be my 1st choice, but it’d be infinitely preferable to not having him in the film at all. Which, sadly, seems all but certain now.
If the film ends with spock walking out a holodeck i’ll scream.
Arrrr… based on this thread and the one fur the welder gent, we all seem to be getting more warm and fuzzy (mostly) about this and less like a sandy starfish was dropped down our britches… good ta see…
And I’ll see any spoiler ya got… even if ya give away the ending that Spock be Kirk’s father… never time travel when having yer “Pam Far” or whatever that be Vulcans go thru when they get the itch…
arrrr…
37 – From what we’ve heard, the Old Spock we see originates in the TNG/DSN/VOY era – and is trying to stop that timeframe’s Romulans (Bana?) from altering the past (Killing Kirk and destroying the Enterprise?). So even if Kirk survived the Enterprise-B incident, he’d likely be dead from old age or a massive girdle rupture. Yeah – McCoy was alive at the beginning of TNG but it’s safe to say all those other TOS folks were already gone. (Except for Scotty stuck in the Dysonsphere)
And…since the rumors have old Spock starting his adventure from the TNG timeframe…can we hold out hope for a Picard cameo??? Picard had a direct link to Spock through his mind meld with Sarek and then Spock himself.
Romulans, Spock, Picard – it all makes sense. We can all dream, can’t we?
Jeez, that guy should take some tranquilizers.. he seems rather… hyperactive!
Where is the “Let that be your last battlefield” -FX-Reel???
IT’S TUESDAY??????????????????????????????????
Seems like the actors interviewed have conveyed a sense of profesionalism. But most of all, they are… nice people.
#42
You’re right, but Spock travels back in time and when he goes back to his original timeline Kirk will be alive.
And here you have a paradoxon. The Romulans kill Kirk in the past. How does the old Spock know that Kirk is killed by the Romulans from his present timeline in the past because he never served aboard the Enterprise in the five year mission with him? There must be another captain aboard the Enterprise during the five year mission. So how can he get back in time to prevent the murder of Kirk?
It is all possible!!! Let Cpt. Harriman support Picard to stop Soran from firing his rocket into the sun. Maybe he can be a hero in this timeline.
I can’t wait to see movie!!!
If you change the past so Kirk doesn’t go into the nexus, then he is dead of old age.
Also. Think of something:
If Spock looks like he is 80 human years old, then he is like 300 years old. Even if Kirk had survived in Veridian 3, it is quite probable he should be dead of old age.
Or are you all defending that James T Kirk should be inmortal in order to satisfy you?
He is going to end like Goku, resurecting so many times that nobody cares anymore.
Dramatic heroes die. that’s the drama and the heroism.
As to the subject of “not trying to channel or imitate” Shatner (which is what all actors say when they are playing some known personality like this) – I believe he SHOULD try to imitate many aspects of Shatner’s Kirk. That’s what they call acting isn’t it. He’s not the originator of this character. So do some justice to the character (which is another thing actors always say) and try to channel some of the familiar, crowd pleasing aspects of Kirk.
Not trying to channel some of the character would be like Hayden, what’s his name, just mumbling his way through all his dialogue (which is what he did) and never once trying to mimic the regal tones and diction that James Earl Jones brought to Darth Vader and then expecting us to believe he’s Vader.
Well if Kirk is dead then where is the drama coming from in this new movie? He cheats on his test. Ho hum. Why should I care? The character is dead. He takes over from Pike. Why should I care? The character is dead. I don’t get all this hoopla over a prequel.
Man….I am not so sure about these scenes with young Kirk and old Spock. Time travel has been done, and done well at times, by Trek, but there must be a way to integrate the stories without having Spock travel back in time to hang out with his young peers, and therefore possibly altering everything we have come to know in the TOS continuity.
Argh! I’m getting sucked in by the geeks and commenting on the story before I even know what it is!
I just hope it’s a good STORY! Why is this so hard???
So.. you can only enjoy a drama if you know that the character WILL NEVER DIE?
Seems a little limiting.
#10–Not likely, especially since we have established history of Jim Kirk as a young Lt. It is more likely that this film will depict the characters at different points in time, as necessary.
#15–If so, that would be quite the blunder on their part, since it has long been established that Kirk became Captain at the age of 34. That would be quite a long stay at the rank of Lt. if what you are suggesting is correct. My guess is, you either read it wrong, it is a misprint, or they just missed the boat on that one.
#17–Chris Pine is an artist. He should never be expected to “duplicate” another artist’s work.
I hear Shat will be written in to the sequel to this movie (yes thinking of XII before XI is out!). In what capacity I don’t know as my source never said. And he’s been fairly reliable so far.
KIRK DYING OF OLD AGE:
Yeah, this is what kills me about “saving Kirk” in TREK XI… Spock returns to his own post-TNG timeline, when suddenly Kirk shows up at his doorstep:
SPOCK: “Jim! You’re alive!”
KIRK: “Yeah, I took your advice and staying the f*ck away from the Enterprise-B. Thanks, buddy!”
Kirk suddenly clutches his chest: “GGGGGAAAAAAGHHHHH!!!”
Falls dead of a heart attack.
SPOCK: “Looks like time for STAR TREK 12!”
FX-Reel????
We know where and when + how (bad writing) Kirk dies. There is no drama going forward.
We know he is going to escape every scenario.
#68 -
So, following your own logic, I guess you should probably throw out all your old TOS DVD’s, since there’s no reason to go back and re-watch them again… knowing that Kirk will die in GENERATIONS.
Sorry, that’s bone-headed logic.
Unlike Back to the Future, where we saw things from Marty’s point of view, I don’t think in this movie we will follow Spock “backwards” from the future.
Because this film is simply named “Star Trek” (relaunch style), I think Spock and the Romulans will just be seen from the POV of the younger Kirk and co in the 23rd century (ie: using a gradual reveal of what’s going on, as the present is “pierced” by invaders from the future).
This way, no baggage for the new audience they’re aiming for to deal with, just a fresh start (with Nimoy there to honour the original Trek).
If this is indeed the case, I don’t think this film will be dubbed “XI” by many for very long, especially as the sequels progress in a new “II”, “III” “IV” fashion. (This is not to suggest I think they will be using numerals, I very much doubt that!)
71. Closettrekker – January 22, 2008
#17–Chris Pine is an artist. He should never be expected to “duplicate” another artist’s work.
Yeah, I’m an artist too, it’s not paying the bills. If I had a chance to play Kirk I’d play it, not every single nuance, but a lot like Kirk.
#41–I think, at some point in the story, he indeed plays “Captain” Kirk. Otherwise, why would they even need to cast Uhura, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, or Checkov? It is unlikely that they all served together prior to being assigned to the Enterprise, and it seems equally unlikely that the story would be so overly-involved as to necessitate depicting them in independent sub-plots or the like.
-A..PINE..doesn’t seems to have something from SHATNER..but i think is better this way..i think that it will be a mistake to see PINE trying to imitate SHATNER…
Arrrrr…
#68… I know how ye feel… I can’t stand Hamlet anymores cuz I know all the Danes die in the end… what a load of crap… hehe…
Arrrr… seriously… I diagree that we throw the deadweight out… even when Lorne Green clutched his chest and dieded, that just should make ya want to look at his performances moreseo knowing he never again be Galactica skipper. (bad example?Drama isn’t in the knowing of the outcome, but it be the ride on the great big whale of the journey to yon outcome…
(Me apologies for preachy being- Gotta stop reading cookie’s comparative lit books… but after we run through the girlie mags that’s all that’s aboard ship!)
Yar
If Spock’s interference in the original timeline leads to Kirk being alive in the time of Old Spock (TNG time), it could be for at least two reasons:
First, if Kirk were tipped-off about his death on Veridian III, he could just take a phaser with him to the Enterprise B ceremony. Then he’d come out of the Nexus with Picard and just shoot Soran dead.
The other explanation is that due to some difference in the timeline, Kirk has simply not crossed paths with the falling bridge. Why then would he not be over 100 years old? Who cares? There’s no need to explain that because ALMOST no one would care. And those that do care can simply assume that due to one of Kirk’s adventures, he is younger than he naturally should be. Maybe he jumped forward in time a bit, which wouldn’t be unusual for Kirk, since he has time-traveled more than anyone. On the other hand, maybe he got infected with a virus that makes people younger (the opposite of the Deadly Years virus). Hey Picard once became a little boy again. Maybe being in the Nexus gave his system a boost. Maybe technological advances have kept him young. Hey, I personally don’t want to hear the reason, but there are many plausible reasons available.
#73
Actually, the movie will a look back through Spock’s life trying to find the meaning behind his cryptic dying last word…
“…Rosebud”
#75…
Then for HEAVEN’S SAKE, Don’t watch any of the Star Wars prequels!!!!!
#66 Kirk was born in 2233 and the Ent B was launched in 2293, so he was 60 when he went into the Nexus. Generations was what? 14 years ago?
Presuming the same time has past in the Trek post DS9 universe as has in our real world and Kirk had survived then he would be 74.
Bearing in mind this the Trek future where all seem live longer anyway (the vitamins must just keep getting better) then he could easily not be dead of old age.
#79 “I think, at some point in the story, he indeed plays “Captain” Kirk.”
That for me is the point. A lot of flashforwards and flashbacks, because the interesting timeframe of this movie is vast. Aside from the teaser, I’d really like to see the construction and the epic launch of the Enterprise on the big screen. That would not be Kirk’s Enterprise (April’s or Pike’s we don’t know) but since Uhura, Checkov and co. are in the movie, several years must pass. Not to mention the fact that Spock was onboard the Enterprise much earlier than Kirk.
I know what you are about to say: “time travel… time travel… time travel”.
No, I refuse to accept it! :-)
And so, you proove my expriment. Some of you are ready to accept anything but the fact that the character died.
The way to show him in the movie is not to resurect him and doing so would proove to anyone who has ever criticised ST of being childish and meaningless that he was right.
You all know Trip Tucker is dead too don’t you? And Tasha Yar?
The three of them are DEAD. They died. They are exploring heaven in a bold mision to be happy forever.
So many “scifi” ways to bring Kirk back are begining to sound like the people who stuff their dead pets!
This movie seems to be a remake ..not a prequel..or a twisted ..sequel…anyway the whole old Star Trek saga was destroyed with ‘ENTERPRISE’..and later with TOS REMASTERED..so a simply remake it will be great…i still don’t know why the new ‘ENTERPRISE’ looks like ‘the old Enterprise’..so much..anyway i never liked the first look of Klingons from TOS..
#87
be it a coincindence that Mr. Data seems to be around whenever a character dies?….Tasha, Trip, Kirk, himself… Androids be not like Isaac Asimiov’s robots… androids be killers…
#85 “Generations was what? 14 years ago?”
Being Nimoy 76 we must presume that the old Spock is acting in a far future since a Vulcan old as a 76 year-old human must be 300. At that time, Kirk will be surely dead.
I think they should get Kevin Pollak to do Kirk’s voice and then get one of those cardboard stand-ups of Shatner as Kirk and animate the mouth.
I see this as no more preposterous than some of the ideas I hear around here.
91. trek – January 22, 2008
I think they should get Kevin Pollak to do Kirk’s voice and then get one of those cardboard stand-ups of Shatner as Kirk and animate the mouth.
I see this as no more preposterous than some of the ideas I hear around here.
Hmm….I think that’s going a bit far. I never said an exact copy. But get some things close.
Besides, Pollak’s Kirk isn’t is as good as he or anyone else thinks it is. His Dudley Moore is much better.
#87 “You all know Trip Tucker is dead too don’t you? And Tasha Yar?”
And guess who was STILL alive in an alternate timeiline..Tasha Yar. yes..the very dead Tasha Yar lived in the alternate timeline of Yesterday’s Enterprise. Star Trek 08 features an altered timeline. Kirk can live, I don’t see the problem.
Gosh, sure wish everyone would quit trying to take the Kirk out of the Nexus to satisfy Spock.
Just end with old Spock in the Nexus with Kirk. Together, they can ride off into the sunset. Kirk already has the horses there.
(Of course, after they trot off for quite a ways, a stretch limo should pull up, and the get into that and ride off…. as the credits roll)
Hey!! I have an idea! How about at the end of every new movie they kill Shatner/Kirk, and at the beginning of the next they find a new way to resurrect him? It would be a whole new purpose and direction for the franchise. We could have years upon years and movie after movie about this!
/just a little sarcasm here
I hope he doesn’t slouch like that when he’s sitting in the Captains chair.
Maybe everyone would be happier with a totally CGI movie, and having Nimoy and Shatner and the rest that are still living do the voices? Cause other than what we are getting, that’s the only way we could see new adventures with the old crew.
# 90 If Spock is coming to the past from a far future then obviously Kirk would not still be alive had he survived the Nexus. That is logical, if you pardon the pun.
However, if it is still Picard/Riker/Data time then Spock would be around 152.
# 87 Trip Tucker and Tashar Yar are not even in the same leauge as Kirk IMHO.
#67
That comparison really doesn’t hold. For one, Hayden should NOT have sounded like James Earl Jones. JEJ was a fricken voice synthesizer! And according to your reasoning, Sebastian Shaw was poor because he didn’t sound anything like Jones. I’m not saying Hayden was good, because he wasn’t. But come up with a valid criticism.
That aside, I pray he portrays the character in his own way, and not as some kind of hokey tribute to Shatner. That would be absolutely disastrous. The only way this thing will work is if these new actors reinterpret the characters with a fresh perspective.
Star Trek 1-6 came before Generations. Duh. All those movies for better or for worse moved forwards not backwards. I have no problems rewatching those movies again. This new movie is a prequel and it seems like it wants to fill in the blanks much like Star Wars Episodes 1-3. Shudder. I’m not interested in filling in the “new” blanks especially when I already know the outcome of the character. I already know what happened. Tell me something new without the overdone time travel plot device please. Don’t waste my time, that’s all I ask.
I think that a ‘Dylan Hunt’ is for sure more suitable for new trek movie than a new ‘Kirk’…
#101 That’s a joke?
‘-BOOM..the long night has come..the Federation moved away in to another parallel universe’…
That interviewer should be better prepared for an interview:
“What are you shooting in L.A.?”
“Tell us who you are playing?”
are not questions one should be asking….
@ 94 That’s awesome! I love me some Blazin Saddles…
-Riker was another Kirk..Archer was another Kirk…this is the 4-th version of Kirk to me..it’s enough…
-Now we can compare STAR TREK with BATMAN or …JAMES BOND..
93.
Yes, she was alive in an alternate timeline, and the apropiate thing to do was to solve the timeline regardless of her life, because the good characters on Star Trek fix timelines ragardless of their feelings and the evil characters on Startrek change the timelines to do what they want.
In which group do you think Spock goes?
#106
Actually, Riker was another Decker. Although you might reasonably make the point that Decker was another Kirk.
#100 -
What’s wrong with providing more insight into the character of Kirk, and why should his “death” having any bearing on your and anyone’s enjoyment of TREK XI? Every one of these characters will “die” at some point in their “lives”… why does knowing the ultimate outcome of one particular character be such a hindrance to you?
There IS validity in seeing how characters act/react to certain situations and obstacles during different stages of their lives. We’ve seen thritysomething Kirk, we’ve seen fiftysomething Kirk, and we’ve seen dead Kirk. Why NOT see how his parents initally raised him and his Starfleet adventures in his teens and twentysomethings?
To me, it’s simply providing a more well-rounded, complete telling of this character’s life. Why not have the WHOLE picture, as opposed to bits & pieces?
He seems really intelligent and witty. Those are the best actors.
Damn, he’s fine! And so is Mr. Quinto… I get the feeling the fanfiction community might explode the internets after this movie comes out.
Yes, I have to agree with comments regarding time travel. Star Trek has used time travel so much in both the films and series. It’s become a horrible cliche. Please no more time travel stories! Maybe they just have a Temporal Communication Device so the old Spock and young Kirk can chit chat.
I didn’t read all the threads but I don’t know if anyone pointed this out. IF this is a time travel story, and young Kirk meets old Spock, wouldn’t Kirk know that Spock won’t die (permanently) in ST II, etc.?
Any comments on that?
I didn’t read all the threads but I don’t know if anyone pointed this out. IF this is a time travel story, and young Kirk meets old Spock, wouldn’t Kirk know that Spock won’t die (permanently) in ST II, etc.?
Any comments on that?
WHERE IS THE “LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD” -FX-REEL????
#78–I don’t think that Pine really said anything different from what you did. There are certain aspects of the character which have been established that make him identifiable, and he appears to want to capture that. At the same time, he may be portraying Jim Kirk at a different time in his life. Inevitably, we see things as people differently when we are younger, and our behavior often reflects that. If he is indeed acting as a Kirk much younger than the one we knew, should he not bring that into play? This is, I think, where what he brings to the role should seperate him from Shatner.
#93–There is no problem with that premise. The problem lies in how that can be beneficial to the story which JJ wants to tell. Let’s not simply bring back Shatner as Kirk just because we can, but rather only if it helps JJ tell his story.
#100– I respectfully disagree. There are many “gaps” worth exploring, and they can be potentially very entertaining. For me, 24th Century Star Trek became very sterile and boring. I long for the more colorful Star Fleet of the TOS era and the years soon afterward. Even Capt. Janeway expressed her fondness for that time in Federation history in a VOY episode. It seems that maybe the fictional characters were smart enough to know they lacked something. I, for one, am looking forward to even more “filling of the gaps” like the rest of the 5 year mission, the post TOS/pre TMP years, the post TMP/pre TWOK years, and the 78 years between STVI and TNG (Excelsior, Enterprise-B/C, etc.). This would, IMO, be much more interesting than moving beyond VOY and DS9.
#110–You are absolutely right. This is the ultimate tribute to not just Kirk, but the entire crew of the TOS era Enterprise. Would anyone care to see the young Picard adventures? Okay, maybe someone would, but not as many as will be lined up to see this movie.
I don’t think the others are qualify as another version of Kirk, they are pale copies.
Like other action films that have tried to copy James Bond but never come close to the character.
Yes there have been multiple actors in Bond, Batman etc, but that’s different. Riker is Riker. Kirk is Kirk.
There is only one James T Kirk, no matter who is playing him of what medium he’s in.
He and Spock are up there with Bond, Superman, Robin Hood etc.
Legends.
115.. perhaps young Kirk never knows that the elderly Vulcan was Spock from the future.
99.
The voice synthesizer is not all that gave Vader his diction and sense of granduer. There was a presence there that lent to the persona that Hayden didn’t have. Poor acting, poor directing? I say both.
And in my opinion Sebastian Shaw was poor. We should have never seen the face of a smiley old man.
#117 I very much agree about 24th century Trek being sterile.
I liked TNG, but by Voyager I couldn’t sit through an episode.
Enterprise premise and the last season pulled me back in the fold a little.
#115–Only if Spock, rather irresponsibly-I might add, tells young Kirk more than he needs to know about the future.
Heck, if he wanted to jeopardize the entire timeline for that matter, he could warn Kirk not to go aboard the Enterprise-B. But like I’ve said before, it’s one thing for Spock to risk himself, but the fate of the quadrant? I don’t think so. Any interaction with another person, and the Kirk that was supposed to die could, inadvertently, alter events which are supposed to happen (like Edith Keeler in TOS –”The Guardian of Forever”). To me, that is the biggest obstacle to any of the resurrect Kirk scenarios, and the dilemma which Spock will face if he indeed interacts with young Kirk as is suggested. Now, if anyone can reason a way not to disturb the timeline, then our beloved Spock is that guy.
You know, I like Spock—and absolutely hated that he died in WOK. He came back of course, but we didn’t get the same dynamic until ST V and VI. By that time, the movies were not working so well.
We have to remember that Nimoy once wanted Spock to die. Why is he behind ST XI? He probably gets another death scene. When Orci and Abrams say “it’s hard to get Kirk in the movie..he’s dead” they are really saying that there is no way for Nimoy to save Kirk in this script (because Spock dies).
I’m not saying Shatner is right with his complaints (I hope when I reach that age I’ll be able to have more compassion) but I can sure identify with it. For a bunch of new guys to come in with their own ideas about something I helped shape—and then not include me in a bigger way—I would be upset too.
>nd young Kirk meets old Spock, wouldn’t Kirk know that Spock won’t die >(permanently) in ST II, etc.?
>Any comments on that?
So true! Maybe Old TNG Spock mind melds with him supressing that memory.
Unless young Kirk doesn´t know that old Spock is his Spock, just some random old vulcan like Sarek.
# 125 Aaaaaarrrggggggghhhhh.
I’m going out of my mind.
Orci throw us a bone! No matter how criptic!!!
The Chris Pine Film Festival on UGO.com
http://www.ugo.com/movies/chris-pine-film-festival/
#120
The problem with the transition from Hayden to Vader wasn’t really Hayden’s fault as much as it was George Lucas’ for rushing the story & timeline. The prequels were only supposed to take place roughly 20 years prior to the originals, and that simply wasn’t enough time. After all, Shaw was nearly 80 in ROTJ. I understand that can partly be explained away as Anakin decaying from evil, but it was still a stretch. The character should only have been around 40 at that point.
As far as having the grandeur of the latter-day Vader, well he shouldn’t have had that. It should have come later, but he became Vader too early. That’s something that should have developed as the character progressed, but sadly Lucas chose to ignore any kind of character development in those films.
Then again, I don’t really find Hayden to be the worst offender in those prequels. Ewan was bad, Natalie was terrible, and Sam Jackson was in the wrong movie. The only good acting was from Ian McDiarmid.
I’m not sure how you could find fault with Sebastian Shaw, as that moment is one of the few redeeming scenes in ROTJ.
# 117 i’m not agree with you..just Voyager seems to be sterile..not the future beyond ds-9…this returning to origins..is very boring…because ‘Enterprise’ was a returning to origins…This prequel thing….inspired by Star Wars..is now …i don’t know..but i don’t thing that is a good ideea..how many returning to origins do you want to see in STAR TREK…maybe 10..? .’Enterprise’ was a real disaster to Star Trek…it was cancelled…I Don’t uderstand this fear to look in the future..really…
..maybe an inspirational lack ..
127: Unfortunately, the quick transformation of Anakin into Darth Vader, something that should happen along many years, happening in just a couple of days had a precedent:
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade flashback, in the first 15 minutes, Indiana Jones got his whip, his snakephobia, the famous scar on his chin and his trademark HAT. That´s too much of a coincidence! All his personality defined in one bad day?
It´s the awkward need for having everything happening onscreen in 15 minutes. Maybe it´s necessary the services of a voice-over narrator, saying something like : “in the following YEARS …this and this happened..” and then the movie continues normally.
Shatner dealt himself out of the Star Trek game when he agreed to kill Kirk in “Generations.” He CHOSE to leave the franchise, and he refused to appear on the others shows on in any kind of cameo.
I wonder at those of you who don’t want to see any prequels or to “fill in the blanks” because we already know what happens in their future. I assume that means that you don’t watch historical movies (or loosely historical) such as “Titanic” or “Pearl Harbor.” I assume that means you don’t watch ANY “based on true life” or “based on a novel” movies. After all, in every case you already know how it turns out.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing part of Trek history that has never been shown. I’m curious about the angle Abrams et al. are pursuing; from Orci’s comments, it sounds like this will be a fan-fulfilling film while being widely accessible. That’s a lot to aim for, but they definitely have their hearts in the right place.
I’m glad Pine isn’t planning on channeling Shatner. We’ve had Shatner’s Kirk, and nobody will ever compare–even Pine knows that. To paraphrase Valeris in STVI, nobody can replace Shatner, only succeed him.
# 128 I agree about Trek looking to the future.
I think one of the things this film is trying to do is make us think this quite a real possibility of OUR future, but it would be good to go far in the future.
A new crew/ship/era like TNG did. Maybe with one of the crew members being an anncestor to a Trek legend, like Kirk, Spock, Picard.
There is that cartoon that’s in the works set in the future I believe?
Re: #67. Andy Patterson and #99. sean
Well, even though having the new crew emulate their older TOS selves might look a bit “hokey”, if they are not the LEAST bit like them, don’t you think it would be rather odd? They were trying to make sure they LOOK like their counterparts so, in my opinion, they each should throw in something that would make us recognize their beloved characters as well as their obvious resemblance. Hopefully this will be done sensibly.
“Dammit Jim, I’m a full-fledged Doctor — not a first-year med student.”
The interesting part is, in the episode “The Cage”, Pike’s Spock is quite emotionally-demonstrative compared to the one we’ve come to know and love — they changed his character en route. Wonder if that will be addressed. Doesn’t matter. They can’t include every little thing or the movie will have to be a three-parter, one out each Christmas for the next three years. (Sound familiar?)
Can’t wait to find out!
you call that a spoiler?
I have absolutely no problem imagining this guy playing Kirk — the clip above does nothing but reinforce that… he seems serious, with the proper amount of gravitas… I can’t see what the objection could possibly be, unless it is just a knee-jerk rejection of change.
#115. Excellent point, Mr. Seven.
Time travel opens up a big crawling can o’ worms, of course. I’m not saying I’m against it as a storytelling device, but it presents a lot of problems.
Makes me wonder again about the possibility of an alternate-universe approach rather than time travel. Hmm. . . how would Quinto look with a goatee. . .?
It might explain those leaked spoilers suggesting a slacker Jim Kirk. Wasn’t there some early ST novel about a P-O’d, drug-addicted alternate Kirk who winds up as an underling on the Enterprise? I seem to remember some, ahem, wrestling in the arboretum with Spock.
If the Trek franchise is to be kept alive then its time for the actors to be separated from their characters. Shatner played his version of Kirk. Now a new one is being presented to us.
If one was to follow the logic many are presenting here that the original cast cannot be separated from their roles, then there would be no more presentations of Shakespearean plays today. Or new movies of Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc.
Many people today say Christopher Reeves gave the definitive Superman performance and no one will ever replace him. When I was growing up the same thing was said about George Reeve.
Sean Connery may have given the iconic James Bond peformance but there are many who prefer Moore or Dalton or Brosnan.
Do not be surprised to find in the future that some will prefer the new cast’s interpretation of the original Star Trek roles. It is a good thing. It is a necessary thing.
In no way will such proclamations diminish what has gone on before. Quite the opposite. They will enrich the franchise.
And no one is making it mandatory for anyone to abandon their affection for the original cast in order to like the new one.
# 136 Tell me I didn’t just confess to reading that thing.
It’s ironic to me that I feel compelled to tell fans of a TV show about zipping through space to get real. This movie IS being made. New actors are IN IT. Shatner IS NOT.
And Stanky, all you got is a dig about the guys hat? Pine is what we call a young person. They are inclined to wear things that old guys hold in disdain. I’m certain he scoffs at fellows like you who wear their pants up near their armpits.
One question I have; if anyone cares to speculate, is that IIRC in DS9 time Cisco was visited by the Department of Temporal Investigation, as well as there being references to a sort of future Temporal Police. If we are to follow along with that line of thinking, and if the movie deals with time travel, how is it that old Spock isn’t busted for fiddling around with causality?
This isn’t a complaint, I’m very curious as to how they will deal with it, just a nagging thought I have.
(#94 – LOL!)
Time travel has become such a cop out for bad writing. It used to be a fun and interesting theme, and the subject of many of my favorite episodes in each ST series, but now it’s getting tiresome, especially since it’s been repeatedly dealt with in countless episodes :
- TOS: The Naked Time, City on the Edge; the ones with the Air Force, and Gary Seven;
- TNG: Yesterday’s Enterprise, All Good Things, the one with Mark Twain;
- DS9: the one with Gabriel Bell, the one with the descendants of crash survivors;
- VGR: the one with Ed Begley Jr., the one with old Kes, and the one with Kim and Chakotay and the ice planet;
- ENT: far too many to list
and three movies (Voyage Home, Generations, First Contact), and now Trek XI. It’s too much pressing of the reset button, it’s not original anymore! Why would the Romulans go back in time and kill Kirk in his Academy days? Like the Borg going back to assimilate humanity at a time when they were too weak to resist? If the Romulans have to go back in time, why not , say, kill Kirk’s parents, or his grandparents?
I’m not bothering with this one.
Assuming the Generally Accepted timeline is Kirk Became captain of the Enterprise at 29(or 31) and he graduated the Academy at 23 that’s some 6-8 years difference who at that age really ages that much physically that can’t be done with Makeup.
Ewan McGregor did a good job as Obi-wan, so it IS possible to put in a credible performance while representing the same character, if it’s done right.
Pine SHOULD add some Shatisms.
Something tells me they’re NOT going to put a black wig on Pegg, which will make his representative portrayal harder to swallow.
And Quinto had better have worked on that… voice.
#137: Well said on all points.
The hangups seem rooted in Trek’s origins as a TV show. If it had begun its life as a comic, or play, or novel, or antyhing else that presented the characters without an actor specifically attached, I think that would break the spell, since there’d be no actor to point at as the “original,” there would only be multiple interpretations (which is the case with Shakespeare’s characters, and with Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc). It’s funny, really, that it’s taken this long for this sort of thing to start cropping up. It’s only been over the last 10-15 years that we’ve been seeing TV characters re-cast with much frequency, and it’s a very different emotional phenomenon from (for example) a film remake, because we see TV characters in much broader ranges of situations, get to know them over the course of dozens or even hundreds of hours.
I’m ready to see new folks take on the roles (honestly, I think some of the fan-films have helped ease me into the idea) but I definitely sympathize with those who aren’t.
#128, #132–I don’t think it is boring at all. In fact, I’m very excited about a return to the era of Star Trek that made it a great franchise to begin with. As for ENT being cancelled, it is debatable as to whether it failed because it was not good or whether it failed because it was on UPN. I never got to see it until it was released on DVD, and I happen to have enjoyed it once I finally saw it (particularly the last season). I found all of the spin off series except ENT to be too sterile. They also never had the magic of the TOS characters. Star Trek went from a cutting edge sci-fi/action series to one drowned in too much techno babble and not enough fist-fighting and fornicating! One thing this film does not do is limit future stories to one era or the other. The truth is, Star Trek on television was going downhill long before ENT. They lost me as a hardcore fan at “Farpoint”. I watched them all, but you can bet I did not spend money on the DVD’s, while I have had TOS episodes 1-79 since they were made available on VHS. I now have them on DVD-remastered. TOS still gets my hard-earned dollars 40 years later! Of course, that is a personal preference, but I am willing to bet that I am not the only one who feels this way. Returning to your roots can often lead to a fresh start…
#139 (re#27) – I agree with THX, there’s nothing wrong with the hat. That’s the most superficial complaint I’ve heard yet (and that’s saying a lot).
After all, Shatner never wore anything so foolish looking. Except, well…maybe this picture:
http://www.tj-hooker.com/academy/graphics/pressroom/tvguide_dog.jpg
When I saw Shatner in that headband, I suddenly knew he wasn’t a serious actor. He looks like a doofus…but that’s okay, he got better, right?
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=1143417&epmid=3&partner=Google
Stanky, just try to tell me Pine looks like more of a doofus than this last Shatner pic. Go on. I dare ya.
Good thing Shatner’s not playing Kirk anymore. He’s worn at least TWO doofus-looking pieces of headgear…
#140–That is an interesting point, however, there is no reason to believe yet that it will not be dealt with in some shape or form–if Spock is indeed timetravelling with the intention of meddling. I have to believe that if indeed that is Spock’s intention, then it would be to “protect” the timeline, rather than to “change” it. Anything else, is just unSpock-like.
Thank you, Paul B.
I hereby declare that when anyone says that Pine is not as serious as Shatner or makes poor comparisons between the two, that these two photos are to be posted.
So say I. So say we all?
#137–I’ll go a step further and say that, if anything, this is the ultimate “tribute” to the original cast. They were so iconic that their characters are being revisited 40 years later.
To me, Connery will always be the best Bond, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t like to watch some of the others bring their own Bond to the table. For that matter, I like Reeves as Superman better than I liked George. “First” isn’t always best, but “next” doesn’t have to be either. If you cannot use your imagination, you should not go see this movie, because unlike with Bond, this IS the same Jim Kirk, the same Spock, the same Bones, etc., no matter who the actors are. The same character that Chris Pine will play in STXI is the same character that will outwit Khan in TWOK many years later. I will be waiting with anticipation.
95. Tony Pieta – January 22, 2008
Hey!! I have an idea! How about at the end of every new movie they kill Shatner/Kirk, and at the beginning of the next they find a new way to resurrect him? It would be a whole new purpose and direction for the franchise. We could have years upon years and movie after movie about this!
/just a little sarcasm here
So Shatner / Kirk is doing the Godzilla timeline now ?
- W -
* Smirks *
re: 147. Closettrekker
Agreed, however in Trials and Tribble-ations even though they were protecting the timeline, afterwards there was in essence, hell to pay. Again, I’m engaging in wild speculation, but I’m wondering if the the timeline disruption (If that is even the plot) is something Spock caught wind of while still hiding in the Romulan Underground, ans thus outside of the reach of Federation Agents.
#148 – I agree, THX! (See, I’m not such a bad guy, even if I complained about Harry’s limericks in another thread…which, by the way, I will back off about. I tried writing one this morning and, well…not so good. :) )
Could old Spock meeting young Kirk mean that Kirk’s future is not set in stone?
Perhaps because of Spock’s intervention Kirk lives?
If Kirk is seen in various time periods why no Shatner?
Timeline a – Old Spock and some indication of a timeline crisis
Timeline b – the dominant narrative. Spock and Pike, Kirk and Spock. The crew. The E. Presumably ends just prior to the 5 year mission.
Timeline c – flashback to Kirk and Spock at the Academy.
Timeline d – back to Old Spock, and if we are very lucky, a closing scene that parallels Kirk and Spock closing scene (the 5 year mission) in a) between Old Spock and Old (not dead) Kirk.
Timeline e – construction of Enterprise (trailer only?)
#153-#154.
Ivory short answer yes futzing with the time line and kinda fixing it. Re Shatner this seems to be more personal conflicts than other issues.
#153, #154–I’m guessing the number one reason is that Kirk is dead, just as Mr. Abrams has told us. As far as “could he or couldn’t he?”, the answer is yes. The real question is, “should he or shouldn’t he?”, and the answer is no–unless it is beneficial to the story that JJ wants to tell. Apparently, JJ doesn’t think so.
You know…when you go to the original article in Jam Showbiz, Pine states that “they” are still saying Shatner might be in this movie. That seems to go along with Orci’s “up in the air” comments.
I am really starting to believe the posts of how JJ Abrams believes in the art of misdirection. If he pulls this off with success with Star Trek, he is a genius.
Cloverfield made $41 million, but had unknown cast and a small budget these days ($25 million).
Now, Star Trek has budget of $130 million, unknown cast (save Bana, Ryder, and some character actors). It does have Nimoy in it.
I suspect that to get that type of backing from Paramount to do another Star trek (considering the box office decrease of the new series)…you would have to pitch more than….hey…” I am JJ Abrams and I am bring new blood to the project.”
I love Star Trek, but I know a lot of people who don’t. These same people really don’t like Sci Fi anyway.
So, I suspect that given the budget, unknown cast (same Nimoy and few others), I think somehow Shatner is on board, even if a cameo.
I think it will be more an economic decision. Either it was already made (and it is being kept secret) or will be made.
$130 million (Star Trek) vs. $25 million (Cloverfield) hmmmmmmm.
Gene
Paul B., I fight with my brother all the time. I also would do anyhing that he asks. I’m cool with everyone here, including Stanky and…..
#154-Did you seriouly just type that? Go to the last J.J. Abrams article to find the answer to your question.
I’ve a huge fan of Heroes, and seeing Quinto act regularly, believe me, he’ll be able to pull off the Spock voice!
#151–Yes, he may have some explaining to do. However, we are assuming he is taking it upon himself. Who is to say that someone has not decided that it has to be done and that he is simply most qualified to do it? Or for that matter, it is only speculative that we have decided that this is what happens. Maybe there is an unforseen layer to all of this. Maybe Spock is just a victim of the ghost of Christmas past!!!
#153: I think you hit it on the head.
-Are you sure.???.
130 million dollars ..it’s a big budget for a trek movie….
40 years from now we will be complaining (I, of course, will be in a wheel-chair then–grin–) when they do another “Star Trek” reboot and recast the roles after Pine, Quinto, Urban, et al have become too elderly to be cast in the roles they have inherited.
#10
My Greatgrandfather was inducted as a private and was promoted to a a second luey during World War I, so there are exceptions.
#162–I wouldn’t want that nail holding my house together….That leaves too many unresolved issues, the primary one being how that could undo events that are supposed to happen (rewatch TOS–”The Guardian Of Forever”). Any interaction between Kirk and another individual could inadvertently disrupt the timeline past the Enterprise-B incident or post-Generations, depending on the point in which Spock interfered. Either one could have grave reprecussions. I do not believe that Spock, of all people, would be so irresponsible.
#164–We can only hope so. That would mean that Trek was saved…
1) “Star Trek – Enterprise” was a great show and if the idiots at UPN had not cancelled it when they did we would have gotten to see the beginnings of the Federation-Romulan War. THAT would have been some\thing to see!
The show was truly beginning to rock during the fourth season due to the guiding talents of Manny Coto and Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. They were injecting all sorts of story deetails that fed into the canon we have come to know and love.
2) Paramount should have fired Berman and Braga, not because they were doing things badly, but because after 18 years, TREK needed new creative blood–which is what Abrams is bringing to the franchise.
3) Enterprise was cancelled because UPN didn’t have faith in their product; it was their highest rated (maybe second) and still they let it go. Enterprise NEVER ever belonged on UPN, a network wanna-be that basically aired dumb (really dumb) asinine comedies, faux beauty pageants and fake wrestling matches!
4) “ST: Enterprise” should have been syndicated or on the Sci-Fi Network. There, it would have probably thrived and gone on to air seven seasons like its earlier sibling shows. Personally, I miss the show.
Yes, #163 Marian Ciobanu
That is the reported budget of this movie, $130 million. Don’t have the site, but you can do a internet search and find it. Its been reported on this site and others.
I think the reported budget, in addition to the casting and Shatner’s “bad business” comments put this debate in a different perspective.
Many probably don’t care…but its about the money. $25 million budget is reasonable, given the cast of Cloverfield. $130 million given the recent track record of the Star Trek movies…its a gamble.
So…I really think that….”loading the deck” (even if it makes no sense to some..even though its SCi Fi) and having the Shat in it…even if a small role…..make some economic sense…given the budget.
Gene
#137
So no Leonard Nimoy to follow that wisdom?
No problem with that.
I think it is Nimoy being in the picture without Shatner that so distresses me.
Neither works on his own.
Ok, found a link on this site to an est. budget of $135 million
http://trekmovie.com/trek-xi-movie-info/
Gene
# 167 It sure as hell was better than Voyager!
#165–That still would not explain why he would have spent so much time as a junior officer. He was 34 when he became Captain of the Enterprise, and we have established history of him being a Lt. As for your grandfather, it was quite common during that period for a man to enlist first, and be commissioned as an officer shortly thereafter. It was much more common in the Civil War era, but that practice is not unheard of even today (like the MECEP program). That is not , however, the same thing as being commissioned an Ensign (in naval/Star fleet terms), and skipping 4 grades of commissioned officer ranks. That is what #10 was saying. The closest thing today to that is a certain program where Warrant officers are promoted to field grade officers, but again–not the same thing. Kirk would have been commissioned right out of the Academy. If he was 22 upon graduation, he would have had 12 years of service before becoming the youngest ever Star Fleet captain at age 34. It is extremely unlikely (in military terms, remember this is Star Fleet) that he would have been promoted to that rank from any grade below Commander, unprecedented or not.
I think the reason Shatner isn’t in it is purely economical in nature, and has nothing to do with the script. I personally won’t miss him in the movie, though.
Aside that, the “key plot point” is actually nothing IMO: they will meet – so what? 8P
ST:XI is going to turn out as farcical as “Brady Bunch – The Movie”
#174–Here’s to hoping that is not the case.
#171–Amen.
#167–I liked it better than any of the other spinoffs. It seemed more real, and actually worthy of much more than the UPN. Unfortunately, I never saw it until its cancellation and release on DVD.
#161. Closettrekker
I appreciate you thoughts. As I said, this is only wild speculation on my part right now, but as a friend of mine is fond of saying “This is the only Trek we’re going to get!!” so I’m trying to get my head around it ATM.
#172. Closettrekker
Don’t forget Lt. Kirk spent some time on the planet Neural, where he met Tyree in “A Private Little War”. We don’t really know how much time he spent there, and how long it delayed any promotions he may have gotten. All I’m saying is that there is a lot of wiggle room in there.
#140 Closettrekker stated:
“#140–That is an interesting point, however, there is no reason to believe yet that it will not be dealt with in some shape or form–if Spock is indeed timetravelling with the intention of meddling. I have to believe that if indeed that is Spock’s intention, then it would be to “protect” the timeline, rather than to “change” it. Anything else, is just unSpock-like.”
Uh, you are way off. Spock is not opposed to altering the timeline. In City on the Edge of Forever, for instance, he didn’t think that Edith Keeler should die just because altering the timeline is some sort of sin. He thought she should die because her death actually leads to a BETTER timeline – and one where Kirk and Spock can get the hell off the Guardian planet and go back to what they were doing. If saving Edith Keeler would have had positive consequences, Spock would have approved.
In Star Trek IV, Spock is the one who thinks of altering the timeline so that people who were destined to die can be saved.
So Spock is not opposed to altering timelines. To think otherwise is ignorant, or stubborn, or illogical.
#12 -
Hey, it gets better (or worse, IMHO)… Rumors abound that there will be tribbles in this movie, and that we get to see how Kirk beat the Kobyashi Maru. Sounds to me like it’s an attempt to take a little bit of everything, and throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks.
If the rumors are true, Kirk didn’t beat the test thanks to his smarts, cleverness, or creativity. He (supposedly) beats it by seducing a female technician, getting her to re-program the test for her. Yet another Trek cliche. Kirk bags the babe, who naturally can’t resist him, in order to get what he wants. Pass.
I still say Pine looks like a total mama’s boy, and not the captain of the Enterprise.
#175 -
ST: Enterprise? Well, I guess *someone* had to like it… I recommend going back and rediscovering DS9. It was the last honestly good Trek, IMHO. In fact, I liked it the best of all the series. If anything, the show has gotten even better with time.
It’s remarkable to me how well the show has held up, but also how (sadly) timely certain episodes remain. The “Homefront”/”Paradise Lost” two-parter being one splendid example. It seems like it was ripped right from the headlines of the past few years. It’s almost like the DS9 staff had some “Prophets” of their own!
Just got to say, if nothing else this new movie has put me back in touch with TOS.
I’m loving my remastered DVD’s and the best part is there are episodes I have never seen.
I was born in the 1970’s and the BBC here in the UK used to show it but a little irregularly, and I never had the money to pay out for the entire series on VHS or DVD.
It was probably the movies that hooked me more than TOS as a kid.
So for me, I get to enjoy new Trek episodes featuring Kirk and the gang.
It’s awesome and has been on pretty much every other night since Christmas on ‘Bono Luthor TV’.
; )
Gary Seven,
You posed a pretty interesting question there. If young Kirk talks to old Spock then won’t the events of Wrath of Khan seem like more of an inconvenience? You’re right, unless, Spock hides his identity from young Kirk, kind of like Doc Brown talking to his older self in Back to the Future 2.
This whole Kirk died on Veridian III argument can be corrected now without fear of altering the timeline, the planet’s populace, the Borg and so on. What if Spock tells Kirk that in about 30 years send some red shirt into the engine room on the Enterprise B and then wait for Scottie to beam over the refugees. Once Soran shows up Kirk should jump him with his patented double axe handle chop and then beat him to death right there on the transporter platform.
Ky
SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently, a copy of the first few scenes go like this!
Spock (Nimoy) is on Vulcan, attempting to come to terms with Kirks death. He enters some sort of building and begins talking to some Vulcan preist. The preist guy tells him that Kirk cannot be brought back, that Spock must move on. THen the preist stops. And as Spock turns to leave, he tells him that one will destroy the one named Kirk, the one named Spock, and the ones you have travelled with. Spock is confused by this, and begins to seek more knowledge. Im guessing we may get an introduction to the villan after that.
Chris rocks, he will do the part great justice. They couldn’t have chosen a better person to play Kirk. Im not a Trekkie, but I am looking forward to this movie, just to see Chris.
#167 I have to agree as well…it was much easier to get to like and want to know more about the Enterprise characters, then the Voyager cast. The best episodes of Enterprise hold up against many of the best of the other incarnations, but being on UPN along with some bad story arcs doomed it. I have faith in this movie and will give it every opportunity to sell me on its new take on Trek. Picking it apart and moaning about canon, Kirk, Pine’s eye color, Pine’s hat, blah blah blah…it’s all pointless until we see a final product. At least to me, anyway.
#178–Clearly you missed my earlier post in which I cited The Guardian as the reason Spock would do no such thing. They learned in that encounter that the prevention of any death, however seemingly insignificant, could have far reaching and rather grave consequences. Why would he knowingly repeat such an error?
STIV you say? Sure, Spock (like Picard in First Contact) is given no alternative but to risk altering the timeline, but against what alternative? The anihilation of Earth.
Preventing Kirk’s death from happening as it already did being his only recourse for saving the quadrant is quite the reach, and certainly way outside of JJ’s storyline, at least to our knowledge. It is much more likely that he would travel back to prevent altering the timeline, not to knowingly change it, and in doing so risk an Edith Keeler type situation for personal reasons. I stand by my earlier contention and, in fact, reaffirm it with great confidence.
I don’t think I’m “off” at all. Quite the contrary.
I REPEAT! WHERE IS THE DAMN “LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD” -FX-REEL??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
120
For that matter (and I know we’re highjacking a Star TREK thread with this – but it originally had a point) how did young, virile Ewan McGregor become an old Obi Wan in such a short amount of time?
Arrrr… still on and on we go….
Poor Mr. Pines- I feel good he got some defense here and thar… me hat be silly too… to a landlubber! But Ishmael woulda not knock me cap off!
SPOIL OR: I have finally solved the whole ST XI time travelly dilemma… I believe in the film it be Captain Katherine JaneAway that goes back in time to smite all future events saying a big ol’ “Bugger you!” to continuity and future events… Shatner be back, Spock dinna not die, and JJ starts making Bakula films… God bless ya, Katey girl…
Me apologies to Voyager .. not a bad ship really, but they really twiddle us w/ final eps of the franchises, eh?… arrrr…..
Re: #154. Ivory
“If Kirk is seen in various time periods why no Shatner? ”
If I understand your comment correctly, the answer is because “Kirk” died when Shatner was 63. Shatner is now 76. Kirk is “still” um, (sorry!) 63. Shatner CANNOT get younger and portray Kirk at the age they want. As it was said, too much of the film would have to be devoted to showing how that was undone and that’s not what they are talking about. The movie is about a young Kirk in Star Fleet Academy.
I know they did it in the last episode of TNG (have Picard in previous time-periods of his own life) but Patrick Stewart still looked pretty much like he did when he first became Captain of the Enterprise (seven years earlier) so he could go back a bit.
They could have Q snap his fingers and make Kirk appear, but then they would have to make John de Lancie look younger because Q’s don’t age. Looks like we’re stuck.
Re: #172. Closettrekker and #10. Danny
Excellent point. Thanks for the insight. If they do that (promote Kirk from Ensign to Captain), then they might as well put Shatner in the movie because they’re not making sense anyway so why start now? It is not a good idea.
Anthony Pascale confirmed that they have a 3-movie deal. (Sorry, I forget which thread I read that in.) They probably won’t end up making Kirk Captain until the end of the third movie while they promote him from rank to rank. And maybe they’ll even have him embarking on his first mission by then. But, at what point does he get that crew? Do we know whether or not they were with him from the beginning?
At the end I bet that they’ll have Pine make a log that starts: “Space… the final frontier. These are the voyages…” and then the end credits start to roll. Then they’ll make a series with the new TOS crew because the movies brought in billions!! (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?)
#183
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE NOT FORGIVEN! YOU SPOILER! if thats true me and JJ shall hunt you down!
:(
#180–Actually, DS9 is not so bad. I do have some issues with the whole “Section 31″ thing, not just in DS9, but in ENT as well. I’m not sure that Mr. roddenberry would have approved of his Federation’s complacency with their activities (like the intentional infection of Odo).
Ok, it’s like this….
Fat old Shatner brawling a 6′8″ Klingon on a cliff over a lava pit or with an alien that has his genatalia in his knees while trapped in a frozen mine or Chris Pine taking over the role? Let me see hummm, wait…that’s been done before in STIII:TSFS and STVI:TUC. I vote for Pine. As far as Spock is concerned Vulcans have two times (if not more) the life span of Humans. So Spock can either narrate documentary style about the past or travel through time to save the past. Who cares again? As long as there is continuity and we have some fun in the 23rd century for a couple of hours.
Should Shatner be in the movie? Well, it’s like this…who cares. If the movie is a money maker for Paramount and there is a sequal you won’t see either Shatner or Nimoy again they will be retired, period. Unless someone wants to produce Star Trek XII:The Voyage To The Retirement Home.
I vote that we go with the new cast and give them a chance to develop the characters as they see fit. If a reboot is what it takes and Abrams-Orci have to redo the entire original 5 year mission and rewrite some Star Trek cannon, well there have been changes made before. Oh, and all you “pureists out there” quit whining and let these guys produce the movie. I am sick of your belly aching. Let go of the past (it’s gone) bring in some young blood and embrace it.
Lastly, you can’t go back in time and there is no makeup artist that can “de-age” Shatner, Nimoy and the rest of the original cast 40 or so years and we don’t have a genesis torpedo to bring back DeForest Kelly and James Doohan, as much as they are missed. So we need new blood to carry on and I don’t want any stupid “hand-off’s” like in ST:Gennerations. That runined what could have been a decent flick.
lol
Star Trek 12: Voyage To The Retirement Home
sounds like a classic
JJ, ideas are abound.
lol.
#188
Exactly! The whole thing was rushed, rushed, rushed. Obi was supposed to be a young padawan in TPM, and by the time of ROTS should only have been oh…30, at most. Then 18 years later he’s 70? Ugh. Lucas just seemed to ignore common sense with those prequels.
#10
Calm down. When it says “spoiler”, stop reading. It may not be true as there are no sources listed.
BTW–#190 is to whom I am addressing. My keyboard is having some issues today.
#187: Please take a stress tab… –grin–
#152 Paul B.
Thanks for backing off about the limerick thing and letting an old fart have his fun!
I’d love to read one of your limericks…..and I PROMISE not to criticize it!
C’mon……you know you want to! :)
great to hear that pine wrote to shatner. a real mark of resepct there and he didnt have to do it. good to hear shat responded postively too. be gopd to see a photo shoot of these to guys.
i think there is a lot of PR going on at the moment. this stuff from pine and all the stars at the cloverfield premiere saying how great shatner is. i think they are trying to smooth over some discontent and dissapointment that shatner isnt in it with the classic trek fans. lets face it jj abrams needs to keep them on board because if we dont go theres no guarentee of reaching out to a brand new audience.
i cant wait for this film but i am very sad that mr shatner isnt in it-apparently. im scared but thrilled at the same time!
greg
UK
Pine popped up in all the Sundance pics with Eliza Dushku, and he gets to play Captain Kirk! Damn him! He he he.
I’m off to bed to watch real Trek. With William Shatner in it as Kirk.
So there!
Anthony I’m not trolling. That was meant with humour and good grace!
Goodnight all!
; )
Wow,,,Health Ledger died. RIP.
Sorry, back to Star Trek.
Gene
“Heath”…sorry.
Gene
#199 – “Old fart,” eh, Harry? We’ll have to stick together. I’ve been called an old fart since I was a teenager. Better an old fart than a young punk, right?
Alright, just to give you a chance for payback, here’s a quickie limerick for ya. In fact, here are TWO of ‘em. (one brand new, the other from this morning’s attempt)
I know of a Trekkie named Ballz
Whose lim’ricks are better than Paul’s
Paul gave it a shot
But here’s what he got
(Now he’s bangin’ his head ‘gainst the walls)
There once was a Vulcan named Spock
Whose death came as really a shock
Resurrected he was
But that was because
His katra had gone for a walk…
(cringing in case y’all throw stuff at me)
That’s the spirit, Paul. Well played.
#10: From what we know it shows kirk’s birth, some time at the academy, then we’re not sure, then Kirk being Captain of the Enterprise.
Heath Ledger, 1979-2008
Very sad.
Even with the hat, you can tell he’s quite the hottie. I like him. :) And he looks very plausible as a Kirk.
re: 139 and 146
I will go with the Shatner pics as evidence of doofusossity there.
No question about that.
Don’t think he was wearing those during a sit-down interview, though.
In regards to the article, I don’t really consider that Pine appearing in a scene with Nimoy to be a “spoiler”. Pretty much assumed that.
And as for my pants being up to my armpits, well, I just owe that to too-tight suspenders.
There once was a man named Stanky
Whose gut made him seem not-so lanky.
His pants were so high
He’d use them to dry
The snot from his nose like a hanky.
Classic Trek #200
It seems to me all the talk from the new cast to Shatner is nothing but an orchestrated pr stunt to smooth over his exclusion from the new film.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Shatner + Nimoy sign some kind of contract early on in the process to promote (or at least not speak poorly about) the new film? If memory serves they were supposedly to have some kind of a say in the casting?
Does anyone remember anything about this?
I was just looking at Startrek.com, it is so pathetic it has no link or anything to the movie site.
The people at CBS are idiots, they should have never fired those workers. They know nothing about a good business model.
Suck it Les Moonves!
Does anyone find it odd that his Dad, Robert Pine, was the nutt holding the Lost in Space gang at gun point about the time Star Trek was on another channel way back in 1966?
Who would have guessed LiS and ST would have such close ties 40 years later.
Should Quinto follow up with a guest stint in the remake of Zombies of the Stratosphere? I hear Zombie movies are still in fashion.
#205 Paul B.
Paul, liked them both a lot! Especially the second one starting “There once was…” Those words are at the beginning of most of my favorite limericks! Well done!
#210 Stanky
Stanky, I think your limericks are getting better each time you try! Good one!
Sheez, I’m going to have to start putting some thought into mine! :)
There once was a man called the Shat
Whose weight flucuated from trim to fat
He wanted so much to be in the movie
But JJ said he was no longer groovy
And that, as the saying goes, was that!
Re: #205. Paul B
How about this last line to your limerick:
There once was a Vulcan named Spock
Whose death came as really a shock
Resurrected he was
But that was because
“His Katra was stored in the Doc.”
I’ll do one of my own someday.
Re: #213. JT Willis
Wait a minute — there was a “Robert Pine” in the series “Chips”, with Eric Estrada. Is it the same guy? He played Ponch’s superior officer.
Limericks! I’ve gotta get in on this action.
For all the Bring Back Shatners:
There once was a film called Star Trek
By the Lost guy who shot a plane wreck
They didn’t have Shatner
Might as well have got Ratner
But I’ll still be front row what the heck
“Ode to a Teaser Trailer”:
There once was a time and a place
Where a welder would just show his face
We all shed a tear
At Nimoy’s “final frontier”
But is it all built on Earth or in space?
Okaaaaayyyyy … that’s all I’ve got. Thanks for indulging me.
#210 – Stanky – “doofusossity” – I think I have a new favorite word!
#215 – Harry – I’d say you were hitting Shatner below the belt, but you were clearly aiming at his waistline. :) Oh, it’s so much more fun to join in than to be a critic…thanks, Harry!
#216 – Excellent variation, Katie G! My hat’s off to you.
#217 – (roaring applause) I had never realized there was a rhyme for Shatner!!
Now, if only we could get Orci to write us a limerick or two…spoiler-free, of course…but talk about viral marketing! They could tease us with limericks!
How about it, Mr. Orci, sir?
Move over, Harry. :D
Re: #218. Paul B.
Thank you, sir.
#216 Katie G.
Great suggestion! Hey, new game…..one of us comes up with a limerick and then others suggest alternate lines!
As Homer Simpson would say…….WOOO HOOOO!!! :)
#217 johnconner
Good job on the limericks! Welcome to the team!
Love to stay and chat but it’s 2:21 a.m. here in good ol’ T.O. and my eyes are crossing.
Harry, we’re in the same city. It’s 2:21 a.m. where you are too. Go to bed!! It’s past your bedtime.
Dear Closettrekker,
Regarding post #186, your logic is flawed, and I can explain exactly why. First, a summary of your position:
You state that City on the Edge of Forever establishes that Spock would not alter a timeline to save a person who otherwise would have died.
You state that the reason that Spock would not meddle with the timeline to save a life is because they learned from the Guardian “that the prevention of any death, however seemingly insignificant, could have far reaching and rather grave consequences.”
You then ask: “Why would he knowingly repeat such an error?”
Your mistake is quite simple. You seem to think that if an act could have negative consequences, one ought not to do that act. It would be an “error”.
You have clearly made this assertion. After all, you have stated that Spock would not meddle to save a life because it COULD have grave consequences.
There is much more to be said here. First off, your principle is clearly mistaken. Almost any kind of action COULD have grave consequences. Eating an apple, crossing the street, or driving to the movie theatre could all lead to grave consequences. According to the very principle you have cited, then, you should not do these things.
Now, if you try to work your way out of this conundrum by suggesting that altering the timeline IS LIKELY to lead to grave consequences, then you’d escape the previous difficulty. However, your stance would still be logically unacceptable. There simply is no reason to believe that interference will GENERALLY or USUALLY or LIKELY lead to negative consequences. It is especially unlikely that interference by a logical and moral being equipped with knowledge of the future would do more harm than good.
Now, you’ll surely bring up City on the Edge of Forever as a counterexample. But again, you’re failing to recognize the meaning of the word “could.” In City, a great person dies in a random accident, and the future is brighter because of it. But are you really going to generalize from that? ARE YOU? Think about it. Is it GENERALLY the case that the world is made better when good people die before they have had the chance to make a difference? No Frakking way.
One of the things that made City on the Edge of Forever so fascinating was that it was an UNLIKELY EXCEPTIONAL situation. It was the EXCEPTION to the rule. Usually saving the life of a good person is a good thing, even though in this case it was not. If you don’t realize this, you don’t understand the best episode of Star Trek. City on the Edge of Forever didn’t show that meddling was wrong – it just illustrated the butterfly ripple effect in all its enormity. The Guardian never got preachy, and never claimed “Oh, you better not use me because something bad COULD happen!” Quite the opposite. It stated, “Many such journeys are possible,” practically inviting them to tamper with history.
So it is very clear that City on the Edge of Forever does not prove what you think it proves.
All that is really left to consider is this question: Is it logical to extend the life of someone who has repeatedly saved the Earth – someone who has “repeatedly demonstrated unswerving ability” as a starship captain? That is the only question that is relevant for Spock to consider.
Why not have Nimoy’s Spock mind-meld with Chris Pine at some point (similar to McCoy in Wrath of Khan) and tip him off to the faulty bridge on Veridian, forcing future Kirk to come up with a different way to get Soran’s remote?
J.J. Abrams is just being lazy. He claims he doesn’t want to come off as a fanboy by coming up with a way for Shatner to be in his movie, but then he turns around and has old Spock time travel to the past. Why? So he can have Nimoy in the movie, which is suppose to be a reboot. Hypocrite.
#224
Spock would salute your logic; Kirk and Spock would appreciate your humaneness.
It’s great to read all your imaginative fanboy creations only one day after Abram’s devaluation of heartfelt fanboy solutions. Seems like the true ST spirit is not to lose heart.
William Shatner was my surrogate dad growing up, I need him in the new movie.
#10 totally agree. I think the timeframe of this film is going to be all over the map.
^
#37 I thought the. Same thing. :)
JJ Abrams says including Shatner as old Kirk would make them look like fanboys/geeks but on the other hand they show how Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru Test and include Tribbles. This is a slap in the face of all Shatner-fans.
If they don’t want to look like geeks, why do they show how Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru Test?
225 – “J.J. Abrams is just being lazy.”
Oh yeah, I’m sure he is.
“He claims he doesn’t want to come off as a fanboy by coming up with a way for Shatner to be in his movie, but then he turns around and has old Spock time travel to the past. Why? So he can have Nimoy in the movie, which is suppose to be a reboot. Hypocrite.”
Ummm no, you completely missed the mark of what he was saying. KIRK IS DEAD. If Kirk wasn’t dead, different story. You’d have to devote a whole movie bringing Kirk back somehow. Even then, at this point he’s been laying dead, rotting, on the surface of Veridian 3 for 14 years.
Please, do go into detail how this can be accomplished during a WRITER’S STRIKE?
“This is a slap in the face of all Shatner-fans.
If they don’t want to look like geeks, why do they show how Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru Test?”
Because it’s likely a huge part of Kirk’s coming to be.
#230 Devon
They had plenty of time to work things out before the strike. We were all here having similar debates weeks before the strike started. They certainly had time to write two versions before the strike.
Therefore, bringing up the strike is purely an excuse, and nothing else.
Never liked the whole Kobayashi thing in STII.
and I agree with 232 Kirok
If they really had been that interested in having Shatner, they could have worked on that from the get-go.
The death thing should not be a problem with the whole time-travel/shifting scenario. We’ve seen plenty of suggestions (some great, some not-so-great) from common everyday Trek nerds. I would think professionals could come up with something both plausible and plot-worthy if they wanted to expend the energy to do it.
The way this is looking, they should have just left both Shatner and Nimoy out of it. If they want to go new, then go all new (with the old). It is tainted either way.
#233 Stanky … “and I agree with 232 Kirok. If they really had been that interested in having Shatner, they could have worked on that from the get-go.”
I third that. This should’ve all been nailed down last summer by Comic Con. How disappointing! Shatner and Nimoy in supporting roles in this flick, to really make it a top notch send off, then Pine & Quinto could’ve taken it from there and run with it for however many years (and I personally believe we will only see them in 3 movies at most). That’s how it should’ve played out. No Shatner = less fun.
#224–Oh no, my friend. You seem to lack an understanding as to what exactly constitutes “grave” consequences, at least in this context. If Spock were to prevent the death of James Kirk, as it happened, then any interaction which post-Generations Kirk (or post Enterprise-B incident Kirk) could very well result in a completely different outcome regarding events that have already shaped the state of the Alpha Quadrant. For instance, something as simple as a conversation between Kirk and another person could trigger a different outcome to say, The Dominion War, or the Borg Invasion. Such an intervention on Spock’s part could therefore result in the deaths of billions–hardly the same kind of “grave” consequences one might incur from “crossing the street”, or “eating an apple”. Neither Spock, nor anyone else, could guarantee that Kirk’s death is insignificant to Federation history. For that reason, it would be unexceptable for Spock to potentially endanger billions of lives which are not his to risk. It is, again, one thing for Spock to risk himself, yet quite another for him to risk the whole quadrant. Quite frankly, I fail to see why this seems so difficult for you to grasp. By preventing Kirk’s death, Spock is simply risking too much of the established timeline. The more time which has past, the more of a risk it becomes. I would be so disappointed if the new team were to stray so far from the character of Spock as to make him completely irresponsible and even negligent. That is not Spock, period.
The encounter which the Enterprise crew had during the episode, “The City On The Edge Of Forever”, was the lesson to which I was referring. I never meant to imply that The Guardian told them anything regarding this concept. The fact is, a seemingly insignificant death was prevented, and as a result, there were “grave consequences”. I find it hard to believe that you misunderstood that point.
As far as proof, if there was any certainty, I would never have used the word, “could”. I would have, instead, used the word “would”. If you believe that Spock would “risk” billions of lives (proof that it absolutely would happen is unnecessary) for personal reasons, then you either simply do not understand the character of Spock, or you are suggesting that he has gone crazy. Suddenly, you have taken him from someone who occasionally allows himself a human emotional moment, to someone who has completely lost control of his logic. That would never be exceptable–that is, outside of Spock being affected by an illness or the like. The only way would be for Spock to have no choice but to do so. Wow, no choice but to alter history (STIV), or go back and warn his friend (Back To The Future ripoff), resulting in a total change of character for Star Trek’s only original figure still in action. No thanks. I’ll let JJ tell his story instead.
This all sounds too much like the Charlie Evans plot in Of Gods and Men. Are we sure we’re not being had?
#226–If you read my latest post, I am confident that you will see that logic as being far from flawless. On the contrary, it is full of holes.
#229–The Kobyashi Maru test is Star Trek canon.
#225–No. “Old” Spock is crucial to the story he wishes to tell. “Old (and resurrected)”Kirk, evidently, is not.
#232, #233, #234–You may all very well be correct. This could just be an excuse, and perhaps Abrams should just be more forthright about simply not wanting Bill in the film. However, the bottom line is this. A story involving Shatner is not the one JJ wants to tell. The only way an appearance by the Shat is justified, is if it is beneficial to the story. I respect JJ for being true to his art. If it is not beneficial to the story he wants to tell, then Shatner should not be in the film, period. If that keeps you from seeing this movie, or predetermines your judgement of its quality, then you are not really Star Trek fans–but William Shatner fans, am I right? Why would including bill make this movie better? Did it make STV a good movie? STVI? Generations? I suppose that is a matter of opinion, but if it cannot do better than the last 3 ST films that did include Shatner, then the franchise is finished. That part is much less “opinion” than it is “reality”. Don’t you agree?
#235
I suggested a story some time ago, in which changes in the timeline changed the 24th century so that Kirk was still alive in this timeframe (he never fell off the bridge) – similar to the episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise” in which Tasha Yar simply was back aboard the Enterprise-D, despite being dead.
Spock is the only one to somehow know that this is not right. He travels back in time to see what happened (Romulans altering the timeline) and old Kirk accompanies him. Spock has to struggle with the fact that in order to recreate the right timeline, he has to alter the past so that Kirk is not alive in the future. And Kirk himself has to struggle with the fact that his best friend is trying to recreate a future in which he is dead.
This would have made up for some great interactions between Shatner and Nimoy.
And maybe together they may have found a way to let Kirk stay alive in the end ;)
I hate to belabor the point and I know saying this won’t be as fun as debating canon or Shat versus Anti-Shat, but really think this Shatner debate is going to all be about economics.
I know that one must do adjustments for inflation, but this is probably the Star Trek with the highest budget (est. $135 million, reported by trekmovie.com).
The first six movies had the original popular cast. The last four movies had the TNG cast, from a successful television series run.
The “Enterprise” series not too long ago…crashed and burned.
I know I have read posts, where if Abrams and company really wanted to do a reboot…should have no old character(s) in the reboot. I think that is right. But…..Paramount is not going to put an est. 135 million in a project with an unknown cast, character actors, and a franchise on the down-swing.
So, casting Nimoy…was smart…finding some way for Shatner…even smarter (even if a cameo)…more interest the better.
Not everyone likes Star Trek. Everyone here does …we just disagree on some aspects of it.
But I say, make everyone happy…if possible. Then, like the TNG in “First Contact”, in the second movie, let the new cast…with none of the original cast, be on their own.
I think this is what will happen….and given the secrecy of this project…I think its already a done deal.
Gene
#235– “No Shatner=less fun”? Really? Wow, you and I are miles apart (not that there is anything wrong with that)! I really feel that Shatner lost the ability to play Kirk a long time ago. Seeing Bill put on a Star Fleet uniform, only to end up playing Jim Kirk as himself, has ruined the last few movies for me. Picture that uniform on Bill while he is doing a Priceline commercial as you might as well say you have Captain Kirk doing those spots. Is that really fun for you? Do you remember back when he really DID play the role of Jim Kirk? I do, and the last time I saw it was around 1982. Sure, TSFS was somewhat fulfilling for fans who cried in the theaters at the end of TWOK(although I could have done without having to imagine this old man winning a hand-to-hand fight with a Klingon warrior), and STIV was fun, in what I thought WOULD be (and should have been) the “sendoff”, but after that? Make it go away! I only wish it was easy for me to pretend that those films are not part of established Star Trek history. I do understand wanting to give Kirk a more dignified death(I loved Capt. Kirk, too), or better yet, to have him ride off into the sunset— but to pin that responsibility on JJ and co. is unwarranted to say the least.
#238–Aside from the last sentence, I have absolutely no problem with that suggestion. However, that is another movie, it seems. Other than the fact that it is too similar to TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (one of that series best episodes IMO), though, that is about as good an idea as I have heard. Still, it comes down to not being the story which Mr. Abrams wishes to tell.
The Shat had two opportunities to say “Goodbye”…
The sign-off at the end of TUC
The appearance in ST:Gen — including a post-principal photography re-do, iirc, of the ‘death on the bridge’ scene
I like the character, and, the Shat himself. But, as someone else said
“Get a life, Bill”
It’d be nice, but, I’d rather that ‘gouge’ price for (hyperbole) 60 seconds of on-camera time go to the rest of the story and FX. You’re not living in the back of your pick-up, anymore, and you’re not living on meals of fruit salad in Canada anymore.
#239–That is a nice sentiment, Gene, but “shoehorning” Shatner into the film would make many (including me) unhappy as well. As #238 suggested, it could have been done well, but that story was wasted on Tasha Yar. As for a cameo, I would have been more than happy to see him play another role in the film (much like Robert Mitchum in Scorsese’s remake of Cape Fear), but there were early reports (admittedly only rumors) that Bill was not satisfied with the concept of a cameo. If he has changed his mind, it is probably safe to say that he has made a messy bed with the makers of this film since that time. Who knows? If he had simply taken the high road when asked about the movie, perhaps there would be such a door open for him even now.
I don’t know. #239, I just think that there will be a lot of things done with this first movie that we are going to have to be a little understanding about…that does not have to do with having a good story.
I think that having Nimoy in the movie was one way the director could warrant the budget of this movie. The writers could have wrote a script with just a new cast, without time travel. But would it sell??
I said this before, Cloverfield had a reported budget of $25 million (small these days), but had unknown cast. What if, Star Trek hand only the unknown cast…you think, given the state of the Star Trek franshise, it would get an est. 135 million?
So…thats why I say that if Shatner is in this..in addition to Nimoy..it may make finacial sense..maybe not canon sense….but necessary evil to some.
Its all about risk when it comes to movies, we know that. If the first one does not work….its over…no second chance..for a while.
Gene
Sorry…Closettrekker…I was #239…lol…you were #244. Sorry.
Gene
#244– I am not sure that it would not have sold. If I had simply heard that a new ST film was being made, featuring the original characters (without a Nimoy appearance), I would be just as excited. Having said that, I was thrilled to hear that 24th Century Spock is crucial to the storyline. As far as having to be understanding about some things, I am perfectly willing to accept a “rebooted’ look at 23rd Century technology and, particularly, at the original Enterprise, but I do not think we have to assume that canon will be threatened. None of this has to interfere with established Star Trek history.
I do agree that if this film fails, we will not get another Trek movie (at least on the big screen or with such a confident budget), but I do not agree that having Shatner will make it more successful. In fact, bringing him back will just invite more scrutiny from fans (like me) who know the history (if he is resurrected), or disrupt the flow of the film (if he is “shoehorned” in, without his return being beneficial to the story).
#240 “STIV was fun, in what I thought WOULD be (and should have been) the ’sendoff’, but after that? Make it go away! I only wish it was easy for me to pretend that those films are not part of established Star Trek history.”
I think you have a problem with people aging in general.
p.s. I can’t keep up with all your posts! WAY too many. :)
Re: #240. Closettrekker
“I do understand wanting to give Kirk a more dignified death (I loved Capt. Kirk, too), or better yet, to have him ride off into the sunset — but to pin that responsibility on JJ and co. is unwarranted to say the least.”
Actually that is an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of. Why are so many people mad at J. J. Abrams because he’s not undoing Kirk’s death in ST:VII? It wasn’t his idea in the first place so he shouldn’t be on the hook to undo it.
#247–Sorry, but around here the boss gets alot of downtime. Maybe I need another hobby.
#248–Exactly. Not his responsibility and never was. Let the man make HIS art. We can judge it afterwards.
I agree with you, Katie #248, I don’t think it was JJ Abrams’ fault as to what happened to Kirk….but thats the hand that he was dealt by accepting the project.
It is never the fault of a director who accepts to direct a a movie in a franchise to be strapped with what happened before. But Abrams is a smart man..he must have known that.
Even though..from what Shatner has reportedly said…Abrams came to him about appearing in the new Star Trek movie and how much he wanted him in it. Shatner said, he would love to…but how is he going to work around his death. Abrams…oh…well…that will be a problem.
So, maybe Abrams should have watched the movie series..before he asked. Maybe..he asked because Shatner had a part in the script..and his death (while big) was an oversight. I have been very puzzeled why Abrams would talk to Shatner in the first place (which is the reason why many are unhappy) then say…well the problem is…he died.
And Closettrekker.#246..why would Nimoy’s involvement be so “crucial” to the storyline…in a reboot…for new audiences? You have to admit…Orci is a talented guy…he could write a great script without time travel. Thats why I think even before the script was completed…Abrams and company wanted some of the old..a lot of the new. Regardless of whether we liked it or not…thats what happened in “Generations” to transition to a new crew…thats whats happening here.
So “crucial”…yes…but they are using “time travel” so they can have a part for Nimoy (and maybe Shat…maybe not) to play. And you know, either way, there will be scutiny. That why box office will be the focus ths go round.
Look at it this way…which was better, Star Trek: the Motion Picture…or TWOK? Which was better, Generations or First Contact? Sometimes you have to prove you can sell first…then improve;-)
Gene
Gene
#247–Nothing against aging, as we all do it. I just don’t like the character of Jim Kirk being made into a buffoon, as Shatner did in the last few films.
#235, (224)
Nobody knows whether it might turn out ex post that the outcome of the Dominion War or other future events were actually conditioned by Kirk’s resurrection/his rescue before the events in Generations. Maybe it’s the time paradox which will be/will have been created by Spock’s intervention to rescue Kirk which eventually leads to the later events exactly as we know them. Kirk’s death already is part of a different timeline; nobody can tell what effect his death or lack thereof might have on future events in various timelines. If you don’t want to change established canon that is set in Kirk’s future, you don’t have to do so; on the contrary – you could create a storyline in which Spock would be able to react on basis of information that would make it logical or even mandatory for him to save his Captain. The time factor, i. e. the time which passes or has passed in real-time or in “canon-time“, is irrelevant as the story itself determines the narrated time.
In “City on the Edge of Forever” in contrast, it was the episode’s overlapping with the viewers’ actual past that was part of its outstanding testimony. When Spock states that Edith Keeler’s survival would cause the deaths of billions of people that wouldn’t have died, he is not only referring to protagonists in the newspaper, he is hinting at our real, factual history. This is what makes it an apodictic fact, and this is the reason for their action’s necessity. The viewer feels spoken to, not only by the poignant love story, by Edith Keeler’s fate, but also by the actual historic reference which gives the spectator an immediate feeling of involvement.
Regarding Spock’s attitude towards time travel, Kirok Fan and you already mentioned STIV. Apart from changing the future (saving the universe), it might just as well have been possible that bringing the whales into the 23rd century might have changed the past. Did Spock care? Not really. And maybe, if Gillian had stayed in her time and she had a child and her child would have had another child and so on and in the end her grand-grand-grand-grand-child would have been on the Enterprise B and he/she would have saved Kirk’s life… But as I said, Spock didn’t really care. But he always cared about Kirk and about being his friend and about possibilities. This much we know for sure. Or as Spock would put it “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. “
Anyway, Abrams wants to make a film for a wider public. According to the USA Today poll, 70% are disappointed that Shatner’s not in the film. And Abrams says he doesn’t want a fan boy solution. If Abrams wants to reach his goals, he should listen to the general public. They recognize Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock and I am confident they’ve never ever heard of the Dominion War. This is not to say Abrams & Co. shouldn’t stick to canon, but to attach more importance to adhering to minutiae the general public doesn’t know about than to involving the well-known faces of TOS would contradict every statement they made as to their intention.
Amen..Iowagirl, #253!!!
Gene
Re: #251. Gene
You do have a point, Gene. At this point in history, undertaking such an arduous task has its blessings and curses. Surely he was familiar with all the “episodes”. Still, it raises my ire when the fans say disrespectful things about the guy just because they want something and aren’t getting it. (And shame on Shatner for stirring it up.) None of us were there for the conversations between J. J., Shatner and Nimoy so we have no right to make judgements as to what we surmise took place. And just for clarification, surmise means “to conclude that something is the case on the basis of only limited evidence or intuitive feeling”.
Maybe J. J. erred, but none of us have the distinction of being perfect, so we don’t have the right to cast any stones.
And a comment on why Nimoy needs to be involved (even though you were addressing #246 Closettrekker) — it’s probably because he wants to tie this new group in (you know, as validation) just like when Bones appeared in TNG just before the mission to Farpoint, Scotty was found in the transporter buffer; and in the premier of DS9 where Picard appears with Sisko giving him his assignment briefing then Riker’s transporter duplicate (going by his middle name, Tom,) shows up on the station to steal the Defiant (having defected to the Maquis); and in Voyager when Q brought Riker over as a witness in the trial for the Q who wanted to end his own life (not to mention all the times each series referred to the other).
I think it’s brilliant how they’ve connected them all. How many series in history can or have done that? Only a few who have had the luck to be on the air long enough to do it.
My guess is that each indivdual series has its fans, and that there are few who love all of it, forgiving that the Canon may not be perfect. It’s all very subjective. And again I digress…
Nice chatting with you.
#253–You forget one important factor. In STIV, said altering of past events (bringing back the whales), was a forced issue. they were left without a choice, moral or otherwise. As for the “City On The Edge…” comparison, not knowing what its effect might be is precisely the issue. Seeing the result of preventing Edith Keeler’s death would be exactly what raises the question as to “possible” consequences. To make preventing Kirk’s death a forced issue as well would require, once again, changing the story that JJ is telling. It makes no difference whether Abrams knows anything about the Dominion War. He had better know what kind of man Spock is.
Kirk’s resurrection could always be a pre-destination paradox. Always meant to have happened.
#255 Katie G.
I find it fascinating that you say “we don’t have the right to cast any stones,” and “we have no right to make judgements,” and in the very same paragraph you state: “And shame on Shatner for stirring it up.”
And just for clarification, it is certainly a judgement to say “Shame on Shatner.”
So you have contradicted yourself.
On another note, I don’t agree that Shatner has stirred anything up. JJ stirred things up when he approached Shatner and led Shatner to believe that he might be involved. JJ further stirred things up at the ComicCon when he began by telling the fans that he was working to get Shatner in the movie.
OK, I’ve waited til the end to get in on this. Harry won’t know, so here goes:
Well now comes one from 1138
Whose opinions some people hate
But he just keeps a typin’, and his thoughts they do ripen
Til this damned limerick finally sealed his fate.
Aha, my dear friend 1138
As expected, I rise to the bait
Your limerick does rhyme
Your arguments sublime
Your being on this site was fate!
My nickname for you from now on is LIMERICKBOY!! :)
#225 Closettrekker.
My dear Closettrekker,
I’m afraid that writing more and more doesn’t make your position any more sound.
You state:
‘You seem to lack an understanding as to what exactly constitutes “grave” consequences, at least in this context. If Spock were to prevent the death of James Kirk, as it happened, then any interaction which post-Generations Kirk (or post Enterprise-B incident Kirk) could very well result in a completely different outcome regarding events that have already shaped the state of the Alpha Quadrant. For instance, something as simple as a conversation between Kirk and another person could trigger a different outcome to say, The Dominion War, or the Borg Invasion. Such an intervention on Spock’s part could therefore result in the deaths of billions–hardly the same kind of “grave” consequences one might incur from “crossing the street”, or “eating an apple”.’
I have no problem with your understanding of “grave,” but I should point out that “crossing the street” did have grave consequences in City on the Edge of Forever. If Edith Keeler had successfully crossed the street, the Federation would never have existed. This is the butterfly effect. Any act can create ripples which affect the universe in unpredictable and monumental ways.
I also find it strange that you tend to focus on the bad things that might happen post-Generations or post-Enterprise B. It is at least as likely, and dare I say more likely that many wonderful things would result from Kirk living.
Your post #235 makes your position more clear. You state that because Spock can’t guarantee that Kirk’s death is insignificant, he shouldn’t interfere, because “By preventing Kirk’s death, Spock is simply risking too much of the established timeline. The more time which has past, the more of a risk it becomes.” Let me clarify. You believe in the following principle:
It is wrong to wipe out an established timeline and replace it with another.
You clearly believe this principle. And that’s okay. But your claim that Spock believes this principle is an enormous stretch. Remember, Spock is governed by logic. And the above principle is simply not one that logic alone can defend. Indeed, logic would dictate that it would be right to wipe out an established timeline to replace it with one that is likely to be better. Let me put it this way: If you found yourself back in time, and you had the chance to stop 911 from happening, would you? Or, if you found yourself back in time, and you had the chance to prevent Hitler from gaining power in Germany, would you? Now, you might say “No, we shouldn’t interfere!” But that’s not good enough. I want to know WHY you would say that. You can’t just say it’s logical, because that is circular reasoning. Again, I would want to know why you think it’s logical.
Now, you might claim that if history were meddled with too much, you and I wouldn’t even be here. So many things would be different, and the changes would reverberate so widely that perhaps all humans who currently inhabit the Earth would never have been conceived. After all a single ejaculate carries millions of sperm cells, and slight differences in the past will result in different mixtures of genes. Thus, the Earth would presently be inhabited with an eerily similar yet completely distinct population. Billions of lives would be wiped out!
Do you know what logic says about that scenario? Logic doesn’t say anything about it! That’s what. Yes, billions of lives would be wiped out with the old timeline. But guess what? Billions of other lives would blink into existence! Who are you to say that the new timeline would be inferior to the old one?
Indeed, it is sentimentality and not logic that would prefer the original timeline. Be honest. You’re quite attached to existing, and you don’t much like the idea of someone wiping your world out to replace it with another, REGARDLESS of whether that other world is a better one.
You also state:
“If you believe that Spock would “risk” billions of lives (proof that it absolutely would happen is unnecessary) for personal reasons, then you either simply do not understand the character of Spock, or you are suggesting that he has gone crazy.”
Your use of “risk” here is vague. Of course Spock would never choose to save Kirk at the cost of billions of deaths. But Spock might choose to save Kirk even though it means that the billions or trillions of lives are affected – and even if it means that people he once knew are replaced by billions or trillions of others.
Let me be clear. Logic itself has no preference for the original timeline over an altered timeline. The only question logic would be concerned with would be: “Which timeline is the better one?” And knowing all that Kirk has done, it is more likely that the one in which he lives is the better one. Oh sure, an Edith Keeler situation COULD arise, but it’s not likely. Again, City on the Edge of Forever showed an EXCEPTIONAL case, not a standard one. Spock is not omniscient. He can only do the best he can with the knowledge he has.
We are always creating ripples that will affect the future in untold ways. That is no reason to sit back and allow people to DIE when we have the power to save them.
As for your comments about STAR TREK IV, you state that Spock had “no choice.” That is simply absurd. He had a choice. He could have followed the president’s directions, which were something like: “Save your ship, save yourselves. Avoid Planet Earth at all costs.” If Spock was so against meddling with time, he wouldn’t have suggested going back in time. Earth is not the center of the universe. It is just one planet among millions. Just as Earth is one mere planet, Kirk is one mere man. Heck, Earth could be one big Edith Keeler – by saving it, you lead us in a direction where bad things could happen.
Where do you draw the line? How many lives are worth saving? For you, one life isn’t worth saving, but billions are. Really, exactly what is the number?
Spock doesn’t quite look at it that way, you see. Spock bases his judgements on logic. So he will weigh the possibilities. And as I stated in my last post, all that is really left to consider is this question: Is it logical to extend the life of someone who has repeatedly saved the Earth – someone who has “repeatedly demonstrated unswerving ability” as a starship captain? That is the only question that is relevant for Spock to consider.
#261 Kirok Fan
As Q would say, “Oh, you’re good! You’re REALLY good!” :)
Re: #258 Kirok Fan
“..you have contradicted yourself.”
Re: #258 Kirok Fan
Hmmmm…………….. That did sound a little pompous, didn’t it?
Don’t know how I missed that.
What’s that old saying about making sure your words are sweet because some day you may have to eat them?
Well, I have a bad taste in my mouth right now. My knee-jerk response is to defend myself but there is no defence because my words are right there in black and white. Don’t know what to say except “you’re right” (and, I’m feeling a little nauseous right now…)
Guess I was so on-the-defensive for J. J. that I didn’t think through what I was saying. In my defence it did appear to me that Bill was stirring things up but I could be wrong. And yes, that could get some hopes up if J. J. did say that publicly.
I don’t know what Mr. Shatner is thinking so I don’t have the right to say he is doing this on purpose. (I don’t know why but I have always had this urge to come to the defence of someone I felt was under attack.) It’s funny because I have also defended Shatner against his bashers if they were being unfair.
“…just for clarification…” Clever. Very clever, smarty-pants, uh, I mean Kirok Fan.
I still don’t like those scathing remarks about J. J. and the situation, but I’ll be more careful about how I “word” my comments.
Anyway, I apologize for being contradictory and hope I catch myself before I do it again because I didn’t enjoy this. At all.
Sincerely,
Humble “Katie” Pie.
Re: #262 Harry B.
Harry, Harry, Harry…
Nuts. Can’t think of any witty, Trek one-liners that would fit.
Just for that, I’ll have to make up a limerick about you.
#263 Katie G
After reading your most recent post, I just have to say that I genuinely appreciate what you’ve just written.
I will now read your posts with extra interest, because you have proven yourself to be someone who is willing to reevaluate your position if you are presented with a good argument.
As for JJ, I don’t have anything overly scathing to say about him. I just think that he has mishandled the whole Shatner situation (that is, unless it is all a ruse to make us think Shatner’s not in it when he really is – that would be a work of genius).
Re: #262. Harry B.
Aha! Got it!
As Captain Kirk said,
“Oh be quiet.”
Re: #265 Kirok Fan
Wow. Thank you.
As for what’s going on between J.J. and Shatner, only God knows. They certainly aren’t being very candid wth us. It’s a typical “he said, he said” scenario. Just hope we’ll be pleasantly surprised in December.
And by the way, just to make sure that you know, the “scathing remarks” thing wasn’t directed towards you. I don’t recall what, if anything, you’ve said about J. J.
Looking forward to more banter…
Have a good night.
Re: #262. Harry Ballz – January 23, 2008
(Your response to #261 Kirok Fan)
As Q would say, “Oh, you’re good! You’re REALLY good!”
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Crap. Harry, I don’t know what to say. For some reason I thought that the above comment was in response to what Kirok Fan said to ME. This is the second time in one night that I embarrassed myself. Not only with my erroneous response to you, and also in the follow-up posts but my contraditory post in response to #261 (Gene). Sorry. Just now noticed that it was in response to Kirok Fan’s reply to CLOSETTREKKER.
Better be more careful (in more ways than one) before I click on “say it”!
Sincerely,
Stupid “Katie” Pie.
(”WHAT?!!?!?!?!?!??!!!??)
Sigh.
“Con – tra – dic – tory”.
That’s it. I’m going to bed.
kg
A propos of absolutely nothing on this thread, I’d like to sign off with *my* limerick, an homage to “Amok Time”:
There once was a Vulcan named Spock
Whose fame was secure like a lock.
When spurned by T’Pring –
such a silly young thing!
– all Vulcan was reeling with shock.
Ta da!
Night, y’all!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Hey Closet-Trekker (had to put a hyphen in — the double “t” was making my eyes cross).
I have a “Dell Start Page” and have customized it with weather, time, Star Trek stuff (that’s how I found this site) etc. plus “This Day In History”.
Guess what happened on “this day in history” –
On this day (January 24, 1972), Japanese soldier Shoichi Yokoi was discovered in Guam, having spent 28 years hiding in the jungle thinking World War II was still going on.
Interesting, considering you mentioned it recently.
#261, (256)
Exactly.
And Kirk wouldn’t have said “you would have done the same for me” if he had known that Spock’s logic would put him into a state of inner conflict should a similar situation arise, or even forbid saving Kirk. After all, Kirk always knew what kind of man Spock is.
#261. I don’t agree with you at all.
Spock is not a logic machine besides the fact he would like to. He knows right from wrong, and knows that altering the timeline is wrong.
Also, he is a Starfleet Officer and, while he understands Kirk’s reasons to bend some rules, he wouldn’t brake them. Kirk may be a very good Captain, but he is only one man, Starfleet has lots of more good captains, and one person doesn’t justify commiting the worst space-time crime, altering the timeline.
Spock has allways had access to warp ships that can travel in time by flying around the sun, yet he doesn’t stop the nazi genocide nor anything simmilar.
In Star Trek IV he isn’t traveling to alter time. He is picking up two animals from the sea (Jurassic Park doesn’t alter the timeline by taking dinosaurs to our days).
I believe you aren’t seeing Spock Ethics, which make him the best vulcan ever. He is know to look for a logical explanation that satisfies his ethics.
#261—You said,—”You clearly believe this principle. And that’s okay. But your claim that Spock believes this principle is an enormous stretch. Remember, Spock is governed by logic. And the above principle is simply not one that logic alone can defend. Indeed, logic would dictate that it would be right to wipe out an established timeline to replace it with one that is likely to be better. Let me put it this way: If you found yourself back in time, and you had the chance to stop 911 from happening, would you? Or, if you found yourself back in time, and you had the chance to prevent Hitler from gaining power in Germany, would you? Now, you might say “No, we shouldn’t interfere!” But that’s not good enough. I want to know WHY you would say that. You can’t just say it’s logical, because that is circular reasoning. Again, I would want to know why you think it’s logical.”
I like where you are going with this. It is an interesting angle, however, this only stands to reaffirm my position. I would indeed be “tempted” to prevent such tragedies, but here is where that is irresponsible. If I prevent such an event, it is principally no different from preventing Edith Keeler’s death. Imagine the amount of technological progress which mankind gained out of the necessities of WWII (to single out one of your examples). If I were to prevent it, not only have I, in retrospect, slowed down the technological progress of all mankind, but I have also prevented 100 million deaths which are supposed to occur in order to get from there to here. I have no right to interfere with that timeline. Suppose two people meet who would otherwise not have because of tragic circumstances related to the war. They fall in love, procreate, and somewhere down the line, one of their ancestors is singularly responsible for curing a disease or inventing something that changes mankind forever in a positive way. Conversely, what if I stop Hitler’s rise, the war never takes place, and someone who is supposed to die does not. He procreates, and an ancestor of his is responsible for something very terrible. On a simpler level, go back to my first scenario. I simply have no right to prevent someone else from being conceived and born, which is essentially what I would be doing if I prevented their parents from meeting in the first place by stopping the war. Any interference with the timeline could trigger such a change, and it is not up to one individual to decide what changes would be good and what changes would be bad. It is less about logic(though that is a part of it), in many ways, than about morality. It is essentially the same principle as the Edith Keeler scenario. What you think may be a good thing, may, in the long run, turn out to be very wrong.
If spock were to prevent Kirk’s death, yes, you might say that he could have ended up doing some good. However, that “good” is totally subjective, as you can see, and may very well end up preventing someone’s birth (temporal homicide?), an alliance which is supposed to happen, a war that is supposed to be fought at a particular time, ….I could go on and on. Playing “God” is not, IMO, in Spock’s nature. He, of all people, would (again, IMO) be sufficiently equipped mentally to suppress such irrational temptation. This is especially true if a mere full-blooded human like me can figure it out…..I hope this clarifies for you the logic behind my position. If it does not, you’re not going to get it anyway.
#272–It is not a “similiar” situation, as you have suggested. Resurrecting Spock in STIII never required sacrificing an established timeline or the lives of others, as may be affected by such an undertaking on Spock’s part. They (Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura,Sulu, Checkov) were willing to sacrifice their personal careers, and that is something entirely different, as you know. And Spock’s body was preserved alive and retrieved almost immediately after his death to be reunited with his Katra. Kirk will have been dead for decades by the time Spock would go back and prevent his death as some of you suggest…. Apples and oranges, Iowagirl.
#265–It is good that you see such a vritue in Katie G.. Now, when we see your response to my post #274, we shall see if that virtue is inherent in you as well.
#271–Nice catch, Katie G.
#273–I agree with you mostly, except that Spock did risk altering the timeline by bringing back two humpback whales (not a big risk, but a risk nonetheless). The difference is, that was a completely forced issue. If they had not, Earth would have been destroyed by the probe and no amount of moral debate over altering the past would have mattered anyway. But I think you are spot on in your analysis of the issue, which is Spock’s character in relation to the choice some here would have him make for the sake of bringing Kirk back (for anyone who still disagrees, see #274).
# 273. Cheve – January 24, 2008
You state:
“Spock is not a logic machine besides the fact he would like to. He knows right from wrong, and knows that altering the timeline is wrong.”
I simply reject your assertion. I see no reason why altering the timeline is wrong. Nor have you provided any reason. You have just made the blanket claim that altering the timeline is wrong. You need to prove it, not just claim it. And logic just won’t establish that there is anything wrong with changing the timeline.
And by the way, if altering the timeline is wrong, then Spock and Kirk certainly do commit “the worst space-time crime” in Star Trek IV. Removing two whales from the 20th century alters the timeline.
On a side note, by your logic, you would certainly have to approve of Spock meeting up with Kirk just before Kirk dies and taking him to the future, just as the whales were taken to the future.
#277–”And by the way, if altering the timeline is wrong, then Spock and Kirk certainly do commit “the worst space-time crime” in Star Trek IV. Removing two whales from the 20th century alters the timeline.”
While I agree that the events in STIV did “risk” altering the timeline for the same reason you pointed out, there is a fundamental difference–it was a forced issue. It was either that, or watch every life on Earth cease to exist. So, what any other time might be a crime, was a justifiable act of self-defense. If you can have a “justifiable homicide”, then you can “justifiably” risk altering the timeline (and, in this case, the chances of two whales disappearing from the ocean actually affecting the timeline is much less risky–but I agree it was a risk). As for your assertion that he should agree with Spock warning Kirk prior to his death because of this, that is a fascile analogy. That is like saying that just because one homicide is justifiable, then we must allow them all. I don’t think so.
#277–You said, “I simply reject your assertion. I see no reason why altering the timeline is wrong. Nor have you provided any reason. You have just made the blanket claim that altering the timeline is wrong. You need to prove it, not just claim it. And logic just won’t establish that there is anything wrong with changing the timeline.”
I beg to differ. See post #274.
#273
- Kirk may be a very good Captain, but he is only one man, Starfleet has lots of more good captains, and one person doesn’t justify commiting the worst space-time crime, altering the timeline. -
To Spock, Kirk has never been only one man. The Kirk-Spock dynamic is one of the TOS essentials, if not THE essential; the factor that makes TOS special. If Spock isn’t even trying to find a way to save Kirk, if the issue isn’t even touched, the core statement goes astray.
But you’re certainly right about the fact that logic is not Spock’s only motivation. It never was, but in his one-of-a-kind friendship with Kirk he only was able to cope with his human half. In STII Kirk put it in a beautiful way:
„..of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most… Human.“
#275
STXI will tell a story and it’s the film that tells us how much time has elapsed since Kirk’s death or if his death has ever happened/will ever happen at all.
If Pine will have a couple of scenes in the film together with old Spock, we may assume that different timelines will be mingled. The time that possibly has past since the actual events took place does not matter as long as the narrated time illustrates the scenery from a different angle; and future events don’t have to be changed provided the same allowance (cp. 253). Or maybe it was Kirk’s mere existence and his death in the 24th century that already has ravaged persons or events.
As regards STIII, I agree that it never required changing an established timeline a priori. But the events that lead to Spock’s resurrection altered crucial things and became watersheds in the life of his best friend. Kirk lost the Enterprise and, the worst sacrifice of all, he lost his son; a fruit you may have forgotten.
#280–”As regards STIII, I agree that it never required changing an established timeline a priori. But the events that lead to Spock’s resurrection altered crucial things and became watersheds in the life of his best friend. Kirk lost the Enterprise and, the worst sacrifice of all, he lost his son; a fruit you may have forgotten.”
–I have not forgotten that. But that is not a sacrifice which Kirk “chose to make”, nor was losing the Enterprise (although I don’t think there is any question as to whether he would choose Spock over his ship).
“STXI will tell a story and it’s the film that tells us how much time has elapsed since Kirk’s death or if his death has ever happened/will ever happen at all.”
–True. But if the story takes place after the last of the TNG era spinoffs ended, what I said hold true. Given Nimoy’s age now and what he looked like when we last saw him as Spock (TNG, “Unification, PT. I,II), I stand by my contention as being a “reasonable” assumption. Besides, I believe that we were discussing a specific scenario in which it has been suggested that Spock should go back in time (well after Generations) to prevent Kirk’s death, in order to get help defeating an enemy. After all, that has been the “predominant” suggestion about how to resolve the issue of Kirk’s death (if Mr. Abrams felt it was somehow his responsibility to undo it).
But I will agree with you that setting such an act immediately after Kirk’s death would certainly be more in character with the Spock we know, and would not present the kind of ethical dilemma I have adressed in #274. The timing of such a potential undertaking on Spock’s part is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the character (IMO), which has long been established, and even revered among Star Trek fans.
Well, I’ve been reading all of the posts and, based on my own observation have to say that according to past behaviour, the character Spock would not have just accepted Kirk’s death. He had more than a “love” for the man. It was deeper than that. Kirk did what he did to restore Spock (in ST:III); but because (as it seems) the producers/directors whatever, don’t want to do another similar movie for Kirk, there he lies on Veridian III.
It appears that the people who produced “Generations” were moving on to TNG movies as was done on TV and this was how they bridged the gap and tied in the two series — put the two Enterprise Captains in the same movie and bid “adieu” to one of them.
Maybe Mr. Shatner also thought it was the end (i.e. couldn’t imagine what more they could do with his character at that age) so he agreed because I can’t see him giving up on playing “Kirk” unless that was his thinking. The prequel (Enterprise) didn’t last 7 years so maybe they didn’t want to try it again. Too bad he didn’t come up with the idea of training a new set of cadets at the academy (like he did in ST:II) primed to take over the Enterprise; then the new, younger crew would not have to worry about the all-mighty canon as much. They could develop stories and be added as long as it didn’t violate the existing established story. Also, they probably didn’t think of the idea of a young Kirk, Spock etc. Or did they (and dismiss it — until now, that is…).
ok…first…it was well established that Picard was promoted to Captain at a rank much lower than Commander (Lieutenant, I believe) during his time on the Stargazer…therefore there IS precedent 4 Kirk being promoted from Lieutenant…second, itz well established that Starfleet Academy entrants enter at age 16, not 18…as for bringing Kirk back or preventing his demise at Veridian 3…there is a way to do so w/o allowing The Borg to assimilate the Alpha Quadrant…when Picard entered the Nexus and exited with Kirk BEFORE Soran destroyed the Veridian star, there should have been Picards past self there also said past self could intervene and sacrifice himself to save Kirk while still accomplishing the goal…thus saving Kirk…plus ur forgetting one thing if Picard and crew had died at Veridian 3, The Borg still wouldnt have assimilated The Alpha Quadrant, as it likely would’ve been Ben Sisko fueled by the rage at The Borg 4 killing his wife that wouldve led him to fill Picards role…or Commander Shelby mightve gotten command of the Enterprise E plus the crucial point of the First Contact Borg incident was in Archers time…Borg Cube in First Contact is destroyed by Picard, sphere escapes; goes back in time..enterprise follows and in it briefly sees assimilated earth…sphere emerges in 2063 followed by enterprise e…picard destroys sphere; sphere debris falls to Antarctica where in Archers time itz discovered by researchers who are assimilated…drones assimilate research ship and Archer destroys it but it sends a signal to the Delta Quadrant first which is recieved at time of first contact so borg, under heavy assault from Species 8472, launch a cube to assimilate earth, end temporal paradox…
#283–I’m not sure what post you are responding to (since you neglected to refer to one). I did not know that about Picard, as I have not seen many TNG episodes more than the first time they disappointed me, but that is probably indicative of the many reasons why. I was also unaware of that little nugget of information about Star Fleet Academy (I assume that is another TNG reference).
As for the Borg thing, I’m unsure where you saw the argument that saving Kirk would in any way assure the Borg assimilation of Earth (it does not have to be a consequence so drastic to be immoral), but there are holes in your analysis anyway. You make way too many assumptions–like Ben Sisko filling Picard’s role, etc.. You could not guarantee that two men/women will make the same choices, at identical times, and get the same results. For instance, in First Contact, it was necessary for Cochrane to fly his warp ship at a certain precise time. Surely, someone else would eventually do it, but would the Vulcans see it when they did? That was the key point. If you assume that Sisko or Shelby will make the exact same choices that affect the timeline (which is in itself a stretch), you still cannot guarantee that they would be made at precisely the same time or affect those around them in the same way. Both of those factors have to be considered as well in taking such an action as to risk altering the timeline. There is no way of getting around the immorality of Spock or anyone else taking such a risk.
282. Katie G. – January 24, 2008
Hi Katie!
You stated:
“Well, I’ve been reading all of the posts and, based on my own observation have to say that according to past behaviour, the character Spock would not have just accepted Kirk’s death. He had more than a “love” for the man. It was deeper than that. Kirk did what he did to restore Spock (in ST:III); but because (as it seems) the producers/directors whatever, don’t want to do another similar movie for Kirk, there he lies on Veridian III.”
I agree with you about Spock. I also agree with the producers that they shouldn’t do a Search for Spock-type movie to bring back Shatner. Still, from what I’ve heard about the plot of this movie, it seems like there would be an easy way to include Shatner. As a result of Spock traveling to the past, things could be altered so that Old Kirk is alive at the end. And for those of you like Closettrekker, Spock wouldn’t necessarily even have to try to prevent Kirk’s death. Just by appearing in the past, things could change in unpredictable ways, including Kirk not crossing paths with that falling bridge.
Katie, you also state:
“Too bad he didn’t come up with the idea of training a new set of cadets at the academy (like he did in ST:II) primed to take over the Enterprise; then the new, younger crew would not have to worry about the all-mighty canon as much. They could develop stories and be added as long as it didn’t violate the existing established story.”
I agree, and it always bothered me that they didn’t allow Kirk and company to age in a normal, dignified way. Kirk didn’t need to be fighting shapeshifters in ST6. He didn’t need to fistfight Soran in ST7. Why wasn’t he behaving more like Adama on Galactica? There could have been countless stories in which he could have appeared as an older guy who acted like an older guy. Actually, I wish that TNG hadn’t been so far in the future. There was no need to jump so far ahead in time. If they had only jumped ahead a couple of decades, then Kirk and Spock and any other TOS members could have appeared alongside TNG characters without needing any outlandish explanations.
#274 – Closettrekker
Hi debating friend,
First, I must apologize for not replying earlier. But I’ve been busy, and your comments were complex enough that I couldn’t just whip off a response.
You state:
“I like where you are going with this. It is an interesting angle, however, this only stands to reaffirm my position. I would indeed be “tempted” to prevent such tragedies, but here is where that is irresponsible. If I prevent such an event, it is principally no different from preventing Edith Keeler’s death. Imagine the amount of technological progress which mankind gained out of the necessities of WWII (to single out one of your examples). If I were to prevent it, not only have I, in retrospect, slowed down the technological progress of all mankind, but I have also prevented 100 million deaths which are supposed to occur in order to get from there to here. I have no right to interfere with that timeline.
Interesting comments. I believe I understand you fully. However, I disagree with you on two points.
First, I do not agree with you that preventing a known tragedy is principally the same as preventing Edith Keeler’s death. What makes the Edith Keeler situation so unique is that Spock had before knowledge of both possible timelines. He was able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each possible outcome. And after doing so, he determined that the timeline in which she dies, was, unfortunately, the better path. When we consider the possibility of preventing World War II or preventing the assassination of JFK or the terrorist attacks of 911, we do not have knowledge of both timelines in front of us. We do not know that these tragic events have made the world a better place overall. So this is a fundamental difference between the Edith Keeler case and other cases of meddling with the past. I believe you will agree with this. I don’t really see how anyone could disagree. If you do, please explain. Now, in my opinion (which you might disagree with), I believe that it’s more likely that these terrible events have made the world a worse place overall, and not a better one. I understand if you disagree with me here. You would certainly be correct to claim that good things often result from tragedies. I just think that tragedies typically have more negative results than positive ones, and that is why I like the idea of preventing tragedies.
Although you and I have not convinced each other, I believe we are getting closer to determining the root of our disagreement. And if I’m correct, you could probably grant me what I’ve said above and still have plenty of room for disagreement. Perhaps I should post this now and continue in another post…
So, Closettrekker, I don’t think you’re getting anywhere by suggesting that interfering with the past could have negative or even grave consequences. I agree that it could. I also think that preventing known tragedies is more often than not going to be a good thing.
However, where I think our disagreement really lies is with our differing concepts of morality. Here is a long comment of yours that I found rather telling, and I am going to capitalize the specific words or phrases that I think are the most important:
“If I were to prevent it, not only have I, in retrospect, slowed down the technological progress of all mankind, but I have also prevented 100 million deaths which are SUPPOSED to occur in order to get from there to here. I HAVE NO RIGHT to interfere with that timeline. Suppose two people meet who would otherwise not have because of tragic circumstances related to the war. They fall in love, procreate, and somewhere down the line, one of their ancestors is singularly responsible for curing a disease or inventing something that changes mankind forever in a positive way. Conversely, what if I stop Hitler’s rise, the war never takes place, and someone who is supposed to die does not. He procreates, and an ancestor of his is responsible for something very terrible. On a simpler level, go back to my first scenario. I SIMPLY HAVE NO RIGHT to prevent someone else from being conceived and born, which is essentially what I would be doing if I prevented their parents from meeting in the first place by stopping the war. Any interference with the timeline could trigger such a change, and IT IS NOT UP TO ONE INDIVIDUAL TO DECIDE WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE GOOD AND WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE BAD. It is LESS ABOUT LOGIC (though that is a part of it), in many ways, THAN ABOUT MORALITY. It is essentially the same principle as the Edith Keeler scenario. What you think may be a good thing, may, in the long run, turn out to be very wrong.
If spock were to prevent Kirk’s death, yes, you might say that he could have ended up doing some good. However, that “GOOD” IS TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, as you can see, and may very well end up preventing someone’s birth (temporal homicide?), an alliance which is supposed to happen, a war that is supposed to be fought at a particular time, ….I could go on and on. PLAYING “GOD” is not, IMO, in Spock’s nature. He, of all people, would (again, IMO) be sufficiently equipped mentally to suppress such IRRATIONAL temptation. This is especially true if a mere full-blooded human like me can figure it out…..I hope this clarifies for you the logic behind my position. If it does not, you’re not going to get it anyway.”
Believe it or not, I actually have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and my dissertation was on Ethical Theory. Now, that in no way validates anything I say. I still need to prove my point just like the next guy, but I do at least want you to know that I’m going to attempt to reply as carefully as I can. I do not mean to be dismissive or flippant.
I personally find the notion of moral rights to be very troubling. What are moral rights, and what does it mean to say someone has no right to do something? It’s easy when we talk about the law. We have the legal right to do legal things, and no right to do illegal things. However, the law and morality are two separate things. Some things are immoral but perfectly legal (like insulting someone for no good reason), while other things are illegal but seem to be moral (like trespassing so that you can save the life of a child who has wandered somewhere dangerous). Personally, I believe that discussing moral rights confuses matters more than clarifies them. If you disagree, that’s perfectly all right. But it would need some clarification. On the other hand, when you say that “I have no right to interfere,” you might just mean that you believe that it is morally wrong to interfere. You might not really be trying to start a discussion about moral rights.
I’m going to jump ahead to something else you said. You stated that “’good’ is totally subjective.” Now, this is an enormous topic. Please clarify if I am not understanding you correctly. If you are really stating that what is good (what is right as opposed to wrong) is totally subjective, then you are adopting the theory of moral relativism. You are not alone. There are other moral relativists out there. Moral (or ethical) relativists believe that what is right for one person could be wrong for another, or what is right for one culture could be wrong for another. Moral relativists believe that morality is a matter of opinion, and that all opinions are pretty much equally valid. Now, I’ll just come right out and say, as others have before me, that I believe that the theory of moral relativism is self-contradictory. This is why: if all opinions are equally valid, if “good” is subjective, then the position of the moral relativist is just one opinion, and the opinion that moral relativists are morally incorrect is another, and both are equally valid. This can be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: Morality is just a matter of opinion, and all opinions about morality are equally valid.
Premise 2: Bill’s opinion is that Premise 1 is false.
Conclusion 1: Since all opinions about morality are equally valid, Bill’s opinion is valid.
Conclusion 2: Since Bill’s opinion is valid, it is false that morality is just a matter of opinion, and false that all opinions about morality are equally valid.
And thus, moral relativism crumbles under its own weight.
In your case, Closettrekker, I think that if you really believe that “’good’ is totally subjective,” then you are going to have a hard time establishing that a person has no right to interfere with a timeline. After all, if “good” is subjective, then who are you to say that someone is wrong in thinking that he/she does have the right to interfere? There opinion is just as valid as yours.
More coming soon…
OMG. I meant to say “Their opinion is just as valid as yours.” I can’t believe I mispelled “Their.”
More about the morality of time travel…
Closettrekker, you state that:
“IT IS NOT UP TO ONE INDIVIDUAL TO DECIDE WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE GOOD AND WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE BAD.”
I find this to be an interesting comment, but it is not especially clear. Correct me if I am mistaken, but my guess is that this is just another way of you saying that it is morally wrong to interfere with the past. If I were to take it literally, though, I would have two problems with it. First, by saying that it isn’t up to just one individual, it almost suggests that if many people got together and agreed to mess with the past, it would be okay. I don’t think that’s what you mean to say, though. And secondly, on a very basic level, we are always contributing to the way the future will play out, and as individuals we are constantly trying to determine which actions will be good and which will be bad. In a way, it certainly is up to us as individuals to decide these things. So again, I suspect that you don’t mean anything too literal here – just that we shouldn’t do it.
On another note, you state:
“PLAYING ‘GOD’ is not, IMO, in Spock’s nature. He, of all people, would (again, IMO) be sufficiently equipped mentally to suppress such IRRATIONAL temptation.”
- First, I don’t know if you really want to get into a discussion of what is irrational versus what is rational. I do think your best bet is to focus on the moral angle.
- “Playing God” isn’t usually abhorred because it is irrational. People who use that phrase don’t usually argue that playing God is irrational, but rather, that it is immoral.
- But there is a lot more to say about playing God.
- First of all, Gene Roddenberry was a humanist, which means that he didn’t actually believe in God. He was quite upset with organized religion. Therefore, if Spock were faced with an important decision to make – if he were faced with a difficult dilemma, I doubt very much that Gene Roddenberry (Spock’s creator) would want Spock to just sit back and let things play out as God intended.
- Your comments frequently make use of the word “supposed.” You talk about things as they are supposed to play out. But who decides how things are supposed to be? In Roddenberry’s universe, it would not be God.
- Admittedly, what Roddenberry thought might not be the most important factor. The man was fallible, after all, as we all are.
- But I’ve generally found that the concept of “playing God” just doesn’t have much meaning to it. I would respectfully ask you to define “playing God” and then prove that it is immoral to play God. That’s not an easy thing to do.
- First of all, there is an enormous debate about whether there even is a God.
- Second, even if there is a God, how could we possibly know what he wants us to do? How do we know what interferes with his plan, and what helps fulfill his plan?
- Some people say that if God had wanted us to fly, he’d have given us wings. Others reply that if God didn’t want us to fly, he wouldn’t have equipped us with the intelligence to construct airplanes. Same thing goes for time machines.
- I personally believe that whether or not God exists, we should make the best decisions we can. We should do the best that we are able to do.
- Usually, the term “playing God” is reserved for decisions regarding life or death matters. Who lives, and who dies? What right do we have to decide? These are typically things that are said by pro-life advocates. What they fail to realize is that they really do want to decide – they just want the decision to be the one that they favor. They believe that everyone should live.
- “Playing God” is also often used to refer to interfering with nature, as though nature should be allowed to proceed without us getting in the way. However, there are plenty of things that happen in nature that are pretty awful. I’m not sure that nature is a good judge of what is right and what is wrong, and how things should proceed. Take Hurricanes, for example.
- Suppose you’re standing by a creek, and you see a 5 year old girl drowning, everyone would see it as their duty to get involved – to interfere.
- Some might claim that that isn’t interfering. But at this point, they cease making sense to me. They don’t have clear definitions of what counts as interference and what doesn’t.
- We are a part of nature. We can’t help interfering. We shouldn’t avoid playing God. We should just make the best decisions we can based on the information we have.
still more coming…
Suppose that you see a sleepwalking girl walking near the edge of a cliff. You try to save her, but arrive an instant too late, and she plummets to her death. One minute later, you are given the option of traveling two minutes back in time, which will put you at the scene one minute before she falls. Would you decline? Would you really claim that it is immoral to interfere? Almost everyone would wish themselves back two minutes in time given the opportunity. Ok, but what if she fell to her death five minutes ago? One day ago? A month ago? A year? A decade? A century? It is a fascinating issue, and it’s not so easy to just claim that Spock would never do such a thing. And it’s not clear when it becomes wrong, if it ever does.
I used to wish that I could go back to kindergarten knowing what I know now and relive life. I would have an enormous advantage. Just imagine all the things you could do. Now, I have three kids, so I could for me, I have to abandon that fantasy. I know that if I jumped back more than a year or two, I would risk wiping out my kids (one of which is my own little Kirk – no really!). So I see where you are coming from. But on the other hand, if something bad ever happened to my little Kirk, I would damn sure take the opportunity to jump back in time and fix it.
Ah, I could probably think of more to say, but I’m getting tired. It’s been fun, Closettrekker. Let me just say that I don’t think we’re failing to understand each other’s logic. I think our disagreement stems more from our differing concepts of morality.
By the way, a couple of years ago, I wrote an abstract for a philosophy paper I was planning to write. I’ve been so busy that I never finished it. But here’s the abstract:
Our Moral Obligation to Alter the Past
Many philosophers have written on the subject of time travel, but most have dealt primarily with its metaphysical issues. Is time travel possible? Is auto infanticide possible? But while philosophy has explored these paradoxes, it has essentially left the moral considerations of time travel untouched, and indeed, they have been more carefully addressed by science fiction writers. I think it is time for philosophers to address the most obvious of time travel questions: Is it morally acceptable to intentionally alter the past?
Any discussion of the morality of traveling into the past should address these two scenarios:
1) through no fault of your own, you find yourself in the past with knowledge of the future
2) you intentionally travel into the past with the intention of altering the original timeline
With regard to the first scenario, I will argue that you are morally obligated to use your knowledge to prevent the tragedies you know will happen. If Hector is imprisoned in a building that is about to be incinerated by a bomb blast and I could save his life simply by placing a call to 911, I doubt he will be satisfied if I tell him that I won’t help simply because I am from the future. A time-traveler is no more exempt from proper moral action than anyone else. The only difference between the time-traveler and everyone else is that the time-traveler is enlightened about the way future events will likely play out.
Some will agree with this point, but only because they think that by being in the past, you cannot help but interfere, so you might as well interfere in a positive way. But it is quite another thing, they might say, to intentionally travel into the past to enact change. Such an act is objectionable for at least two reasons. First, it is a violation of nature. Second, your actions may erase people from existence. For reasons like these, Star Trek has its Temporal Prime Directive, which essentially criminalizes time travel. But the Temporal Prime Directive is in error. If you have the ability to travel into the past to erase misfortunes, you should do so.
Here are five objections to those who oppose time travel: 1) we cannot help but affect our environment, so interfering with nature is not a moral offence in itself; 2) according to the multiple worlds interpretation of time travel, traveling into the past creates an alternative timeline, rather than erasing the original timeline; 3) we have no duty to bring about the existence of possible people, and if we did, allowing sperms and eggs to go to waste would be moral tragedies; 4) if we do nothing, we know that people suffer, and our duty to prevent that overrides other reasons not to intervene; and 5) some cases of changing the past do not seem morally objectionable, (e.g. traveling five minutes into the past to prevent a child from falling into a river and drowning).
And here is an excerpt from the paper I started:
An objection that will likely be thrown out is that by interfering with the past, you will likely prevent people from ever coming into existence. This is perhaps the most compelling reason for accepting something like the temporal prime directive. But if you are in the past, what responsibilities could you have to a possible future person?
Pro-choice advocates do not think that we have any special obligations to bring about the existence of certain lives. And even anti-abortionists, who hold that fertilized eggs are people, do not hold that all possible future people should become actual people. If they did, they would have funerals for unfertilized eggs and unsuccessful sperms. So it is not clear how or why we should hold the well-being of future people as more important than the well-being of people that do actually exist. But that seems to be what the temporal prime directive asks of us!
#286-291–You make very interesting points about morality and “good” being less subjective than I suggested. I find your points about moral relativism to be of particular interest. I am not a philosopher, but a history major who found his way into the world of business ownership, so I will except the text which you have submitted on that subject and not presume to challenge your knowledge of classroom philosophy. While you say that “good” is not subjective, I think we can agree that morality IS subjective. I also believe that there is quite a difference between “going back” one minute in time and “going back” decades to erase an event. If Spock were to wait decades, then too many things have changed to continue to justify it.
You said,
“So it is not clear how or why we should hold the well-being of future people as more important than the well-being of people that do actually exist. But that seems to be what the temporal prime directive asks of us!”
Not really the issue, in this case. For Spock to travel back decades in time to change an event that took place then, he would be risking the “well-being of people that do actually exist” at the point from which he began. He is not “holding the well-being of future people as more important…”(by acting as I have suggested that it is appropriate for him to act ), he is, instead, protecting the people who DO exist in the timeline he knows as current.
Of course, if his journey begins immediately after Kirk’s death, then I do not feel that he is presented with any moral dilemma in wanting to “correct” his friend’s death. But all indications are that Spock travels back FROM the period of time which we know as the “Star Trek present”, which is where the TNG-era spinoffs left us. Given Nimoy’s age and appearance, as well as what Spock looked like when we last saw him in TNG, I think that is a reasonable assumption. Wouldn’t you agree?
The best scenario that I have heard proposed is this (and you will have to forgive me, both the fact that I am paraphrasing, and that I do not recall the poster’s moniker):
The timeline has already been altered by someone else, and somehow (the poster did not explain this) Spock has been unaffected. Kirk is alive and Spock realizes that this is wrong and everything is somehow different. He has to convince Kirk to help him restore the timeline, even though doing so will result in Kirk’s death again.
I found this concept compelling, as I think Spock would be more inclined to protect the timeline, as opposed to risking a change in it. However, that story was, unfortunately (IMO), wasted on the TNG character of Tasha Yar in TNG, “Yesterday’s Enterprise”. Anyway, that is not Mr. Abrams story either–but it could have been good Star Trek, while still satisfying those who feel that JJ somehow owes Bill Shatner a significant role in this film. It also would not have required Spock to make such an unethical decision as to risk altering the timeline for the sake of personal friendship. Am I giving the Spock we know too much credit? I don’t think so.
All of this is irrelevant, of course, because JJ Abrams is telling HIS story, and it apparently has no room for a significant Shatner role that would benefit that story.
Does anyone else see the wierd coincidence?
Kirk replaced Chris Pike as captain and now Chris Pine is replacing Kirk….